TexasCHLforum.com

Saw this on the glass panel next to the main entrance to a building. Is this a legal sign?

Well, I guess technically not, since 30.06 is the statute covering concealed carry.

:D

Ah, the dyslexic 30.60 sign...

This sign falls into the category of signs that are technically invalid, but I wonder if some LEO's might consider it close enough...

I wouldn't carry past it.

Technically invalid, but close enough for most

Chapter 30 of Texas Penal Code ends at 30.06.
So, pursuant to Texas PC 30.60...... Is not valid.

TXBO wrote:I wouldn't carry past it.

Right or wrong, I'd probably not carry past it either. Discussions about a liberty not exercised is a liberty lost aside, I don't have the spare cash to test those legal waters in court. I doubt that a judge would dismiss the case carte blanche. There would likely be a fair amount of money and time spent hashing that one out.

goose wrote:

TXBO wrote:I wouldn't carry past it.

Right or wrong, I'd probably not carry past it either. Discussions about a liberty not exercised is a liberty lost aside, I don't have the spare cash to test those legal waters in court. I doubt that a judge would dismiss the case carte blanche. There would likely be a fair amount of money and time spent hashing that one out.

It is non-compliant. That's simple.

Whether the degree of non-compliance is de minimus in the eyes of your trial court is the question. And if convicted and you appeal, whether the appellate court will uphold the theory of de minimus. This would be in the face of the precise language used in 30.06, that being the word "identical".

Here is the better question...

If I hand the Texas legislature a ginormous Websters dictionary and ask then to find and word that best means your intent that the sign must exactly, precisely, microscopically mean that the language must be the same as that stipulated...which word would you use? Is there a better word than "identical".

The canons of Statutory Interpretation state and the superior courts have continuously upheld that legislatures know how to say what they mean and mean what they say, and that words take their common meaning and usage.

Again, what better word is there than "identical" to get the point across that the wording must be the same. Is this a typo, a printing error, editorial error? Is it de minimus.

My thought is that it is de minimus.

tex

It'll be even more wrong after 1.1.16

thetexan wrote: Whether the degree of non-compliance is de minimus in the eyes of your trial court is the question.

tex

This was good stuff. Thank you for the pointer to the proper legal terms.