TexasCHLforum.com

My daughter spotted a 30.06 sign today with the Spanish on the left side of the door and the English on the right side. I am assuming this to be legal...

IANAL, but I believe it is if each sign meets the all the other legal requirements on it's own.

rssecurity wrote:IANAL, but I believe it is if each sign meets the all the other legal requirements on it's own.

I have been doing research for a book I am writing and in that process I have read and studied literally hundreds of appellate cases on various parts of our gun laws.

What I am learning...and I would not have guessed this...is that at the appellate level there is a much greater adherence to tiny details of the law than I expected. I used to think that "if it was pretty close" or insignificant that the court overlook these tiny discrepancies in favor of a greater legal principle.

I'm finding this to not be so much the case.

30.06 and 30.07 both say "a" sign. The article is singular. And the courts are very strict interpreters of the written statutes.

If the court were to allow two signs then the immediate problem that arises is how far may they be apart. 1 foot? 2 feet? Opposite sides of the door? Opposite sides of the building. Any ruling allowing separate signs leaves open ambiguities as to compliancy.

I'm not so sure they wouldn't consider two signs as non- compliant. Unless they ruled under some theory or principle, such as..."two signs within the same area of vision is essentially one sign. Or something like that.

tex

thetexan wrote:I have been doing research for a book I am writing and in that process I have read and studied literally hundreds of appellate cases on various parts of our gun laws.

What I am learning...and I would not have guessed this...is that at the appellate level there is a much greater adherence to tiny details of the law than I expected. I used to think that "if it was pretty close" or insignificant that the court overlook these tiny discrepancies in favor of a greater legal principle.
tex

I would be very interested in reading your book. Do you have a publishing date?

Oh no. Not that far. I'm collecting all of my research material now and finalizing the outline. It will be awhile.

thetexan wrote:Oh no. Not that far. I'm collecting all of my research material now and finalizing the outline. It will be awhile.

I understand. I worked on a book with another author and it took about two years to write it and get it published.

thetexan wrote:I have been doing research for a book I am writing and in that process I have read and studied literally hundreds of appellate cases on various parts of our gun laws.

What I am learning...and I would not have guessed this...is that at the appellate level there is a much greater adherence to tiny details of the law than I expected. I used to think that "if it was pretty close" or insignificant that the court overlook these tiny discrepancies in favor of a greater legal principle.

I'm finding this to not be so much the case.

30.06 and 30.07 both say "a" sign. The article is singular. And the courts are very strict interpreters of the written statutes.

If the court were to allow two signs then the immediate problem that arises is how far may they be apart. 1 foot? 2 feet? Opposite sides of the door? Opposite sides of the building. Any ruling allowing separate signs leaves open ambiguities as to compliancy.

I'm not so sure they wouldn't consider two signs as non- compliant. Unless they ruled under some theory or principle, such as..."two signs within the same area of vision is essentially one sign. Or something like that.

tex

The question this raises for me is: are letter stickers on glass a sign? It's been questioned many times from the perspective of "contrasting colors," since "clear" isn't a color to most people. Run across any cases where this came up?

sarn756 wrote:My daughter spotted a 30.06 sign today with the Spanish on the left side of the door and the English on the right side. I am assuming this to be legal...

Like most situations, it would have to be settled in court. To me, that's enough I wouldn't carry.

LucasMcCain wrote:

thetexan wrote:I have been doing research for a book I am writing and in that process I have read and studied literally hundreds of appellate cases on various parts of our gun laws.

What I am learning...and I would not have guessed this...is that at the appellate level there is a much greater adherence to tiny details of the law than I expected. I used to think that "if it was pretty close" or insignificant that the court overlook these tiny discrepancies in favor of a greater legal principle.

I'm finding this to not be so much the case.

30.06 and 30.07 both say "a" sign. The article is singular. And the courts are very strict interpreters of the written statutes.

If the court were to allow two signs then the immediate problem that arises is how far may they be apart. 1 foot? 2 feet? Opposite sides of the door? Opposite sides of the building. Any ruling allowing separate signs leaves open ambiguities as to compliancy.

I'm not so sure they wouldn't consider two signs as non- compliant. Unless they ruled under some theory or principle, such as..."two signs within the same area of vision is essentially one sign. Or something like that.

tex

The question this raises for me is: are letter stickers on glass a sign? It's been questioned many times from the perspective of "contrasting colors," since "clear" isn't a color to most people. Run across any cases where this came up?

Wow, really technical. I would say a sign on a glass door is still a sign. Black technically is the absence of color and yet everyone accepts black as being a contrasting acceptable "color" for a sign.

rotor wrote: Wow, really technical. I would say a sign on a glass door is still a sign. Black technically is the absence of color and yet everyone accepts black as being a contrasting acceptable "color" for a sign.

The Black color spectrum when talking about light spectrum is the absence of light - when talking about physical medium, black is all of the color spectrum combined.

Pariah3j wrote:

rotor wrote: Wow, really technical. I would say a sign on a glass door is still a sign. Black technically is the absence of color and yet everyone accepts black as being a contrasting acceptable "color" for a sign.

The Black color spectrum when talking about light spectrum is the absence of light - when talking about physical medium, black is all of the color spectrum combined.

No. WHITE is all the (visible) spectrum combined...

ScottDLS wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:

rotor wrote: Wow, really technical. I would say a sign on a glass door is still a sign. Black technically is the absence of color and yet everyone accepts black as being a contrasting acceptable "color" for a sign.

The Black color spectrum when talking about light spectrum is the absence of light - when talking about physical medium, black is all of the color spectrum combined.

No. WHITE is all the (visible) spectrum combined...

Correct Scott. But we all accept that black is acceptable on a sign so I don't think the legal niceties of thinking it has to be a color really matter. How smart do you think our legislators are? They are still working on figuring out bathroom use. Technically speaking your phenotype (what sexual organs you are born with) may not be your genotype (what your chromosomes say you are). It is possible for someone that looks like a woman in every regard has the genetics of a male. Swyer syndrome and testicular feminization come to mind. More things for politicians to work on, but totally off topic.

ScottDLS wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:

rotor wrote: Wow, really technical. I would say a sign on a glass door is still a sign. Black technically is the absence of color and yet everyone accepts black as being a contrasting acceptable "color" for a sign.

The Black color spectrum when talking about light spectrum is the absence of light - when talking about physical medium, black is all of the color spectrum combined.

No. WHITE is all the (visible) spectrum combined...

When you are talking about color prism, you are correct. Physical medium, however, behaves almost directly opposite - go buy a paint set and mix all the colors together - you will get black(or pretty darn close) not white.

Aaaannnnddd we're off topic...

The law says: "(B) a sign posted on the property that: (i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish."

I'm no lawyer, but, nothing about that would lead me to believe that the sign can legally be split into two or more parts. Especially if those parts are separated by a significant distance as the OP described.