Movie Tavern a No Go now also

[rotor]

I don't believe any of these emails or letters to corporate headquarters will have any effect. Small independent business might respond to such a letter if they feel it hurts the bottom line. I think that the only answer will come through legislation ( which will probably never pass ) that requires a public business to have security personnel present if they post and exempts them from hiring security if they don't post. Or, legislation that makes a posted gun free zone legally liable for damages in say a negligence suit. If you slip on the floor at WalMart because they didn't clean up a spill you can sue for that broken arm. Something similar for hosting a non-secure business. In the meantime though, I would say spend your money elsewhere. Be honest, how high up the chain do you think your letters and emails go?

[The Annoyed Man]

If every CHL holder committed to boycotting any theatre that had a 30.06 sign, I think there would be a big enough impact to be noticed. Same math works for restaurants, etc. I think the real problem is that a lot of CHL holders just don't care enough to actually change their purchasing behavior.

If that were the case you might be right and it might indeed matter. But I think your last sentence is most correct --most don't care enough to change their behavior. A lot of people with CHLs don't even regularly carry. I suspect a large percentage are indifferent to the 30.06 signs for that reason. Another large percentage are willing to disarm either because their girlfriend, spouse, parents, friends, etc...with little or no interest (or are actually anti gun) want to go.

In some cases, various stores for instance, a spouse who doesn't carry may continue to spend money there. A non CHL spouse spending money at Whole Foods is the same as the CHL husband spending money there.

The people in this forum are probably about as dedicated carriers and 2nd amendment advocates as their are and even some here will continue to trade at places that put up 30.06 signs.

Not only that, but even if ALL license holders carried 24/7/365, and even if ALL license carriers completely boycotted ALL 06/07 posted businesses, we represent no more than 3% of the population at large, and we don't ALL shop at ALL the same businesses. I think that license holders vastly overestimate our collective purchasing power. A 3% downtick in a company's business isn't going to put that company into distress unless it is already on extremely shaky financial footing. Like someone said above, paraphrasing the attitude of businesses that post signage, "we don't care, because we don't have to". The only incentive they have to change is to come to the conclusion that every dog has its day in the son, and that it is generally unproductive to make permanent enemies of your business. But there is a distinct difference between behavior that is unproductive for the future, and behavior that is financially costly in the present. The fact is, business boycotts by license holders are like mosquitos, and will be largely ineffective.

If those posted business owners change their minds, it won't be because of boycotts by license holders; it will be because they've come to the conclusion after some longer elapsed period of time that there have been no bloodbaths and that they might as well open up their businesses to concealed carry. I seriously doubt that - once posted 30.07 - most businesses will take down their 30.07 signs.

[G26ster]

Not only that, but even if ALL license holders carried 24/7/365, and even if ALL license carriers completely boycotted ALL 06/07 posted businesses, we represent no more than 3% of the population at large, and we don't ALL shop at ALL the same businesses. I think that license holders vastly overestimate our collective purchasing power. A 3% downtick in a company's business isn't going to put that company into distress unless it is already on extremely shaky financial footing. Like someone said above, paraphrasing the attitude of businesses that post signage, "we don't care, because we don't have to". The only incentive they have to change is to come to the conclusion that every dog has its day in the son, and that it is generally unproductive to make permanent enemies of your business. But there is a distinct difference between behavior that is unproductive for the future, and behavior that is financially costly in the present. The fact is, business boycotts by license holders are like mosquitos, and will be largely ineffective.

If those posted business owners change their minds, it won't be because of boycotts by license holders; it will be because they've come to the conclusion after some longer elapsed period of time that there have been no bloodbaths and that they might as well open up their businesses to concealed carry. I seriously doubt that - once posted 30.07 - most businesses will take down their 30.07 signs.

TAM, I'm surprised by your final sentence. Of course they'll come down. Just like all the "No Smoking" signs have.

[Soccerdad1995]

If every CHL holder committed to boycotting any theatre that had a 30.06 sign, I think there would be a big enough impact to be noticed. Same math works for restaurants, etc. I think the real problem is that a lot of CHL holders just don't care enough to actually change their purchasing behavior.

If that were the case you might be right and it might indeed matter. But I think your last sentence is most correct --most don't care enough to change their behavior. A lot of people with CHLs don't even regularly carry. I suspect a large percentage are indifferent to the 30.06 signs for that reason. Another large percentage are willing to disarm either because their girlfriend, spouse, parents, friends, etc...with little or no interest (or are actually anti gun) want to go.

In some cases, various stores for instance, a spouse who doesn't carry may continue to spend money there. A non CHL spouse spending money at Whole Foods is the same as the CHL husband spending money there.

The people in this forum are probably about as dedicated carriers and 2nd amendment advocates as their are and even some here will continue to trade at places that put up 30.06 signs.

Not only that, but even if ALL license holders carried 24/7/365, and even if ALL license carriers completely boycotted ALL 06/07 posted businesses, we represent no more than 3% of the population at large, and we don't ALL shop at ALL the same businesses. I think that license holders vastly overestimate our collective purchasing power. A 3% downtick in a company's business isn't going to put that company into distress unless it is already on extremely shaky financial footing. Like someone said above, paraphrasing the attitude of businesses that post signage, "we don't care, because we don't have to". The only incentive they have to change is to come to the conclusion that every dog has its day in the son, and that it is generally unproductive to make permanent enemies of your business. But there is a distinct difference between behavior that is unproductive for the future, and behavior that is financially costly in the present. The fact is, business boycotts by license holders are like mosquitos, and will be largely ineffective.

If those posted business owners change their minds, it won't be because of boycotts by license holders; it will be because they've come to the conclusion after some longer elapsed period of time that there have been no bloodbaths and that they might as well open up their businesses to concealed carry. I seriously doubt that - once posted 30.07 - most businesses will take down their 30.07 signs.

3% is 3%. Implicit in that is the assumption that all CHL holders do not shop at the same stores or go to the same restaurants. There may well be some businesses where there is a greater or lesser concentration of CHL holders, but on average, if a business gets paying customers from every segment of the population, then CHL holders should make up 3% of their customer base.

Most businesses have paying customers only above a certain age, say 16. So to determine the average percentage of CHL holders in that businesses customer base you need to take the same numerator and divide it by the smaller denominator that excludes the under 16 population. If the CHL holding customer can also influence the decision of a non-CHL holding customer, say a spouse, or a co-worker who is joining them for lunch, then the effective impact is magnified. I think the real impact could be 5% - 10% if all CHL holders actually believed in boycotting free fire zones. That isn't reality, so lets say that the impact on most businesses is really only 3% after all factors are considered.

I work in finance and have worked for many fortune 500 companies. Trust me when I say that if a company is expecting a 3% growth in same store sales (typical for a retailer), and the actual growth is 0%, then heads will roll. It won't cause the business to go bankrupt, but it will be enough to warrant investigation and remediation. If a policy change is found to be the driver of this revenue miss, then that policy will most likely be changed.