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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I look at you typing CHL the same way someone types "ur" instead of your. It's ignorant and lazy.
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.
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.
I can type 175 WPM, unfortunately very little comes out in English. More like the Biblical speaking in tongues.
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.
You see. What we have here, is a failure to communicate.