30.06 and 30.07 Signs at Stores

[dac1842]

I stopped at a store in Highway 90 and 321 between Houston and Beaumont. The store had the unlicensed carry sign, then had both the 30.06 and 30.07 signs posted as well.
Talking to the manager he stated the the Greater Houston Retailers Association (GHRA) were in his words mandating that both signs be displayed at their members stores.

I have no idea if mandate is the correct term, it was his, not mine. But if anyone here has any contacts with GHRA might find out why...

[crazy2medic]

To me that sounds like coercion, so does GAHR have some means to force retailers to post or are they simply bullying stores that are part of their Association to carry out the association's will?

[WildBill]

I am concerned about this.
This is one instance where I did want to visit the corporate website to see their policies.
I did not see anything, but I believe that you must be a member to view them.
It sounds like the tail wagging the dog on the 30.06 sign issue.
I will try to do some more research on this matter.

According to their mission statement they cater to independent convenience store owners.

They do have some risk assessment guidelines, but I don't see anything related to firearms policy.

https://www.ghraonline.com/docs/misc/PC ... nes_v1.pdf

[suthdj]

Or maybe manager lied to get you to leave him alone.

[RicoTX]

Or maybe manager lied to get you to leave him alone.

This would be my guess... Or they gave him the signs and asked that he put them up and he didn't ask why.

[Rpenn57]

More and more Shell gas stations/convenience stores around me, that never had any signs posted, are now putting up both signs and I'm going to stop by and asks why both when they had neither.

[Lucent]

They all seem to have the same signs with the red gun buster overlay. All likely provided for free by GHRA.

I looked around the Greater Houston Area Retailers site and found their February 2016 newsletter. https://www.ghraonline.com/Members_Promotions.php

On page 31 they have an ad with the following:

GHRA Members,

It is important for Members to understand that the posters provided by GHRA for
CONCEALED CARRY and OPEN CARRY are NOT MANDATORY, but are provided for
your convenience. Members should use their own best judgement on poster
placement.

Seem that speculation about GHRA sending out signs is true. What we seem to be seeing is store owners posting signs because they either don't know the law, or assume that since GHRA sent them they have to post them as members.

We have an education task ahead of us.

L

[WildBill]

They all seem to have the same signs with the red gun buster overlay. All likely provided for free by GHRA.

I looked around the Greater Houston Area Retailers site and found their February 2016 newsletter. https://www.ghraonline.com/Members_Promotions.php

On page 31 they have an ad with the following:

GHRA Members,

It is important for Members to understand that the posters provided by GHRA for
CONCEALED CARRY and OPEN CARRY are NOT MANDATORY, but are provided for
your convenience. Members should use their own best judgement on poster
placement.

Seem that speculation about GHRA sending out signs is true. What we seem to be seeing is store owners posting signs because they either don't know the law, or assume that since GHRA sent them they have to post them as members.

We have an education task ahead of us.

L

Thank you for your input.

[Lucent]

If they (GHRA) feel it necessary to print a full page ad in their newsletter stating that the signs they provided (For free?) "are NOT MANDATORY" they must be either concerned about backlash or getting heat about sending them out.

Most retailers will not read the newsletter and if they were sent signs from the association they will assume they have to post them. Add to that, not being judgmental here, a large majority of these retailers are possibly new immigrants to Texas who are unlikely to want to risk sanctions.

L

[WildBill]

If they (GHRA) feel it necessary to print a full page ad in their newsletter stating that the signs they provided (For free?) "are NOT MANDATORY" they must be either concerned about backlash or getting heat about sending them out.

Most retailers will not read the newsletter and if they were sent signs from the association they will assume they have to post them. Add to that, not being judgmental here, a large majority of these retailers are possibly new immigrants to Texas who are unlikely to want to risk sanctions.

L

Thanks for the link. I thought this was a trade organization. I didn't realize that they had a distribution warehouse.
Page 17 lists some of their newest members. They all appear to be mom and pop type stores.

[MeMelYup]

If they (GHRA) feel it necessary to print a full page ad in their newsletter stating that the signs they provided (For free?) "are NOT MANDATORY" they must be either concerned about backlash or getting heat about sending them out.

Most retailers will not read the newsletter and if they were sent signs from the association they will assume they have to post them. Add to that, not being judgmental here, a large majority of these retailers are possibly new immigrants to Texas who are unlikely to want to risk sanctions.

L

I agree. Also, the GHRA provided the signs therefore they are saying, we suggest you post this but you are not required to.

The GHRA most likely has different management than they did in 1996 and may need to be enlightened.

[casp625]

If they (GHRA) feel it necessary to print a full page ad in their newsletter stating that the signs they provided (For free?) "are NOT MANDATORY" they must be either concerned about backlash or getting heat about sending them out.

Most retailers will not read the newsletter and if they were sent signs from the association they will assume they have to post them. Add to that, not being judgmental here, a large majority of these retailers are possibly new immigrants to Texas who are unlikely to want to risk sanctions.

L

I agree. Also, the GHRA provided the signs therefore they are saying, we suggest you post this but you are not required to.

The GHRA most likely has different management than they did in 1996 and may need to be enlightened.

I wonder if they provided any guidance when the signs were sent out or did they just send the signs without any literature?