TexasCHLforum.com

I ran across this sample letter on another site.
It may have been written by the late Jim Nicholson, and it's designed to be personalized and sent to posted businesses:

[CEO, Public Relations Director, President, etc.]
Any Company, Inc.
Any Street
Any Town USA
Dear Mr. __________________
I have learned that your store is considering barring concealed handgun licensees (CHL) from carrying handguns on or about their persons while on your business premises. I would ask you to take the following factors into consideration before finalizing your decision. Carrying a concealed handgun onto private property is legal and authorized by the Texas Legislature so that CHLs may protect themselves from danger. If you prohibit CHLs from carrying a handgun while on your business premises, you will be rendering useless a lawful act on the part of such persons. Additionally, you will render them unable to protect themselves when the legislature has provided a means for their own self protection.
Common sense indicates that you are assuming the risk of providing for the personal protection of such persons while on your property. An example of reasonable steps that you might take to provide for the personal protection of CHLs who are disarmed while on your premises is to hire round the clock security guards to provide armed protection in your place of business and in the parking area.
It is reasonably foreseeable that posting signs indicating that CHLs may not carry a handgun on or about their person while on your premises, would indicate to the criminal element that the persons inside the store are disarmed and thereby make your business premises a target for violent criminal activity. Certainly, it would make it more of a target than the business who posts no sign at all, leaving the criminal element uncertain as to whether or not CHLs are armed on the premises. This was the intent of the legislature as the handgun is required to be concealed. The purpose of the statute is to create a tremendous deterrent effect throughout society in that the criminal element will not know who has chosen to exercise their lawful right of self-defense, and who has not. By creating a zone where you advertise that patrons on your premises are not armed, you are holding yourself out to the public as a place where the public safety desires as expressed by the legislature are void and prohibited, and you give the criminal element a reason to believe that your premises are vulnerable to crime.
Recently, Taco Bell was assessed eight million dollars in damages for a violent assault that took place on its property for failing to protect the persons at the Taco Bell. The law is fairly clear on this subject in Texas. “Generally, an ordinary business owner or operator, as opposed to a proprietor of a restaurant, inn, or similar establishment, is under a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of his or her invitees. Garner v. McGinty, 771 S.W.2d 242, 246(Tex. Civ. App.–Austin 1989, no writ). “A business invitor owes a duty to his business invitees to take reasonable steps to protect them from intentional injuries caused by third parties if he knows or has reason to know, from what he has observed or from past experience, that criminal acts are likely to occur, either generally or at some particular time.� Id. at 246: Castillo v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,663 S.W.2d 60,66 (Tex.Civ.App.–San Antonio 1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.)(�there is no duty upon the owner of operators of a shopping center…or upon merchants and shopkeepers generally, whose mode of operation of their premises does not attract or provide a climate for crime, to guard against criminal acts of a third party, unless they know…that acts are occurring or are about to occur on the premises that pose imminent probability of harm to an invitee: whereupon a duty of reasonable care to protect against such act arises.�) Thus, a plaintiff in a case against an ordinary business owner or operator will have to demonstrate that the business owner or operator knew or had reason to know that criminal acts were likely to occur in order to establish that the business owner or operator had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect invitees from injuries caused by third parties. By contrast, the duty of a proprietor of a restaurant, inn, or similar establishment generally includes the duty to exercise reasonable care to protect patrons from assaults of third persons while on the premises. Eastep v. Jack-in-the-Box, Inc., 546 S.W.2d 116(Tex.Civ.App.–Houston{14th Dist.} 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.)
Then attorney General’s office of Texas has noted the following on this issue: “Once a duty to protect patrons from the intentional acts of third parties is established, whether a business owner or operator will be held liable for injuries to customers inflicted by third person appears to depend in great part upon the foreseeability of the assault and whether the business owner or operator took reasonable measures to prevent the assault.�
I personally will not shop at your business premises if it prohibits CHLs from carrying their handguns concealed on their persons while on your premises for three reasons:
(1) You discriminate against individuals who merely take advantage of a lawful means of protecting themselves; (2) You have created a place where there is a higher likelihood of criminal activity; and (3) The absence of state certified and qualified citizens who lawfully carry a handgun means that I will be less safe than if I were in a similarly situated place of business that did not prohibit CHLs from being personally armed on the premises;
If you persist in this policy, I will advise the members of my family and all of my friends not to patronize your place of business and we will take our business to a competitor. Even a small price increase for the same goods is worth the personal safety of myself and my family in these troubled times.
Many businesses have considered putting up signs prohibiting otherwise lawfully carried handguns to be prohibited from the premises and have changed their policy to allowing CHLs to be armed on the premises. These premises include: Walmart and J.C. Penneys.
Moreover, I understand that the attorneys for the Texas Restaurant Association have concluded after a thoughtful and extensive review of all the factors involved that allowing CHLs on the premises armed does not increase liability in any way for a restaurant as it is a legislatively authorized and protected activity. This is so because the individuals involved have had a background check, careful screening, state qualification and certification of knowledge of the penal code, safety procedures and, have passed a handgun proficiency examination, both in writing and in physical demonstration. Several other association general counsel have concluded that allowing such an individuals onto the premises of their businesses does not raise the threshold for liability.
I hope that you will consider the above factors carefully, and in the end, come to the right decision and allow CHLs to patronize your business while exercising their legislatively authorized right to their own self-protection. Alternatively if you choose to deny me the legislatively granted right to persons to protect themselves while on your premises, you have legally assumed the risk of providing for the safety of your patrons and have made a decision to ban lawful carrying of handguns on your business premises after understanding all of the factors involved.

Yours truly,
Texas Gun Owner