CCL question

[Puggy625]

I have always been of the opinion that if it is concealed, then they will not know unless I need it. At which point I will take a trespass ticket in exchange for staying alive.

This.....

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[tvc184]

They do actually cite to 30.07 in the sign

Yeah, they cite 30.06 and 30.07 in the same statement.

There is one valid sign for 30.06 and one for 30.07.

Basically it says in order to comply with 30.06 you can’t enter with a visible handgun under 30.07.

To which I say…. Huh?

[mikebyrge]

Where is that if you don’t mind sharing?

[Bullseye07]

Basically it says in order to comply with 30.06 you can’t enter with a visible handgun under 30.07.

To which I say…. Huh?

It doesn’t state that. It’s the 30.06 statement and then the 30.07 statement.

I think it’s legally enforceable unless the law states that you must have the Spanish translation immediately follow the English. Ie: 30.06 E , 30.06 S then 30.07 E, 30.07 S.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LWD]

I agree with TVC. They’ve conflated the two sections. No prosecutor with a brain would try to prosecute a violation of this sign.

[softpoint]

I've seen a sign a lot like that at a liquor store. Rather than test it, I figured even if it wasn't technically legit, it DID convey their intent. So I just went a bit further down the road to Spec's, Spec's is cheaper anyway, I've heard since. I don't give my business to anti-rights groups willingly...

[coker737]

Concealed IS Concealed.........

[Cola Blanca]

If it is at a liquor store or bar where more than 51% of revenue is made from the sale of alchohol then it is legal ....you can't carry at a place where alchohol is the primary source of income...........I think.......but the bad guy don't care about the sign so neither do I

[tvc184]

It doesn’t state that. It’s the 30.06 statement and then the 30.07 statement.

I think it’s legally enforceable unless the law states that you must have the Spanish translation immediately follow the English. Ie: 30.06 E , 30.06 S then 30.07 E, 30.07 S.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with TVC. They’ve conflated the two sections. No prosecutor with a brain would try to prosecute a violation of this sign.

After reading it about 3 more times….

The sign is invalid for a concealed handgun but “may be” valid for prohibiting open carry with an LTC.

The most confusing thing (which could potentially negate the entire warning) is that 30.06 and 30.07 are different and stand alone laws. One doesn’t depend on the other. One doesn’t refer to the other.

30.06 by law should read word for word:
30.06 in English
30.06 in Spanish

30.07 by law should read word for word:
30.07 in English
30.07 in Spanish

This sign doesn’t do that. The (at least to me) confusing part is that it goes straight from 30.06 to 30.07 in English. That is not the way the law is written. It then does the same in Spanish. It jams two separate laws into a single paragraph that is not followed directly by Spanish with each law separately. I will concede that the wording is “mostly” correct but it is difficult to decipher the way they are jammed together.

However…..

The 30.06 part appears to be invalid anyway.

The conclusion in the mandatory warning in 30.06 should read:
“may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"

On the sign it reads:
“may not enter this property with a handgun"

Oops, it appears that in their wisdom to slap two laws together, they forgot the word “concealed” in the 30.06 warning. It is definitely not identical as required.

So we still need a test case to see if the jamming of two laws into one invalidates the entire sign.

[tvc184]

If it is at a liquor store or bar where more than 51% of revenue is made from the sale of alchohol then it is legal ....you can't carry at a place where alchohol is the primary source of income...........I think.......but the bad guy don't care about the sign so neither do I

The bad guy doesn’t mind risking 10 years in the hoosegow.

Do you?

[Greenheadless]

If it is at a liquor store or bar where more than 51% of revenue is made from the sale of alchohol then it is legal ....you can't carry at a place where alchohol is the primary source of income...........I think.......but the bad guy don't care about the sign so neither do I

There’s a sign for that and it is not represented here.

[Bullseye07]

After reading it about 3 more times….

The sign is invalid for a concealed handgun but “may be” valid for prohibiting open carry with an LTC.

The most confusing thing (which could potentially negate the entire warning) is that 30.06 and 30.07 are different and stand alone laws. One doesn’t depend on the other. One doesn’t refer to the other.

30.06 by law should read word for word:
30.06 in English
30.06 in Spanish

30.07 by law should read word for word:
30.07 in English
30.07 in Spanish

This sign doesn’t do that. The (at least to me) confusing part is that it goes straight from 30.06 to 30.07 in English. That is not the way the law is written. It then does the same in Spanish. It jams two separate laws into a single paragraph that is not followed directly by Spanish with each law separately. I will concede that the wording is “mostly” correct but it is difficult to decipher the way they are jammed together.

However…..

The 30.06 part appears to be invalid anyway.

The conclusion in the mandatory warning in 30.06 should read:
“may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"

On the sign it reads:
“may not enter this property with a handgun"

Oops, it appears that in their wisdom to slap two laws together, they forgot the word “concealed” in the 30.06 warning. It is definitely not identical as required.

So we still need a test case to see if the jamming of two laws into one invalidates the entire sign.

This I agree with. They missed the “concealed” on 30.06 therefore making it unenforceable.

This was done by someone trying to save some money by having a vinyl shop print this to the size they wanted instead of buying the readily available and correct 30.06 and 30.07 signage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Leverhunter]

Probably not technically legal but may be close enough to cost you some legal fees if it creates an issue.

[Geezy Rider]

If it is at a liquor store or bar where more than 51% of revenue is made from the sale of alchohol then it is legal ....you can't carry at a place where alchohol is the primary source of income...........I think.......but the bad guy don't care about the sign so neither do I

I believe the 51% sign only applies to on site consumption of alcohol. I’ve never seen one at a liquor store.

But that brings up an interesting scenario. You are at a restaurant or venue that does not post a 51% sign at the door but there is one at the bar. The restroom is by the bar at you must pass by the bar to get to it. How does the law see that?

[IDFWU]

Where is that if you don’t mind sharing?

whole foods