illegal 30.06 signs

[newlife12176]

Please forgive my ignorance, but I am new here. Just obtained my CHL recently. I saw 30.06 sign at a medical office building on Lackland road in Fort Worth. It is a small clear sticker that has black letters. No contrasting colors. I am not aware if the letters are 1 inch in high. I already know what makes a sign legal (ie: contrasting colors, 1 inch high, spanish and english). What I am unsure of is if I can disregard a sign that I know is obviously not compliant with the law. If I am not mistaken, I have read individuals on here saying they would rather follow the signs instructions and disarm, rather than become a test case. I have also read people stating that if the sign is obviously not compliant with the law, We can walk right on in. I walked right on in BTW.....Thanks for any advice.

[SCone]

I prefer to abide by the "intentions" of the posting rather than find myself in cuffs. There are others that will argue the validity of the signage. Regardless, I'm betting its not worth the trouble to my pocketbook.

[anygunanywhere]

If it does not meet the 30.06 requirements then just ignore it. It is the same as a gunbuster sign. If you treat non-compliant signs the same as compliant you might as well let your license expire and not carry anymore.

Then while you are at it lay down, roll over on your back with your feet and arms in the air and assume the submissive posture.



Anygunanywhere

[bdickens]

I hardly ever see any kind of "no guns" sign around here, let alone a legit 30.06 sign.

[Charles L. Cotton]

While opinions may differ, I think the majority of CHLs would not comply with a sign that clearly and unequivocally doesn't meet the very strict requirements of TPC §30.06. However, there comes a point where non-compliance is no minimal, that people don't want to be a test case. For example, I would not want to go to court and argue that the letters were 7/8" tall instead of 1". You may or may not win, but it will be an expensive ride through the system.

Another risk is that an appeal of any conviction could result in case law we don't want. There is an old saying among attorneys, "bad facts make bad law." This happens when a judge or an appellate court are so offended or angered by the defendant's conduct that they render a bad decision, one not in concert with either the statute or prior case law, simply because they aren't going to let this guy get away with it. Arguing over 1/8" is a fact pattern that could generate just such an opinion from an appellate court; i.e. something to the effect of "close is good enough."

Chas.

[srothstein]

If the sign is obviously non-compliant, I would also sayyou canignore it and feel safe. I, personally, try to avoid doing business at places that post even improper signs, but that is a personal choice.

More importantly, only ignore the signs that are clearly and plainly non-compliant. The non-compliance in some areas is gray and not clear, such as if solid letters on a clear glass background constitutes contrasting colors. If the letters are not all one-inch, but some are (say a mix of upper and lower case letters) is the sign non-compliant? If the sign still has all of the words correct but the old legal reference is another somewhat questionable area. Many people here worry about the LEO or court having the same interpretation of the law as you do and therefore advise against being a test case.

I generally advise against being the test case also, but I mostly want you to know when you are doing something that may become a test case. You can then make up your own mind on your risks and decide what you want to do. But never think the wording in the law is going to be itnerpreted exactly the same way you see it, even when it appears to be plain English.

[mr.72]

I see legal and very-close-to-legal 30.06 signs every day around Austin. Gunbuster signs abound as well. Last night I had to take my wife to the ER at the new Cedar Park hospital and I figured that like most hospitals around here they would have a valid 30.06 so I left the gun at home, but they had a gunbuster sign and verbiage like "Weapons forbidden" and then once you get into the hospital they have a paper you sign that states that if they "suspect" you have a gun, knife, ammunition or explosive in your hospital room they will search, confiscate, and deliver said contraband to the police. I guess this is a mighty gray area.

I try not to carry past anything that resembles a legit 30.06 sign enough that I think might it cause me to argue my case in court if someone were to call the police, like Chas and Mr. Rothstein have noted. I don't mind walking past run of the mill gunbuster signs. I don't know that there is any reasonable way to be totally compliant because:

1. AFAICT we do not have documented "test case" for a nearly-accurate 30.06 sign being ruled as invalid in court, and I don't want to have to be the one to help document this situation (see Chas's excellent point above)
2. It is very difficult to police every entrance or the entirety of what might be construed as areas of prominent display for a legal sign, so there is some chance you are going to make a mistake and walk past a compliant sign unaware

My policy is:
1. don't go into a place with a legitimate 30.06 sign unless I have to, and in which case go in unarmed
2. only carry into an improperly posted place with caution
3. wherever I am, don't get made

I don't like to disarm in the car because you are forced to unconceal while disarming, and I also don't like having to handle a firearm in a public place (like a parking lot) unnecessarily because regardless of how unlikely an AD is, the odds are higher if you are handling the gun than they are if you are not.

[bdickens]

Good point. Guns don't fire themselves while sitting in your holster on your belt. They get fired while being manipulated. I think that the argument could be made that requiring people to disarm prior to entering a building is endangering people more than just allowing them to carry would.

[WildBill]

The non-compliance in some areas is gray and not clear, such as if solid letters on a clear glass background constitutes contrasting colors.

Can someone explain this to me?

I hate to quote Wikipedia as a reference, but their definition of contrast as it relates to vision seems to be accurate:

"Contrast is the difference in visual properties that makes an object distinguishable from other objects and the background. In visual perception of the real world, contrast is determined by the difference in the color and brightness of the object and other objects within the same field of view."

The intent of the term "contrasting colors" in 30.06 is to make the sign easy to notice and easy to read. IMO a sign with opaque letters on clear glass is easy to notice and read. The letters are clearly distinguishable from the background. It think the sign meets the intent and the letter of the law.

The intent for requiring block letters one inch in height is also to make the sign easy to notice and easy to read. Whether or not 7/8" block letters will get you arrested and convicted is up to the LEO, DA, judge and jury.

[SCone]

The ride downtown is up to the arresting officer, prosecution falls to the DA , but the burden of proof is all you.

Rather than "press the issue" in court, we should work to educate and eliminate the sign. The folks in charge either hates guns, which nothing can be done about. Or they do not realize the benefit of having us (CHLs) around to deter crime.

Informing them of the background check, training & requirements of a CHL may change their minds.

[barres]

The non-compliance in some areas is gray and not clear, such as if solid letters on a clear glass background constitutes contrasting colors.

Can someone explain this to me?

I hate to quote Wikipedia as a reference, but their definition of contrast as it relates to vision seems to be accurate:

"Contrast is the difference in visual properties that makes an object distinguishable from other objects and the background. In visual perception of the real world, contrast is determined by the difference in the color and brightness of the object and other objects within the same field of view."

The intent of the term "contrasting colors" in 30.06 is to make the sign easy to notice and easy to read. IMO a sign with opaque letters on clear glass is easy to notice and read. The letters are clearly distinguishable from the background. It think the sign meets the intent and the letter of the law.

The intent for requiring block letters one inch in height is also to make the sign easy to notice and easy to read. Whether or not 7/8" block letters will get you arrested and convicted is up to the LEO, DA, judge and jury.

The problem is you can never tell what may be on the other side of that "clear glass." I have seen white lettering on clear glass, which I only noticed as I was leaving, because it was low on the door/window and the white lettering blended perfectly with the white tile of the foyer. This particular notice was not a 30.06 sign, but what if it had been? I could not have seen it until I was leaving. I only saw it because I was double-checking myself for 30.06 signs as I was leaving.

My rule of thumb is that, if I see it (and I actively look for them, even when I can't carry), and it isn't obviously non-compliant, I will obey it. If it fits on an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, I'll ignore it. If there's no Spanish translation on it, I'll ignore it. If I see it (covers contrast an in a place likely to be noticed), it's in English and Spanish, refers to the proper codes, and the font looks to be about an inch high (without me getting closer to measure), I'll treat it as legal and obey it, assuming that the property is not owned or leased by a government entity. IMHO, and IANAL.

[WildBill]

The problem is you can never tell what may be on the other side of that "clear glass." I have seen white lettering on clear glass, which I only noticed as I was leaving, because it was low on the door/window and the white lettering blended perfectly with the white tile of the foyer. This particular notice was not a 30.06 sign, but what if it had been? I could not have seen it until I was leaving. I only saw it because I was double-checking myself for 30.06 signs as I was leaving.

Thanks for your explanation. This makes sense. I agree that under these conditions the sign may not be valid, but not necessarily for "contrasting colors." A sign displayed as you described would not meet the third requirement: "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."

[srothstein]

Wildbill,

The reason I say it is a gray area is because of the way laws get interpreted by the courts. Some courts will look at the very specific wording of a lw and some will look at the intent. A great case in point was the recent appeals court decision (appeals courts tend to look more at the exact wording, IMO) that the money laundering law did not cover checks because of the way it said money. I think it was intended to cover checks too, but it wasn't apparently written that way (and yes, polticis can be involved).

In the instant case, I think the intent was to make the sign more noticable and easily read. But the law says the sign is supposed to be in contrasting colors and transparent is not a color. If the judge is looking for a reason to invalidate a case, he might decide it that way. If the judge is looking for a way to convict, he might decide that any solid letter is a contrast to transparent. Then you also have the question, as barres said, of what color the rest of the room is behind the clear glass.

So, I advise people to not rely on this clause either way. If they want to post, put up a real sign with proper background. If they want to ignore the sign on the glass, do so at their own risk.

[WildBill]

Wildbill,

The reason I say it is a gray area is because of the way laws get interpreted by the courts. Some courts will look at the very specific wording of a lw and some will look at the intent. A great case in point was the recent appeals court decision (appeals courts tend to look more at the exact wording, IMO) that the money laundering law did not cover checks because of the way it said money. I think it was intended to cover checks too, but it wasn't apparently written that way (and yes, polticis can be involved).

In the instant case, I think the intent was to make the sign more noticable and easily read. But the law says the sign is supposed to be in contrasting colors and transparent is not a color. If the judge is looking for a reason to invalidate a case, he might decide it that way. If the judge is looking for a way to convict, he might decide that any solid letter is a contrast to transparent. Then you also have the question, as barres said, of what color the rest of the room is behind the clear glass.

So, I advise people to not rely on this clause either way. If they want to post, put up a real sign with proper background. If they want to ignore the sign on the glass, do so at their own risk.

In this instance, I believe that "transparent" is a color. The reason I say this is because black lettering on a piece of white paper would be a valid sign. An artist might argue that black is the absence of color, so the sign is not valid. I don't think he would win.

I completely understand what you are saying about a judge "looking for a way to convict." A perfect example is the recent post about the fellow who got convicted of having a "switchblade." Sometimes the facts get in the way of the argument.

That said, I can't imagine a judge, even one "looking for a way not to convict", saying that a sign on a glass door is not valid just because transparent is not a color.

[jimlongley]

In this instance, I believe that "transparent" is a color. The reason I say this is because black lettering on a piece of white paper would be a valid sign. A person could argue that black is the absence of color, so the sign is not valid. I don't think he would win.

I completely understand what you are saying about a judge "looking for a way to convict." A perfect example is the recent post about the fellow who got convicted of having a "switchblade." Sometimes the facts get in the way of the argument.

Black being the absence of color only applies to light, in pigments, which printing is, black is the presence of all colors.

Transparent can not be considered a color in any artistic or lighting sense, as it passes on the color behind it, and if it were truly the absence of color, it would be black, which is beginning to get circular.

As Chas notes, bad case law might result, but in the absence of a test case we all have to decide for ourselves, and I think a good case could be made that white letters on glass do not constitute contrast. I have a couple of color blind friends who would agree.