Legal 30.06 Sign?
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
-
Topic author - Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 295
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:11 pm
- Location: El Paso, TX
- Contact:
Legal 30.06 Sign?
Saw this on the glass panel next to the main entrance to a building. Is this a legal sign?
Last edited by BCGlocker on Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Texas LTC Instructor
Texas SSO Instructor
USCCA Certified Instructor
Range Master Certified Instructor
Texas SSO Instructor
USCCA Certified Instructor
Range Master Certified Instructor
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:38 am
- Location: Lubbock, TX
Re: Legal 30.06 Sign?
Well, I guess technically not, since 30.06 is the statute covering concealed carry.
:D
:D
USAF Veteran|Ex-DoD Contractor|Information Technology
EDC: Springfield Armory XD Sub-Compact 40S&W 3"
EDC: Springfield Armory XD Sub-Compact 40S&W 3"
Re: Legal 30.06 Sign?
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...
This sign falls into the category of signs that are technically invalid, but I wonder if some LEO's might consider it close enough...
Re: Legal 30.06 Sign?
I wouldn't carry past it.
Re: Legal 30.06 Sign?
Technically invalid, but close enough for most
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 9508
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
- Location: Fort Worth
Re: Legal 30.06 Sign?
Chapter 30 of Texas Penal Code ends at 30.06.
So, pursuant to Texas PC 30.60...... Is not valid.
So, pursuant to Texas PC 30.60...... Is not valid.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:20 pm
- Location: Katy-ish
Re: Legal 30.06 Sign?
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.TXBO wrote:I wouldn't carry past it.
NRA Endowment - NRA RSO - Μολὼν λάβε
Re: Legal 30.06 Sign?
goose wrote: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.TXBO wrote:I wouldn't carry past it.
Re: Legal 30.06 Sign?
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
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
Texas LTC Instructor, NRA Pistol Instructor, CFI, CFII, MEI Instructor Pilot
Re: Legal 30.06 Sign?
It'll be even more wrong after 1.1.16
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:20 pm
- Location: Katy-ish
Re: Legal 30.06 Sign?
This was good stuff. Thank you for the pointer to the proper legal terms.thetexan wrote: Whether the degree of non-compliance is de minimus in the eyes of your trial court is the question.
tex
NRA Endowment - NRA RSO - Μολὼν λάβε