User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 10:31:20 AM EDT
Not my picture, I just saw it and cropped it down.
 (3) "Written communication" means: (A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or (B) 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. And they almost had it.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 11:24:28 AM EDT
[#1]
Commas are important. It is kind of like "Let's eat, Grandma!" or "I helped my uncle, Jack, off his horse."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 11:46:16 AM EDT
[#2]
good enough for me not to spend any $$$ there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 11:58:51 AM EDT
[#3]
In my humble opinion, that sign is compliant and one could be convicted for carry there.
You can make all of the arguments you want about commas, I don't care. If you like to toy with your freedom, I support you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 12:00:27 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
good enough for me not to spend any $$$ there. This too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 12:06:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In my humble opinion, that sign is compliant and one could be convicted for carry there. You can make all of the arguments you want about commas, I don't care. If you like to toy with your freedom, I support you. No doubt someone would get convicted, but I don't see how the sign can be compliant if the language is not actually identical to what is specified by the law. I'd think they used the word "identical" and not "similar" for a reason. Not that it matters because the courts don't care, but there it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 12:10:13 PM EDT
[#6]
FWIW, The AMC letters are also not 1" the last time I was there (several years ago) as we quit going after realizing that we had walked by the signs on numerous occasions. They were posted in two of the glass doors out of >10 at foot level and the largest letters were 3/4" at most.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 12:13:35 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FWIW, The AMC letters are also not 1" the last time I was there (several years ago) as we quit going after realizing that we had walked by the signs on numerous occasions. They were posted in two of the glass doors out of >10 at foot level and the largest letters were 3/4" at most. Not close enough to be valid, but not far enough off to stop you from getting arrested, unfortunately.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 1:17:00 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In my humble opinion, that sign is compliant and one could be convicted for carry there. You can make all of the arguments you want about commas, I don't care. If you like to toy with your freedom, I support you. +1 Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I wouldn't spend a dime there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 1:49:44 PM EDT
[#9]
There is the letter of the law and then there's the spirit of the law.
Let the better lawyer win...I wouldn't get cute with this if I were you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 2:06:17 PM EDT
[#10]
Why take the chance? They already told you they didn't want you as a customer. Go spend your hard earned money somewhere else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 2:17:59 PM EDT
[#11]
missing comma, extra "a".
I'd say NOT sufficient for a conviction since the law the says sign must be EXACTLY this, not close to this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 2:21:49 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
missing comma, extra "a". I'd say NOT sufficient for a conviction since the law the says sign must be EXACTLY this, not close to this. So you know the county / district attorney in his area? Don't bet on it OP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 2:48:12 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you know the county / district attorney in his area? Don't bet on it OP. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
missing comma, extra "a". I'd say NOT sufficient for a conviction since the law the says sign must be EXACTLY this, not close to this. So you know the county / district attorney in his area? Don't bet on it OP. I didnt realize we were in a forum listing who we know. I thought this was a gun type forum where we expressed our opinions, much like you did. Sadly it isnt the county or DA that convicts someone. It's the jury, or judge if you choose a bench trial. Not knowin his area, I can't promise anything, any more than you, or anyone else. We can only give our best opinion given our knowledge. I did however grow up in law firms and courthouses of my area. So I can say that while spirit is one thing, when the written laws states a sign must read exactly X to be valid, it is invalid if it doesnt read exactly X. Words matter. lack of words matter as well. Thus the difference between spirit and letter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 2:58:14 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
missing comma, extra "a". I'd say NOT sufficient for a conviction since the law the says sign must be EXACTLY this, not close to this. Where in the process do you think it would get tossed? Point out to cop making arrest it is missing a comma and he takes the cuffs off? Point out to the judge the sign was missing a comma and he dismisses charges? Point out to jurors the sign was missing a comma and they find you innocent? After you have been arrested, how do you prove the sign was not correct? What if you come back after you bail out and the sign is fixed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 3:01:36 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didnt realize we were in a forum listing who we know. I thought this was a gun type forum where we expressed our opinions, much like you did. Sadly it isnt the county or DA that convicts someone. It's the jury, or judge if you choose a bench trial. Not knowin his area, I can't promise anything, any more than you, or anyone else. We can only give our best opinion given our knowledge. I did however grow up in law firms and courthouses of my area. So I can say that while spirit is one thing, when the written laws states a sign must read exactly X to be valid, it is invalid if it doesnt read exactly X. Words matter. lack of words matter as well. Thus the difference between spirit and letter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
missing comma, extra "a". I'd say NOT sufficient for a conviction since the law the says sign must be EXACTLY this, not close to this. So you know the county / district attorney in his area? Don't bet on it OP. I didnt realize we were in a forum listing who we know. I thought this was a gun type forum where we expressed our opinions, much like you did. Sadly it isnt the county or DA that convicts someone. It's the jury, or judge if you choose a bench trial. Not knowin his area, I can't promise anything, any more than you, or anyone else. We can only give our best opinion given our knowledge. I did however grow up in law firms and courthouses of my area. So I can say that while spirit is one thing, when the written laws states a sign must read exactly X to be valid, it is invalid if it doesnt read exactly X. Words matter. lack of words matter as well. Thus the difference between spirit and letter. That's nice. I'm a lawyer and it sounds like you're not. So, i'm sticking with what I posted before. Prosecutorial discretion...the tone of the community and the personal views and opinions of the elected prosecutor come in to play. A jury doesn't see shit until a prosecutor makes it so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 3:02:02 PM EDT
[#16]
Folks should also note only "a card or other document" requires IDENTICAL language.
A sign only needs to "includes the language described". I think a case could be made signs do not have to be identical, just what is described. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 3:13:47 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
missing comma, extra "a". I'd say NOT sufficient for a conviction since the law the says sign must be EXACTLY this, not close to this. How much experience do you have in court? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 4:29:07 PM EDT
[#18]
This wannabe guardhouse lawyer would like to also point out that Concealed Handgun Law is capitalized on the sign but not on the OP's law quote. And Section capitalized in the law but not on the sign.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 5:10:58 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No doubt someone would get convicted, but I don't see how the sign can be compliant if the language is not actually identical to what is specified by the law. I'd think they used the word "identical" and not "similar" for a reason. Not that it matters because the courts don't care, but there it is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In my humble opinion, that sign is compliant and one could be convicted for carry there. You can make all of the arguments you want about commas, I don't care. If you like to toy with your freedom, I support you. No doubt someone would get convicted, but I don't see how the sign can be compliant if the language is not actually identical to what is specified by the law. I'd think they used the word "identical" and not "similar" for a reason. Not that it matters because the courts don't care, but there it is. Are you willing to play to test the validity of the sign? Think about...how much money will you pay a lawyer to defend you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 6:33:33 PM EDT
[#20]
TX carry law sucks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 9:40:09 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How much experience do you have in court? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
missing comma, extra "a". I'd say NOT sufficient for a conviction since the law the says sign must be EXACTLY this, not close to this. How much experience do you have in court? Better yet how much experience do you have because you love to give out legal advice on here |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 9:54:28 AM EDT
[#22]
Technically, the language is identical. The punctuation isn't.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 9:58:22 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Folks should also note only "a card or other document" requires IDENTICAL language. A sign only needs to "includes the language described". I think a case could be made signs do not have to be identical, just what is described. Well, it says "includes the language described by Paragraph A", which needs to be "identical to the following...". So I would argue that a sign still needs to have identical language. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 10:12:38 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Don't bet on it OP. Quote HistoryQuoted: Don't bet on it OP. Bet on what? I didn't even see the sign. Quoted: Are you willing to play to test the validity of the sign? Think about...how much money will you pay a lawyer to defend you? Why would I test it when I already said someone would get arrested for it? Quoted: Technically, the language is identical. The punctuation isn't. Punctuation is a part of language (an extremely important part in the English language), but there's more than just punctuation that's wrong with that sign. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 3:09:55 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bet on what? I didn't even see the sign. Why would I test it when I already said someone would get arrested for it? Punctuation is a part of language (an extremely important part in the English language), but there's more than just punctuation that's wrong with that sign. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Don't bet on it OP. Bet on what? I didn't even see the sign. Quoted:
Are you willing to play to test the validity of the sign? Think about...how much money will you pay a lawyer to defend you? Why would I test it when I already said someone would get arrested for it? Quoted:
Technically, the language is identical. The punctuation isn't. Punctuation is a part of language (an extremely important part in the English language), but there's more than just punctuation that's wrong with that sign. The title of your OP implied your belief that the sign was not valid. So, I say again, "don't bet on it OP." Why are you passing judgment on a sign you didn't even see if it's apparrently a problem that you didn't see it? Heck, based on that logic, why post at all? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 3:43:47 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The title of your OP implied your belief that the sign was not valid. So, I say again, "don't bet on it OP." Why are you passing judgment on a sign you didn't even see if it's apparrently a problem that you didn't see it? Heck, based on that logic, why post at all? Your post is implying I was recommending or planning on carrying past the sign. Based on your "logic" why should anybody post about or talk about anything they didn't see in person?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 4:00:31 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your post is implying I was recommending or planning on carrying past the sign. Based on your "logic" why should anybody post about or talk about anything they didn't see in person?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The title of your OP implied your belief that the sign was not valid. So, I say again, "don't bet on it OP." Why are you passing judgment on a sign you didn't even see if it's apparrently a problem that you didn't see it? Heck, based on that logic, why post at all? Your post is implying I was recommending or planning on carrying past the sign. Based on your "logic" why should anybody post about or talk about anything they didn't see in person?
Bottom line here...You're upset because you're not getting the internet agreement you'd hoped for. You're likely wrong here, you know it, and that is an uncomfortable position. No biggie to me really. It's just silly to post a judgment, receive disagreement, and then say, "hey, I didn't actually see it so..." So, , right back at you sir.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 4:45:49 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bottom line here...You're upset because you're not getting the internet agreement you'd hoped for. You're likely wrong here, you know it, and that is an uncomfortable position. No biggie to me really. It's just silly to post a judgment, receive disagreement, and then say, "hey, I didn't actually see it so..." So, , right back at you sir.I'm not upset about anything. If you read my post, you'd see I actually agree with you about someone still getting arrested for it (hence your post wasn't even disagreement), meaning I wouldn't and didn't "bet on it," and I just posted I wasn't even in a position to bet on it at all when you got all pissy about it.  You seem more upset than anybody in this thread. I wasn't looking for agreement or argument. There was an interesting discussion about exactly how "identical" the language must be, and that's all I would have hoped for. Anything else is just the typical illiteracy this forum is famous for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 11:27:35 PM EDT
[#29]
You know, the whole point of concealed carry is that nobody around you knows you're doing it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 5:24:57 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know, the whole point of concealed carry is that nobody around you knows you're doing it. What a cheesy post
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 7:05:45 AM EDT
[#31]
Typically, if I am entering a place that has any "no guns" sign, whether legal or not, I go in, do the shit I came for, leave and then I plan to not spend my $$$ there next time.
If it was unavoidable, like Wal-Mart decided to post or something I would still carry. I am completely aware this is breaking State Law and that if caught it's going to cause me potentially serious grief. I would rather rot in prison a stubborn dumbass who exercised his God given rights than be a statistic or live with the pain of a lost loved one I had the right and opportunity to defend. I know, "Good luck with that dumbass". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 3:40:40 PM EDT
[#32]
I don't get some of the posts here.
In this forum we have dissected law very very carefully on several occasions. One that comes to mind is the carrying of an illegal knife by a CHL holder, while carrying a pistol. The law says what it says. The use of the word "identical" seems, to me, to be very clear. The text on the sign is not identical - both in words and punctuation. Are we really going to debate the definition of the word "identical?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 5:42:17 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't get some of the posts here. In this forum we have dissected law very very carefully on several occasions. One that comes to mind is the carrying of an illegal knife by a CHL holder, while carrying a pistol. The law says what it says. The use of the word "identical" seems, to me, to be very clear. The text on the sign is not identical - both in words and punctuation. Are we really going to debate the definition of the word "identical?" I guess you're right...it's clearly not even debatable. YOU go right on ahead and carry there with supreme confidence. No reasonable person, whether he be officer, prosecutor, judge, or jury member could possibly disagree with you. In fact...the law always says what it says. Hey, why do lawyers and courts even exist? Perhaps we should just abolish the judicial branch while we are at it. The law is crystal clear...who needs help interpreting the law anyway? Seriously though, I do agree with you when you say that you don't get it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2014 4:50:39 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess you're right...it's clearly not even debatable. YOU go right on ahead and carry there with supreme confidence. No reasonable person, whether he be officer, prosecutor, judge, or jury member could possibly disagree with you. In fact...the law always says what it says. Hey, why do lawyers and courts even exist? Perhaps we should just abolish the judicial branch while we are at it. The law is crystal clear...who needs help interpreting the law anyway? Seriously though, I do agree with you when you say that you don't get it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't get some of the posts here. In this forum we have dissected law very very carefully on several occasions. One that comes to mind is the carrying of an illegal knife by a CHL holder, while carrying a pistol. The law says what it says. The use of the word "identical" seems, to me, to be very clear. The text on the sign is not identical - both in words and punctuation. Are we really going to debate the definition of the word "identical?" I guess you're right...it's clearly not even debatable. YOU go right on ahead and carry there with supreme confidence. No reasonable person, whether he be officer, prosecutor, judge, or jury member could possibly disagree with you. In fact...the law always says what it says. Hey, why do lawyers and courts even exist? Perhaps we should just abolish the judicial branch while we are at it. The law is crystal clear...who needs help interpreting the law anyway? Seriously though, I do agree with you when you say that you don't get it. You upset bro? In case you're not aware - you're debating a question not asked. Which is whether someone should carry there. In THIS thread, we are discussing a sign which does not follow the law. I'm curious - if someone purposefully tested this law, and DID carry there. And was arrested. Whose side would you be on? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2014 11:52:50 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You upset bro? In case you're not aware - you're debating a question not asked. Which is whether someone should carry there. In THIS thread, we are discussing a sign which does not follow the law. I'm curious - if someone purposefully tested this law, and DID carry there. And was arrested. Whose side would you be on? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't get some of the posts here. In this forum we have dissected law very very carefully on several occasions. One that comes to mind is the carrying of an illegal knife by a CHL holder, while carrying a pistol. The law says what it says. The use of the word "identical" seems, to me, to be very clear. The text on the sign is not identical - both in words and punctuation. Are we really going to debate the definition of the word "identical?" I guess you're right...it's clearly not even debatable. YOU go right on ahead and carry there with supreme confidence. No reasonable person, whether he be officer, prosecutor, judge, or jury member could possibly disagree with you. In fact...the law always says what it says. Hey, why do lawyers and courts even exist? Perhaps we should just abolish the judicial branch while we are at it. The law is crystal clear...who needs help interpreting the law anyway? Seriously though, I do agree with you when you say that you don't get it. You upset bro? In case you're not aware - you're debating a question not asked. Which is whether someone should carry there. In THIS thread, we are discussing a sign which does not follow the law. I'm curious - if someone purposefully tested this law, and DID carry there. And was arrested. Whose side would you be on? No, I'm not upset. Given the chance I'd much rather represent the armed citizen, but I fear that the case would be a dog. Technicalities are not always as useful as TV makes them appear. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
