Biz Owners/Mgrs... "outside pressure" to post 30.06?

[sailor2000]

A question for those who own or manage businesses. Have you ever had "demands of insurance providers and other outside forces" put on you to post 30.06? My wife and I own a business with a fair number of employees and customers and we have never had the subject of our weapons policy come up with either any of our insurance providers, our landlord from whom we rent the premises or any other outside group or individual.

Has anyone had 'outside' pressure to post 30.06?

By the way, we are proud members of the NRA Business Alliance, you should be too! You don't have to be in the firearms business to join!

[joeybcdt]

No one has ever asked me. I own six retail businesses.

[Tic Tac]

Outside pressure is a frequent excuse people give when they don't want to accept responsibility for their choices.

[JALLEN]

I asked about this some time back on a very large gun owners forum, lots of insurance guys etc.

Nobody had ever heard of a gun ban being required by insurance.

Until semi-retirement I was a CEO, General Counsel, and director of 14-15 companies. I have never seen such a requirement in any policies or had it brought to my attention. Our insurance broker in San Diego had never heard of it, but you know how salesmen can be.

[mojo84]

I've sold commercial insurance for over 16 years. It has never come up with any of my clients. The only time it comes up is when there are security guards provided by my client or the client is a security company. Some carriers won't underwrite a risk if there are armed guards. The couple of times I've had to deal with it, I just found another carrier.

[Oldgringo]

Hey sailor, let sleeping dogs lie, eh? Why are you stirring this pot?

[cb1000rider]

I think he's asking about it as I made a statement saying that I (meaning me personally) don't assume that all businesses that post 30.06 due so as part of a corporate anti-gun policy.

[sailor2000]

Hey sailor, let sleeping dogs lie, eh? Why are you stirring this pot?

What pot am I supposed to be stirring now? What is the sleeping dog?

I am in fact asking what I think is a legitimate question that was based on

I think he's asking about it as I made a statement saying that I (meaning me personally) don't assume that all businesses that post 30.06 due so as part of a corporate anti-gun policy.

in another thread.

My intent was to see if there is any evidence, based on the experience of business owners and managers to support the idea that 'outside pressure' is forcing otherwise pro-gun business owners / managers to post 30.06 against their will. So far, the response is that no one has had any outside pressure to post 30.06 at their business. Yes it is a very small sample. But it confirms my personal experience.

So my conclusion, and I stand to be corrected if anyone can present evidence to the contrary, is that businesses that post 30.06 do so willingly and as a purely internal decision born out of either genuine anti-gun and / or anti-CHL bias or just plain ignorance (which is kind of redundant since the anti's bias is generally born out of ignorance anyway) .

When I have engaged owners / managers of businesses posting 'correct' 30.06 signage, and there have been many, (lest I be accused of encouraging those with incorrect signs to correct them to enforceable signs) I have found the response to be that they want their customers and employees to "feel safe", i.e. they perceive that their customers are threatened by the possible presence of an armed CHL holder.

When I ask how would their customers or employees know if an armed CHL holder were in the business, as the handgun is by definition concealed, I generally get a blank stare. And when I ask how they 'feel' safer if they wouldn't know if there were an armed CHL holder in the business anyway, sign or no sign, I get a continued blank stare. And then they loop back to the 'feel' safer theme. So it is the owners / managers that feel threatened by CHL holders in spite of all the statistics to the contrary.

It has yet to be tested in court if a business can be found liable for injury to a CHL holder who was injured while disarmed by a businesses 30.06 sign.

So, as I have yet to find any evidence for the 'outside pressure' theory, Starbucks being the exception and that only because the open carry folks overplayed their hand, any business that posts 30.06 does so for their own internal reasons and will not, if there is ANY way around it , not get my $$$.

Now that I have been down the rhetorical path and beaten that horse again please tell me what the sleeping dog is on this question??

[chasfm11]

I don't agree with Old Gringo's point but I think that I understand it.

Why ask business owners if they have a reason to post a 30.06 when suggesting it might cause them to do so? As most of us understand, the subject of guns is not on a lot of people's minds. When a situation like an OC demonstration occurs, it raises awareness and the possibility of a negative reaction. There might be more 30.06 signs if general business owners had a better awareness that CHLs could be in their business locations. I'm not suggesting that this is true, just that the possibility exists.

I do believe that going down the main street of town and asking every business owner if they had a pressure to post a 30.06 is a questionable approach. But your question was posed on a (hopefully) gun friendly forum. There has to be someplace where we can go to discuss these matters and I can think of no reason why it shouldn't be here. The anti-gun factions are organizing and trying to spread their message. I think that it is a great idea to learn more about the ways of spreading that message, particularly if it is resulting in new signs.

I had a recent situation where I had to stand up in public and make sure that a group wasn't able to trample on my right to carry. I personally believe that by slinking around such incidents, we are inviting more of them. So I'm an advocate of wisely approaching any negative situation. Challenging an already posted 30.06 sign is one of them. I don't see that there is anything to be lost. Trying to find the sources of pressure to post new 30.06 signs in another. I do agree that it isn't something I want to put into a radio advertizement for general consumption, however.

[Oldgringo]

I don't agree with Old Gringo's point but I think that I understand it.

Why ask business owners if they have a reason to post a 30.06 when suggesting it might cause them to do so? As most of us understand, the subject of guns is not on a lot of people's minds. When a situation like an OC demonstration occurs, it raises awareness and the possibility of a negative reaction. There might be more 30.06 signs if general business owners had a better awareness that CHLs could be in their business locations. I'm not suggesting that this is true, just that the possibility exists.

I do believe that going down the main street of town and asking every business owner if they had a pressure to post a 30.06 is a questionable approach. But your question was posed on a (hopefully) gun friendly forum. There has to be someplace where we can go to discuss these matters and I can think of no reason why it shouldn't be here. The anti-gun factions are organizing and trying to spread their message. I think that it is a great idea to learn more about the ways of spreading that message, particularly if it is resulting in new signs.

I had a recent situation where I had to stand up in public and make sure that a group wasn't able to trample on my right to carry. I personally believe that by slinking around such incidents, we are inviting more of them. So I'm an advocate of wisely approaching any negative situation. Challenging an already posted 30.06 sign is one of them. I don't see that there is anything to be lost. Trying to find the sources of pressure to post new 30.06 signs in another. I do agree that it isn't something I want to put into a radio advertizement for general consumption, however.

There it is!

[sailor2000]

To be clear, the only place I asked that question is here. I have not and would not approach people outside if here and try to provoke a response. I wanted to see if there was any evidence to support the " outside pressure" theory.

Are we so cowed by the anti's that we are afraid to even discuss the topic? Rights not are asserted are rights lost. We have a right to political free speech. That only 2% of texans are CHL does not mean that only 2% support the right. If that was true the law would have been repealed long ago.

My read of the public mood is that it is becoming more supportive of CHL, not less.

We are going to be doing an episode of our radio program soon about seniors and self defense and safety and we won't be using that to poke a stick in the eye of the anti's either. Just the facts Ma'am....