06 / 07 on same sign?

[K.Mooneyham]

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.

I agree.

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.

[Soccerdad1995]

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.

I agree.

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.

[K.Mooneyham]

Soccerdad1995, I find the majority of what you say to be entirely plausible in the context of a retail store, or other general public business. However, the (incorrect) sign is at a hospital. I believe that the "medical community", when taken as a whole, has a bias against firearms for various reasons, and the carrying of firearms by anyone who isn't law enforcement. Additionally, I believe that they are more than willing to "make a stink" about it, and that law enforcement is going to pay more attention to what "medical professionals" have to say than they would the average LTCer. I've carried past a few (obvious) incorrect signs such as gunbusters at regular businesses like gas stations without much thought because I knew those signs didn't really apply to me, plus I was properly concealed. However, I would not do that at a hospital (which I should have made clearer in my previous posts).

Hope you have a Happy New Year.

[Soccerdad1995]

Soccerdad1995, I find the majority of what you say to be entirely plausible in the context of a retail store, or other general public business. However, the (incorrect) sign is at a hospital. I believe that the "medical community", when taken as a whole, has a bias against firearms for various reasons, and the carrying of firearms by anyone who isn't law enforcement. Additionally, I believe that they are more than willing to "make a stink" about it, and that law enforcement is going to pay more attention to what "medical professionals" have to say than they would the average LTCer. I've carried past a few (obvious) incorrect signs such as gunbusters at regular businesses like gas stations without much thought because I knew those signs didn't really apply to me, plus I was properly concealed. However, I would not do that at a hospital (which I should have made clearer in my previous posts).

Hope you have a Happy New Year.

I agree that it is entirely plausible that each of the necessary steps could happen. Just like they could happen for any other non-crime. People get cited / harassed / and even arrested for things that are not crimes. It happens. I'm aware of that possibility. I'm just not more concerned about being wrongly arrested for a non-violation of 30.06 related laws, than I am for a non-violation of any other laws. The only way to eliminate the possibility of this completely would be to never leave your house. Even then, your not 100% safe (SWAT could get the address of that suspected meth lab wrong and bust down your door). It's all about deciding which risks you are willing to accept in life. In this case, if you walk past an invalid sign there is a small risk you could be detained for a bit. If you disarm instead, there is a small risk you could be dead. I know which one of those I'm choosing.

You raise a good point about it being a hospital, though, since the crime that you would hypothetically be incorrectly thought to be violating would be more serious at a hospital. Ultimately, the risk is being delayed for a few hours in the worst case, and possibly having to go through some legal hoops which would cost more time and money. As a side note, any anti-gun bias on the part of hospital administrators is even more reason to NOT mention signage requirements to anyone at a hospital.

And happy new year to you as well!

[C-dub]

There was this case from a while back.

Things were a little different that many years ago and some details also, but otherwise I think this is a fair assessment of how something like this might go if someone took the ride for carrying past a sign that did not strictly meet the 30.06 or 30.07 requirements.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=58991

[K.Mooneyham]

There was this case from a while back.

Things were a little different that many years ago and some details also, but otherwise I think this is a fair assessment of how something like this might go if someone took the ride for carrying past a sign that did not strictly meet the 30.06 or 30.07 requirements.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=58991

Thank you for posting that link. I hadn't thought about that one in some time. That soldier went though a lot of hassle. Wonder if he ever got his military career back on track?