30.06 sign issue at Sprouts

[WCB]

We seem to not understand the word contrast.

con·trast
noun
ˈkänˌtrast/
1. the state of being strikingly different from something else

How can white letters and black letters both be contrasting on the same background?

Background of the sign looks clear to me. Wouldn't contrasting be something like a white background with black letters? Not something as subjective or ever changing as a floor mat or shelve behing the sign...

[hoythitman]

We seem to not understand the word contrast.

con·trast
noun
ˈkänˌtrast/
1. the state of being strikingly different from something else

How can white letters and black letters both be contrasting on the same background?

The white lettering is over a green background so that clears that up. If there was no contrast you wouldn't be able to easily read it. Its easily readable. People keep playing devils advocate and I get it. Literally my job, look from every angle, find the loophole. This particular scenario, wood shelf blocking majority of it so not legal. However move the wood and I can easily read the signage, there fore have notice and I would be breaking the law if I entered.

[hoythitman]

Background of the sign looks clear to me. Wouldn't contrasting be something like a white background with black letters? Not something as subjective or ever changing as a floor mat or shelve behing the sign...

Yes black on white or opposite is better, but if you can read it its binding. Not at work so can't ask anyone there, thanks for the smart *** ness in the PM. Like I've said before if anyone is so confident that the letters aren't contrasting, feel free to let a police officer show up and charge you so we can see how it plays in front of a jury. If you aren't willing to do so then clearly you are under the impression that the sign is legal and you'd be SOL.

[hoythitman]

And I'm not suggesting for anyone to ignore anything. Do what you think is right.

At Love Field Airport a few years ago I noticed their signage on the entrance. The law says I can carry in an airport but not into secured area. The sign was an old sign and nothing near a 30.06. I ask a LEO inside, and stated I was not carring, and he told me he would arrest me and let the judge figure it out. I'm sorry, but that is an assinine answer from a LEO. A not legal sign and he would arrest me anyway?? Let the judge figure it out?? They work for me. Not me for them...

If only it worked that way. To charge on that he'd ask a supervisor. Sup would say heck no. Other avenue is clear it with a prosecutor, they can read and would say no. He was talking out his ***.

[WCB]

Whoa there cowboy. That wasn't a smart *** PM. The lawyer comment was a pure and simple joke. Nothing more, nothing less. Unwad them Victoria's... Another joke.
I know what I will do or not do if I see that a shop owner doesn't want guns in THEIR place. Simply asking about the way I thought I understood the law surrounding the 30.06 signage. I "thought" the sign itself had to be contrasting colors. You clarified that the law says nothing about the sign itself has to be contrasting but just as long as one can read it. Sometimes... I do agree it's a problem having it covered by shelving.
Sorry for misinterpreting the 30.06 as meaning contrasting colors of the sign.

[WCB]

And just to clarify, the lawyer comment was in quotes and had a big smiley. Purely meant as a joking comment.

[hoythitman]

Whoa there cowboy. That wasn't a smart *** PM. The lawyer comment was a pure and simple joke. Nothing more, nothing less. Unwad them Victoria's... Another joke.
I know what I will do or not do if I see that a shop owner doesn't want guns in THEIR place. Simply asking about the way I thought I understood the law surrounding the 30.06 signage. I "thought" the sign itself had to be contrasting colors. You clarified that the law says nothing about the sign itself has to be contrasting but just as long as one can read it. Sometimes... I do agree it's a problem having it covered by shelving.
Sorry for misinterpreting the 30.06 as meaning contrasting colors of the sign.

Most of the other PM's, had something to do with me making up the attorneys. So look it the same as those. And the contrasting colors part is in the law. Its the interpretation of what contrasting colors are is where this entire argument is coming from. Black letters on clear glass is contrasting. Is it the best contrast, absolutely not. My very first comment said dont hang your hat not the contrasting color argument the wood shelf was better. Then people ran with it. Contrasting to me, a west law search, and a handful of attorneys was if it is clearly discernible. And this, clearly, since you can read it, is discernible. But I'm open to sitting in a court room if someone else is strong enough in their convictions to test it. I'd love to watch the case unfold in a court room. Again, dont think anyone will be dumb enough to try, just to be a keyboard warrior.

[WCB]

Didn't even think about you receiving any other PMs. Figured I was the only one dumb enough to do that. Most of the time I think I'm funny. The lawyer comment really was only meant as a joke. Any lawyers up this late are drinking scotch and smoking cigars. Any have an intern or 2 around...

[hoythitman]

Didn't even think about you receiving any other PMs. Figured I was the only one dumb enough to do that. Most of the time I think I'm funny. The lawyer comment really was only meant as a joke. Any lawyers up this late are drinking scotch and smoking cigars. Any have an intern or 2 around...

As I read this and sip my scotch..
not a lawyer yet though, just train them. lol

[tvc184]

And I'm not suggesting for anyone to ignore anything. Do what you think is right.

At Love Field Airport a few years ago I noticed their signage on the entrance. The law says I can carry in an airport but not into secured area. The sign was an old sign and nothing near a 30.06. I ask a LEO inside, and stated I was not carring, and he told me he would arrest me and let the judge figure it out. I'm sorry, but that is an assinine answer from a LEO. A not legal sign and he would arrest me anyway?? Let the judge figure it out?? They work for me. Not me for them...

Way back in post #8 of this thread, I said that the sign was not legal. I will stick with that opinion.

All trespassing laws require that you have been giving "notice" that being on the property without permission was forbidden. Under "written notice" for 30.06 is states exactly what the words must say verbatim and it states that it has to be in black letters on a contrasting background. I see no room for interpretation that clear glass is a "contrasting background". In fact it is no background at all.

It is not like it is a defense to prosecution where an officer can make an arrest and you can later claim a defense in court. Trespassing clearly says that a warning must be given and states exactly what those warnings are. For example under Criminal Trespass, notice of forbidden entry in a wooded area can be purple paint on trees between 3 and 5 feet from the ground. If you are in the woods and see white paint, legally it is meaningless. I don't expect an officer to arrest you for trespassing and say, "let a judge figure it out". The law is very specific on what the "notice" must be. Under 30.06 Trespass By CHL Holder..... that specific "notice" is stated and clear glass doesn't fit, period. To me it would be an unlawful arrest and opens the officer and his agency up for a potential lawsuit.

What would be legal is for the owner to ask you to leave verbally with or without the invalid sign.

[LWD]

TVC is correct. I don't think it's ever been litigated, but the letters stuck on glass doesn't seem to meet the contrasting background requirement. Maybe property owners just don't want to muddy up their pretty storefront? And even if TVC's not correct, the varying light conditions behind the glass would render the letters not contrasting at times and the sign not conspicuous. And that's before addressing the sign's low placement and obstruction by a display.

Remember, this is Texas. Most prosecutors and law enforcement officers aren't looking to jack someone over such a poorly designed and placed sign like this.


LWD

[retrieverman]

I've known the owner of Sprouts all my life and am FB friends with him now. He's a great guy and is from Nacogdoches. I'll PM him and see what he says about the signs. As a CHL holder since 1996, I'm curious as to why businesses choose to refuse my patronage by posting these signs.

[WCB]

If I went in anyway the only way anyone would know would be if I had to draw my gun or needed emergency medical care. At that point trespass would not be that big of a concern. Usually I'll turn around and leave. Couple of times I've returned my gun to the safe and went ahead and shopped although not happily. That'll show'em...
But, for some reason, I try to obey the law. Even if I believe it's asinine.

[fishingsetx]

I've known the owner of Sprouts all my life and am FB friends with him now. He's a great guy and is from Nacogdoches. I'll PM him and see what he says about the signs. As a CHL holder since 1996, I'm curious as to why businesses choose to refuse my patronage by posting these signs.

If that is the case, I'd be really interested to hear his response! Tagged!

[SB09]

TVC is correct. I don't think it's ever been litigated, but the letters stuck on glass doesn't seem to meet the contrasting background requirement. Maybe property owners just don't want to muddy up their pretty storefront? And even if TVC's not correct, the varying light conditions behind the glass would render the letters not contrasting at times and the sign not conspicuous. And that's before addressing the sign's low placement and obstruction by a display.

Remember, this is Texas. Most prosecutors and law enforcement officers aren't looking to jack someone over such a poorly designed and placed sign like this.


LWD

Where have you and tvc been until now?!? I had to go against 19 lawyers by myself.

I respect their opinions and everything. But they didn't get the entire story or see the picture posted. If they did and still came up with that being a legal sign I may encourage them to research the law a bit more. My point was the entire sign had to be legal at all angles. Not just most, all. If that wasn't the case they could post it on the ceiling and say, "Well, when you get at this angle at 2pm on a sunny day you can see the sign. Therefore, it's legal notice."