30.06 contrasting colors

[rootcanals]

Anyone got a legit answer on the legality of a 30.06 sign that meets all criteria but is one of those white lettering ones on transparent film? I am sure it has been hammered to death of what exactly is contrasting colors.

[Teamless]

Interesting first post, but OK.

to me, contrasting is black on white, or light on dark colors.
I suppose it would depend if it were on glass or a solid surface (not clear) to say that one is contrasting over another.
So it is probably just a case by case.

However, if the size is right, the wording is right, it is in both English and Spanish, and I can obviously determine it is a 30.06 sign, that in itself tells me its contrasting.

I think the definition probably has something do with someone doing almost clear lettering on a clear background, or almost white on white, so people can't "hide" it.

[longtooth]

Concensis is you will be arrested & have to beat it in court w/ no case law before you.

From arrest til final disposition of the case you will be:
Unarmed all the time. Probably spend more $$$$$$$ than several of us put together could raise.

I cover this in class by saying I dont think that meets the contrasting colors clause but everyone makes their own decissions. There are several that do not meet the 1" clause either but the same there.

ETMC in Crockett (& I have to go there some) has 1/2" letters (I did measure) & white on glass. I still dont want to be the test case.

OH, & BTW Welcome to the board.
LT

[WildBill]

Anyone got a legit answer on the legality of a 30.06 sign that meets all criteria but is one of those white lettering ones on transparent film? I am sure it has been hammered to death of what exactly is contrasting colors.

Welcome to the forum rootcanals.

You are are correct that this topic has been hammered to death. I think I am in the minority when I state that white lettering on a transparent surface, such as glass, meets the criteria for a valid 30.06 sign. The idea of constrasting colors is to make the sign easy to see and read so I think the white on clear is valid. As stated above, there is no case law, but that is my interpretation. IANAL or a judge.

[rootcanals]

Old school here. I have had my CHL since Dec. 1995. I might see one legit 30.06 sign a year where I live. Maybe some tweak in the wording is in order the next legislative session. Those 30.06 signs on transparent film are used to be more discrete and less imposing. They can be easily missed...........wait on second thought leave it like it is so you can have a defensible argument in the event you actually did not see the posting.

[Rrash]

...what exactly is contrasting colors?

That is not an argument you want to make. It is subjective to the opinions of the arresting officer(s), judge, jury, and the talent of the prosecution and your defense lawyer. It will cost a lot, possibly create fuel for the media, and likely not end in your favor.

My novice advice: If you can read it, its contrasting enough; the establishment has stated their intent.

[rootcanals]

My 6 yo daughter pulled off the "6" in the 30.06 part of one of those white on transparent signs last year at a hotel in Dallas. It was like "hey daddy, this paint peels right off". Was not carrying at the time but made a hasty exit.

[jimlongley]

Anyone got a legit answer on the legality of a 30.06 sign that meets all criteria but is one of those white lettering ones on transparent film? I am sure it has been hammered to death of what exactly is contrasting colors.

Welcome to the forum rootcanals.

You are are correct that this topic has been hammered to death. I think I am in the minority when I state that white lettering on a transparent surface, such as glass, meets the criteria for a valid 30.06 sign. The idea of constrasting colors is to make the sign easy to see and read so I think the white on clear is valid. As stated above, there is no case law, but that is my interpretation. IANAL or a judge.

And I, respectfully, disagree. When the Plano police and fire stations had their white on transparent signage up, they were very hard to see under some lighting and background conditions, so I took the sergeant that was running the citizens' police academy class that I was taking outside and showed him. He agreed that the western sun shining on the white floor behind the sign rendered it pretty much invisible. I also pointed out that state law had just changed, rendering the signage moot, and he disagreed with "Yeah, good luck with that."

Then I sent the city of Plano one of my cards, and pointed out that with the changed statute the signs were pretty much meaningless anyway. The city took them down.

[rootcanals]

Now you have to wonder ...Did I post this just to get everyone all excited on a Monday morning?

[Teamless]

.Did I post this just to get everyone all excited on a Monday morning?

We aren't excited, because its Monday morning, you should see us on a Wednesday LOL

[fickman]

I assume that law is to protect color blind or visually impaired CHLers from "gotcha" schemes, and to give us every chance of seeing a valid notice. If a business designs their sign to be inconspicuous because they don't like having to post it, they're risking CHLers innocently missing it. G-vine Mills used to have brass plaques inside the entrances on one wall with a stamped 30.06 message. In a 15-yeard wide entrance, you would have been lucky to stumble upon that sign, and even more fortunate to realize it actually said something.

With a few exceptions, in the event that you were found out (remember: concealed is concealed, so how did they know? Did you somehow have to use your firearm to protect your life? Were asked for ID by a LEO for some reason?). . . the conversation would most likely go like this:
LEO: "You can't carry in here. It's posted as off limits."
CHL: "Oh? I didn't see the sign. I always look out for one."
LEO: "Come here and look at it."
CHL: "Oh - sorry, officer. It's so (faint / hard to see / out of the way / cluttered with other signs / small), I missed it. I'll happily leave the premises."
LEO: "Be more careful next time. You could have been arrested for trespass. Have a good day."

Of course, I wouldn't walk past an otherwise valid sign expecting this scenario to play out, but based on most of my interactions with LEOs in Texas, I'd be surprised if most of them didn't go that way. The character size is an absolute. The wording is an absolute. Banking on the colors starts to get into a gray area.

I don't believe I have an obligation to circumnavigate every building I enter with binoculars, a magnifying glass, and spotter on a scavenger hunt for notice. A sign should be readily visible on the entrance I use. If not, I wasn't given effective notice. If somehow an improperly-posted location discovered my firearm and gave me oral notice, I'd leave immediately.

If the only thing wrong with their sign is the color scheme (and I actually saw it), I wouldn't enter.

[Keith B]

I think the verbiage for contrasting colors in the law was there for one main thing, to cover us in case they put up a hard to read sign. That meaning if you for some reason didn't see the sign because the letters did not stand out against the background and were caught carrying, you would have a defense in the fact the letters were not enough of a contrast and you failed to see the sign because of this. It would also help keep someone from putting black letters on dark tinted glass door, but think it was mainly for the former reason.

As for being valid, if the sign meets the other requirements (or is really close), and you see it, then IMO it was enough of a contrast to be legal and you have been notified.

[WildBill]

I think the verbiage for contrasting colors in the law was there for one main thing, to cover us in case they put up a hard to read sign. That meaning if you for some reason didn't see the sign because the letters did not stand out against the background and were caught carrying, you would have a defense in the fact the letters were not enough of a contrast and you failed to see the sign because of this. t would also help keep someone from putting black letters on dark tinted glass door, but think it was mainly for the former reason.

As for being valid, if the sign meets the other requirements (or is really close), and you see it, then IMO it was enough of a contrast to be legal and you have been notified.

Putting signs on glass doors is a very common thing to do. There are entrance and exit signs on glass on many stores. I don't have any trouble seeing them. I believe that if the law makers wanted to be more specific, they would have said a white sign with black letters. That would be very precise.

My thinking is how can we argue about whether a sign is legal [visible/readable] if we can see it? Just as the law doesn't require that every entrance is marked, it doesn't state that the sign must be legible from every possible viewing position and angle. I think a lot of people also are forgetting that if you happen to accidently walk by a sign you can leave ASAP.

[jimlongley]

I, personally, think the law should be amended in 2013, to add that "contrasting colors" means -the sign must be: black letters on a white background; white letters on a black background or opposites on the accepted HSV color wheel, and it will be an exception to the application of this section if the letters of such sign are not ALL a minimum of 1 inch in height (72 DTP Points) in a bold san serif font, and it shall be an exception to application if such signage is ANY color on glass unless the glass is opaque and the solid defined contrasting color.

I would also love to see language specifying the location of the sign in terms of height above ground and proximity to the main entrance and ALL other POSSIBLE entrances.

[sjfcontrol]

I, personally, think the law should be amended in 2013, to add that "contrasting colors" means -the sign must be: black letters on a white background; white letters on a black background or opposites on the accepted HSV color wheel, and it will be an exception to the application of this section if the letters of such sign are not ALL a minimum of 1 inch in height (72 DTP Points) in a bold san serif font, and it shall be an exception to application if such signage is ANY color on glass unless the glass is opaque and the solid defined contrasting color.

I would also love to see language specifying the location of the sign in terms of height above ground and proximity to the main entrance and ALL other POSSIBLE entrances.

Good grief! Why not just require that everybody buy the "official" sign directly from DPS, at a nominal cost of $500 each. They can print each one on a 4x8 sheet of 3/4 inch raw plywood. Then require one of these on every door in every entrance. That would make it pretty simple, and maybe DPS could reduce the CHL fees thanks to all their sign income.