30.06 sign issue at Sprouts

[SB09]

The only letters obstructed by the mat are the Spanish ones. And it all depends on the angle you are standing. In court you take all pics at an angle where the tan wall is the backdrop and your argument is invalid. Coming from a background in LE and now at a law firm if I were arguing the case I wouldn't use the lettering as my argument. Id use the wooden shelving that's blocking half of the sign.

Legal arguments do a lot of things but make sense usually isn't one of the things they do. As prosecutor it is this simple. "ladies and gents of the jury, how are you today? That's great, we are here to discuss one thing and one thing only, blah blah blah. Argument on how you broke the law. Now ladies and gentlemen clear glass such as this (showing a pic from an angle where all tan or white in background. What color comes to mind as a contrasting color? Maybe black, what contrasts this light tan or white background better than Black." argument over you get charged.

What you mention in your first statement is all it takes. It is the prosecution's burden to prove, without a doubt, that you were guilty of entering that establishment with proper notice not to. If there's an angle, just like the one pictured, that shows otherwise that isn't a, without a doubt, scenario anymore. You're right on the shelving. It is the biggest problem with the signage as pictured. But, it serves the exact same function as the lettering color vs. background problem does. All these factors have to meet for the sign to be legal. Not some, not most, all of them. The reason the law on the 30.06 sign is so specific is to keep your exact argument from happening. Well, if you stand on your head on a cloudy day and close your right eye then you get contrasting background. Sorry, that's not a legal sign. There is a questionable element to this sign without the shelving being placed there. Therefore, the law is not valid because Sprouts met most of the requirements, but not all.

If you were a prosecutor in court and you used your first statement you would torpedo your own case. If you were a defense attorney in court and used your first statement you would effectively win the case right then and there because the legal obligations of the business would have not been met at that point. This is an all or nothing type deal.

[hoythitman]

What you mention in your first statement is all it takes. It is the prosecution's burden to prove, without a doubt, that you were guilty of entering that establishment with proper notice not to. If there's an angle, just like the one pictured, that shows otherwise that isn't a, without a doubt, scenario anymore. You're right on the shelving. It is the biggest problem with the signage as pictured. But, it serves the exact same function as the lettering color vs. background problem does. All these factors have to meet for the sign to be legal. Not some, not most, all of them. The reason the law on the 30.06 sign is so specific is to keep your exact argument from happening. Well, if you stand on your head on a cloudy day and close your right eye then you get contrasting background. Sorry, that's not a legal sign. There is a questionable element to this sign without the shelving being placed there. Therefore, the law is not valid because Sprouts met most of the requirements, but not all.

If you were a prosecutor in court and you used your first statement you would torpedo your own case. If you were a defense attorney in court and used your first statement you would effectively win the case right then and there because the legal obligations of the business would have not been met at that point. This is an all or nothing type deal.

I think you are giving people some bad info. Weather its clear in your opinion or not, weather the letters in your opinion are not contrasting enough could cause someone to think its ok if the letters don't stand out with bright red on a yellow background. The letters do contrast, they are the correct size, and without the shelving are clearly visible.

In contrasting colors;
With block letters;
Having text 1" or greater in height;
Containing "identical" text 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"[11]

In both English and Spanish;
Posted conspicuously and "clearly visible to the public".



Here is the law as read from the code. This particular sign meets these standards, it is the shelving that makes it a non valid posting.

[SB09]

Look at the picture. Imagine the shelf is not there. How are those lower letter contrasting to their background? They're not. If they were white against the black mat, okay I get it. Not black against a black floor mat.


How is the area boxed in yellow supposed to be contrasting?

[SwampRabbit]

All of this legal "what if" argument is moot since you saw the sign. If you see the sign, you are not likely to win the argument that it wasn't posted properly and therefore you were within the right to keep on trucking. If you didn't see the sign and you got busted and the sign wasn't properly posted, you have an argument.

Like I told my wife when I got back from locking up the gun in the truck at IKEA, I wish I hadn't gone ot of my way to see the sign. I was walking in and all I could see was the no gun sign. But I saw this black sticker towards the side of the building, I stopped and leaned over and BAM! there it was. She was already in the revolving door and I told her I needed to go back to the truck. She knew what that meant... same thing happened at the childeren's museum, etc.

Since I saw the sign, even though 75-90% of the time you couldn't be expected to, I was personally notified and had no choice but to comply.

I am not sure what telling the business owner how to properly post it buys you?

[hoythitman]

Not trying to be a **** but always air on the side that doesn't make you a criminal. If its posted, in block letters 1" and clearly visible. Unless it is not contrasting at all. As in black sticker on black solid background. DO NOT GO IN.

[hoythitman]

Look at the picture. Imagine the shelf is not there. How are those lower letter contrasting to their background? They're not. If they were white against the black mat, okay I get it. Not black against a black floor mat.

From our conversation I will assume that you speak and read English. I can read the English part with no problems. Literally the only thing in the English section that in these pictures is not visible is part of the "P" on the lower left part of the English section. That sir is contrasting enough against the background, which in this case is tan for 99% of the English section. you go in there, something goes wrong, your gun is seen. You are a criminal. If you want to test it, feel free, tell us how it works out, but I'd strongly advise against it.

[SB09]

I am not sure what telling the business owner how to properly post it buys you?

Nothing at all. It just gives them information to actually post a legal sign. I wouldn't ever want to notify a store of a sign that doesn't meet the proper requirements.

[SB09]

From our conversation I will assume that you speak and read English. I can read the English part with no problems. Literally the only thing in the English section that in these pictures is not visible is part of the "P" on the lower left part of the English section. That sir is contrasting enough against the background, which in this case is tan for 99% of the English section. you go in there, something goes wrong, your gun is seen. You are a criminal. If you want to test it, feel free, tell us how it works out, but I'd strongly advise against it.

So, if a business posts the sign in just English we are still supposed to adhere to it? That law states in Spanish and English. If the Spanish part isn't able to be seen it doesn't meet all the requirements in my opinion. You're still basing your opinion on that most of the requirements of a properly posted 30.06 sign are met for it to be proper notice. That's simply not the case. If one of the laws requirements isn't met, which would be the Spanish part being in contrasting colors relative to it's background, it disqualifies the sign as proper notice. Doesn't matter if you can read English, Spanish or whatever language. There isn't anything written in the law saying a sign is contrasting enough when the English part is visible to an English speaking CHL carrier. If there was, I would agree this sign is effective notice.

[SB09]

Not trying to be a **** but always air on the side that doesn't make you a criminal.

No disagreement there. Had I of seen this sign at Sprouts I would have just simply never entered the property.

[hoythitman]

So, if a business posts the sign in just English we are still supposed to adhere to it? That law states in Spanish and English. If the Spanish part isn't able to be seen it doesn't meet all the requirements in my opinion. You're still basing your opinion on that most of the requirements of a properly posted 30.06 sign are met for it to be proper notice. That's simply not the case. If one of the laws requirements isn't met, which would be the Spanish part being in contrasting colors relative to it's background, it disqualifies the sign as proper notice. Doesn't matter if you can read English, Spanish or whatever language. There isn't anything written in the law saying a sign is contrasting enough when the English part is visible to an English speaking CHL carrier. If there was, I would agree this sign is effective notice.

It has to be posted in both languages however you are considered notified if you can read it. Your argument is the entire sign is invalid if a portion that does not pertain to you is off somehow. And again its all in the angle, standing further away you can read the bottom with the floor mat not blending into it. If you can read it in English and are therefore notified. PERIOD. your argument loses your right to carry, catches you a fine, and probably some community service.

[hoythitman]

At this point I've asked 17 attorneys here in the office and all say that you are wrong. It is contrasting enough to read and are notified. Now we could all be wrong, but not one has taken your argument so I would say you get caught there and your SOL.

[125Dad]

Look at the picture. Imagine the shelf is not there. How are those lower letter contrasting to their background? They're not. If they were white against the black mat, okay I get it. Not black against a black floor mat.


How is the area boxed in yellow supposed to be contrasting?

Maybe they wanted the sign to be illegal so that everyone is happy.

You can still carry and the other folks think you can't. We all win

Yea back to shopping at sprouts oh wait I never stopped.

[SB09]

30.06 sign issue at Sprouts

I'm not interested in an attorneys opinion honestly. No offense to any of them. Simply put they don't make any decision in the courtroom. That's for a judge/jury to figure out. I'd be interested in seeing this run through a court system for sure. I can see we are going to disagree here.

[hoythitman]

I'm not interested in an attorneys opinion honestly. No offense to any of them. Simply put they don't make any decision in the courtroom. That's for a judge/jury to figure out. I'd be interested in seeing this run through a court system for sure. I can see we are going to disagree here.

So 17 experienced trial attorneys, one of which was a prosecutor, several were deputy prosecutors. A handful of old criminal defense attorneys, all of which say there is clearly notice and you are wrong.

I learned when I was young, if I wasn't an expert I listened to experts. I don't get where the argument is, if you can read it you are notified.

Your argument can literally get people into serious trouble. I can't stand when people aren't smart enough to step back. You sound like so many of my past "jailhouse lawyers" ie. inmates, in your argument. But there is one letter I cant clearly make out so it's cool if I don't follow that law.


All of this only pertaining to the contrasting color, by the way. I still think this particular instance the shelf blocks the sign and that is the argument that saves you. Not the lettering. Just wanted to clarify that.

[brrdnk]

It has to be posted in both languages however you are considered notified if you can read it. Your argument is the entire sign is invalid if a portion that does not pertain to you is off somehow. And again its all in the angle, standing further away you can read the bottom with the floor mat not blending into it. If you can read it in English and are therefore notified. PERIOD. your argument loses your right to carry, catches you a fine, and probably some community service.

Hence my point. They most certainly have the right to post the sign and while probably a legal sign its still hard to read and is partially blocked. So people need to be aware that inadvertently you could be breaking the law because Of not noticing it. They certainly could do a better job with the sign placement and design. The answer I got back from was boiler plate answer and from research has been around a couple of years. So no doubt it's their corporate stance.
Their stance does not make me feel safer in their store or parking lot.
There are plenty of other places to shop and I will but just be aware and pay closer attention to business nowadays.