Church Sign Question

[Lonesome Dove]

I've been told that God comes to those who gather and no Church building behind closed doors is needed to worship. Takes it to a whole new level of Safety and peace of mind. Just an option.

 

[benenglish]

It is indisputable notice was provided to OP and he received notice.

It is indisputable that notice has been provided to me and I received it at a couple of doctors offices that use those little stand-up signs on the reception desks with letters 1/4" high, at a bookstore that uses a picture of a gun in a circle with a line through it, and buried in the masses of informational pamphlets that I'm provided (but don't sign for) at various medical clinics.

It's also indisputable that all those notices are legally insufficient and I ignore them.

To take a different tack -

Why can't we take the charitable view of this situation?

Maybe the pastor got some flak from some busybodies in the congregation who didn't want those scary guns in the building so he looked into his heart, into the law, and re-read John 2:15. Then he decided to put some legally unenforceable language in the morning announcements and in fine print in the bulletin just to shut them up and get on with his more important work. That sounds to me like a good middle ground where the antis get to feel like they won and all the educated LTC holders know to just remember that concealed means concealed.

Wouldn't that make everybody happy?

 

[Eastexasrick]

provides (third person present)

1. make available for use; supply:

The Statue reads Provided to the person, not " provides". A Statue is synonymous to a contract of adhesion, you do not change the wording, or even the punctuation. It is never liberally construed, more especially to the writer.

 

[General Zod]

provides (third person present)

1. make available for use; supply:

Legal definition of "Provide notice": The formal receipt of papers that provide specific information.

Formal receipt and specific information are both missing from your mental gymnastics. A general handout does not meet the definition.

 

[General Zod]

Yes I am desperate to know who wants to deny me carry rights so I can go elsewhere with my money.

Tell me, what's the cover charge at your church?

 

[Renegade]

The Statue reads Provided to the person, not " provides". A Statue is synonymous to a contract of adhesion, you do not change the wording, or even the punctuation. It is never liberally construed, more especially to the writer.

Again as I stated earlier, OP needs to clarify how the bulletin was provided to him.

 

[Renegade]

Tell me, what's the cover charge at your church?

10% For The Big Man.

 

[Renegade]

Legal definition of "Provide notice": The formal receipt of papers that provide specific information.

Formal receipt and specific information are both missing from your mental gymnastics. A general handout does not meet the definition.

Now you are just making stuff up.

 

[alternative]

How such a simple question by the op can draw so many different opinions shows how vague and misunderstood many of our laws are. Everyone is parsing "provide" and what a legal written notice is. Here we have knowledgeable people that are having difficulty agreeing on the answer to op's question.

Op needs to sort this one out for himself.

 

[General Zod]

Now you are just making stuff up.

No, in fact I'm not. I'm looking stuff up from legal libraries online. You should try it, you might learn something.

 

[Renegade]

Why can't we take the charitable view of this situation?

Cause OP did not ask for interpretation he wanted, he wanted to know if he is at risk of violation.

Given the limited scenario OP provided, I would argue if he strolled in with an AR-15 on his back he would then be given legal verbal notice. Probably also if he OC'ed a Glock on his hip. A CC piece might depend on who caught him and how well they knew him.

So yes, there is risk of violation.

 

[benenglish]

how vague and misunderstood many of our laws are.

Yes.

Op needs to sort this one out for himself.

And yes.

Sometimes we forget that we agree on a lot more than we disagree on around here. That's a shame. Kudos to you for pointing out obvious common ground. Love to see that.

 

[General Zod]

Given the limited scenario OP provided, I would argue if he strolled in with an AR-15 on his back he would then be given legal verbal notice. Probably also if he OC'ed a Glock on his hip. A CC piece might depend on who caught him and how well they knew him.

Now who's making stuff up?

 

[benenglish]

he wanted to know if he is at risk of violation.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that no matter what anyone on this thread has argued or how much they seem to be in disagreement with others, pretty much everyone agrees that the risk is so negligible as to be effectively nonexistent.

 

[Renegade]

How such a simple question by the op can draw so many different opinions shows how vague and misunderstood many of our laws are.

Correct and this one does not have a lot of Case Law for it.

Keep in mind you can have different outcomes for identical situations, since in the end, juries decide.

 

[Renegade]

Now who's making stuff up?

Nothing is made up. OP did not limit his inquiry to concealed handguns.

"the pastor announced at the beginning of the service for three Sundays in a row no guns in church."

He covered all the statutes, 05/06/07. Note I also covered them from obvious to not obvious form of carry.

 

[Renegade]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that no matter what anyone on this thread has argued or how much they seem to be in disagreement with others, pretty much everyone agrees that the risk is so negligible as to be effectively nonexistent.

It is pretty hard, especially with the changes a few years a back.

 

[Axxe55]

innocent until proven guilty!

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Why are innocent people thrown in the back of police cars.

 

[Eastexasrick]

How such a simple question by the op can draw so many different opinions shows how vague and misunderstood many of our laws are.

Correct. Thats why there are so many Attorneys, who bill for what for the common man would consider obscene sums, to " cast the best light" on their client's case.

I cannot remember the cite but about 20 years ago a Texas Supreme Court case, where it was discovered the plaintiff atty "grossly manipulated the facts in his client's deposition", the atty was not sanctioned.

It was allowed as he was just casting the best light on his client's case.