K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:30 am
Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑
Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:06 am
K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:38 pm
1911 Raptor wrote: ↑
Tue Dec 25, 2018 9:07 am
imkopaka wrote: ↑
Fri Dec 21, 2018 2:17 pm
LDB415 wrote: ↑
Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:06 pm
Can a single sign be used for both 06 and 07 in a single wording or does each one need it's own individual sign to be valid? IOW, Pursuant to 30.06 & 30.07 etc etc exactly like that, not a really large single sign with Pursuant to 30.06 etc. and below that Pursuant to 30.07 etc..
The law states what the sign must have, but does not state anything it cannot have. As long as the requirements are met (all wording is exact, block letters at least 1" high, contrasting colors, etc) it is valid, even if they combine the two into one sign - that combined sign is still "a sign posted on the property that: (i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish; (ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and (iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public,
" even though it also has the other language. In the same way, they can add a title ("firearms prohibited," "concealed carry prohibited," etc), a gunbuster logo, their company logo, etc. As long as it meets the other requirements, it passes.
However, the wording on that sign (the one posted by Pawpaw) is NOT exact per the law. It has been jammed together to save space so they don't have to have two signs up. For the record, I am not stating I want to be the "test case". I simply believe that sign to not be within specification per the law.
It's the equivalent of a traffic ticket. I'm not afraid to be a "test case". I also drive right at the speed limit, follow cars at just over the minimum legal distance, and go through intersections that have a yellow light. Not afraid to be a "test case" for those non-crimes, either. Heck, I might even get crazy and water my lawn the exact maximum amount allowed by my city ordinance.
While I understand what you are saying, the likelihood of those other offenses resulting in a trip in the back of a squad car are pretty slim. However, depending upon the jurisdiction, "violating" that sign might get you that ride, even if you later get released. To be honest, the intimidation factor works on me because I don't want to get tossed into a jail cell with actual criminals until someone higher up the chain comes along to clear things up.
I am not sure that this fear has much of a foundation in fact. I have yet to see any documented cases where a LTC holder was taken to jail for walking past any sort of invalid signage. The closest first hand account I have read here was from a forum member who was OC'ing in a liquor store when an off duty LEO / security guard mistakenly believed that all liquor stores were off limits for OC. That seems to be a close fact pattern to a LEO mistakenly believing that a sign is valid. In that case, the LTC'er was disarmed temporarily and was allowed to leave without so much as a citation. If I'm going to fear something, I would like to see at least one documented case where it actually happened first. Otherwise, it is not worth the effort.
Note that I am NOT talking about the yahoos who go out of their way to antagonize LEO by OC'ing AK-47's while wearing full on combat gear. Those guys are going out of their way to try and get arrested. Not saying they are totally wrong, of course. Just that they are intentionally trying to provoke the confrontations that they get.
Think about it this way. For a normal CC'er to "take a ride" after walking past an invalid sign, ALL of the following have to happen. If the CC'er is polite and is not trying to be a jerk, each one of these is unlikely, IMHO. A series of low probability events multiplied together, results in an extremely low probability overall.
1. Someone notices the CC'ers weapon. I have found that at least half the people out there don't notice my weapon when I OC, so think about the possibility of even this happening. Not noticing a bulge, but noticing a weapon.
2. That person is alarmed by the presence of an armed individual. So take out all LTC holders and most others who would actually be more likely to notice the weapon in the first place.
3. The presence of the weapon is brought to the attention of store / location management. I had an employee at a Rudy's who was 100% convinced that their blue TABC sign meant I couldn't carry in there (I was OC'ing). He never bothered to mention my gun to management even though he thought I was committing a crime.
4. Store management decides that the best course of action is to call the police and have lights and sirens in front of their store. They consciously decide NOT to simply ask the CC'er to leave, or even just wait for that person to leave. Maybe they think they are about to be robbed. Or maybe they just love to completely disrupt their business unnecessarily.
5. The CC'er is still there when police arrive. So we are not talking about a convenience store, but rather a restaurant, grocery store, etc.
6. The responding LEO is unaware of the law that they are tasked with enforcing. I'm assuming that even the most uninformed LEO still knows that it is a worse crime to concealed carry without a license, so we are looking for a sweet spot here where they know that licensed carry exists but don't know the rules about where one can and cannot actually carry. In this case, you are just as much at risk carrying past a blue TABC sign as you are carrying past any invalid attempt at a 30.06 sign.
7. The responding LEO is too arrogant to even call a supervisor when politely asked to do so by the LTC holder, and also mistakenly believes that they are looking at a much more serious offense that would actually warrant an arrest.
Net-net. I'll take my chances.