Letter height doesn't matter??

[txjames]

There is a common understanding - or misunderstanding - that if a private property owner such as a business posts a 30.06 or 30.07, that if that sign doesn't meet the 1" requirement it is not considered valid and can be legally ignored.

I ate at Cherry Creek Catfish today and they have a 30.07 sheet of paper with about 3/4" letters printed on an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper.
I was carrying concealed, but I was curious and sought out the statute to read for myself.

In the paragraph that defines what "written communication" means, it says that the notice can be on a card or document that has the exact wording *OR* a sign with a minimum 1" letter height.

It is the word "or" at the end of paragraph A that bugs me in Section 30.06 (and same in 30.07). Is a document with the correct wording that is taped to a window a document or a sign? If it is document, then the size doesn't matter. I don't want my freedom to hinge on an officer's interpretation of what the word "or" there means!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DubiousDan]

With a 30.07 sign it doesn't matter to me because the owner has made his wishes known. If you are open carrying someone is likely to notice and ask you to leave in any case. With concealed carry I don't worry about non-compliant signs because they won't know I'm carrying anyway.

 

[Bithabus]

There is a common understanding - or misunderstanding - that if a private property owner such as a business posts a 30.06 or 30.07, that if that sign doesn't meet the 1" requirement it is not considered valid and can be legally ignored.

I ate at Cherry Creek Catfish today and they have a 30.07 sheet of paper with about 3/4" letters printed on an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper.
I was carrying concealed, but I was curious and sought out the statute to read for myself.

In the paragraph that defines what "written communication" means, it says that the notice can be on a card or document that has the exact wording *OR* a sign with a minimum 1" letter height.

It is the word "or" at the end of paragraph A that bugs me in Section 30.06 (and same in 30.07). Is a document with the correct wording that is taped to a window a document or a sign? If it is document, then the size doesn't matter. I don't want my freedom to hinge on an officer's interpretation of what the word "or" there means!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If it's a card or document it must be handed out to people.

 

[XinTX]

If it's a card or document it must be handed out to people.

That's my understanding as well. You can be charged with trespass if they have given "effective notice". To give effective notice they can either:
1: Tell you verbally. But not cost effective to tell everyone that walks into your business "You cannot CC or OC here."
2: Hand a customer a card or document or
3: Post a compliant sign.

 

[MikeyJ]

^^^ This. If the sign is non-compliant, then you have a defense to the trespass and other charges if the store owner calls the LEOs instead of asking you to leave.

 

[txjames]

This is all very helpful; I feel prepared for this issue now thanks to all your help. I agree with what people said, if I see a sign and know what the business owner intended, I'll respect their wishes and shop elsewhere anyway.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Dash Riprock]

Anybody else getting tired of worrying about all this 30.06/30.07 minutiae? It might have served a purpose at one time but now it's just silly.

Why can't we just have the business owner ask you to leave if he/she doesn't like guns?

 

[Bithabus]

^^^ This. If the sign is non-compliant, then you have a defense to the trespass and other charges if the store owner calls the LEOs instead of asking you to leave.

A non-compliant sign does not entitle a defense, rather it means that there was no offense committed. In other words, a non-compliant sign has the same effect as no sign at all.

 

[txjames]

Anybody else getting tired of worrying about all this 30.06/30.07 minutiae? It might have served a purpose at one time but now it's just silly.

Why can't we just have the business owner ask you to leave if he/she doesn't like guns?

People are in various stages of having to worry about it, for one based on how new they are to carrying. Thus, it may be old to some but new to others. The responses here helped me understand what I would say to an officer if I accidentally find myself being questioned behind a non-compliant sign. I hope it helps someone else too.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dash Riprock]

People are in various stages of having to worry about it, for one based on how new they are to carrying. Thus, it may be old to some but new to others. The responses here helped me understand what I would say to an officer if I accidentally find myself being questioned behind a non-compliant sign. I hope it helps someone else too.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Understood, and I apologize if my post came across as a slight at you or your thread in any way. It certainly wasn't intended as such and your questions are absolutely valid.

My only point, which would have probably been more appropriate in a different thread but this is the one that popped up when I logged in this morning, is that I and others are starting to seriously question whether the 30.06/30.07 mechanism has run its course. I never quite understood why we needed it to begin with, but that's another story I guess. Among other things, I just don't see why we can't put the onus on the business owner to ask you to leave if he's so offended by guns. That's how a lot of other states handle it, as I understand it.

Anyway, it is what it is and until that changes, we all need to understand the law so please continue to ask your questions.

 

[Southpaw]

People are in various stages of having to worry about it, for one based on how new they are to carrying. Thus, it may be old to some but new to others. The responses here helped me understand what I would say to an officer if I accidentally find myself being questioned behind a non-compliant sign. I hope it helps someone else too.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Though, even if it is non compliant any further contact will most likely amount to verbal notice.
It's your choice of course, but I just don't see CC or even OC getting arrested without being first asked to leave, at which point you just do and that be that.

 

[Charlie]

Minutiae abounds!

 

[Dash Riprock]

Though, even if it is non compliant any further contact will most likely amount to verbal notice.
It's your choice of course, but I just don't see CC or even OC getting arrested without being first asked to leave, at which point you just do and that be that.

Probably, but who knows? The Legislature reduced the penalty for carrying past a sign from a Class A to a Class C misdemeanor, I think. So yeah, that makes an arrest even more unlikely I would think.

To paraphrase Hillary, at this point, what difference does it make if there's a 30.06/30.07/51% blue sign/red sign whatever, or a gun buster? It's all gotten far too cumbersome and confusing, for no good reason that I can see.

 

[Charlie]

Probably, but who knows? The Legislature reduced the penalty for carrying past a sign from a Class A to a Class C misdemeanor, I think. So yeah, that makes an arrest even more unlikely I would think.

To paraphrase Hillary, at this point, what difference does it make if there's a 30.06/30.07/51% blue sign/red sign whatever, or a gun buster? It's all gotten far too cumbersome and confusing, for no good reason that I can see.

Probably to placate the liberals into thinking they have control of the situation!

 

[MikeyJ]

A non-compliant sign does not entitle a defense, rather it means that there was no offense committed. In other words, a non-compliant sign has the same effect as no sign at all.

If you're comfortable with that interpretation of the law, that's fine. The safer interpretation is: if you see the sign, you're aware of the wishes of the business owner. If you're aware of the wishes of the business owner and blow passed the sign, then you're trespassing. The business owner doesn't need to give you any notice before calling the LEOs. When the LEOs arrive, the fun starts.

 

[txjames]

Probably, but who knows? The Legislature reduced the penalty for carrying past a sign from a Class A to a Class C misdemeanor, I think. So yeah, that makes an arrest even more unlikely I would think.

To paraphrase Hillary, at this point, what difference does it make if there's a 30.06/30.07/51% blue sign/red sign whatever, or a gun buster? It's all gotten far too $#@!bersome and confusing, for no good reason that I can see.

Someone close to me who is licensed is very nervous to carry at all for fear of missing a sign. This is a very sane, reasonable, accurate, law abiding person I want carrying. With or without a sign, I would like to see the effective notice taken away and be limited to verbal trespass warning that you could immediately comply with with no penalty if you immediately comply.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Charlie]

I was self-conscious about carrying when I first got my CHL 21 years ago but after a few years of carrying and discussing concealed carry on different forums, I've developed a relaxed attitude about my carrying habits. If I go out, I will carry. It will be concealed most of the time. I don't worry about signs. If I see a 30.06 sign, I don't go inside. If it's only a 30.07, I breeze right on by it. If I catch myself carrying where I shouldn't, I just leave. It's really pretty simple.

 

[easy rider]

How I handle it is: If they post in any fashion that they don't want guns on the premises, they are telling me they don't want my business. If I notice it I'll go elsewhere and basically write them off as people I don't do business with.

 

[TheDan]

Why can't we just have the business owner ask you to leave if he/she doesn't like guns?

I agree. If you walk past a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign without a shirt on then you aren't automatically trespassing. Someone controlling the property still has to ask you to leave before you are considered trespassing.

The only reason it's different for guns is because they are, like, scary and stuff...

 

[Charlie]

I agree. If you walk past a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign without a shirt on then you aren't automatically trespassing. Someone controlling the property still has to ask you to leave before you are considered trespassing.

The only reason it's different for guns is because they are, like, scary and stuff...

'Zackly!!!