TexasCHLforum.com

Embalmo wrote:I do have my limits though, I won't go near any place, person, or entity that in any way supports abortion or mocks Jesus; and my entire Dixie Chick library has been rotting under a Travis County landfill for years.

M. Ball Moe

I knew we could find some common ground after all!

Embalmo wrote:

terryg wrote:I appreciate you hanging in as long as you have (in spite of efforts to squelch our healthy discussion), but I suppose we are at an impasse.

These cutesy little jabs and smileys are exactly what I'm on about. We easily could have had this conversation without them. Just as I said before, this is not the place for that.

Embalmo

Ok, again I apologize. I didn't mean to be cutesy - the 'tip hat' icon was intended to be respectful.

I didn't know how else to wrap things up. I have really tried to get to the bottom of this and figure out where and how we disagree. I have explained, given examples, answered your points and asked several questions in an effort to clarify. I was not trying to jab, but I honestly don't see the same effort being given so I am no closer to understanding how and why you believe what you do.

speedsix wrote:"...But what I don't see is the logic in thinking that a letter that mentions nothing about the signs being non-complaint, will cause them to post compliant signs. That just seems nonsensical to me..."
...I don't either, and I didn't read that into your letter which, taken as it was written, would deal with their attitude about 2A and NOT their method of placing signage...I was commenting only on the futility of contesting the point with them that they'd posted at all...and I WAS being pessimistic

It wasn't my letter, I just wound up defending jamisjockey as I don't think he did anything wrong and I might send similar letters myself in the future (although I would have toned it down a little). But I do get your point!

steveincowtown wrote:However, in my book, whether is a gun buster sign, a wrongly posted 51% sign, a non compliant sign, or even a compliant sign we are doing ourselves a disservice to just take it lying down. To not fight a battle simply because we don’t think the enemy has the correct weapon just doesn’t make sense.

I could not agree more. I have posted this comment previously: "What I can guarantee is that the only thing less effective than informing them of your protest is a 'silent protest'!"

Embalmo wrote:"Missionary", "ambassador"-How about "saboteur"? Regardless of the warm sense of accomplishment that one may recieve from righting a wrong on principle, nothing real can be gained. One needn't mention the word "sign" in a letter to potentially get a valid sign posted; business owners are not stupid.

Hospitals and dr.'s offices are notorious for changing their non-compliant signs to compliant. My hospital changed their non-valid sign to a valid 30.06 recently, but my dr.'s office hasn't changed their non-valid sign (yet). Simon's malls are also notoriously anti-CHL, but the one I go to has a ridiculously non-valid sign. Can I at least get you to not write a letter to my Dr. or mall?

I promise you that Chuck E. Cheese won't miss you, but I certainly will miss Chuck E. Cheese if a saboteur succeeds.

You still haven't given me any reason why or how this could happen as a result of a letter and you haven't really answered any of the questions I have asked. Hospitals and/or doctors offices probably have signs corrected because they pay full time lawyers who become aware through their professional associations. There is no reason to believe it is because of a letter from a customer or a non-customer.

I appreciate you hanging in as long as you have (in spite of efforts to squelch our healthy discussion), but I suppose we are at an impasse.

speedsix wrote:

terryg wrote:

speedsix wrote: ...IMPROPERLY worded signs may be:
1)due to ignorance...we have nothing to gain by educating them

Your probably right ... most of the time. However, there are a few occasions where CHL holders did gain by educating them as shown in this thread.

...I stand corrected...great example...I've bumped a lotta wasp's nests in my life...a coupla times got away without a sting...my policy is try not to bump wasp's nests...

Sure. I'm not saying everyone should go out and send letters - although I do think it could be more effective than people think. But what I don't see is the logic in thinking that a letter that mentions nothing about the signs being non-complaint, will cause them to post compliant signs. That just seems nonsensical to me.

If anything, the letter writer is saying "Your sign is keeping me out of your store." If the business is sternly anti-2A, this will only confirm to them that the sign works. All of those who wish to continue to carry past it, can do so just like before, perhaps even with extra confidence.

Embalmo wrote: I highy suspect that many of these "signage missionaries" do so as an opportunity to tell people that they have a CHL and
carry a weapon. I prefer to keep it concealed, keep it quiet, and follow the law as it is written.

That seems pretty presumptive. Perhaps they/we are just eternal optimist tilting at windmills. There are a lot of people on this board who have become, by their own admission, CHL ambassadors with their family and friends for the purpose of educating others and advancing the 2A cause. Would you assign the same 'bragging' motive to those as well? Please don't take this the wrong way - I am not trying to be testy. I just wondering if there is a difference in these two positions to your way of thinking?

I have not yet contacted a business, though I suspect I will. I simply have not yet chosen to avoid a place of business due to it's posting - legal or not. I came close not too long ago. I was in EyeMasters getting glasses for my daughter. After we were in the store and almost finished, I noticed the non-compliant sticker on the door. But we had already done our research for insurance and spent a lot of time, so I just stayed and finished the transaction.

But if I had chosen to avoid giving them my business, I would not have told them in person. I would have sent a politely worded letter explaining why they didn't get my business and letting them know who did get it and about how much we spent (+ insurance). So, I don't see how I would get the fulfillment of showing off my CHL status with a mailed standard business letter.

speedsix wrote: ...IMPROPERLY worded signs may be:
1)due to ignorance...we have nothing to gain by educating them

Your probably right ... most of the time. However, there are a few occasions where CHL holders did gain by educating them as shown in this thread.

Pacifist wrote:I tend to not frequent establishments whose owners have let it be known that they would rather not have my business via the posting of a 30.06 sign, valid or invalid. If I happen to be in a particularly benevolent mood, I will, on occasion, inform the establishments' owners of their loss of business and the reason for the loss.

I agree with this 100%. No one has presented any credible reason why or how letting a business know that they are losing money with their anti-gun policy will cause them to 'discover' that their signs are invalid.

Oldgringo wrote:How about telling us how you broke your teenage daughter from rolling her eyes at you?

In our case it wasn't that hard. She likes her cell phone ALOT.

Abraham,

Thank you that message and for the PM prompting me to check the thread again. The moderators are usually quick to correct other objectionable behavior. I don't know why comments that serve no purpose except to stifle healthy discussion and that are so blatantly rude are given a free pass. When my teenager daughter was 14, she started to pickup that bad habit from junior high ... let's just say she no longer rolls her eyes at us.

Ok, fine fine. I am sorry for boring everyone. I just kinda like for people to say why they believe something to be so. Especially if they are going to chastise somebody else for a particular action. I'll bug out ...

Abraham wrote:I understand the desire to have businesses remove anti-gun signs, but they will post them if they so choose.

Your frustration will not force them to bend to your will, but yes, you can complain to these businesses if you so choose. Yes, there's an infinitesimal chance your complaint will persuade them, but I think doing so does increase the chance of the signs being made compliant.

Thanks for the reply Abraham. I do understand that the chances are slim. Although, as I mentioned, there are a few examples on this forum of it working (here is one of them); I know that this would be the exception rather than the rule. And the chances of it working with a large multi-location company like Chucky-E-Cheese is even more slim.

(That said, I still think we underestimate the influence that we our tiny population could yield if we practiced corporate communication more. PR people know that a single call or letter represents more than just the one person making the complaint. And a company with multiple locations across the state would impact many more CHL holders if we would all let them know. I think we could yield an influecnce far greater than our numbers.)

But I don't agree that there is any real danger of a communication increasing the chance of a sign being made compliant. I just simply do not see that logic at all. So I think it is ok if you want to scoff at us 'windmill tilters' for wasting our time. I just don't see that fear that it will make things worse.

Abraham wrote:Here's one other consideration: If I owned a business and was firmly anti-gun, I would be willing to sacrifice some business to honor my principles. That being said, no gun nut (as I'm sure that's how most anti's think of us gun people) could persuade me to change my mind.

Yes, I agree completely. But, the assumption here is that the business is, in fact, firmly anti-gun. In some instances this is undoubtedly true. But in others, I speculate they are simply following 'Corporate Policy 101' and haven't given the issue much thought at all. In others, I think the signs are vestigial postings that were put up when the original Texas CHL laws were passed and everyone one screaming about the 'OK Coral'.

Embalmo wrote:

terryg wrote:So what gives? You have a change of heart?

This needs to stop. This is not what this forum is about.

What needs to stop about this? I was giving Oldgringo what I intended to be a good natured ribbing while asking him to clarify (thus the 'lol' smiley) .

I can see how my 'Umm, ok.' in the last post could be taken offensively - and I have apologized for that. But there was clearly no malice in this comment to OG. I think you are inferring ill intent where none was implied. Please take a moment to re-read it in the light in which it was written ...

Embalmo wrote:First of all, I need this to be the last time that anyone pops off with "Umm ok" after quoting me.

I'm very sorry. I did not mean to offend and will refrain from this in the future. My post was a very long one, but it was laid out very logically and the logic seems, to me, to be very sound. But it didn't matter, because you simply skipped it. So I had no real response to that. Again, I apologize.

Embalmo wrote:We are only talking about complaining about non-compliant signs in this thread (the OP indicated that the sign was probably non-compliant), so any examples of a compliant 30.06 sign being successfully removed do not pertain to this thread.

If compliant signs have been successfully removed via corporate communications, why would it be unreasonable to conclude that non-complaint signs can also be removed via the same methods? The goal is to change corporate policy. The corporate policy is what determines that the business will post a sign. Whether or not the sign is complaint is simply a matter of how well versed in Texas law the company is.

Embalmo wrote: Non-compliant signs do not affect CHLs in any way, so it doesn't matter if they're removed; so there can't be any legitimate pay-off.

Bottom line: A sign can only legally affect us if it's compliant.

And I guess this is where I disagree the most. True, a CHL holder can legally carry past a non-complaint sign - which is something I have done myself. But I don't think that is the bottom line. I believe that wide spread anti 2A corporate policy does indeed have a negative impact on all CHL holders - whether they chose to carry past the sign or not. That, to me, is the real bottom line.

I also believe that there is nearly zero chance of a non-compliant sign being made compliant due to a corporate communication that doesn't mention legal compliance. So therefore, I believe that no harm can come communicating and there is a small chance that good can come from communicating. So I ask, why not communicate?

Oldgringo wrote:

Embalmo wrote:Also, how can a company be stepping on our toes when they don't post a compliant sign?

and has been said 3,679 (+/-) times, let sleeping dogs lie and go on about your business, please.

Said in my best Ricky Ricardo:

Oldgringoooo! You've got some splainin to do!

I thought I remembered you falling on my side of this issue in the past. I found it here.

You said:

Oldgringo wrote:

terryg wrote:

troglodyte wrote:2nd - why do we continue to inform companies that they have the wrong sign posted?

Again, it does not appear that the OP did this. He let them know that he didn't like their stated corporate anti-gun policy. He is encouraging us to do the same so that they will connect this policy with a negative impact on their bottom line. This is completely independent of the enforceability of any posted signs.

He did not inform them that their signs may be non-complaint. The distinction is very significant. I completely support his actions in this way.

You may be onto something. , there is a difference between mentioning generic policy as opposed to discussing specific signage. The offending businesses can be advised of our objections without having an invalid sign mentioned.

So what gives? You have a change of heart?

Oldgringo wrote:

Embalmo wrote:Also, how can a company be stepping on our toes when they don't post a compliant sign?

and has been said 3,679 (+/-) times, let sleeping dogs lie and go on about your business, please.

If a person or a company can be further educated about the ineffectiveness of GFZ, why would we not make the effort to do so. Even if it is only a small percentage of companies that will respond and change policy, it still works wonders IMO for the advancement of 2A rights. So as long is there is little risk of the non-complaint sign being made compliant by the communication, then I would ask, why not make the effort?

It is true that CHL holders are a pretty small percentage of the population. But I think we greatly underestimate the influence that we could yield with this particular issue if we practiced corporate communication more.