Contrasting Colors?

[roadkill]

It's not on the door. It's on the glass by the door. The door moves behind the signs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dawico]

My problem isn't the contrast, it's the damned moving text as the door opens and closes. How am I supposed to read that when it's constantly moving back and forth? Plus, when the door is in the 'open' position you can't read it at all because they have a big trashcan blocking the view.

Do you really need to read it?

I doubt a company would go through that much trouble to put up a sign without it being valid because of one missing word.

 

[Lipps]

It's not on the door. It's on the glass by the door. The door moves behind the signs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mea Culpa. You are correct. I just returned from my HEB and saw that the sign is not on the door, but the glass beside it. A couple of days ago I was walking in the store and noticed the sign. The doors were opening and closing. On looking closer today I noticed that the aluminum door frames that move with the door wash out the white letters giving the illusion that the words are moving. I also noticed that depending on the angle you are looking if there is a white or silver object behind the glass (such as a white floor) the letters are, in fact, difficult to see.

 

[Lipps]

Do you really need to read it?

Yes.

 

[fishingsetx]

That's an interesting point. Most 30.06 signs I've seen are invalid. CHL holders have been carrying past them unbeknownst to the business owners for years. The owners feel safe and the CHL holders remain legally armed. Now that some people may choose to OC past an invalid sign the business owner may notice this and decide to take action.

These are the cases that will interest me. As far as i know, the valid/invalid sign delima has never been hashed out in court because concealed carry is what it is. I have been saying for a while now that 30.07 and OC are going to bring some interesting cases in the near future.

Or they may not bring any cases at all considering in about 12 hrs, it will be a class C instead of a class A misdemenor. I cant see anyone in their right mind refusing to leave after being verbally notified risking not only their freedom for a short while but also their CHL (LTC) for at least the next 5 years.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[majormadmax]

I cant see anyone in their right mind refusing to leave after being verbally notified risking not only their freedom for a short while but also their CHL (LTC) for at least the next 5 years.

Bingo!

 

[Caliber]

I'm not saying I have the answer, but it's just fun to debate the issue.

The law states, "...appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height".

Note that the word "colors" is plural. To me, that means that the letters and the background must be contrasting colors. A court judge my look up the definition of "contrast". Read the information below. I don't see how letters of ANY color contrast with clear (glass). What is less contrasting than clear?

Here's Merriam-Webster information regarding "contrast":

to be different especially in a way that is very obvious
to compare (two people or things) to show how they are different
Examples of contrast

• Her black dress and the white background contrast sharply.
  
  

 

[BRD@66]

I'm not saying I have the answer, but it's just fun to debate the issue.

The law states, "...appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height".

Note that the word "colors" is plural. To me, that means that the letters and the background must be contrasting colors. A court judge my look up the definition of "contrast". Read the information below. I don't see how letters of ANY color contrast with clear (glass). What is less contrasting than clear?

Here's Merriam-Webster information regarding "contrast":

to be different especially in a way that is very obvious
to compare (two people or things) to show how they are different
Examples of contrast

• Her black dress and the white background contrast sharply.
  
  

I'm sorry to say, but the position that you apparently want is already (over) filled in this group

 

[Bithabus]

I'm not saying I have the answer, but it's just fun to debate the issue.

The law states, "...appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height".

Note that the word "colors" is plural. To me, that means that the letters and the background must be contrasting colors. A court judge my look up the definition of "contrast". Read the information below. I don't see how letters of ANY color contrast with clear (glass). What is less contrasting than clear?

Here's Merriam-Webster information regarding "contrast":

to be different especially in a way that is very obvious
to compare (two people or things) to show how they are different
Examples of contrast

• Her black dress and the white background contrast sharply.
  
  

If the glass was clear people would be walking into it. Can you tell there is glass there? Then it has color.

 

[Caliber]

If the glass was clear people would be walking into it. Can you tell there is glass there? Then it has color.

My sister, at a young age, ran through a sliding glass door at my aunt's house. So, there's an actual example of not being able to see glass. Yes, it was very bloody...

 

[Bithabus]

Indeed, some glass is clear. But most glass isn't.

 

[TX69]

These are the cases that will interest me. As far as i know, the valid/invalid sign delima has never been hashed out in court because concealed carry is what it is. I have been saying for a while now that 30.07 and OC are going to bring some interesting cases in the near future.

Or they may not bring any cases at all considering in about 12 hrs, it will be a class C instead of a class A misdemenor. I cant see anyone in their right mind refusing to leave after being verbally notified risking not only their freedom for a short while but also their CHL (LTC) for at least the next 5 years.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

This^^^ No retail establishment, or for that matter, ANY store should be worth your freedom over a fucking sign. (Not talking about you Fish just people in general) You're fighting the fight on the wrong front. If you really want to have these companies take a hit for posting these signs go after their advertisers and the products that they sell. The negative publicity (if large enough) is what they are afraid of far more than some guy that refuses to read the signs or feels the need to point out some word is missing. Take a note from Matefrio's book and pay attention since you might get stuffed and you won't beat the ride. If you feel that strongly about some place selling goods that has posted signs get a bunch of friends together (or some group) and go out and protest in front of the store.

Above all don't land your dumbass in jail.....

 

[bones_708]

That clear glass isn't a color and thus can't be contrasting is at best a hail Mary if you get busted and has about zero chance of any legal success. It seems obvious that the law was meant to preclude a "subdued " sign where the letters are only slightly different colors from the backing. Just because glass is clear doesn't mean the lettering isn't clear as can be. If there is a problem with the sign not being obvious enough or what have you then a claim about the lettering color or colors on the far side making the lettering blend in might make sense. Going on about clear glass make a poor impression like another gun nut is trying to get around the law.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Do you really need to read it?

I doubt a company would go through that much trouble to put up a sign without it being valid because of one missing word.

I find myself reading them looking for errors, just for my own satisfaction....

 

[TheDan]

My sister, at a young age, ran through a sliding glass door at my aunt's house. So, there's an actual example of not being able to see glass.

Reminded me of this...

 

[KiloKilo]

Conspicuous, contrast, clear glass, light background, moving doors....??



Sent from the dark side of the moon using Tapatalk

 

[mrgoodfellow]

I have been carrying at my local HEB for about 6 months now. I usually carry concealed but I have, on occasion, carried openly. Anytime I carried openly I did so without any issue or confrontation.

Today I went to HEB. I was not carrying and left my pistol in the car for once. While checking out, I was asked for ID (I thought it was a joke at first) for the beer I was purchasing. I pulled out my wallet and realized I had left my drivers license in the car. As an alternative I provided the clerk with my Concealed Handgun License.

Well, the clerk seemed to think this was an issue and loudly proclaimed "This isn't an ID, this is a Concealed Handgun License" and proceeded to loudly ask the employees around him "Do we take a 'Concealed Handgun License'"
Well, I calmly explained to him it was a valid form of Texas ID and should be acceptable under TABC. He disagreed and went to ask his manager. When he returned, he asked me to validate my date of birth, which I did, and then (finally) accepted my form of ID. At this point, I was very much regretting leaving my drivers license in the car.

Then, as he checked out my groceries, he (loudly) asked me "Are you carrying right now"

Well, I wasn't, but I could have been. I responded accordingly. He then continued: "If you are carrying you have to leave now."

Well, I begged to differ as I have openly carried at this location before and have never seen a 30.06 or 30.07 sign outside. He claimed they did have a sign and that I could neither conceal or openly carry a weapon in the store.

Thinking the sign he was explaining was the typical "Unlicensed possession" sign I explained that to him and explained that a place of business must place a 30.06 or 30.07 sign at every entrance to enforce such a restriction.

I also made sure to explain to him (and those around me who were listening quite intently to our discussion) that he, and everyone in the store was safe when I'm there carrying concealed.

He followed this up with "Well, I just carry a knife."

Funny, I carry a knife too.

With cart loaded and kiddo in tow, I decided to go on my merry way. I walked out the entrance and turned around to look for the 30.06 or 30.07 wondering if I had somehow missed seeing it all those times before...

And then, there it was... plain as white-on-white. Thin white letters on clear glass in front of a white floor. Tucked away down near the ground, well out of plain view.

Had I missed it before? Did they only recently add this addition? How had I not seen it all those other times, for months and months of open and concealed carry....

The answer is simple... NO CONTRASTING COLORS.

(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 at each entrance to the property.

So how difficult would it be to explain this reasonable doubt to a jury???
Well, I'd be happy to share my story at your court hearing.

In the meantime, there was only a 30.07 sign (no 30.06) so I will continue to conceal carry at this location (the clerk is an idiot) but should I feel the urge to carry my pistol openly... I will be sure to do so at a grocery store that will allow me.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.30.htm

 

[Mreed911]

Under the dictionary difference in contrast, it meets the requirements. You're welcome to help test that in court if you have the resources.

if it's discernible then by definition there's enough contrast to discern it.

 

[Maverick44]

I know it's a pic and that takes away from what you would actually see in person. I have a hard time calling it contrasting in my pic especially given that I'm not that far away from the signs when I took the pic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It took me a minute to actually find the damn sign. I wouldn't want to be the one to take it to court, but I think someone would have a good defense against a sign like that.

 

[Maverick44]

Not at all. The sign has to be a contrasting color. If it's visible, by definition, it's contrasted, strictly meaning there's a degree of noticeable difference. How much difference and how much more notable is up for argument.

It's a defense to prosecution, so if you're willing to spend the money the defense is yours to argue. You also have to find 12 people that couldn't get out of jury duty to agree with you that "visible" isn't the same as "contrasting."

Would a pure white background with ivory lettering be ok then? After all, those colors are noticeably different.

I agree that the main argument here is the degree of contrast. They really should have made it mandatory that it be a white sign with black letters to avoid all confusion.