Austin bakery 30.06 story

[parabelum]

Conservative store owners get treated like garbage by the little leftist fascists all the time, with hate mail, bad reviews, even legal action (here is one example http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... uples.html).

So now that one of them got a little taste of their own modus operandi "some" want to whine about it?

[Soccerdad1995]

No, not at all. The thing here is "LTCs" or "2As" attacking a merchant with online abuse. Those are in quotes because I don't believe those were the ones dishing out the abuse. Maybe a (very) few. The abuse here is nasty comments and 1 star reviews directed at the merchant. This is almost certainly subterfuge, and is the opposite of republican democracy and self governance.

I wouldn't mind all the leftist antigunners going out of business. They have worked hard at attempting to destroy businesses that have done well to me and paid me good wages. A 30.06 business is by choice providing poor service to those of us that are denied entry.

If a business establishes a policy that increases the risk of harm to all of it's patrons, then a review of that business definitely should point out the increased risk for anyone who might consider going there.

And I don't think it is necessary to actually patronize a business in order to have a valid reason for posting a review. A year or so ago, I took my MIL and some other family members to a Thai restaurant that had a closing time posted as 10:00 PM on the door. We arrived at 9:35 PM. The hostess looked at our party of 6 and told us that she couldn't seat us because we wouldn't be done by 10:00. We didn't throw a fit or start a protest. But I did leave a review informing other potential customers that this restaurant's posted closing time means that you need to be done and out the door by that time. I did this because this is something that people should be aware of before they simply look up the restaurant's hours and decide to go there.

Similarly, the right to self defense is a well established common law right. This bakery is lawfully threatening to have people arrested if they bring reasonable means of self defense into this store. The bakery has the legal right to do this. But I think it is very valuable for potential customers to understand that this means they will be at an increased risk of injury or death if they choose to visit that bakery. And everyone is at increased risk, not only the people who would otherwise legally carry but also the non-LTC holder who is more likely to be the victim of a crime given the sign that announces this location as a place where criminals are free to ply their trade with significantly less resistance than they might encounter elsewhere.

Then post your review on the fact that you will not do business with them due to the 30.06 sign. Don't lie about services that you have no experience of. When you do that, you become unreliable in your ability to speak the truth of your own experience. Then you can get a Al Gore, Hillary Clinton fan club card.

Yes, I agree with you 100%. Posting a review that includes non-factual info is lying, and that is wrong. I would simply state that this bakery does not respect the civil rights of it's customers and denies service to folks that they disagree with*, along with intentionally endangering the safety and well being of their customers. But I would not say that their food was bad unless I had somehow actually tasted their product.

* I believe that calling the police to have customers arrested = denying service, so this is a factual statement.

[Soccerdad1995]

The gun blogger/LTC holder obviously knew that the site was posted 30.06 and 30.07, yet chose to carry past the signs. I don't buy for a second that a guy who spends so much of his time talking/writing about guns "forgot" he was carrying his handgun. Then he lies to the cops about "thought it was 30.07 only." We may not like the laws restricting where we can carry, but we must obey them.
I have read "The Truth About Guns" blog a few times, but not sure I can trust them when the head guy will openly break 30.06/30.07 law and then take to social media to create a storm over the enforcement of his law breaking.

I just read the account on TTAG's site. Yes, he pretty clearly admits to knowingly violating the 30.06 law. That is bad. He also admits to lying to the responding LEO. That is also bad. Like when a cop pulls you over for speeding and you say "I don't know" after he asks whether you know why he stopped you. Or you say that you thought the speed limit was 45 when you know darn well that it is 35 on that stretch of road. It is not 100% honest, and it is wrong. Kind of like telling your wife that no, you don't think that waitress is cute. But worse, because you are lying to a LEO.

But unless he has re-written his blog, I see no evidence of him trying to "create a storm". He praises this business' food and says that he has been there multiple times despite their signage, because their food is just so darn good that he can't help himself. His most recent edit actually tells folks to stop negatively contacting the business. Just like I agree with not posting untrue comments on reviews of this businesses, and not making untrue statements to a LEO who is investigating a potential Class C misdemeanor, I think it is important to stick to the facts when characterizing this guy's blog.

If anyone is harassing this business, or posting untrue reviews, they are in the wrong. And they are doing a disservice to us all.

[rotor]

I didn't see the business posting any signs saying that democratic political rallies were not authorized. When a business posts a 30.06 or .07 sign they are making a statement of their beliefs. As a consumer you have very little recourse to correct the situation. For big companies we have all seen that those corporate emails have not changed any minds. The only thing an individual can do is talk to the owner and use logic, boycott the store, or now, use social media to let the masses know. 3006.com is just for us, not the masses. One needs only look at youtube or facebook to see how it can make change. In this case we are seeing a bunch of French immigrants that don't have a 2A to look back on and the closest they know about guns is probably when the Nazis came into their parents store (if they had a store) with machine guns.

The local gunshow in my community put up 30.06 and .07 signs in a city owned facility. I made a negative review on facebook (the only time I have ever used it) and called the city manager and that gunshow no longer is posted 06/07. I don't agree with falsehoods on posting but I think that if you use social media for your business and allow comments that people should be able to post the policies that reflect how you will be treated when you get there.

When we as gun owners say that we will not use your facility we are talking about depriving that business of money as they are not there to socialize with me. My handsome face is not what they want to see. They want my money. A one man boycott has no effect. Keep everything legal and honest and tell the truth and you may change their opinion. Incidentally, my local hospital has just removed their 30.06.

I personally won't do business with a merchant that posts and I have no remorse about letting the world know that if they enter they enter at their own risk and it bothers me not if they boycott the store. As long as it is just an honest statement of the facts. I think that we need to learn from the devil how to use the power of social media to make change as long as we do it in an honest and non-discriminating way. Tell the facts just as if you were speaking to the manager of the store and rate the place with a star or whatever. You are forced to give it some kind of star by the social media I guess.

All is just my opinion and I am not always Mr. Niceguy.

[Flightmare]

I personally won't do business with a merchant that posts and I have no remorse about letting the world know that if they enter they enter at their own risk and it bothers me not if they boycott the store.

Perhaps 30.06 should be amended to require the words "Enter at your own risk"? I'm only partially joking.

[CZp10]

Why not change the law so that 30.06/30.07 signs apply to all LEO, so then the business has to put up a warning that if there is an emergency or robbery, no customer will be helped by the police. If they claim firearms are evil and are not allowed, then they shouldn’t allow any at all.

[Flightmare]

Why not change the law so that 30.06/30.07 signs apply to all LEO, so then the business has to put up a warning that if there is an emergency or robbery, no customer will be helped by the police. If they claim firearms are evil and are not allowed, then they shouldn’t allow any at all.

While I see what you're going for, I believe that's the wrong direction to be heading. We should be advocating for increased access, not the opposite.

[CZp10]

While I see what you're going for, I believe that's the wrong direction to be heading. We should be advocating for increased access, not the opposite.

Sorry, my frustrated sarcasm got the best of me.
I have several LEO in my family, I would never actually advocate that they couldn’t go somewhere, but I do wish a business couldn’t just decide what the constitution means and doesn’t mean.

[twomillenium]

* I believe that calling the police to have customers arrested = denying service, so this is a factual statement.

It is factual, but only for the person to whom it happened, the rest is heresay.