TexasCHLforum.com

Embalmo wrote: Why stop there? Most businesses refuse to respect their employee's right to carry; even in the parking lot despite the new law. As I've also said many times, if these gun nuts kept rattling my cage, I would figure out how to permanently keep them away from my business. We're lucky to have 30.06 in this state, we should appreciate and take advantage of it.

Hi Embalmo,

I guess I do see that point - it has some merit. I cannot answer for anyone else. But for me it comes down to two things.

1. Achieveability. In my estimation, the vast majority of retail stores and other public businesses have 'no guns at work' policies. So letting a particular business know you are going to shop elsewhere because of their employee policy is a pretty empty threat. Just look at the Walgreen's outcry on our forum when the pharmacist was fired recently after using his weapon. Everybody quickly discovered that CVS and all major pharmacies have the same policies. So boycotting every retail outlet and restaurant with strict employee policies is not really practical - and therefore not really achievable.

But the reverse is true when it comes to customer gun policies. The majority in this case do not attempt to post anti-gun signs for customers. So the threat of voting with your wallet becomes real and tenable.

You also have the chore and inaccuracy of trying to 'discover' what a particular business' employee policies might be. With anti-gun signs - no real research is required - the sign is either present or it is not.

2. Impact. Yes, it is a shame when employees cannot carry. Trust me, I know. I would not just face getting fired for carrying at work, I would be committing a crime. But, the general public is not propagandized by walking into a store that bans employee's from carrying. However every single time Joe Q. Public walks past a gun-buster sign, he is reminded that "guns=bad" and "no guns=safety" and the idea of restricting guns in certain places is a good idea. The impact of getting them removed is huge.

But, that's just me.

Craig8d8 wrote: Owner "I just left it so the rif raf won't carry a gun in here".

Did he say this with a straight face? Does he honestly think a BG will care?

terryg wrote:

Embalmo wrote: Why stop there? Most businesses refuse to respect their employee's right to carry; even in the parking lot despite the new law. As I've also said many times, if these gun nuts kept rattling my cage, I would figure out how to permanently keep them away from my business. We're lucky to have 30.06 in this state, we should appreciate and take advantage of it.

Hi Embalmo,

I guess I do see that point - it has some merit. I cannot answer for anyone else. But for me it comes down to two things.

1. Achieveability. In my estimation, the vast majority of retail stores and other public businesses have 'no guns at work' policies. So letting a particular business know you are going to shop elsewhere because of their employee policy is a pretty empty threat. Just look at the Walgreen's outcry on our forum when the pharmacist was fired recently after using his weapon. Everybody quickly discovered that CVS and all major pharmacies have the same policies. So boycotting every retail outlet and restaurant with strict employee policies is not really practical - and therefore not really achievable.

But the reverse is true when it comes to customer gun policies. The majority in this case do not attempt to post anti-gun signs for customers. So the threat of voting with your wallet becomes real and tenable.

You also have the chore and inaccuracy of trying to 'discover' what a particular business' employee policies might be. With anti-gun signs - no real research is required - the sign is either present or it is not.

2. Impact. Yes, it is a shame when employees cannot carry. Trust me, I know. I would not just face getting fired for carrying at work, I would be committing a crime. But, the general public is not propagandized by walking into a store that bans employee's from carrying. However every single time Joe Q. Public walks past a gun-buster sign, he is reminded that "guns=bad" and "no guns=safety" and the idea of restricting guns in certain places is a good idea. The impact of getting them removed is huge.

But, that's just me.

I appreciate this post. The difference between a store's employee no gun policy and a gun buster sign is that the employee policy is real; the gunbuster sign is meaningless (legally). I'm not convinced that the general public even notices those signs like we do. I can tell you that just about everyone I've spoken to (including a few CHLs) thinks that the "unlicensed possession" sign mean that the store has an anti-gun policy. I don't think the the general public is informed enough or generally aware enough to be affected by a sign. The only exception I can think of is a YMCA sign that goes into why they think that legally carried handguns would compromise the safety of the children. Still I wouldn't rattle their cage, because an entity would do the research and discover 30.06.

Embalmo

Embalmo,
I would say, if they did then do research and discover 30.06, I wouldn't want to do business with them anyway considering their views. Yes that would mean another 30.06 sign went up, but that would also reveal the owner stance on the 2A. I choose not to do business with any business that is 30.06 posted.

Winchster wrote:Embalmo,
I would say, if they did then do research and discover 30.06, I wouldn't want to do business with them anyway considering their views. Yes that would mean another 30.06 sign went up, but that would also reveal the owner stance on the 2A. I choose not to do business with any business that is 30.06 posted.

That would certainly teach that Owner a thing or two by golly! In so doing, you would deny admittance to fellow CH licensees who were neither affected by nor concerned with the non-compliant sign. The sign doesn't concern bona fide adult CH licensees. Why not let sleeping dogs lie?

BUT in this case I was sure of the outcome. Like I said I never would have said a word if I didn't know the guy!

Oldgringo wrote:

Winchster wrote:Embalmo,
I would say, if they did then do research and discover 30.06, I wouldn't want to do business with them anyway considering their views. Yes that would mean another 30.06 sign went up, but that would also reveal the owner stance on the 2A. I choose not to do business with any business that is 30.06 posted.

That would certainly teach that Owner a thing or two by golly! In so doing, you would deny admittance to fellow CH licensees who were neither affected by nor concerned with the non-compliant sign. The sign doesn't concern bona fide adult CH licensees. Why not let sleeping dogs lie?

I never said it would "teach him a thing or two", I was responding to the ridiculous belief that only CHL holders are smart enough to know about 30.06. I was making the point that if they did subsequently post a valid sign, doubtful, that now you know their true feelings. If they posted a legit sign then they have shown what their feelings are regarding liberty. It's another topic entirely, one that has been beaten to death, but why would you then choose to do business with someone that has diametrically different views about liberty than yourself?

Winchster wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

Winchster wrote:Embalmo,
I would say, if they did then do research and discover 30.06, I wouldn't want to do business with them anyway considering their views. Yes that would mean another 30.06 sign went up, but that would also reveal the owner stance on the 2A. I choose not to do business with any business that is 30.06 posted.

That would certainly teach that Owner a thing or two by golly! In so doing, you would deny admittance to fellow CH licensees who were neither affected by nor concerned with the non-compliant sign. The sign doesn't concern bona fide adult CH licensees. Why not let sleeping dogs lie?

I never said it would "teach him a thing or two", I was responding to the ridiculous belief that only CHL holders are smart enough to know about 30.06. I was making the point that if they did subsequently post a valid sign, doubtful, that now you know their true feelings. If they posted a legit sign then they have shown what their feelings are regarding liberty. It's another topic entirely, one that has been beaten to death, but why would you then choose to do business with someone that has diametrically different views about liberty than yourself?

...maybe because it's a free country and people have choices, eh?

There are various groups, religious and otherwise, who will impose their will/beliefs on others, but I'm quite capable of making my own decisions knowing that actions have consequences. IOW, thanks but no thanks for looking out after me.

BTW, there are a whole lot of folk who have diametrically different views about a whole lot of things than I do but I still nod and speak.

Winchster wrote:but why would you then choose to do business with someone that has diametrically different views about liberty than yourself?

1. Our jobs may depend on it.
2. Our relation ship with our family may depend on it.
3. A monopoly that our comfort or something important depends on (a utility)
4. Sacrifices of liberty for our loved ones well being seem to be rather minor in the grand scheme of things.


Some decisions in life are harder to make than others. Disarming just isn't that big of a deal. but I would rather not see a 30.06 sign than know how a proprietor feels about my RKBA. Until they post that 30.06 his opinion isn't that important to me.

im not opposed to asking a small business owner what their deal is with a gunbuster sign just to feel them out . but i doubt it would go much further than asking for my own curiosity and certainly not tell them the sign means nothing. might just make a joke asking if that works keeping criminals out that i might get one for my house .. . but if i had a relationship with them or knew they were on the same level as me i would say that some could take that as anti 2nd .

if there was any doubt in the conversation it would have to end it , we dont need an idiot looking up how he can better stop chl holders . sometimes it sucks to find out someones opinion . like seeing your favorite actor open their brilliant mouth around election time

Hi rcasady,

A few of us have been around this topic once or twice - so sorry if it tensions seem a bit high. Oldgringo and Embalmo firmly believe that if it is just a gun-buster, those who might protest and inform the store owner that they will be voting with their wallets create a risk of the store owner learning that the posted sign does not meet code for notification and that they will post a proper sign. They also feel that since a gun-buster sign carries no legal penalties for a CHL holder, then there is absolutely no benefit from taking these actions. (I believe I have represented their arguments accurately here...)

Now there a few on this forum who promote going ahead and telling store owners that the gun-buster sign is meaningless hoping to drive them to a decision to either remove it or post a 30.06. They believe that the CHL community is better off when the LEO's options are clear (i.e. not like Grapevine Mills mall where the police are intent on enforcing non-complaint signs) and where the owners stance is clear (i.e. no excuse such as 'just for show' or 'for insurance purposes'). While I can see this argument, I don't subscribe to it and I can certainly see how some folks might be upset having their options taken away by the actions of their peers.

The disconnect is that, no matter how hard I try, I cannot seem to articulate the following point well enough: As long as we communicate our intentions to spend our money at other businesses that don't advertise the ridiculous notion of a GFZ - without talking about how 'the sign is meaningless to CHL holders anyway' - there is virtually no chance that these actions will cause a business owner to self discover the regulations and post a compliant sign. The chances are soooo low as to be non-existent - I mean purchase a lottery ticket if you believe in those kinds of odds.

We can talk all day about whether there is any real benefit to having a gun-buster removed. But in the end, if people want to tilt at windmills - it should really be no big deal. That is, unless you believe the logical fallacy that any and all polite communications will cause a 30.06 sign to go up. The irony of this is that for every person who does say (nicely) "I will take my business elsewhere because of your sign" - they have effectively CONFIRMED that the sign works! Forget that other CHL holders might shop the same store - the only ones of us communicating are telling them the sign keeps us out.

What on God's green earth would then cause them to suddenly look up Texas law? I don't really know ... but that is the un-bridgeable chasm. So every-time somebody post about a protest style communication that just transpired (minus the legal lecture on 30.06); I come on here and tell them they did a good job and Embalmo and Oldgringo come and ask them "whadya do that fer?" And we go round and round stating the same ideas but never making any progress.

So, I guess, now that I have written this, that the reason is clear. I have not convinced them of them of the improbability anymore than they have convinced me of the likelyhood. I guess its as simple as that.

terryg wrote:The disconnect is that, no matter how hard I try, I cannot seem to articulate the following point well enough: As long as we communicate our intentions to spend our money at other businesses that don't advertise the ridiculous notion of a GFZ - without talking about how 'the sign is meaningless to CHL holders anyway' - there is virtually no chance that these actions will cause a business owner to self discover the regulations and post a compliant sign.

I understand the distinction you are making and I think it is a reasonable argument.

terryg wrote:We can talk all day about whether there is any real benefit to having a gun-buster removed. But in the end, if people want to tilt at windmills - it should really be no big deal. That is, unless you believe the logical fallacy that any and all polite communications will cause a 30.06 sign to go up. The irony of this is that for every person who does say (nicely) "I will take my business elsewhere because of your sign" - they have effectively CONFIRMED that the sign works! Forget that other CHL holders might shop the same store - the only ones of us communicating are telling them the sign keeps us out.

Well, there are other states where a simple crayon drawing of a pistol with a red slash on a brown paper bag has the force of law. And in those states, telling the store owner "no guns=no money" with the accompanying arguments has a reasonable chance of getting the sign pulled if it is a small business. There are even large chains that have re-thought their policy and pulled the signs from all their stores based on consistent contacts from CHL's pointing out that a no guns sign is ridiculously ineffective and it hurts their revenue.

Jumping Frog wrote:Well, there are other states where a simple crayon drawing of a pistol with a red slash on a brown paper bag has the force of law. And in those states, telling the store owner "no guns=no money" with the accompanying arguments has a reasonable chance of getting the sign pulled if it is a small business. There are even large chains that have re-thought their policy and pulled the signs from all their stores based on consistent contacts from CHL's pointing out that a no guns sign is ridiculously ineffective and it hurts their revenue.

Thanks Jumping Frog. I think, we as a community in general, greatly underestimate the power we could wield if we would vote together with our wallets.