TexasCHLforum.com

So I went to a locally owned company this week and on the way in I noticed a "no smoking" and a "no firearms" sign/symbol on the front door. When I walked in the owner happened to be right there. Conversation as follows...

Me "hey xxx what's up with your gun buster sign? You know it's not enforceable right?"

Owner "yea it was on the door when I bought the building(4 years ago). I just left it so the rif raf won't carry a gun in here".

Me "hmmmm. Well I doubt they would pay any attention to that. A bank has the same sign and you don't see rif raf changing their minds on robbing the place because of the no firearms sign!"

Owner "yea your right but you never know"

Me (I'm thinking wth) "well some may see it that you don't beleive in our 2nd amendment and may choose to start going elsewhere!"

Owner "very true and I'm pro gun and a chl holder. Hey employee xxx go grab a razor and get this off the doors"!!!

Me "thanks mr xxx"


I know many of you may disagree that I should have even brought this to his attention but I've known the guy for 10+ years and felt very comfortable discussing this and my views with him as I know he is a hunter and even an NRA member!

So what do y'all think? I say it's another one for the win column for our 2nd amendment rights!!

...glad this one worked that way...no harm, no foul...

speedsix wrote:...glad this one worked that way...no harm, no foul...

I expect the results of this exchange are the exception rather than the rule. It probably didn't hurt that the OP had known the shop owner for some time. Otherwise, telling an Owner that he doesn't know what he's doing doesn't always work out so swell.

That is always a risky adventure, but the difference can be in the relationship you have with that store and the folks that work there. I visit my local hardware store at least a couple times a month, but still don't know any of them by name. It might not go so well if I were to try this with them. Luckily, they don't have any signs like this. I actually know my barber better than any of them and I only see him once every 4-6 weeks. He was in The Corps and is very pro 2A.

[quote="Craig8d8"]Me "hey xxx what's up with your gun buster sign? You know it's not enforceable right?"

The problem with pointing out an unenforceable sign is that other CHLs might want to shop there too. If that had gone wrong, as I'm sure is the case with the CHLs here who've successfully banned us from many Chuck E. Cheese locations. The attitude is generally, "I hate this place, so I think no one else should shop here either."

Just as I've mentioned before, if you want to boycott and rattle the cages of anti-CHL establishments, you better go after Wal-Mart, HEB, and just about everyone else who refuses to respect the rights of their employees to carry. Bottom line: CHL is about legal carry and nothing else. It is not about personal feelings.

Embalmo

Congratulations!! Job well done!

I would not normally recommend informing a shop owner that gun-busters signs have no legal weight, but given your relationship and knowledge of his comfort with guns it was probably appropriate. It is a victory to one less sign around enforcing the idea that guns=criminals and no-guns=safety.

I find it fascinating that pro-gun people on the forum still advocate silence as the best approach to anti-gun signs. We can only speculate that CHL holder communication may have caused a gun-buster to 30.06 conversion at one business yet we now have at least three confirmed instances of businesses removing anti-gun signs (both gun-buster and 30.06) as a result of communication with forum members.

So we have proof in several cases that when consumers express the idea that they will vote with their money - businesses decide to vote with their money as well. We have the logical progression that if we don't let them know the gun-buster is not legal notification - they have no additional reason to sudden 'discover it' on their own.

What do we have on the other side? We have speculation that one instance may have caused a complaint sign to go up. And we have a logical fallacy that says any type of communication on the subject will lead to 30.06 signs going up.

This sounds to me like the same emotional, fact-less arguments used by the anti's to support their positions.

"We 'feel' safer, therefore GFZ must work." = "We 'think' if you communicate with business owners, more 30.06 signs will go up."

It's a logical fallacy and the fact's simply don't bear it out.

----

Job well done!!

The flaw here is that when an unenforcable sign gets removed, it helps no one. If an enforceable sign goes up, it hurts everyone. Concealed carry is about legally carrying handguns in the most locations possible. If I cared about businesse's 2nd amendment attitude, I would be intellectually honest and ban Walmart until they allowed their employees to carry.

Embalmo

If I would have not known this owner so well I would have never said a thing! I know he has a chl and wants his wife to obtain hers as well. Sign gone!

Craig8d8 wrote:If I would have not known this owner so well I would have never said a thing! I know he has a chl and wants his wife to obtain hers as well. Sign gone!

I agree with you. This was not risky. There are, however some here who would advocate this exchange with strangers.

Embalmo wrote:

Craig8d8 wrote:If I would have not known this owner so well I would have never said a thing! I know he has a chl and wants his wife to obtain hers as well. Sign gone!

I agree with you. This was not risky. There are, however some here who would advocate this exchange with strangers.

There might be a couple here that would advocate this particular exchange with strangers. For me, it would be similar, only I would leave the "not enforceable" part out. But the "some may see it that you don't beleive in our 2nd amendment and may choose to start going elsewhere!" - you bet!

zero risk of 30.06 going up + greater than zero chance of getting gunbuster removed = no reason not to

terryg wrote:

Embalmo wrote:

Craig8d8 wrote:If I would have not known this owner so well I would have never said a thing! I know he has a chl and wants his wife to obtain hers as well. Sign gone!

I agree with you. This was not risky. There are, however some here who would advocate this exchange with strangers.

There might be a couple here that would advocate this particular exchange with strangers. For me, it would be similar, only I would leave the "not enforceable" part out. But the "some may see it that you don't beleive in our 2nd amendment and may choose to start going elsewhere!" - you bet!

zero risk of 30.06 going up + greater than zero chance of getting gunbuster removed = no reason not to

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.

terryg wrote:

Embalmo wrote:

Craig8d8 wrote:If I would have not known this owner so well I would have never said a thing! I know he has a chl and wants his wife to obtain hers as well. Sign gone!

I agree with you. This was not risky. There are, however some here who would advocate this exchange with strangers.

There might be a couple here that would advocate this particular exchange with strangers. For me, it would be similar, only I would leave the "not enforceable" part out. But the "some may see it that you don't beleive in our 2nd amendment and may choose to start going elsewhere!" - you bet!

zero risk of 30.06 going up + greater than zero chance of getting gunbuster removed = no reason not to

Salient point!

Shinesintx wrote:

terryg wrote:

Embalmo wrote:

Craig8d8 wrote:If I would have not known this owner so well I would have never said a thing! I know he has a chl and wants his wife to obtain hers as well. Sign gone!

I agree with you. This was not risky. There are, however some here who would NOT advocate this exchange with strangers.

There might be a couple here that would advocate this particular exchange with strangers. For me, it would be similar, only I would leave the "not enforceable" part out. But the "some may see it that you don't beleive in our 2nd amendment and may choose to start going elsewhere!" - you bet!

zero risk of 30.06 going up + greater than zero chance of getting gunbuster removed = no reason not to

Salient point!

Inasmuch as it did not apply to a Texas CH licensee while in Texas, to whom was the gunbuster sign directed and what was the bother?

It was directed at everyone who enters the store. Yes I agree that it has nothing to do with a CHL holder. But IMO I really Love my 2nd amendment and I choose to shop with those that may share my same views.

If he was really "for" the gunbuster sign that meant he DID NOT want you in his store!! Yes I know that concealed means concealed and that this sign was not enforceable by law but it's gone and I continue to shop there. Lol

Craig8d8 wrote:It was directed at everyone who enters the store. Yes I agree that it has nothing to do with a CHL holder. But IMO I really Love my 2nd amendment and I choose to shop with those that may share my same views.

If he was really "for" the gunbuster sign that meant he DID NOT want you in his store!! Yes I know that concealed means concealed and that this sign was not enforceable by law but it's gone and I continue to shop there. Lol

I think you did just fine. I think you already had a pretty good idea of how the conversation was going to go because of your relationship with the owner, therefore the risk was low.