TexasCHLforum.com

Breny414 wrote:Looking up the definition of "Sign" via Google, it says, "A notice that is publicly displayed." It makes no mention of substrate, same substrate, etc., etc..

By definition, HEB meets the requirements, even if their Spanish and English notice is separated by the doors.

My $0.02

Good! I'm not sure I agree that that superceeds the phrase "a sign" but at least we're bringing research into the discussion.

thetexan wrote:

Breny414 wrote:Looking up the definition of "Sign" via Google, it says, "A notice that is publicly displayed." It makes no mention of substrate, same substrate, etc., etc..

By definition, HEB meets the requirements, even if their Spanish and English notice is separated by the doors.

My $0.02

Good! I'm not sure I agree that that superceeds the phrase "a sign" but at least we're bringing research into the discussion.

I really like Breny441's reference to substrate. He must be a scientist.

This is what I get when I "researched" split sign

BCGlocker wrote:

jmorris wrote:

thetexan wrote:

BCGlocker wrote:In a recent January CHL Instructor's course in Florence, the DPS instructor demonstrated the 30.06 sign and 30.07 signs in English only and said they were legal. I raise the question regarding where is the Spanish wordings and was told just assume it is legal…even on a gun buster sign. The lesson taught was "You May Beat the Rap, But You Can't Beat The Ride".

This is the kind of crap that leads to all of the confusion. The DPS instructor has no authority to tell anyone to assume a English only is legal. IT MAY VERY WELL BE LEGAL but that has not been determined yet and the DPS instructor is not the source of of that info. You couldn't know that at the time and he has an air of authority but he was out of line by telling anyone in a class what they can assume and not assume about these statutes unless he can show documentation supporting it.

tex

I took his comment to be to assume the Spanish is legal since there is no definite version of the Spanish. *But* there were comments made that showed they believe the intent of the sign is enough. One instructor stated that a license holder had been convicted of carrying past a gun buster sign. I wasn't able to talk to him to get more details.

You may remember I asked twice that because the signs lack of Spanish therefore they were "illegal" signs. They never answered the question.

Yeah, I don't think he was getting the point of the question and was answering as above. They don't want to do the Spanish part because then someone will say "well, this is what DPS says it has to be". They did that a few times, like with holsters.

thetexan wrote:

Breny414 wrote:Looking up the definition of "Sign" via Google, it says, "A notice that is publicly displayed." It makes no mention of substrate, same substrate, etc., etc..

By definition, HEB meets the requirements, even if their Spanish and English notice is separated by the doors.

So in your opinion, two signs separated by 25 feet constitutes "a sign"? What if they were 40 feet apart? 60? 80? 100? At what point would you stop calling it "a sign"?

ScottDLS wrote:

bortaz wrote:

Ruark wrote: This might be splitting hairs, legally, and I don't know how far this would get with an LEO trying to bust you for carrying past it, but I just noticed these "split" signs appearing more and more frequently.

Why are you looking to get past the intent of the store owner? If they have the sign posted, you know their intent...they don't want you to carry there. Even if the sign is off by a half centimeter in size or one hue in color.

Maybe he's going to conceal and carry so he doesn't give a darn what the owner's intent is if it doesn't legally prohibit his entry... :shock:

Not respecting people's property rights (including a store owner), is despicable.

Not only Spanish, but why isn't Xhosa and/or Silbo Gomero, the whistling language of the Canary Islands (and for that matter all the other whistling languages) not on there?

C'mon, let argue until our eyes glaze over and we faint?

If you decide to carry past a properly sized and worded (English) 30.06 sign, I would suggest you not try to defend your actions in English by explaining that the Spanish version isn't on the same piece of wood and therefore it isn't valid.

Of course, this point would be moot if we had an official language in this country.

Ruark wrote:
So in your opinion, two signs separated by 25 feet constitutes "a sign"? What if they were 40 feet apart? 60? 80? 100? At what point would you stop calling it "a sign"?

At this point you are trying any twisted angle to start an argument. There are reasonable exceptions and unrealistic arguments. Stop trying to pick a fight and discuss logically or drop the discussion.

thetexan,

I'm sorry, what...?

I believe the discussion is on the legality of the signs. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you always have to. Calling it despicable is a whole different thing. If that were the case then nobody would carry past a gunbuster sign or even at all for fear of infringing upon someone's opinion on guns.

chamberc wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

bortaz wrote:

Ruark wrote: This might be splitting hairs, legally, and I don't know how far this would get with an LEO trying to bust you for carrying past it, but I just noticed these "split" signs appearing more and more frequently.

Why are you looking to get past the intent of the store owner? If they have the sign posted, you know their intent...they don't want you to carry there. Even if the sign is off by a half centimeter in size or one hue in color.

Maybe he's going to conceal and carry so he doesn't give a darn what the owner's intent is if it doesn't legally prohibit his entry...

Not respecting people's property rights (including a store owner), is despicable.

Why? What "right" does a publicly open property owner have to prohibit conduct (CC) that harms no one? What if the property owner puts up a circle slash elephant sign (no Republicans) would it be despicable for you to enter, while being a Republican? It might be a class B misdemeanor if the 1995 AG ruling on no guns signs applied.

Then lastly if a property owner can't go to the trouble to post the legally effective sign to prohibit concealed carry then why should I be morally responsible to discern his intent?

And I find it despicable that an operator of a publicly open business finds it necessary to limit my right to defend myself, so if not legally prohibited I will ignore their wishes and feel no moral compunction.

ScottDLS wrote:

chamberc wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

bortaz wrote:

Ruark wrote: This might be splitting hairs, legally, and I don't know how far this would get with an LEO trying to bust you for carrying past it, but I just noticed these "split" signs appearing more and more frequently.

Why are you looking to get past the intent of the store owner? If they have the sign posted, you know their intent...they don't want you to carry there. Even if the sign is off by a half centimeter in size or one hue in color.

Maybe he's going to conceal and carry so he doesn't give a darn what the owner's intent is if it doesn't legally prohibit his entry...

Not respecting people's property rights (including a store owner), is despicable.

Why? What "right" does a publicly open property owner have to prohibit conduct (CC) that harms no one? What if the property owner puts up a circle slash elephant sign (no Republicans) would it be despicable for you to enter, while being a Republican? It might be a class B misdemeanor if the 1995 AG ruling on no guns signs applied.

Then lastly if a property owner can't go to the trouble to post the legally effective sign to prohibit concealed carry then why should I be morally responsible to discern his intent?

And I find it despicable that an operator of a publicly open business finds it necessary to limit my right to defend myself, so if not legally prohibited I will ignore their wishes and feel no moral compunction.

Are you speaking of "PUBLICLY" OR "PRIVATELY" owned property?

publicly open privately owned property...like a store open to the general public or a restaurant.

Not someone's house or private land not generally open to the public.

Ruark wrote:

thetexan wrote:

Breny414 wrote:Looking up the definition of "Sign" via Google, it says, "A notice that is publicly displayed." It makes no mention of substrate, same substrate, etc., etc..

By definition, HEB meets the requirements, even if their Spanish and English notice is separated by the doors.

So in your opinion, two signs separated by 25 feet constitutes "a sign"? What if they were 40 feet apart? 60? 80? 100? At what point would you stop calling it "a sign"?

I would say, "yes."

But that brings up a couple of questions... while we are on the subject...

For English speakers, if we don't see the Spanish versions of 30.06 or 30.07, do we get a pass? I don't see the lack of the sign in Spanish as a defense to prosecution.

How does the ABC code read in regards to the English and Spanish signage for 51% business? is it similar legalese to 30.06 and 07, or does the language state 2 signs? Would anyone dare walk past a 51% sign if the Spanish one is absent?

ScottDLS wrote:publicly open privately owned property...like a store open to the general public or a restaurant.

Not someone's house or private land not generally open to the public.

I think it would fall under the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Property owners do not need to prove a reason to ask you to leave, all they need to do is ask you to leave. Refusal becomes a trespass.