FM 2920 BW3 sign...

[terryg]

That's what it looks like to me. To me, he seems to be saying that: "If these businesses are really putting up gun-busters because they truly welcome CHL's but merely want to keep other customers and/or insurance companies happy; then they won't change to a compliant sign if I point it out to them."

That's correct. If they're right about the signs being intentionally wrong, nothing will change.

I understand your thinking and I also feel that the notion that most businesses put up gun busters on purpose knowing that it won't apply to CHL holders is optimistic at best. I think there may a few cases where this is true, but probably not very many.

However, I think your experiment is a bad idea and is flawed in several ways.

From a practical perspective, it will not cause the gun busters to come down and can only increase the chances of a complaint sign going up. Unlike politely communicating with the business and letting them know that the sign is costing them a customer and dollars; your approach has no potential upside and a lot of potential down side.

From an experimental perspective, it is also flawed. You are assuming that your anonymous card will be excepted at face value and that the person receiving it (i.e. manager) will be in a position to make a change. But many times this decision is a corporate one. The bottom line is that you have defined the experiment to mean that the absence of a sign change is proof of Embalmo's assertions that a gun-buster sign = pro-CHL stance. Yet there are many reasons why the sign might not change - or might not change right away.

So in the end, we are left with an invalid and non-time limited experiment that could result in some businesses clamping down and posting complaint 30.06 signs. In my opinion, that is a lose - lose scenario; regardless of the outcome.

[tbrown]

I get your points but the experiment is a response to comments like these.

"Their signage invites law abiding Americans to exercise their 2A rights."

"Their signage is designed to give the foolish a false sense of security."

"So I see those signs as a wink-wink-nod-nod to gun owners while making people who are unaware of the law feel good about being in a gun free zone."

I want to find out the truth. If you have ideas for a part 2 experiment I'm all ears.

[Embalmo]

That's what it looks like to me. To me, he seems to be saying that: "If these businesses are really putting up gun-busters because they truly welcome CHL's but merely want to keep other customers and/or insurance companies happy; then they won't change to a compliant sign if I point it out to them."

That's correct. If they're right about the signs being intentionally wrong, nothing will change.

Lemme' wrap my head around this. You are on a crusade to make sure that every business is properly conveying their legitimate intentions with their signage. And you would prefer that proper 30.06 signs be placed where the business owners really don't like guns? And you're doing it because of my posts? Am I missing something?

I'm just going to have to come out and say that if I am right, this either isn't happening, or isn't happening by a CHL.

Embalmo

[RPB]

Too much work

Just print a copy of 30.06
Then
send it and a list of every place that has a gunbuster or non-compliant 30.06 sign to John Woods and let his army of soldiers do the work, then we can just sit and see what happens.







Some sleeping dogs don't like being woke up; business owners who already know 30.06 and post gunbusters will then be yapped at by employees and customers and though they did support CHLs, will have to put up signs due to pressures.... Even Senators change their tunes due to harassment ... There are not enough "controls" for that to even be considered an "experiment"

It boils down to an opt-in versus opt-out decision
If they care, and REALLY want to exclude the most law abiding citizens, they'll find out how to opt-out (post a valid enforceable 30.06 sign)
If they don't care enough to do that, they opt-in by default to allow law abiding citizens.

They cared enough to get food/health dept inspections and know where to post those .... tax certificate thingies ... and know where to post those .... business licenses ... and know where to post those ... franchise licensee dealies ... and know where to post those.... sign permit inspection stickers ..... these aren't dummies. Leave them alone and follow the law.

[srothstein]

I want to find out the truth. If you have ideas for a part 2 experiment I'm all ears.

I would suggest a properly designed survey of business owners and managers. You could ask questions to determine if they worry about how their customers feel, know what the law requires, even know they can legally ban lawful carriers.

If you want a truly valid survey, you could ask managers if they posted a sign they knew was incorrect to calm owners while allowing CHLs.

I would think you would probably need to pick 5000 businesses at random, spread across the state, to ensure a valid sampling. One of the first questions would be if they have a no guns policy and if it is posted.

The more I think about it, the more you could ask. You could even include questions to see if there had been any violent incidents in the past and if they increased, decreased, or remained the same after the postings went up.

I wonder what the effects of such a survey would be, with the education it would impart. If I did not think it would cause more problems later, I could see this as a dissertation.

[e-bil]

That's a big gamble though. Going from an unenforceable sign to an enforceable one because they are now aware means we all lose.

[RPB]

If you wanted to, you could even include photos of various signs, and ask them to rate on a scale of 1-5 their opinion of each as to how they feel would be more effective in achieving whatever goal matches with their feelings

You could use a 30.06 sign, with an explanation of background checks etc ... and see if they thought that made them safer

and a gunbuster sign which is for non-licensees with no background checks

and this sign

and maybe


or



I'm not really being funny here, you could have them rate their opinion on a scale of what they believe the effectiveness of each sign would be in achieving their actual goal................ not necessarily effectiveness in crime prevention, BUT
considering whatever their actual goal is


1) prevent crime
2) make employees and customers feel at ease
3) preventing the most law abiding citizens from patronizing the business
4) the vinyl sign reinforces the glass in case a tornado, hurricane or kid breaks it;
5) forgot the sign was there, it was there when we rented this retail space, I guess previous tenants put it up; we just left it; never gave it much thought
6) Other goal/reason they have a sign
etc

[boba]

That's a big gamble though. Going from an unenforceable sign to an enforceable one because they are now aware means we all lose.

Not necessarily. If someone respects an unenforceable sign because they support private property rights, or if someone boycotts businesses with anti-gun signs, the change in signs makes no difference.

BUT if they find out the sign is intentionally wrong, the first group benefits because they can go there with a clean conscience. Also, there are people who err on the side of caution and if they find out a sign with 15/16" letters are intentionally too small, they can carry without worry.

[Embalmo]

That's a big gamble though. Going from an unenforceable sign to an enforceable one because they are now aware means we all lose.

Not necessarily. If someone respects an unenforceable sign because they support private property rights, or if someone boycotts businesses with anti-gun signs, the change in signs makes no difference.

BUT if they find out the sign is intentionally wrong, the first group benefits because they can go there with a clean conscience. Also, there are people who err on the side of caution and if they find out a sign with 15/16" letters are intentionally too small, they can carry without worry.

Clean conscience? There seems to be confusion here. I've been accused of "getting away" with walking past a non-30.06. It is perfectly legal, but I suppose there is no way to get some to not feel guilty about breaking a law that they've made up.

About respecting property rights, I see it as a lack of respecting my right to defend my self. We all know that not wanting CHL carry in one's business is based on irrational fear; an irrational fear that could get me killed. What if the bonehead business owner has a neurotic fear of asthma inhalers? Should we respect that as well? Just like a gun, I could die if I needed it and couldn't get access to it.

Embalmo

[RPB]

I once ran a blue stop sign on private property; police car was on the lot; I didn't get a ticket. I may or may not honor their "request" depending on if it's a "reasonable request" in my judgment, and upon who is making the request, but I will follow the law. I now assume the property owner wanted everyone to stop there, but I then interpreted as only being addressed to blue cars, and mine was brown, so I didn't need to; next time I may, or may not ... depending. I may just slow down and look ... It's an individual choice ... but I didn't feel a need to run go tell the property owner to paint the sign red. If he cared ... he'd already know.

[RottenApple]

I once ran a blue stop sign on private property; police car was on the lot; I didn't get a ticket. I may or may not honor their "request" depending on if it's a "reasonable request" in my judgment, and upon who is making the request, but I will follow the law. I now assume the property owner wanted everyone to stop there, but I then interpreted as only being addressed to blue cars, and mine was brown, so I didn't need to; next time I may, or may not ... depending. I may just slow down and look ... It's an individual choice ... but I didn't feel a need to run go tell the property owner to paint the sign red. If he cared ... he'd already know.

[40khammer]

The Church's chicken in Huntsville has a sign posted up stating that they do not allow (blank), (blank), (blank), (blank), (blank), (blank), Handguns even concealed handguns, (blank), (blank), (blank) and ,(blank) on the premises. It even goes as far as to state "This includes the parking lot, lawn and sidewalks surrounding our business. They even have one of these signs hanging at the drive through.

Who do they think they are?

I no longer eat Church's chicken...which is a shame because I love it, but oh well.

[Embalmo]

The Church's chicken in Huntsville has a sign posted up stating that they do not allow (blank), (blank), (blank), (blank), (blank), (blank), Handguns even concealed handguns, (blank), (blank), (blank) and ,(blank) on the premises. It even goes as far as to state "This includes the parking lot, lawn and sidewalks surrounding our business. They even have one of these signs hanging at the drive through.

Who do they think they are?

I no longer eat Church's chicken...which is a shame because I love it, but oh well.

Regardless of who they think they are, they are a business that allows you to carry in their establishment. When you voluntarily restrict yourself from carrying where it's legal, it's a victory for the anti-gun folks. They will stay in business without your patronage. I personally wouldn't allow such pinheads a victory like this. I say win the battle by carrying all around and inside their establishment. Many states don't have the advantage of 30.06. Let's all please take advantage of the law.

Embalmo

[tacticool]

The Church's chicken in Huntsville has a sign posted up stating that they do not allow (blank), (blank), (blank), (blank), (blank), (blank),

I don't carry blanks.