Need clarification on 30.06 sign

[Lucky45]

My question is on

PC 30.06 (B) (ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and

I have seen signs posted with the letters in both RED and BLACK letters. Then recently at a mall, I saw the letters in white posted on glass entrance doors.
So by contrasting, do they mean 2 colors like the first example or do they mean that the letters have to be contrasting to the background like the second example.

[HankB]

It's my understanding that they're supposed to contrast with the background so as to be clearly visible.

As for white letters on glass . . . "clear" is not a color, and in my non-lawyer's view, white-on-glass would not meet the ". . . contrasting colors . . . " requirement of PC30.06, so IMHO (repeating again, I am NOT a lawyer) this type of sign is arguably non-compliant.

I'm unaware of any case law on this, but by the same token, I'm not prepared to volunteer myself as a test case.

[TxFire]

I think they intended the letters to CONTRAST the background. But that is a guess on my part. Our Fire Code is written similar regarding address numbers.

[bburgi]

I lean towards HankB's description. The fact that it says "contrasting colors", as in plural colors, seems to say that it MUST be displayed using more than one color. If the letters alone are posted on glass, then only one color is being used so it's not technically appearing in contrasting colors...

But like HankB, I'm not a lawer...

[DustinB]

I would guess it means contrasting from the background as stated before. Any color letters on a clear background would be contrasting in my opinion. That's how the galveston county courthouse is posted. Also a kelsey seybold clinic I took my brother to.

[propellerhead]

Without trying to over-analyze it, I'd say it means the colors have to be such that it is readable. Grey on silver is not. Light beige on white is not. Dark blue on black is not.

[Lucky45]

P.S. To clarify a bit more of what I saw.


Example 1. English sign was in Red letters on White background.
Spanish sign was black letters on White background.



Example 2. English sign was White letters on glass door.
Spanish sign was White letters on glass door.

[jrosto]

I think that if you ignore the white letters on glass 30.06, and are discovered. You will have a very hard time in court.

[stevie_d_64]

The white letters on "clear" glass background was something that I observed at the Houston Police Departments' downtown headquarters building a few years ago...

And since I don't work downtown anymore, I cannot confirm if what I heard after that that they removed the signage at their front entrance on Travis Street...

I remember walking to lunch one day and going up to take a really close look at it, for the most part the size and verbage was dead on correct...

The contrast forced me to get right up on it to actually read it and understand it...

A uniformed officer came out of the door (beside me) and saw me looking at it and I told him that the sign didn't appear to meet the "contrasting" portion of the law...

He told me "Well, you can see it now can't you?", "That makes it legal and compliant!"

"Are you carrying now?"

"Is this a formal official inquiry?"

[officer] "No."

"I'm going to lunch, see you later..." (Steve walks off)

[barres]

The problem with a glass background is that the letter coloring could contrast one minute and not the next, depending on what is on the other side of the glass. White lettering on glass would contrast well if a person on the other side of the glass was wearing black, but horribly if the white back of an easel/sign facing the interior of the establishment is what is on the other side of the glass.

I would like to say that you could always claim not to have seen it because it didn't contrast with something behind the glass when you went in, but I am not a lawyer. Do we need to get the legislature to further define 30.06 signs saying they must be on an opaque surface with contrasting colors? Since you can never guarantee what will be on the other side of a window/glass door, that would be the only way to ensure that the sign is of contrasting colors, and, therefore, visible, IMHO.

[KD5NRH]

Do we need to get the legislature to further define 30.06 signs saying they must be on an opaque surface with contrasting colors?

That would be my preference, since most lettering used on glass doors tends to be white, and interior walls also tend to be white. Black has its own issues if the interior is dark.

[Will938]

The problem with a glass background is that the letter coloring could contrast one minute and not the next, depending on what is on the other side of the glass. White lettering on glass would contrast well if a person on the other side of the glass was wearing black, but horribly if the white back of an easel/sign facing the interior of the establishment is what is on the other side of the glass.

I would like to say that you could always claim not to have seen it because it didn't contrast with something behind the glass when you went in, but I am not a lawyer. Do we need to get the legislature to further define 30.06 signs saying they must be on an opaque surface with contrasting colors? Since you can never guarantee what will be on the other side of a window/glass door, that would be the only way to ensure that the sign is of contrasting colors, and, therefore, visible, IMHO.

Yes, to go on with this point you're gonna have a hell of a time reading letters on glass if the sun is reflecting off it.

[shootthesheet]

I would imagine a CHL holder could beat any charges where a 30.06 sign was put on clear glass. It would cost a few thousand dollars to a lawyer to do it though. It is not contrasting and not a correct posting but that won't matter if a CHL holder gets caught. Transparent is not a color because anything beyond the glass that is the same color as the letters will obscure the letters view. Using different colored letters is a cleaver attempt to get around them having to use a big sign.

Now, if the glass is tented in a dark color it may be a correct posting. I don't think the reflective tent would be sufficient because any color on the outside that reflects the same color as the letters would obscure the letters.

I don't hold that the 30.06 requirement was meant to allow for any posting on a transparent surface. It doesn't matter if the letters are six different colors as long as they can be clearly seen and are contrasting to the background. It isn't the color of the letters but that they can be seen.

30.06(c)(3)(b) iii. is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

If it is on transparent glass it is not "clearly visible" because a color or light beyond that glass could obscure its ability to be "conspicuous or clearly visible". Even reflection from the sun on glass is enough to defeat the clearly visible part of 30.06. However, like I wrote before it may cost a CHL holder a lot of money to prove a sign on glass isn't compliant. I don't want to be the test case and avoid entering any place that would restrict my ability to carry.

[propellerhead]

A pretty good rule of thumb that I follow is if they are obviously meaning to keep you legally out of the building with a gun, then don't go in the building with a gun.

+1

If the place went through the trouble of posting a 30.06 sign, I'll err on the safe side and go elsewhere. If they have a silly Ghostbusters type sign, then I ignore it. That place obviously is not aware of the law. We all hate it when rapists get off free because of a technicality or some obscure interpretation of the law. I try to not make things worse by arguing if a sign is contrasting enough or not.