TexasCHLforum.com

Wife insisted on taking the kids to Chuck E Cheese last night.
It is posted with a very small sign, near the inside door. Sign is too small, and I'm not sure that the wording is even right. Won't be going back, and sending a nastyogram to chuckechesse corporate.

jamisjockey wrote:Wife insisted on taking the kids to Chuck E Cheese last night.
It is posted with a very small sign, near the inside door. Sign is too small, and I'm not sure that the wording is even right. Won't be going back, and sending a nastyogram to chuckechesse corporate.

Your "nastyogram" is to get them to post a proper sign or what?

I didn't mention the improper posting in my nastyogram. I told them until they remove the sign they won't see another dime, and that I would spread their anti-CHL stance.

And, while the improper sign isn't legally binding, it surely makes clear what they intend. It wasn't one of those stupid gun buster signs. It was 30.06 verbage, posted on a little plaque by the door. They intend for CHL holders to not carry on their premesis.

I know that some people are all about the semantics of the 30.06. If the signs not completely right, then its not legally binding.
But if someone is anti gun, well, why on earth would I want to give them my money?

jamisjockey wrote:I didn't mention the improper posting in my nastyogram. I told them until they remove the sign they won't see another dime, and that I would spread their anti-CHL stance.

And, while the improper sign isn't legally binding, it surely makes clear what they intend. It wasn't one of those stupid gun buster signs. It was 30.06 verbage, posted on a little plaque by the door. They intend for CHL holders to not carry on their premesis.

I know that some people are all about the semantics of the 30.06. If the signs not completely right, then its not legally binding.
But if someone is anti gun, well, why on earth would I want to give them my money?

Right on, Bro! Furthermore, arguing the semantics or the size of the letters could get quite costly.

Good call with the letter. Some are opposed to this, but I believe that you should send exactly such a letter. Not one letting them know the sign is non-complaint - but one letting know they will be losing business.

Here's the letter I wrote to Chuck-E-Cheese corporate



"I just visited the new Pearland, Texas location. I noticed that there is a sign requesting that Concealed Handgun Licensees not bring a weapon on the premisis.

Concealed Handgun holders in the state of Texas complete TWO background checks, state approved training, and are 7 times LESS likely to commit a crime than other citizens. Can you even say that about your own employees?

I carry a gun to protect myself and my children from violent criminals, who can just walk into your store without restriction.

Since you cannot gaurantee my safety, nor my children's safety, I WILL NOT be setting foot onto your property again until you remove the sign.

Last year, one of your Detroit stores was robbed by a group of armed attackers. Several patrons were injured in the robbery. You obviously have no interet in ensuring the safety of your customers, only in making people feel good by posting the no CHL holder sign.

Criminals IGNORE no-gun signs. THEY DON'T CARE and will walk right past them!! Your anti-Concealed Handgun License stance is IDIOTIC.

I am publsizing your anti-gun stance on Facebook, and on several high traffic web-forums. I will be suggesting that anyone who cares about their freedom, and protecting their family, never spend another dime with your company again."

I forgot to spell check it, but I'm sure they get the gist.

An angry letter as a first coorespondance is probably not going get get favorable results. Best case scenario, it's ignored; worst case scenario, a new compliant sign is posted there and maybe other locations too.

Embalmo

Embalmo wrote:An angry letter as a first coorespondance is probably not going get get favorable results. Best case scenario, it's ignored; worst case scenario, a new compliant sign is posted there and maybe other locations too.

Embalmo

I'm not sure that I agree with this.

The company posts a sign that they (probably) believe to be compliant. Someone then tells that company that they will not be doing business with the company because the sign keeps them from carrying on the premises.

Where in this chain of events does the company say "oh shoot, I guess our sign is not legally compliant and we should change it"?

Katygunnut wrote:

Embalmo wrote:An angry letter as a first coorespondance is probably not going get get favorable results. Best case scenario, it's ignored; worst case scenario, a new compliant sign is posted there and maybe other locations too.

Embalmo

I'm not sure that I agree with this.

The company posts a sign that they (probably) believe to be compliant. Someone then tells that company that they will not be doing business with the company because the sign keeps them from carrying on the premises.

Where in this chain of events does the company say "oh shoot, I guess our sign is not legally compliant and we should change it"?

The answer to you question would be, "The moment they read the letter." If the company believes that their sign is compliant, they do not want the business of "gun toters", so if a "gun toter" writes them an angry letter, they will likely fix the non-compliant sign. Now if the compliant sign goes up, the writer of the letter has won a victory on principle and will never have to visit a business that disagrees with their ideals; but what about those of us here who would prefer to continue visiting Chuck E. Cheese?

I just had my 40th (adult only) birthday party there last Saturday and the service, food, and prices were magnificent; all my adult guests agreed that Chuck E. Cheese is awesome when you don't have any children to worry about. I did, however, walk out to the parking lot and disarm before I did the ticket grab booth.

This thread is very similar to a thread about Buffalo Wild Wings. I went there recently and they wanted us to give them $5 each for whatever was on the TV; I wouldn't do it, nor will I ever return, but I won't try to fix it so no one else can go there.

Embalmo

Embalmo.. I think you missed the part where the OP specifically said he did not mention the non-compliant sign..

jamisjockey wrote:I didn't mention the improper posting in my nastyogram.

Read up a few posts for the full missive, sans any mention of the compliance issues with said sign.

RoyGBiv wrote:Embalmo.. I think you missed the part where the OP specifically said he did not mention the non-compliant sign..

jamisjockey wrote:I didn't mention the improper posting in my nastyogram.

Read up a few posts for the full missive, sans any mention of the compliance issues with said sign.

Yep-I read the letter, and I think Chuck E. Cheese is clever enough to figure out that the rant is about their sign. Wait-he did mention in the letter that criminals ignore signs. Either way, angry, threatening initial correspondance is never a way to accomplish anything favorable.



Embalmo

Embalmo wrote:

Katygunnut wrote:

Embalmo wrote:Embalmo

This thread is very similar to a thread about Buffalo Wild Wings. I went there recently and they wanted us to give them $5 each for whatever was on the TV;
Embalmo

I dont get it. Who wanted $5 each for whatever was on what tv?

Embalmo wrote:An angry letter as a first coorespondance is probably not going get get favorable results. Best case scenario, it's ignored; worst case scenario, a new compliant sign is posted there and maybe other locations too.
Embalmo

What is the basis for this? I have written many an angry letter that has produced results. A few years back I even wrote CEC Entertainment about lack of service and poor quality food. They did respond; they called me.

I usually do not write nice touchy feelly letters when I complain.

If the sign is non-compliant, leave well enough alone.

There are many, many businesses with non-compliant no gun signs and you can simply ignore them. Boldly walk right on by with your concealed carry because you have a CHL and those signs are meant for you. They aren't legally enforceable, but if you make an issue about it, there's a higher likelihood they'll comply with your notice and make them so.

Is that what you really want?

Let sleeping dogs lie.

If you want to raise Cain about no gun signs - Raise it the enforceable 30.06 signs, not the harmless ones that don't apply to you anyway.)

There are those among us who think non-compliant signs satisfy a corporate mandate, but wink-wink, someone in corporate knows they're unenforceable and realize those in the know (knowledgable CHLers) will simply walk past them with nary a ruffled feather...

P.S. Yes, I appreciate any no gun signs are annoying, but so are many things in life - In this instance it's best to simply suck it up and go about our business without attracting attention to something that could worsen with our insistence it be noticed.

I made a posting error, to wit:

There are many, many businesses with non-compliant no gun signs and you can simply ignore them. Boldly walk right on by with your concealed carry because you have a CHL and "those signs are meant for you"

I meant to say: those signs "AREN'T" meant for you