FM 2920 BW3 sign...

[Embalmo]

Guys,

You really have to have some sympathy for antis. They are suffering from an unreasonable, emotion-based fear, kind of like people who fear house cats or frogs. Intellectually these people can recognize that their fears are unfounded, but they still fear the terror. It is for this reason that I don't get extremely angry when some bone-head starts parroting how guns are bad, or posts a gunbuster sign. If I'm chatting with a friend, I give them reasonable information and I recognize that coming around will be a process. If I see a a gunbuster sign I don't bother, 'cause receiving oral notice from an idiot isn't going to help me. I'd rather just get a giggle out of how that idiot thinks he is keeping guns and CHLs out.

Embalmo

[zero4o3]

They purposely put up a sign that doesn't say "30.06". The cool thing about intent is that it is perfectly irrelevant in the state of Texas. No 30.06 as far as the law and we are concerned, means "come on in with your legally concealed handgun." How can you get any more pro-2nd amendment than that?

Actually, they purposely put up a sign trying to stop you. They unintentionally failed to stop you.
This argument is like saying that someone who tries to shoots you and misses is your friend.

I know a few managers / normal staff at one of the BW3's in houston, well enough for some of them to know I am a CHL holder, they dont seem to care so I dont

there is always the possibility that the sign is corporate policy that was initiated to be compliant with laws in a different state.

[Embalmo]

They purposely put up a sign that doesn't say "30.06". The cool thing about intent is that it is perfectly irrelevant in the state of Texas. No 30.06 as far as the law and we are concerned, means "come on in with your legally concealed handgun." How can you get any more pro-2nd amendment than that?

Actually, they purposely put up a sign trying to stop you. They unintentionally failed to stop you.
This argument is like saying that someone who tries to shoots you and misses is your friend.

I know a few managers / normal staff at one of the BW3's in houston, well enough for some of them to know I am a CHL holder, they dont seem to care so I dont

there is always the possibility that the sign is corporate policy that was initiated to be compliant with laws in a different state.

I agree-I've always assumed that it is about butt covering. I'm guessing that is also why companies like Wal-Mart have a no carry policy for employees; so no one can say that Wal-Mart gave "permission" to their employees to carry. I think the policy is about as enforceable as having a policy that their employees wear underwear with polka dots. I like the fact that idiots are granted their false sense of security while we get to carry. I LOVE non-30.06 anti-gun signs; they really do help us.

Embalmo

[Hoosier Daddy]

They purposely put up a sign that doesn't say "30.06". The cool thing about intent is that it is perfectly irrelevant in the state of Texas. No 30.06 as far as the law and we are concerned, means "come on in with your legally concealed handgun." How can you get any more pro-2nd amendment than that?

1. Post a sign that says CHL holders are welcome, like that bank. (Chapel Hill?)

2. Post a sign that says firearms are welcome, including long guns without a license.

3. Give a discount or other special offer to anyone who shows the staff their CHL.

4. Don't post any gun signs. (Except those required by TABC, if applicable.)

All of those are more pro-2nd amendment than posting an unenforceable sign prohibiting guns.



Let me play Devil's Advocate for a minute.

If a business posts a sign that says "No Catholics Allowed" that's actually a pro-Christian sign because it's not legally valid.

[Katygunnut]

The BW3 on FM 2920 in Spring has a sign that said "Buffalo Wild Wings bans guns on these premises". No blue or red TABC and no other signage. Fortunately the one by where I work just has the blue sign. Not legal but it's obvious they don't want patronage there...

Its obvious that they did not mean for this sign to be taken literally. I have seen uniformed LEO's in BW3 locations on several occasions and they have always had guns clearly visible. If I read the BW3 sign literally, then they would have required these LEO's to disarm before entering.

I have no idea what they actually intended with this sign, but I assume that they were trying to be humorous since they clearly do not make any attempt to enforce it as written with the LEO example as well as the fact that there are no metal detectors to catch your average gang banger carrying without a CHL, etc. It's kind of like a business that posts a sign saying "check your bad attitude at the door". They are trying to be funny and lighten up the atmosphere, not actually trying to ban people with bad attitudes IMHO.

[Embalmo]

They purposely put up a sign that doesn't say "30.06". The cool thing about intent is that it is perfectly irrelevant in the state of Texas. No 30.06 as far as the law and we are concerned, means "come on in with your legally concealed handgun." How can you get any more pro-2nd amendment than that?

1. Post a sign that says CHL holders are welcome, like that bank. (Chapel Hill?)

2. Post a sign that says firearms are welcome, including long guns without a license.

3. Give a discount or other special offer to anyone who shows the staff their CHL.

4. Don't post any gun signs. (Except those required by TABC, if applicable.)

All of those are more pro-2nd amendment than posting an unenforceable sign prohibiting guns.



Let me play Devil's Advocate for a minute.

If a business posts a sign that says "No Catholics Allowed" that's actually a pro-Christian sign because it's not legally valid.

Except all those signs would be as meaningless as a non-30.06. I think it is a matter of placing a priority on carrying in as many places as possible or entertaining personal feelings.

Embalmo

[tacticool]

[terryg]

I also don't mind if someone lets the company know why they won't shop there, as that is also their choice. The only thing I ask is to not tell the company their sign is not valid. You can tell them they are banning the best people in the world, and you can point out how their sign alienates the potential customers with disposable income (as shown by the cost of getting a CHL). None of this will cause them to change the sign, though it might help convince them to stop posting. But if you tell themt he sign is invalid, it might convert it to a legal 30.06 sing, which is NEVER a good thing (IMHO).

Other than the last point, I really don't see this issue as worth us arguing about. Reasonable people can have different opinions.

Steve, I couldn't agree more. There are really 3 basic camps here - not two as others have described:

1. Those like Embalmo who think 'nothing should be said', 'carry right past', 'a gunbuster is a welcome mat', etc.
2. Those fairly accurately described by Embalmo:

Oh I know-That was directed to the forum in general, and especially to a handful of members who I like to refer to as signage missionaries. These individuals write threatening letters to businesses and rejoice when a gunbuster sign is replaced with a 30.06. Their rationale is that, "They didn't like guns anyway, so it's good that CHLs can no longer go there.

And then there is the another group, the category into which I fall.

3. Those who think that the CHL community could make a difference with our mouths and with our dollars.

We think that RESPECTFUL communications (written and/or verbal) telling companies that they have and will continue to lose business because of anti-carry policies. Those in this group do not advocate informing these business owners that gun-buster signs do not have the force of law in Texas.

I concede those in the first two groups may be justified in claims that the third group is wasting energy and 'tilting at windmills'. I also concede that some (small number of) businesses may be posting gun busters to make anti's feel safe all the while knowing that Texas CHL holders can carry past.

But what I can not concede is that communications not mentioning 'non-compliant signs' will cause compliant signs to be posted. That is simply a logical fallacy. If anything, the communication will only enforce the thought that the sign is working.

I also can not concede that gun buster signs are harmless. At a bare minimum, anti-gun signs (complaint or not) reinforce the ridiculous concept that posting signs, regardless of wording, somehow offer magical protection against crime and against harm.

[Embalmo]

3. Those who think that the CHL community could make a difference with our mouths and with our dollars.

We think that RESPECTFUL communications (written and/or verbal) telling companies that they have and will continue to lose business because of anti-carry policies. Those in this group do not advocate informing these business owners that gun-buster signs do not have the force of law in Texas.

I concede those in the first two groups may be justified in claims that the third group is wasting energy and 'tilting at windmills'. I also concede that some (small number of) businesses may be posting gun busters to make anti's feel safe all the while knowing that Texas CHL holders can carry past.

But what I can not concede is that communications not mentioning 'non-compliant signs' will cause compliant signs to be posted. That is simply a logical fallacy. If anything, the communication will only enforce the thought that the sign is working.

I also can not concede that gun buster signs are harmless. At a bare minimum, anti-gun signs (complaint or not) reinforce the ridiculous concept that posting signs, regardless of wording, somehow offer magical protection against crime and against harm.

Now why would I want to use my mouth or money to bother a business that is allowing me to carry a gun in their establishment unless it is about personal feelings about the opinions of others? A non-30.06 anti-gun sign is up in a business window which means that all CHLs may legally carry there. Now the sign is removed and now all CHLs may still legally carry just as always. Let's be practical and recognize that these personal feelings are just reducing the number of places we can carry.

I'm not talking about missionary trips in this thread, I'm talking about how silly it is to boycott half the state because of non-compliant signs. You're cutting your nose off if your goal is to carry a gun for self defense. And please-Limit responses to a couple paragraphs.

Embalmo

[terryg]

Now why would I want to use my mouth or money to bother a business that is allowing me to carry a gun in their establishment

You may not, but others wish to do so. As long as we don't use our mouths in a way that reduces the number of places in which you can carry, then we should have no issue. But we do seem to have an issue, right? I think this is because the real problem is that some feel that the type of communication I described will cause businesses to post compliant signs. This is a logical fallacy that I feel compelled to refute.

A non-30.06 anti-gun sign is up in a business window which means that all CHLs may legally carry there. Now the sign is removed and now all CHLs may still legally carry just as always.

Yes, legally nothing changed. But besides legal concerns, did anything else change? Now there is one less sign that essentially means "Guns are evil, you don't want them around!" or perhaps "You are completely safe inside these walls because no one except highly skilled law enforcement officials would dare bring a big bad gun past my purdy little sign!!". So there is one less worthless sign to serve as continued propaganda reinforcing the views held by John Q. Public.

Let's be practical and recognize that these personal feelings are just reducing the number of places we can carry.

Again, the communications I have described and that I advocate do not do this.

(Three paragraphs - sorry.)

[Embalmo]

terryg- I am not talking about communicating with businesses. What I'm talking about is as individuals we limit the number of places that we can go to if we refuse to walk past any non-compliant signs. I didn't spend all that money getting a CHL and a gun just so I could pretend that non-30.06 signs meant anything. Hey I respect your wishes to stay outside, but don't expect me to get you any Buffalo Chips while I'm in there.

I'm a big fan of non-compliant signs. They are the best of both worlds; they let us defend ourselves while they let idiot customers and business owners believe that they've made themselves safe. I once walked past a wobbly display in some hippy store and a Yellow Submarine cookie fell over and broke. The hippy girl tried to make me buy it and pointed at a sign that said such. I told her to wait a little while while I'll make a sign that says I won't.

Embalmo

[terryg]

Embalmo, great! I am glad to find some common ground. I still don't think gun-busters are 'harmless', but I am happy to let you frequent them and I will visit only when I have no other options. In other discussions, my desired communications with businesses were equated with those that would intentionally educate store owners and managers about 30.06. That grouping is what I take exception to, not the decision to frequent a gun-buster or not.

[Ameer]

I consider it like someone making derogatory comments about my religion or ethnicity. I don't feel welcome and I don't want to spend money there. I could protest like the A&T students at Woolworth but there are so many businesses where I feel welcome that I don't.

[Embalmo]

I consider it like someone making derogatory comments about my religion or ethnicity. I don't feel welcome and I don't want to spend money there. I could protest like the A&T students at Woolworth but there are so many businesses where I feel welcome that I don't.

I certainly see your point, but would you let derogatory comments about your religion prevent you from practicing your religion? If the sign said no Jesus T Shirts, you can bet I'll go in there with a Jesus T Shirt, and a Bible.

What we're doing is granting non-compliant signs the same power as an actual 30.06. And voluntarily at that?? Everytime a CHL is restricted from carrying a gun anywhere, voluntarily or not, it is a blow against the 2nd amendment. It all boils down to idealism versus realism. I refuse to allow meaningless talk to prevent me from carrying a gun where it's legal to do so.

Embalmo

[Matt78665]

In general if a business or business owner is really anti gun then they should learn the law. I am not a professer at a law school. I am not going to teach them. Let them keep on doing it wrong. Let me keep carrying