TexasCHLforum.com

e-bil wrote:They're decent when you tell them to cook them extra crispy in my book. I've had wings at the Anchor Bar in Buffalo so that's a tough act for anyone to follow (except my wife's when she makes them).

I wasn't impressed with the Anchor Bar. They were ok, but nothing to write home about. Certainly not worth a trip to Buffalo. There were other wings places (not BWW - never ate there) that did better. But it's been 5 years since I left that part of NY (and haven't looked back), so I don't even remember the other places any more. I'm sure we've got better wings around Texas. We certainly have better BBQ.

Matt78665 wrote: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

Please re-read this thread. No one is advocating educating them.

This is my opinnion on this matter. IF a place has a VALID 30.06 sign, then I agree that we should make the them aware of our feelings in a RESPECTFUL manner. If they have a NON-COMPLIANT sign reguardless of how they feel, we are better to keep our mouths closed to the issue. There is always a risk of an anti trying to find out how they can ban you if there current signs are not leagal. Having a CHL does not mean we have to educate places on baning us, because they may.

We have a better chance gaining more gun rights by educating the people we are around everyday. My wife is a perfect example of this. When we first met, she was terrified of guns. After haveing several conversations, range trips she has relized most of what she was taught was not true. We are far better to educate neighbors, friends, and colleges then we are to try and educate buisnesses.

stealthfightrf17 wrote:This is my opinnion on this matter. IF a place has a VALID 30.06 sign, then I agree that we should make the them aware of our feelings in a RESPECTFUL manner. If they have a NON-COMPLIANT sign reguardless of how they feel, we are better to keep our mouths closed to the issue. There is always a risk of an anti trying to find out how they can ban you if there current signs are not leagal. Having a CHL does not mean we have to educate places on baning us, because they may.

We have a better chance gaining more gun rights by educating the people we are around everyday. My wife is a perfect example of this. When we first met, she was terrified of guns. After haveing several conversations, range trips she has relized most of what she was taught was not true. We are far better to educate neighbors, friends, and colleges then we are to try and educate buisnesses.

RottenApple wrote:

stealthfightrf17 wrote:This is my opinnion on this matter. IF a place has a VALID 30.06 sign, then I agree that we should make the them aware of our feelings in a RESPECTFUL manner. If they have a NON-COMPLIANT sign reguardless of how they feel, we are better to keep our mouths closed to the issue. There is always a risk of an anti trying to find out how they can ban you if there current signs are not leagal. Having a CHL does not mean we have to educate places on baning us, because they may.

We have a better chance gaining more gun rights by educating the people we are around everyday. My wife is a perfect example of this. When we first met, she was terrified of guns. After haveing several conversations, range trips she has relized most of what she was taught was not true. We are far better to educate neighbors, friends, and colleges then we are to try and educate buisnesses.

I agree with most of this post, but I respectfully disagree with the notion that complaining to a business who posts a non-compliant sign is the same as educating them that the sign is not compliant.

Here's the scenario I am talking about. Let's say that restaurant X has a gun buster sign on the door. I walk into the restaurant and ask to speak to the manager. I then inform the manager that I refuse to eat at his restaurant because they don't respect my 2A right to keep and bear arms. I then tell him that I would never do business with a place that disrespects my civil rights in this manner and that I am taking my business elsewhere.

I think it is a tremendous reach that this exchange would cause the manager to think "wow, that sign must not be effective at keeping people with guns from eating here. Since my goal is to completely lose all business from anyone who cares about their second ammendment rights, I better research the proper requirenments and change that sign to a valid one."

Katygunnut wrote:I agree with most of this post, but I respectfully disagree with the notion that complaining to a business who posts a non-compliant sign is the same as educating them that the sign is not compliant.

Here's the scenario I am talking about. Let's say that restaurant X has a gun buster sign on the door. I walk into the restaurant and ask to speak to the manager. I then inform the manager that I refuse to eat at his restaurant because they don't respect my 2A right to keep and bear arms. I then tell him that I would never do business with a place that disrespects my civil rights in this manner and that I am taking my business elsewhere.

I think it is a tremendous reach that this exchange would cause the manager to think "wow, that sign must not be effective at keeping people with guns from eating here. Since my goal is to completely lose all business from anyone who cares about their second ammendment rights, I better research the proper requirenments and change that sign to a valid one."

Katy, by not posting a 30.06 compliant sign, the restaurant in your scenario *IS* respecting your RKBA. If they didn't, then they would have posted a 30.06 sign in order to keep you out. I think this is what a lot of people aren't getting. A non-30.06 sign means absolutely nothing. It's a pretty (or ugly) sign that doesn't legally mean squat. You see it and walk right past. Perhaps with a little grin knowing that it doesn't mean anything and that you are legally carrying past it.

But there are others on here who have said that they would point out to the owner/manager/whatever that their sign didn't meet the legal requirements of 30.06 and was unenforceable. If I was that owner/manager/whatever and wanted to keep guns out of my establishment, you can be sure I would 1) tell the CHLer to leave, 2) look up the applicable law, and 3) then post the required sign. Thanks to the 1 CHLer who couldn't leave well enough alone, I've now legally prevented any CHLer from entering my place of business.

Campus carry is about to pass and we all know that the faculty and staff of just about every university have NO respect for the 2nd amendment. Should we just boycott all universities out of principle. And another thing-Wal-Mart and every other retailer refuses to respect the rights of their employees to carry. Isn't it a little hypocriticle to not ban all those retain stores who refuse to respect the 2nd amendment. Shouldn't we all pull our kids out of the public schools that refuse to respect our right to carry?

Come on folks-Let's carry when and where it's legal.

Embalmo

If I were an anti-gun kook I would be thrilled by CHLs voluntarily not carrying when it is legal.

Embalmo

RottenApple wrote:But there are others on here who have said that they would point out to the owner/manager/whatever that their sign didn't meet the legal requirements of 30.06 and was unenforceable. If I was that owner/manager/whatever and wanted to keep guns out of my establishment, you can be sure I would 1) tell the CHLer to leave, 2) look up the applicable law, and 3) then post the required sign. Thanks to the 1 CHLer who couldn't leave well enough alone, I've now legally prevented any CHLer from entering my place of business.

Yes, there are a few people on this board that advocate that position - but most are not advocating this. Yet it seems that anytime someone brings up communicating with a business that they are losing a customer due to a gun-buster sign, those actions are equated with 'letting them know that the sign non-complaint'. There is a huge difference two these two actions.

And despite the fact that a gun-buster sign has meaningless to a CHL holder from a legal perspective, I maintain that they are far from harmless. I won't copy my previous posting on this for size reasons, but you are welcome to read it here:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=44457&start=30#p539001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let's focus our energy on things that actually are meaningful to a CHL like campus carry and leave are noses intact. I'm surprised to see something so meaningless to CHLs even being discussed on a CHL forum.

Embalmo

Embalmo wrote:Let's focus our energy on things that actually are meaningful to a CHL like campus carry and leave are noses intact. I'm surprised to see something so meaningless to CHLs even being discussed on a CHL forum.

Embalmo

Embalmo,

Just like you, I usually choose to respond to this issue when it comes up. I do this to clarify because I think there is mis-information being disseminated and I would like people think a little more broadly. I could pose the same request you just did each time that you respond - but I don't because I respect your opinion.

There are lots of topics discussed daily on this board. Not all of them are as important as campus carry, but we still politely discuss them.

terryg wrote:

Embalmo wrote:Let's focus our energy on things that actually are meaningful to a CHL like campus carry and leave are noses intact. I'm surprised to see something so meaningless to CHLs even being discussed on a CHL forum.

Embalmo

Embalmo,

Just like you, I usually choose to respond to this issue when it comes up. I do this to clarify because I think there is mis-information being disseminated and I would like people think a little more broadly. I could pose the same request you just did each time that you respond - but I don't because I respect your opinion.

There are lots of topics discussed daily on this board. Not all of them are as important as campus carry, but we still politely discuss them.

These cutesy jabs are hardly latent; they're annoying. I didn't say that I had a problem with non-CHL discussion; I just said that I was surprised to see it. A non-compliant sign means nothing to a CHL, so it's non-CHL related. The first time I saw someone complain about a meaningless sign here I thought it was a joke or sarcasm.

Sure you could put forth the argument that it relates to personal convictions concerning gun rights, but these non-30.06 are as meaningless to a CHL as a no smoking sign.

Embalmo

Embalmo

Embalmo

Our nearest BWW now has a red 51% sign in the front entry. I kind of doubt its validity, but there it is.

Embalmo wrote:These cutesy jabs are hardly latent; they're annoying. I didn't say that I had a problem with non-CHL discussion; I just said that I was surprised to see it. A non-compliant sign means nothing to a CHL, so it's non-CHL related. The first time I saw someone complain about a meaningless sign here I thought it was a joke or sarcasm.

Sure you could put forth the argument that it relates to personal convictions concerning gun rights, but these non-30.06 are as meaningless to a CHL as a no smoking sign.

I guess this is another example of how difficult it is to convey body language and/or emotion into written word. When I read your comments about "something so meaningless", they seemed to me to be very dismissive and, to borrow your phrase, 'cutesy jabs'.

I am sorry that you took my reply to be offensive, it was not meant to be so. While I was a bit taken a back by the tone that I read in your message; I was actually attempting to use tact in my response and simply point out while you are saying the discussion is meaningless, the fact that both you and I respond/comment on most of the threads about this topic, that it must in fact be meaningful to both of us. I obviously failed. Sorry.

terryg wrote:

Embalmo wrote:These cutesy jabs are hardly latent; they're annoying. I didn't say that I had a problem with non-CHL discussion; I just said that I was surprised to see it. A non-compliant sign means nothing to a CHL, so it's non-CHL related. The first time I saw someone complain about a meaningless sign here I thought it was a joke or sarcasm.

Sure you could put forth the argument that it relates to personal convictions concerning gun rights, but these non-30.06 are as meaningless to a CHL as a no smoking sign.

I guess this is another example of how difficult it is to convey body language and/or emotion into written word. When I read your comments about "something so meaningless", they seemed to me to be very dismissive and, to borrow your phrase, 'cutesy jabs'.

I am sorry that you took my reply to be offensive, it was not meant to be so. While I was a bit taken a back by the tone that I read in your message; I was actually attempting to use tact in my response and simply point out while you are saying the discussion is meaningless, the fact that both you and I respond/comment on most of the threads about this
topic, that it must in fact be meaningful to both of us. I obviously failed. Sorry.

No, don't appologise, it's me that misinterpreted your tone. Often when a disagreeing individual uses such respectful words, they are doing so sarcastically. I am sorry.

Embalmo