06 / 07 on same sign?

[rotor]

Here's one that would be correct - a single sign with verbiage of both on it. I wish it was required if posting both: One yuge big sign with all four correct verbiages.

Can't tell from post but are the letters 1"?

[rtschl]

Here's one that would be correct - a single sign with verbiage of both on it. I wish it was required if posting both: One yuge big sign with all four correct verbiages.

Can't tell from post but are the letters 1"?

Yes they are.

[jmorris]

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 think the real question from the OP was only about if the verbiage from 30.06 and 30.07 can be combined into one paragraph, as shown in PawPaw's example. Short and long answer, NO. Sure, one sign BOARD can be used, as long as both sets of verbiage, 06 & 07, are on it, as shown by rtschl.

[Maxwell]

Here's one that would be correct - a single sign with verbiage of both on it. I wish it was required if posting both: One yuge big sign with all four correct verbiages.

Aren't you glad it is required...

[rtschl]

Here's one that would be correct - a single sign with verbiage of both on it. I wish it was required if posting both: One yuge big sign with all four correct verbiages.

Aren't you glad it is required...

Yes - glad for 30.06 and 30.07 instead of gunbuster signs. But if I could get my Christmas list it would include:

Remove all off limit areas
Places that are open to the public prohibited from posting (but since that won't happen)
Make the signs bigger and uglier

[Maxwell]

Here's one that would be correct - a single sign with verbiage of both on it. I wish it was required if posting both: One yuge big sign with all four correct verbiages.

Aren't you glad it is required...

Yes - glad for 30.06 and 30.07 instead of gunbuster signs. But if I could get my Christmas list it would include:

Remove all off limit areas
Places that are open to the public prohibited from posting (but since that won't happen)
Make the signs bigger and uglier

Bigger and uglier, I like that!

[Flightmare]

Here's one that would be correct - a single sign with verbiage of both on it. I wish it was required if posting both: One yuge big sign with all four correct verbiages.

Aren't you glad it is required...

Yes - glad for 30.06 and 30.07 instead of gunbuster signs. But if I could get my Christmas list it would include:

Remove all off limit areas
Places that are open to the public prohibited from posting (but since that won't happen)
Make the signs bigger and uglier

In chatting with some people, I have argued removing 4 statutorily off-limits places;
Racetracks
Professional sporting events
Polling places
51% locations.

When I bring up the 51% locations, I inform/remind them that it is already against the law to carry while intoxicated. I also add that certain bars emphasize responsible drinking by encouraging designated drivers. Why not encourage "designated defenders"? Most have never heard the term before. Once I bring it up, I have yet to find a person who is not in agreement.

[K.Mooneyham]

The worst part of the almost-correct-but-still-wrong signs is that they carry an intimidation factor. The people putting them up might even know it's wrong, but they do it anyway to reduce their burden while counting on a "might beat the rap but not the ride" situation to stop people from legally carrying in that location. And, of course, nothing gets done to prevent this kind of stuff, as there aren't any penalties for the attempted intimidation. Either both parties need to follow the law on things like this, or no one should get in trouble for it.

[twomillenium]

The worst part of the almost-correct-but-still-wrong signs is that they carry an intimidation factor. The people putting them up might even know it's wrong, but they do it anyway to reduce their burden while counting on a "might beat the rap but not the ride" situation to stop people from legally carrying in that location. And, of course, nothing gets done to prevent this kind of stuff, as there aren't any penalties for the attempted intimidation. Either both parties need to follow the law on things like this, or no one should get in trouble for it.

I don't quite understand the "ride" part of your statement. Once, you carry past the sign in a manner that is obvious you are carrying, oral notification means you must leave immediately. (whether or not the sign is legal) If the actor want to argue or ignore the oral notification, it is their obnoxious behavior that put them in risk of the ride. Oral notification can be merely a direct statement to the carrier can be in form of "No firearms allowed here", also applies even is there is not a sign.

[imkopaka]

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 think the real question from the OP was only about if the verbiage from 30.06 and 30.07 can be combined into one paragraph, as shown in PawPaw's example. Short and long answer, NO. Sure, one sign BOARD can be used, as long as both sets of verbiage, 06 & 07, are on it, as shown by rtschl.

Oops, you're right. I didn't read OP's post slowly enough

[K.Mooneyham]

The worst part of the almost-correct-but-still-wrong signs is that they carry an intimidation factor. The people putting them up might even know it's wrong, but they do it anyway to reduce their burden while counting on a "might beat the rap but not the ride" situation to stop people from legally carrying in that location. And, of course, nothing gets done to prevent this kind of stuff, as there aren't any penalties for the attempted intimidation. Either both parties need to follow the law on things like this, or no one should get in trouble for it.

I don't quite understand the "ride" part of your statement. Once, you carry past the sign in a manner that is obvious you are carrying, oral notification means you must leave immediately. (whether or not the sign is legal) If the actor want to argue or ignore the oral notification, it is their obnoxious behavior that put them in risk of the ride. Oral notification can be merely a direct statement to the carrier can be in form of "No firearms allowed here", also applies even is there is not a sign.

Several times on this forum I have read people stating that if a sign is "close enough", it is not worth becoming the "test case". Thus that sign, though not up to the legal definition, functions as an intimidation factor to keep people who are carrying legally (with LTC) from entering the establishment, whatever that might be.

[locke_n_load]

No matter what you decide to do in your personal carry situations, hospitals are class A misdemeanors if you carry past a valid 06/07 sign. I'm torn on the enforceability part of this type of sign, and would think different DAs would have different feelings on prosecuting or not, if you were found to be carrying.

[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.

[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.