TexasCHLforum.com

Cards similar to this one are available from TSRA and a variety of gun stores. I print my own.



I pass these out to any and all businesses that discriminate against law abiding citizens in favor of criminals.

Central Kia, Plano TX

Re: Central Kia, Plano Texas

My wife and I stopped in today and had an otherwise enjoyable day shopping for a new vehicle totally destroyed by your policy of discrimination against law abiding citizens.

I have seen your sign, discriminating against law abiding citizens, and will obey your wishes and take my money elsewhere. Your salesman, Chris, who told me that the City of Plano made you put up the signs is either a liar or the person who told him that is. I don't feel that I can trust an auto dealership that would tell such blatant lies.

In either case, since I have never been convicted of a felony, I have never been convicted of a misdemeanor, am not late on taxes or school loan payments, have been investigated by the state and federal government to prove that I am not a criminal or mentally unstable, have passed training and testing specified by the state to qualify me to carry a concealed handgun, I will take my business elsewhere and inform my friends, Kia corporate, and even the entire internet of your discriminatory policy.

cc Kia Motors America

Kalrog wrote:

jimlongley wrote:I do wonder, if I entered one of the anchor stores that is not posted on the outside, would I still be legal.

Yes, I think you would be legal.

jimlongley wrote: And would I be legal if I entered the mall from the anchor store, where there is also no posting at the mall entrance?

I think you would still be legal and that is what those "we aren't posted" stores were hinting at...

I got the hint, but chose to ignore it when I wrote back about the number of customers they would be losing because there were those who would never wander in from the mall, due to the fact that they wouldn't enter in the first place, and there were those of us who objected to even giving the anchor stores revenue that would pay rent to an anti-gun corporation.

When I wrote to all of the stores in Grapevine Mills, the ones I could obtain addresses for anyway, many of them responded that their stores are not posted, and a couple even pointed out that their mall entrances were not posted either. I was given to understand that they had received multiple communications on the order of "The mall is posted so I am not doing business with you." which is essentially what I sent them, and that some had actually been savvy enough to look into the situation.

I still won't go there, but I found the responses interesting.

I also found the response from the Mills corporate office, that they were merely following the lead of "most other malls in the area" and they were doing it for the safety of their customers interesting, and their lack of response to my informal survey of area malls showing that the only posted one was Grapevine, most interesting of all.

I do wonder, if I entered one of the anchor stores that is not posted on the outside, would I still be legal.

Would I be legal if GM could show that I had knowledge of the main entrance posting (remember that they undoubtedly kept my letter in a file marked "potential terrorists") prior to my visit to the anchor store?

And would I be legal if I entered the mall from the anchor store, where there is also no posting at the mall entrance?

I had a lot of fun a few years ago, the day I found out they were posted, when a friend from out of town came for a visit and we stopped there on the way from the airport. My wife saw the sign and pointed it out to me, so I turned around and we left. Our friend was a little non-plussed so we explained that the sign said that GM didn't want our business and discriminated against law abiding citizens. After a little explanation she understood.

We went to Stonebriar instead, and had a great time in a non posted facility.

tomneal wrote:On Fridays I meet a lunch buddy. We eat then take a walk. Since I needed the photos, we near government buildings.

While I was taken inside to discuss it with the sargent,
He was interviewed by one of the officers.

Like I said,
It was "real" interesting.


See you at the range.
Tom

There's something wrong with taking a picture of a public sign in a public area? I think I would have been taking pictures of the sergeant and the officers.

I did that many years ago when the police were escorting scabs through a picket line that I was on, and the police decided they needed to have a talk with me and almost literally dragged me away to have it. I kept on taking pictures, as did a couple of my compadres, and eventually they did acknowledge that I had every right to take pictures of public officials performing their duties. Then I found out that the union wouldn't have gone to bat for me, and that and other items (like the union contributing to an anti-gun candidate) encouraged me to quit the union.

It probably helped that I carried a card from a local newspaper indentifying me as a freelance photographer, not that I ever had many picture published, like two, and I didn't even take one of them.

stevie_d_64 wrote:
I also called once about the posted sign downtown at the Houston Police Departments' HQ...I used to work across the street and would walk by there everyday at lunchtime...The sign was ok (compliant) per the wording, but the sign was done with "white" 1 inch or better, lettering on a CLEAR GLASS panel...It is very difficult to discern unless you come right up and lean down to look at it...

By that time, the officers pulling the P.R. and metal detector duty notice you looking at it and if you want to come in to do business, you get the 'nth degree of attention above all the other folks coming in at that time...

Glad I don't have to do anything there...

Later,
Steve

Braden wrote:On the whole "contrasting color" thing, I think that is the only part of 30.06 that is left open to interpretation. I would walk past a sign that had the wrong wording without a second thought....and I wouldn't hesitate to walk by a properly worded sign that was too small (I've seen them printed on 8-1/2 x 11" paper at a local car dealership). If it's the right size and has the right wording, but I don't consider the colors to be contrasting, I'm not taking my chances. "Contrasting colors" aren't defined by law so it's too much of a gray area for me to just walk by it.

In the case of Community Credit Union I think a good case arguing that the letters were not contrasting could be made. The sidewalk in front of the branch in question is bright white concrete, and the letters are white and on the inside of the glass down low. The doors face west, so the net effect, unless you are there in the morning when the entrance is in shadow, is that the anti-chl sign is pretty much obscured by glare, you could even say the sign is virtually invisible in bright sunshine.

The letters in CCU's case, on all of their signs, at least in every branch I have visited, are also undersized. Should have seen them watching me when I got out my dial caliper and measured them.

ElGato wrote:jimlongley, that has to be the same young Lady who taught our instructor class two years ago, she said in that class that the wording in 30.06 didn't have to be exact or word for word if the language and intent were there. She is the only person I have ever heard with that interpretation of 30.06, everyone else has said that it must be exact. She had different views on several issues than we had been taught in past years. Talking to a group of instructors after the class, most agreed that she was the only anti-gun and anti-CHL person that we had come in contact with in our classes in Austin. My personal opinion is that she dosen't see CHL's as the good guy's and is looking for the oportunity to prosecute.

Sounds like the same one. Heck, I was just asking who I would file a complaint about non-compliant signs with, I didn't say I was going to ignore them or that I wanted them taken down, I just wanted them brought into compliance. She was aggressive about it from the get-go and I wish I had gotten her name.

anygunanywhere wrote:Some have maintained that even if the sign is not exactly 30.06 compliant, the owner's intent to prohibit is obvious, so concealed carry is prohibited.

Right around September 1, 2003, as the clarification of the law went into effect, the Plano Independent School District posted all of the entrances to its parking lots with non-compliant 36.06 signs.

I called local police, DPS, and eventually the Attorney General's office, to find out who was in charge of enforcement of the sign regulation. I wound up on the phone with a very snotty young lady who claimed to be a former prosecutor and who very forcefully told me that in all cases they considered just the attempt to post a 30.06 sign to be an indication of intention by the poster and that they would prosecute any violators. She suggested that if I didn't like it I could go ahead and be a test case.

When I pointed out that, by her logic, I could reasonably claim a good faith effort to obey the speed limit if I only went 49 in a 40 zone, she got real huffy and hung up on me.

I understand that there is some debate over whether "independent" school districts are government entities and thus subject to the restrictions in posting.

My call also was about a Community Credit Union which has undersize and non-contrasting signs posted, but the answer remained the same.

Grapevine Mills near DFW airport has some entrances posted, but none of the entrances through the anchor stores are.

Calls and letters to the mall and the national corporation elicited a response that they are only doing what the other malls in the area do. Interesting in light of them being one of the few posted in the DFW area. Letters stating that have gone unanswered, and when I had them on the phone they told me that I had obviously not checked the right malls.

So I carded them and won't go back.