Do signs have the force of law?

[Old School]

U lost me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[leadslinger972]

Jesus dude.

Ok, lets do this.




Sometimes I use the word "shorthand" to mean an alternative abbreviation to a similar abbreviated phrase thats also an synonym of the original phrase even though thats not the textbook definition of the term "shorthand".

Im also starting to question if you understand the underlying and ultimate goal of language, which is, to communicate meaning through verbal expression. A properly executed verbal exchange results in all parties involved in the exchange ending conversation with a clear understanding of what was said and the meaning behind it. Grammatical peccadilloes and pedantic pontification of minutiae is a waste of valuable time anywhere but in a classroom.

Did you fail to understand what I meant when I wrote "CHL"?

I look at you typing CHL the same way someone types "ur" instead of your. It's ignorant and lazy.

 

[Deerslayer440]

Unfortunately, Louisiana statutes does not spell it out like Texas does. For example, here are the requirements for open carry:
To prohibit the open carry of a firearm, a sign would have to include the following:
This specific text: "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun), a Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), May Not Enter This Property with a Handgun that is Carried Openly."
The same text duplicated in Spanish
All text at least one inch in height, in block letters
Note that to prohibit both open and concealed carry they have to post four signs. Kinda clutters up the front of the store.




Finallyyyyyy...

Thank you,that is what I was asking for before,like 3 pages ago lol..

Like I stated before,La RS is not clear or written well enough to assume that CHP is
breaking the law when entering a posted sign biz.

 

[dougstump]

Finallyyyyyy...

Thank you,that is what I was asking for before,like 3 pages ago lol..

Like I stated before,La RS is not clear or written well enough to assume that CHP is
breaking the law when entering a posted sign biz.

BTW, there's a restaurant over in Jefferson (Texas) that has the four "no guns" signs. With the one inch letters they take up most of the storefront, I really thought it was funny. As I said, my pistol is connected to my wallet. The wife and I ate somewhere else. Problem solved, simple as that.

 

[Deerslayer440]

BTW, there's a restaurant over in Jefferson (Texas) that has the four "no guns" signs. With the one inch letters they take up most of the storefront, I really thought it was funny. As I said, my pistol is connected to my wallet. The wife and I ate somewhere else. Problem solved, simple as that.

Its funny you say that.I remember back when I was a wee tot,me and my parents went into many steak houses in texas.They had a sign at front door,saying" Please keep your weapons holstered at all times".

Ahhhhh the good ol days when texas was a real mans state

 

[Gerberman]

Sigh.

 

[Troedoff]

.

 

[leadslinger972]

Nor is it defined well enough to Assume that is is not. Which is why instructors err on the side of caution. They will continue to do so until it is clearly defined.

No one is telling you to instruct differently.

A question was asked that apparently cannot be answered.

 

[thperez1972]

Based on my experience as an LEO, I would arrest someone for trespassing if they failed to leave. If they left the store, waited for me on public property, and stipulated they entered the store with a concealed handgun, I still would not arrest them. And here's why. We found some people in a park one night. There were signs stating the park closed at dark. We stopped them for trespassing. The trespassing led to guns and drugs. They fought the trespassing charge as that was the PC to the guns and drugs. The judge asked if it was possible to enter the park without seeing the signs. Yes it was. The judge ruled it was unreasonable to say they must have known they were trespassing and ruled it a bad stop. It was a public park which gave implied authorization. The signs did not remove that authorization because it was possible for them to enter without seeing the signs.

 

[MOTOR51]

So there has been LEO’s responding with probably a combined 70yrs of LE experience but yet we are still arguing about wether someone will or will not be arrested. I would probably take their word over the word of a CHP instructor and someone who obviously is lying or can’t remember an arrest. All we need is an attorney to chime in and be told he doesn’t know how to read the laws and we can go for the Bayoushooter trifecta.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[MOTOR51]

Based on my experience as an LEO, I would arrest someone for trespassing if they failed to leave. If they left the store, waited for me on public property, and stipulated they entered the store with a concealed handgun, I still would not arrest them. And here's why. We found some people in a park one night. There were signs stating the park closed at dark. We stopped them for trespassing. The trespassing led to guns and drugs. They fought the trespassing charge as that was the PC to the guns and drugs. The judge asked if it was possible to enter the park without seeing the signs. Yes it was. The judge ruled it was unreasonable to say they must have known they were trespassing and ruled it a bad stop. It was a public park which gave implied authorization. The signs did not remove that authorization because it was possible for them to enter without seeing the signs.

You should have had Gordon and diamond tell him how to interpret law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[nola000]

I look at you typing CHL the same way someone types "ur" instead of your. It's ignorant and lazy.

I think you meant to say "efficient".

If you choose to take the long road thats fine. If I can get identical or even somewhat similar results with half the effort and time involved Im doing it. There is no ROI in language above and beyond the message being delivered. The law of diminishing returns kicks in hard and fast.

 

[nola000]

Based on my experience as an LEO, I would arrest someone for trespassing if they failed to leave. If they left the store, waited for me on public property, and stipulated they entered the store with a concealed handgun, I still would not arrest them. And here's why. We found some people in a park one night. There were signs stating the park closed at dark. We stopped them for trespassing. The trespassing led to guns and drugs. They fought the trespassing charge as that was the PC to the guns and drugs. The judge asked if it was possible to enter the park without seeing the signs. Yes it was. The judge ruled it was unreasonable to say they must have known they were trespassing and ruled it a bad stop. It was a public park which gave implied authorization. The signs did not remove that authorization because it was possible for them to enter without seeing the signs.

Wow. That is really, really interesting. Was this case in LA? If it was then Im impressed with that judge. Its been my experience here that very few in the justice system or LE respect the guidelines of Terry v Ohio or subsequent and related cases.

 

[leadslinger972]

I think you meant to say "efficient".

If you choose to take the long road thats fine. If I can get identical or even somewhat similar results with half the effort and time involved Im doing it. There is no ROI in language above and beyond the message being delivered. The law of diminishing returns kicks in hard and fast.

Efficient would be typing 150 wpm with perfect grammar and spelling.

 

[dougstump]

Efficient would be typing 150 wpm with perfect grammar and spelling.

I can type 175 WPM, unfortunately very little comes out in English. More like the Biblical speaking in tongues.

 

[leadslinger972]

I can type 175 WPM, unfortunately very little comes out in English. More like the Biblical speaking in tongues.

That's not very efficient.

 

[nola000]

Efficient would be typing 150 wpm with perfect grammar and spelling.

Not if the goal is strictly to communicate a clear and intelligible thought. Then, no. By very definition, "efficient" in that case would be to communicate in as few a words as possible.

You have a different goal in mind than me.

You see. What we have here, is a failure to communicate.

 

[AustinBR]

Not if the goal is strictly to communicate a clear and intelligible thought. Then, no. By very definition, "efficient" in that case would be to communicate in as few a words as possible.

You have a different goal in mind than me.

You see. What we have here, is a failure to communicate.

Effectiveness and efficiency are two things that people often lump together, but one is much more important than the other.

In this case, I would argue that using improper terminology is neither efficient nor effective. A three letter abbreviation is a three letter abbreviation. Only one of them is correct.

If you were shorthanding "Concealed Handgun Permit" as CHP, that would be efficient (and effective). Shorthanding it to CCW or CPL or anything like that is not efficient or effective as there is waste and a possibility for misunderstanding.

 

[leadslinger972]

You see. What we have here, is a failure to communicate.

Of course there is. Luckily the failure is on your end. Many times failure is attributed to laziness.

 

[dantheman]

Damn , ya'll just can't let it go . Nobody is going to win this one guys .