james.long48
Active Member
- Apr 5, 2015
- 392
- 11
Checking that Texas Law Shield book I won tonight. Tagging and I'll get back to yall. I too thought it had to be posted on all entrances.
.png)
Saw my first 30.07 sign
- Thread starter benenglish
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
30.07 does.
30.06 does not.
http://www.stateoftexaschl.com/open-carry/
Also, be aware, TECHNICALLY the 30.06 language required was changed, so "old" signs referencing pre-2016 language would TECHNICALLY no longer be valid. TECHNICALLY. Did I say TECHNICALLY? See link above for an example of the changes. TECHNICALLY.
I still see no definition of "entrance". Dictionary definitions are no help, either. While every individual door can be considered an entrance, so can a "place of entry", according to M-W. Well, a "place of entry" might have several doors. The lawyers at St. Lukes could reasonably argue that they only need one 30.07 sign in the area described in the OP because the lobby is the "place of entry", not each individual door that leads into the lobby.
I feel relatively sure there will be misunderstandings over this; this post might be one of them.
I still see no definition of "entrance". Dictionary definitions are no help, either. While every individual door can be considered an entrance, so can a "place of entry", according to M-W. Well, a "place of entry" might have several doors. The lawyers at St. Lukes could reasonably argue that they only need one 30.07 sign in the area described in the OP because the lobby is the "place of entry", not each individual door that leads into the lobby.
I feel relatively sure there will be misunderstandings over this; this post might be one of them.
For FedEx, that would mean on every delivery dock roll-up door.
If it contrasts with the glass (opaque vs clear), yes. Clear letters on clear glass wouldn't qualify.
For FedEx, that would mean on every delivery dock roll-up door.
This is the problem. There is too much confusion here. I don't agree that a delivery dock is an "entrance" because its not a standard ingress/egress point. But I see where you are going with the logic.
I don't see how if a business has 2 doors ... unless they are right next to each other ... can get away with a single sign. As someone stated before am I to go look at all doors before I go into an establishment.
Lets take a mall for example, if they put a sign on a single door, is the whole mall now a gun free zone? That is insane.
Furthermore, the signage requirements differ for each. Since the 30.07 requirement is stricter, I'd expect to see it "cross-posted" with 30.06.
It's probably also a reasonable expectation that a "combined sign" will come up in 2017 to make things simpler for those that want to ban both, either/or... e.g. "all carry, concealed carry, open carry" bans by businesses.
FWIW, I used another "no guns, no money" card at BWW two days ago. Not a 30.06 posting, but clear enough to indicate they don't want my money. Stuck it in the door and walked away.
My company has the signs on a glass door with white letters. Now you might think that wouldn't be contrasting but trust me you can see it.
Understood. Technically, clear probably isn't a color, but the color of the lettering is indeed contrasting and it's likely even clear glass has SOME refraction, imparting a very faint color (think of the color scale for diamonds).
It could likely be argued that the intent is visibility, and contrast is a technical term requiring the letters stand out and be visible, since the rest of the requirements also apply to visibility and readability (size, etc.).
Good example, though I don't want to get sidetracked with 30.06 posting requirements that have already been hashed out on here and most folks understand. However, the 30.07 requirements are new and I consider their vagueness somewhat disconcerting. I'd like to see more clarity.
To that end, suppose:
- This mall is in Texas,
- The mall owners want no guns,
- The store owners want no guns, so
- They decide to post all entrances with both 30.06 and 30.07 signs.
Back to the topic at hand. Does this point of ingress require a single 30.07 sign or seven 30.07 signs?
I feel there should be 7 30.07 signs. However, I won't say the mall/store owners are stupid if they argue that this collection of doors comprises a single entrance and, therefore, only one 30.07 sign is needed.
The reason I'm harping on this is that, if you stop and think about it, there are a whole bunch of businesses that you enter through areas that look similar to this. Also, keep in mind that this analogy can be stretched quite a ways. While a single 30.07 sign might suffice for the spot shown in the picture, there are large public spaces with dozens of doors in a row. In those places, a single sign would clearly violate any intent in the law to make sure the signage is seen by every person who enters.
So, I'm confused. That's my normal state of being, however, so it doesn't have me particularly worried.
Comments or thoughts, anyone?
I agree with you on all of that. What immediately jumped to mind was the main entrance to Cabelas (not that they have any anti-gun signs.) I always walk in on the left side, if there were a single sign on the right with the same expanse of doors, there's no way in hell I'd ever see it. I suppose we will all have to be more observant.
One-inch high letters, spaced out, with the entire sign on a single line, posted above the doors, as wide as the entire set of doors?One sign spanning all seven doors.
Yep, I suppose that would work.
Asked our previous City Manager, during friendly conversation, why the 30.06 sign on the entry to the local pool was opaque letters on glass. Since the pool house is also a voting precinct one day a year, he ingenuously stated his intention was to tape contrasting colored cardboard on the back of the glass on election day. Liberals have a damn answer for everything.
Asked our previous City Manager, during friendly conversation, why the 30.06 sign on the entry to the local pool was opaque letters on glass. Since the pool house is also a voting precinct one day a year, he ingenuously stated his intention was to tape contrasting colored cardboard on the back of the glass on election day. Liberals have a damn answer for everything.
Why do you or him think you need a 30.06 sign for election day?
They may have an answer for everything to bad it does not need an answer.
