never ceases to amaze me.... (gunbusters)

[RPB]

Perhaps suggest an alternate sign
Neither sign is addressed to me; I don't need to read nor comment on other people's mail.

[zero4o3]

You now have to make your own decision in this matter. As others have expressed, you are perfectly legal to continue to do business there and to carry right past that sign. But you have to decide if you want to continue to give you business to such a bank. If you do decide to leave them, however, I would strongly encourage you to make sure to let them know why they are losing your account - as a silent protest will accomplish nothing.

I dont understand why everyone jumps to the assumption that a gunbuster sign means they dont want a CHL holder in their buisiness

[Jasonw560]

They could argue that an 8X11 piece of paper with the proper wording is considered an "other document" (says nothing about legal) as spelled out in 30.06.

[Dragonfighter]

God doesn't want us to engage fools.

Pr 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.

[couzin]

Let sleeping dogs lie
I do not mention any signs to anyone.
Especially unenforceable ones.
Doing that just gets them to putting up 30.06 signs.

Ditto - just leave it alone!!

[terryg]

I dont understand why everyone jumps to the assumption that a gunbuster sign means they dont want a CHL holder in their buisiness

Well, even if we ignore history, on its face a generic gun buster sign says that 'guns are not welcome'.

But if you examine history, after Texas first passed CHL laws, gun-buster type signs did in fact constitute proper legal notice. And from what I hear (i.e. read) many businesses immediately posted them. The obvious intention was to keep CHL holders from carrying into their place of business. Thankfully, the laws have changed - but most business owners do not know this. It is only those who are educated in the subtleties of current law (i.e. you and I) who really have any knowledge that the signs do not apply to CHL holders.

So the only reasonable conclusion is that, in most cases, business owners posting gun-busters are attempting to keep all guns (except those carried by highly trained LEO's) out of their stores.

This is also consistent with anecdotal evidence from forum members, like the OP, who have spoken with businesses about their gun-buster signs. They believe, and intend, that the sign will keep CHL holders from carrying on the premises.

But because most don't know the current law, I do not advocate educating them in this regard as some others do. But I do think it is entirely possible, and beneficial, to protest the anti-gun stance reflected by the gun-buster signs with out educating them in the law.

[RPB]

I disagree only slightly

"So the only reasonable conclusion is that, in most cases, business owners posting gun-busters are attempting to keep all guns (except those carried legally) out of their stores."

Exception for "legally" may encompass armed security guards picking up/delivering to that bank in their armored car (who are NOT law enforcement), Arson investigators who carry firearms, but are not "policemen", any number of other catagories of people carrying "legally" including CHLs etc. etc etc.

If they want to exclude police, armed security guards who pick up deposits, etc etc etc who are armed, they can put up that sign (though it may be unenforceable regarding Peace Officers)

Wasn't there a thread here last year of a coffee shop up North which only banned police wearing guns or something?
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blo ... rimination" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"This is one of the only places in Portland that's going to ask police officers to leave,"

[terryg]

"So the only reasonable conclusion is that, in most cases, business owners posting gun-busters are attempting to keep all guns (except those carried legally) out of their stores."

The 'highly trained LEO's' part of my original quote was meant tongue in cheek to paint how most anti-gun business holders view us - as untrained time bombs.

Exception for "legally" may encompass armed security guards picking up/delivering to that bank in their armored car (who are NOT law enforcement), Arson investigators who carry firearms, but are not "policemen", any number of other catagories of people carrying "legally" including CHLs etc. etc etc.

But I don't understand how you can think that this is their intention given the history of the mass postings after CHL laws were first passed. History simply does not bear that out. Yes, legally, it does not apply to CHL holders. But the evidence strongly suggest that when gun-buster signs are posted, the companies that are posting them have every intention of keeping CHL holders from carrying on the site. I thank God for our current 30.06 posting requirements. But the strict law does not change the intention of the non-complaint signs.

[RPB]

I'll agree that some old signs may be just due to failure to keep current on the laws, signs so old they forgot they are even there and just don't bother scraping peeling and cleaning off the dirty glue, but there are also those who intentionally post "feel good signs" and would never post a 30.06 who do know the laws. Since they both look the same, I can't read minds, I know the latter exist. I know at least 3 places where they intentionally posted "feel goods" one is a doctor's office where they are not shocked at all by a licensee with a gun in an examination room and have NRA-ish magazines to read in the waiting room, another is a "contractor" to a government agency with all girls working in the office and a CHL is the supervisor who had the "feel good" sign put up.. (If you MUST talk about a sign, be sure to only talk to the person who ordered that sign up, because one manager, that CHL who was Supervisor at the Government contracted company on County property, . a CHL got a bit angry at me talking about a non-enforceable sign to ignorant employees wanting to "FEEL" safe.... I won't open my mouth again.

No matter, I just ignore them anyway, they aren't addressed to me.
But, If a 30.06 goes up, I shop elsewhere and advise them why.

[terryg]

I'll agree that some old signs are just due to failure to keep current on the laws, but there are also those who intentionally post "feel good signs" and would never post a 30.06 who do know the laws. Since they both look the same, I can't read minds, I know the latter exist.

Sure, I'll grant they exist also. I would speculate that posting them as 'feel good' is more rare - but that is just speculation. Certainly cases like the OP posted are anecdotal proof of 'ill intent' as the branch manager confirmed he thought it would keep CHL holders out.

But I would still argue that, even if posted as a 'feel good' measure, they still harm the greater 2A cause. It still supports that idea that somehow, someway, a sign posted on the door will offer some type of magical protection from harm. And if signs and gun-free zones works to keep people safe, then all us 'gun-toten, hid'n behind the second amendment' types are only contributing to the crime problem by creating a market for guns. blah blah blah

----

So I get the tilting at windmills argument. Perhaps I am tilting and you can all laugh. That's fine.

But I don't buy it that gun-buster signs are completely harmless and I don't buy it that protesting an anti-2A policy without mentioning legal vs non-legal sign stuff will magically turn gun-busters into 30.06 signs.

[RPB]

If I were closer, and had time to waste, I'd stand at the door of the bank when armed guards when the armored cars came to the bank and point at the sign for them .... The armed guards might not know any better.

[WildBill]

I'll agree that some old signs are just due to failure to keep current on the laws, but there are also those who intentionally post "feel good signs" and would never post a 30.06 who do know the laws. Since they both look the same, I can't read minds, I know the latter exist.

Sure, I'll grant they exist also. I would speculate that posting them as 'feel good' is more rare - but that is just speculation. Certainly cases like the OP posted are anecdotal proof of 'ill intent' as the branch manager confirmed he thought it would keep CHL holders out.

But I would still argue that, even if posted as a 'feel good' measure, they still harm the greater 2A cause. It still supports that idea that somehow, someway, a sign posted on the door will offer some type of magical protection from harm. And if signs and gun-free zones works to keep people safe, then all us 'gun-toten, hid'n behind the second amendment' types are only contributing to the crime problem by creating a market for guns. blah blah blah

----

So I get the tilting at windmills argument. Perhaps I am tilting and you can all laugh. That's fine.

But I don't buy it that gun-buster signs are completely harmless and I don't buy it that protesting an anti-2A policy without mentioning legal vs non-legal sign stuff will magically turn gun-busters into 30.06 signs.

Very good post Terryg. I hadn't given too much thought to the historical aspects of the signs.

I worked for a company for six years. All the time I worked there, they had an outdated "gunbuster" sign next to the front door. A few months ago, during some building renovations, a new 30.06 sign was posted. The lettering size is too small to be compliant, but the language is now correct.

Before the new sign was put up, I know of at least two people who mentioned to management that the old sign was not enforceable. Both of them had recently taken their CHL class and were "gloating" about their new-found knowledge of handgun carry laws.

[seamusTX]

I want to throw out a nitpick and some unsolicited advice.

1. A private party (company or person) cannot violate the second amendment. The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies only to governments, and only in limited circumstances according to Heller and McDonald.
   
   I realize this is shorthand for "don't want weapons on their property," but that is their right as property owners until the legal situation changes.
2. If you decide not to patronize businesses with gunbusters and other non-compliant signage, fine. But if you don't communicate your reason to them, they'll never know.
   
   I was pretty pessimistic that any company would change its policies because CHL holders protested; but Taco Bell did—and that's a national corporation not based in Texas.

- Jim

[terryg]

I want to throw out a nitpick and some unsolicited advice.

A private party (company or person) cannot violate the second amendment. The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies only to governments, and only in limited circumstances according to Heller and McDonald.

I realize this is shorthand for "don't want weapons on their property," but that is their right as property owners until the legal situation changes.

Very good point - noted and thank you.

If you decide not to patronize businesses with gunbusters and other non-compliant signage, fine. But if you don't communicate your reason to them, they'll never know.

Yep I've said before in another post: "What I can guarantee is that the only thing less effective than informing them of your protest is a 'silent protest'!"

I was pretty pessimistic that any company would change its policies because CHL holders protested; but Taco Bell did—and that's a national corporation not based in Texas.

Yep. I think the CHL community underestimates the power we could wield if we voted with our voices and our wallets at the same time.

[03Lightningrocks]

I was pretty pessimistic that any company would change its policies because CHL holders protested; but Taco Bell did—and that's a national corporation not based in Texas.

Yep. I think the CHL community underestimates the power we could wield if we voted with our voices and our wallets at the same time.

Just to nitpic one step further. Wasn't Taco Bell legally posted with 30:06 signs? This was a battle we needed to fight. I feel most of us posting on this thread are saying that a gun buster sign needs no fight because it does not apply to a CHL. Our concern has to do with the clip below.

I worked for a company for six years. All the time I worked there, they had an outdated "gunbuster" sign next to the front door. A few months ago, during some building renovations, a new 30.06 sign was posted. The lettering size is too small to be compliant, but the language is now correct.

Before the new sign was put up, I know of at least two people who mentioned to management that the old sign was not enforceable. Both of them had recently taken their CHL class and were "gloating" about their new-found knowledge of handgun carry laws.