TexasCHLforum.com

Where does substantial compliance enter into this? It is my understanding that, under some circumstances, satisfying the intent of the law or contract is sufficient rather than the letter of the law.

That's what I seem to remember them referencing in my instructor class. Again, my memory is not the best, so take this with a grain of salt. In short, their argument was that a DA could argue substantial compliance in the case of a sign not meeting all aspects of 30.06 and that a local judge or jury could rule that way.

The letter of the law in 30.06 seems clear to me. Ditto the intent. But my interpretation and that of an anti-gun and politically motivated judge and DA are likely to be different.

punkndisorderly wrote:Where does substantial compliance enter into this? It is my understanding that, under some circumstances, satisfying the intent of the law or contract is sufficient rather than the letter of the law.

That's what I seem to remember them referencing in my instructor class. Again, my memory is not the best, so take this with a grain of salt. In short, their argument was that a DA could argue substantial compliance in the case of a sign not meeting all aspects of 30.06 and that a local judge or jury could rule that way.

The letter of the law in 30.06 seems clear to me. Ditto the intent. But my interpretation and that of an anti-gun and politically motivated judge and DA are likely to be different.

I agree that this is where the human factor gets involved in law. 30.06 signs are supposed to be displayed in English and Spanish to make them compliant. But how many of us would go into an establishment that had 30.06 posted (properly, one inch letters, contrasting background, etc.) but only in English? I certainly wouldn't. I could claim that it wasn't posted in English AND Spanish, but I'd probably lose since English is my primary language (I don't speak Spanish) and the rest of the criteria was met.

With that being said, I think it's clear that the legislature set standards for sign postings to ensure that the average citizen doesn't get penalized for poorly defined/designed signage.

Honestly, I don't think it's too much for businesses to acquire proper 30.06 signs if they are really serious about keeping people out. They are a nominal cost to the business but would prevent any potential for law abiding citizens such as ourselves from taking rides (or worse).

Today is beginning of day 3 and no response. In looking at my notes combined with discussions I had with other students during break, I am virtually positive that the answer the DPS had for non-compliant signage was: You know the intent. We know better, yes. Again my concern is this is being taught to new instructors, who will teach it to new students. These students will teach it to new CHL classes. In time it become accepted, then codified.

wgoforth wrote:Today is beginning of day 3 and no response. In looking at my notes combined with discussions I had with other students during break, I am virtually positive that the answer the DPS had for non-compliant signage was: You know the intent. We know better, yes. Again my concern is this is being taught to new instructors, who will teach it to new students. These students will teach it to new CHL classes. In time it become accepted, then codified.

I would ask them 'Where does it state intent in 30.06?' I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is for intent to be punishable, then it has to be defined in the law, such as 'Intent to commit burglary or murder.' Otherwise, intent must be prove and I will always claim my defense is that 'My interpretation of their 'intent' by posting a non-compliant sign was to keep everyone with guns out EXCEPT CHL holders since they didn't post the proper 30.06.'

wgoforth wrote:Today is beginning of day 3 and no response. In looking at my notes combined with discussions I had with other students during break, I am virtually positive that the answer the DPS had for non-compliant signage was: You know the intent. We know better, yes. Again my concern is this is being taught to new instructors, who will teach it to new students. These students will teach it to new CHL classes. In time it become accepted, then codified.

I have the same concern as you. If they are teaching the information in that manner, it eventually becomes acceptable policy. Sure, we would all beat the rap, but getting hauled down to jail for "printing" or carrying where it is perfectly legal is non-sense. The possibility is there if DPS officers are being told to arrest us in these situations. They are probably never going to make written statements to this affect... they know it is legally incorrect.

Thanks for the update... good luck with it. I wish I could afford to take the coarse so I could video tape them disseminating bad information. Thanks for taking the time to bring all this out in the open as well.

punkndisorderly wrote:Where does substantial compliance enter into this? It is my understanding that, under some circumstances, satisfying the intent of the law or contract is sufficient rather than the letter of the law.

That's what I seem to remember them referencing in my instructor class. Again, my memory is not the best, so take this with a grain of salt. In short, their argument was that a DA could argue substantial compliance in the case of a sign not meeting all aspects of 30.06 and that a local judge or jury could rule that way.

The letter of the law in 30.06 seems clear to me. Ditto the intent. But my interpretation and that of an anti-gun and politically motivated judge and DA are likely to be different.

...substantial compliance doesn't get it in criminal law...it may show good faith in civil law...and where contracts are involved...criminal law is by the letter with the only wiggle room being when "reasonable" or "intentional" type words come into play...both of which are missing in 30.06..."you know what we meant" don't get it...

thedeceiver wrote:

punkndisorderly wrote:Where does substantial compliance enter into this? It is my understanding that, under some circumstances, satisfying the intent of the law or contract is sufficient rather than the letter of the law.

That's what I seem to remember them referencing in my instructor class. Again, my memory is not the best, so take this with a grain of salt. In short, their argument was that a DA could argue substantial compliance in the case of a sign not meeting all aspects of 30.06 and that a local judge or jury could rule that way.

The letter of the law in 30.06 seems clear to me. Ditto the intent. But my interpretation and that of an anti-gun and politically motivated judge and DA are likely to be different.

I agree that this is where the human factor gets involved in law. 30.06 signs are supposed to be displayed in English and Spanish to make them compliant. But how many of us would go into an establishment that had 30.06 posted (properly, one inch letters, contrasting background, etc.) but only in English? I certainly wouldn't. I could claim that it wasn't posted in English AND Spanish, but I'd probably lose since English is my primary language (I don't speak Spanish) and the rest of the criteria was met.


With that being said, I think it's clear that the legislature set standards for sign postings to ensure that the average citizen doesn't get penalized for poorly defined/designed signage.

Honestly, I don't think it's too much for businesses to acquire proper 30.06 signs if they are really serious about keeping people out. They are a nominal cost to the business but would prevent any potential for law abiding citizens such as ourselves from taking rides (or worse).



...I do often go in and do business where half a proper sign is posted...it's no more enforceable than my intentionally only concealing half of my weapon is concealing...the law is written SPECIFICALLY to protect us...and it means EXACTLY what it says...no more or less...[/quote

...let's look at it this way and see if it makes more sense: We know a place of business is open if the door's unlocked and the "OPEN" sign is lit...
...if I go up to the door, and the sign is lit but the door is locked...is it open?
...if I find the door unlocked but the "open" sign is off...is it open?

...the legislators wanted to make it demanding of those wanting to keep us lawfully carrying citizens out, and make it PERFECTLY clear when we were to stay out...that's why they carefully described the sign and require it to be posted that way...IF the business owner's serious about not wanting us there...

punkndisorderly wrote:Where does substantial compliance enter into this? It is my understanding that, under some circumstances, satisfying the intent of the law or contract is sufficient rather than the letter of the law.

It comes into play as a defense when they get sued for breaching the contract. So if their insurance company sues them for not posting the right sign, they may be able to defend against the suit.

There is a key distinction here that just came to mind.

In multiple other states, a tiny gunbuster sign is considered to be enforceable. Heck, a crayoned revolver with a slash through it suffices as notice in some places. However, they also typically include statute language like, "... a person who knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature is guilty of criminal trespass ..." (Ohio Revised Code 2923.126(C)(3)(a)). That "knowingly" phrase is key, because in real life it usually means the police officer wants to hear the person be verbally notified in their presence and refuse to leave, so that the "knowingly" element is provable. Thus, licensees are not typically caught unawares by a tiny hidden sign and find themselves facing charges.

However, since our statute is written on the assumption that a proper 30.06 sign is fully adequate notice, the statute does not require a "knowingly" standard at all. It assumes that a "reasonable person" would "know" to stay out because this huge sign gives adequate notice.

But once the DPS goes down that slippery slope of trying to assert we "know" a business's intent, we are stuck with the worst of both worlds.

Jumping Frog wrote:There is a key distinction here that just came to mind.

In multiple other states, a tiny gunbuster sign is considered to be enforceable. Heck, a crayoned revolver with a slash through it suffices as notice in some places. However, they also typically include statute language like, "... a person who knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature is guilty of criminal trespass ..." (Ohio Revised Code 2923.126(C)(3)(a)). That "knowingly" phrase is key, because in real life it usually means the police officer wants to hear the person be verbally notified in their presence and refuse to leave, so that the "knowingly" element is provable. Thus, licensees are not typically caught unawares by a tiny hidden sign and find themselves facing charges.

However, since our statute is written on the assumption that a proper 30.06 sign is fully adequate notice, the statute does not require a "knowingly" standard at all. It assumes that a "reasonable person" would "know" to stay out because this huge sign gives adequate notice.

But once the DPS goes down that slippery slope of trying to assert we "know" a business's intent, we are stuck with the worst of both worlds.

See, THAT is my concern. Many were telling me, "Well you know different, so why you arguing with them?" It is for this very reason.

Jumping Frog wrote:However, since our statute is written on the assumption that a proper 30.06 sign is fully adequate notice, the statute does not require a "knowingly" standard at all. It assumes that a "reasonable person" would "know" to stay out because this huge sign gives adequate notice.

I had not considered this before, but the culpable mental state part is interesting. I think i was thinking the law required knowingly, as it does in other weapons violations, but it does not. Since there is no required state in the section, then it only requires a reckless mental state. this is from section 6.02. That may give DPS a basis for their argument about intent.

But, the wording of the law really shoots down that argument anyway. The written notice is specifically defined. The way the law is written, the oral notice may be anything, but the written notice ONLY counts if it matches exactly the legal wording. Note that the term written notice is defined in the code, not just given as an example. Anything other than the specific wording just doesn't count.

I think in this group we all realize this but I must say we owe thanks to TSRA and Charles for this benefit.

But once the DPS goes down that slippery slope of trying to assert we "know" a business's intent, we are stuck with the worst of both worlds.

I really don't think what DPS does matters in this, unless you are arrested by a DPS trooper. Nothing in the law gives them the option of interpreting the law, such as it does the Attorney General. You might get a lawyer/prosecutor that gives their opinion some weight, but any decent lawyer will be able to argue that in front of a judge and the wording of the law will be what wins. Of course, that does mean you have partially lost by getting in front of a judge to begin with.

srothstein wrote:Of course, that does mean you have partially lost by getting in front of a judge to begin with.

Attorney fees, arrest record, living with the worry that comes with waiting for it to get cleared up -- yeah royal pain the the rear end.

...I wonder if there's any statistics compiled on how many 30.06 arrests have been made since CHL was passed? I'd be surprised if it's 20...but folks worry about it till they need botox...antacid...and Serutan...

...in this report, which is old, scroll down under the trials and tribulations and you'll see 0 arrests for 30.06 violations from 1996-2003...when we were just getting started and the learning was just beginning... http://www.gunblast.com/Cumpston_RTC.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...ZERO...

speedsix wrote:......in this report, which is old, scroll down under the trials and tribulations and you'll see 0 arrests for 30.06 violations from 1996-2003...when we were just getting started and the learning was just beginning... http://www.gunblast.com/Cumpston_RTC.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...ZERO...

Just looked on the DPS site at statistics-most recent is 2009. shows a total of 173 convictions for "possestion in place prohibited"--convictions of CHL carriers--0