TexasCHLforum.com

Embalmo wrote:First of all, I need this to be the last time that anyone pops off with "Umm ok" after quoting me.

I'm very sorry. I did not mean to offend and will refrain from this in the future. My post was a very long one, but it was laid out very logically and the logic seems, to me, to be very sound. But it didn't matter, because you simply skipped it. So I had no real response to that. Again, I apologize.

Embalmo wrote:We are only talking about complaining about non-compliant signs in this thread (the OP indicated that the sign was probably non-compliant), so any examples of a compliant 30.06 sign being successfully removed do not pertain to this thread.

If compliant signs have been successfully removed via corporate communications, why would it be unreasonable to conclude that non-complaint signs can also be removed via the same methods? The goal is to change corporate policy. The corporate policy is what determines that the business will post a sign. Whether or not the sign is complaint is simply a matter of how well versed in Texas law the company is.

Embalmo wrote: Non-compliant signs do not affect CHLs in any way, so it doesn't matter if they're removed; so there can't be any legitimate pay-off.

Bottom line: A sign can only legally affect us if it's compliant.

And I guess this is where I disagree the most. True, a CHL holder can legally carry past a non-complaint sign - which is something I have done myself. But I don't think that is the bottom line. I believe that wide spread anti 2A corporate policy does indeed have a negative impact on all CHL holders - whether they chose to carry past the sign or not. That, to me, is the real bottom line.

I also believe that there is nearly zero chance of a non-compliant sign being made compliant due to a corporate communication that doesn't mention legal compliance. So therefore, I believe that no harm can come communicating and there is a small chance that good can come from communicating. So I ask, why not communicate?

Embalmo wrote:

terryg wrote:So what gives? You have a change of heart?

This needs to stop. This is not what this forum is about.

What needs to stop about this? I was giving Oldgringo what I intended to be a good natured ribbing while asking him to clarify (thus the 'lol' smiley) .

I can see how my 'Umm, ok.' in the last post could be taken offensively - and I have apologized for that. But there was clearly no malice in this comment to OG. I think you are inferring ill intent where none was implied. Please take a moment to re-read it in the light in which it was written ...

I understand the desire to have businesses remove anti-gun signs, but they will post them if they so choose.

Your frustration will not force them to bend to your will, but yes, you can complain to these businesses if you so choose. Yes, there's an infinitesimal chance your complaint will persuade them, but I think doing so does increase the chance of the signs being made compliant.

Yes, I understand the philosophy of: "Better to light a candle, then curse the darkness", but doing so in this case provides an endless supply of windmills to tilt at...

I guess what I'm trying to say is there are only so many causes one can spend energy on and this one provides a lifetimes worth with no chance of persuading all (or even very many) to comply with your wishes.

It's an imperfect world and you can rail against it's injustice, but in the end you'll just end up tired and the signs will go on being posted.

Here's one other consideration: If I owned a business and was firmly anti-gun, I would be willing to sacrifice some business to honor my principles. That being said, no gun nut (as I'm sure that's how most anti's think of us gun people) could persuade me to change my mind.

Jamisjockey, I agree with you. It was a well written letter with no reference to the sign being out of compliance. This business as well as others need to be informed that they will receive no money from us while they still will not guarantee our safety. I have saved a copy of your letter to use in the future. If you have a copy right let me know and I will delete it. I do think this thread is getting a little “testy” so this will by only comment. Thanks jamisjockey for a good job.

Abraham wrote:I understand the desire to have businesses remove anti-gun signs, but they will post them if they so choose.

Your frustration will not force them to bend to your will, but yes, you can complain to these businesses if you so choose. Yes, there's an infinitesimal chance your complaint will persuade them, but I think doing so does increase the chance of the signs being made compliant.

Thanks for the reply Abraham. I do understand that the chances are slim. Although, as I mentioned, there are a few examples on this forum of it working (here is one of them); I know that this would be the exception rather than the rule. And the chances of it working with a large multi-location company like Chucky-E-Cheese is even more slim.

(That said, I still think we underestimate the influence that we our tiny population could yield if we practiced corporate communication more. PR people know that a single call or letter represents more than just the one person making the complaint. And a company with multiple locations across the state would impact many more CHL holders if we would all let them know. I think we could yield an influecnce far greater than our numbers.)

But I don't agree that there is any real danger of a communication increasing the chance of a sign being made compliant. I just simply do not see that logic at all. So I think it is ok if you want to scoff at us 'windmill tilters' for wasting our time. I just don't see that fear that it will make things worse.

Abraham wrote:Here's one other consideration: If I owned a business and was firmly anti-gun, I would be willing to sacrifice some business to honor my principles. That being said, no gun nut (as I'm sure that's how most anti's think of us gun people) could persuade me to change my mind.

Yes, I agree completely. But, the assumption here is that the business is, in fact, firmly anti-gun. In some instances this is undoubtedly true. But in others, I speculate they are simply following 'Corporate Policy 101' and haven't given the issue much thought at all. In others, I think the signs are vestigial postings that were put up when the original Texas CHL laws were passed and everyone one screaming about the 'OK Coral'.

terryg wrote:

Abraham wrote:I understand the desire to have businesses remove anti-gun signs, but they will post them if they so choose.

Your frustration will not force them to bend to your will, but yes, you can complain to these businesses if you so choose. Yes, there's an infinitesimal chance your complaint will persuade them, but I think doing so does increase the chance of the signs being made compliant.

Thanks for the reply Abraham. I do understand that the chances are slim. Although, as I mentioned, there are a few examples on this forum of it working (here is one of them); I know that this would be the exception rather than the rule. And the chances of it working with a large multi-location company like Chucky-E-Cheese is even more slim.

(That said, I still think we underestimate the influence that we our tiny population could yield if we practiced corporate communication more. PR people know that a single call or letter represents more than just the one person making the complaint. And a company with multiple locations across the state would impact many more CHL holders if we would all let them know. I think we could yield an influecnce far greater than our numbers.)

But I don't agree that there is any real danger of a communication increasing the chance of a sign being made compliant. I just simply do not see that logic at all. So I think it is ok if you want to scoff at us 'windmill tilters' for wasting our time. I just don't see that fear that it will make things worse.

Abraham wrote:Here's one other consideration: If I owned a business and was firmly anti-gun, I would be willing to sacrifice some business to honor my principles. That being said, no gun nut (as I'm sure that's how most anti's think of us gun people) could persuade me to change my mind.

Yes, I agree completely. But, the assumption here is that the business is, in fact, firmly anti-gun. In some instances this is undoubtedly true. But in others, I speculate they are simply following 'Corporate Policy 101' and haven't given the issue much thought at all. In others, I think the signs are vestigial postings that were put up when the original Texas CHL laws were passed and everyone one screaming about the 'OK Coral'.

Oldgringo wrote:

{SIGH}

tacticool wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

{SIGH}

Hey! That's my line.

Ok, fine fine. I am sorry for boring everyone. I just kinda like for people to say why they believe something to be so. Especially if they are going to chastise somebody else for a particular action. I'll bug out ...

terryg,

Ignore those who attempt to censor that which THEY happen to find repetitive - No one forces them to read any thread.

I liked our discussion of this topic.

Abraham,

Thank you that message and for the PM prompting me to check the thread again. The moderators are usually quick to correct other objectionable behavior. I don't know why comments that serve no purpose except to stifle healthy discussion and that are so blatantly rude are given a free pass. When my teenager daughter was 14, she started to pickup that bad habit from junior high ... let's just say she no longer rolls her eyes at us.

terryg wrote:Abraham,

Thank you that message and for the PM prompting me to check the thread again. The moderators are usually quick to correct other objectionable behavior. I don't know why comments that serve no purpose except to stifle healthy discussion and that are so blatantly rude are given a free pass. When my teenager daughter was 14, she started to pickup that bad habit from junior high ... let's just say she no longer rolls her eyes at us.

How about telling us how you broke your teenage daughter from rolling her eyes at you?

I just hate it when CH licensee, Mrs. Oldgringo at me when I'm giving her important instructions and/or information.

Oldgringo wrote:How about telling us how you broke your teenage daughter from rolling her eyes at you?

In our case it wasn't that hard. She likes her cell phone ALOT.

CHUCK E CHEESE IS JUST A BIG MOUSE,,SIGN NON COMPLIANT,,NUFF SAID.

FAST FORWARD "A RESTAURANT MENTIONED HERE PLENTY THAT SELL WINGS ",,,,COME OUT OF THE BATHROOM,,SEE A SIGN THAT SAYS FIREARMS ARE NOT PERMITTED AT THIS ESTABLISMENT,,,OH WELL,,,NO LETTER,,NO FUSS

WHAT THEY DO NOT KNOW WILL NOT HURT THEM

cnovel wrote:CHUCK E CHEESE IS JUST A BIG MOUSE,,SIGN NON COMPLIANT,,NUFF SAID.

FAST FORWARD "A RESTAURANT MENTIONED HERE PLENTY THAT SELL WINGS ",,,,COME OUT OF THE BATHROOM,,SEE A SIGN THAT SAYS FIREARMS ARE NOT PERMITTED AT THIS ESTABLISMENT,,,OH WELL,,,NO LETTER,,NO FUSS

WHAT THEY DO NOT KNOW WILL NOT HURT THEM

Is this the same place that has the very humorous sign at the front door? I think it says "No guns allowed"