Chuck E cheese in Pearland posted (improperly)

[Embalmo]

It took me a long time to realize these posts about instructing business owners about their non-compliant signs weren't a joke. I'll never get it. I guess the most efficient way to do it would to include a valid 30.06 in the same envelope as the letter.

Embalmo

[Pacifist]

I tend to not frequent establishments whose owners have let it be known that they would rather not have my business via the posting of a 30.06 sign, valid or invalid. If I happen to be in a particularly benevolent mood, I will, on occasion, inform the establishments' owners of their loss of business and the reason for the loss.

[Embalmo]

I tend to not frequent establishments whose owners have let it be known that they would rather not have my business via the posting of a 30.06 sign, valid or invalid. If I happen to be in a particularly benevolent mood, I will, on occasion, inform the establishments' owners of their loss of business and the reason for the loss.

The thing about non-valid signs is that they don't affect us until we tell them to (and how) to make them valid; many of us would prefer not to decrease the number place that we may legally carry. The "C" stands for concealed.

Embalmo

[terryg]

I tend to not frequent establishments whose owners have let it be known that they would rather not have my business via the posting of a 30.06 sign, valid or invalid. If I happen to be in a particularly benevolent mood, I will, on occasion, inform the establishments' owners of their loss of business and the reason for the loss.

I agree with this 100%. No one has presented any credible reason why or how letting a business know that they are losing money with their anti-gun policy will cause them to 'discover' that their signs are invalid.

[jamisjockey]

I tend to not frequent establishments whose owners have let it be known that they would rather not have my business via the posting of a 30.06 sign, valid or invalid. If I happen to be in a particularly benevolent mood, I will, on occasion, inform the establishments' owners of their loss of business and the reason for the loss.

The thing about non-valid signs is that they don't affect us until we tell them to (and how) to make them valid; many of us would prefer not to decrease the number place that we may legally carry. The "C" stands for concealed.

Embalmo

Did you even read my posts? Huh? I DID NOT TELL THEM THEIR SIGN WAS INVALID. I posted the letter in this thred. Go back and read it.

[Embalmo]

I tend to not frequent establishments whose owners have let it be known that they would rather not have my business via the posting of a 30.06 sign, valid or invalid. If I happen to be in a particularly benevolent mood, I will, on occasion, inform the establishments' owners of their loss of business and the reason for the loss.

The thing about non-valid signs is that they don't affect us until we tell them to (and how) to make them valid; many of us would prefer not to decrease the number place that we may legally carry. The "C" stands for concealed.

Embalmo

Did you even read my posts? Huh? I DID NOT TELL THEM THEIR SIGN WAS INVALID. I posted the letter in this thred. Go back and read it.

Seriously-You need to chill with the angry (all caps) posts here; there are other forums on the Internet for that. If you write an angry letter accusing a business of having no interest in the safety of their patrons with threats of public scrutiny, they're gonna' wonder what your beef is and quickly realize that their sign is your problem.

If I had a business and someone wrote me a letter such as that, I would go out of my way to make sure no one like that could ever enter my business again by posting the biggest, most valid sign possible; to keep those angry, threatening CHLs as far away from my property as possible. I might even look into metal detectors.

Embalmo

[i8godzilla]

Seriously-You need to chill with the angry (all caps) posts here; there are other forums on the Internet for that. If you write an angry letter accusing a business of having no interest in the safety of their patrons with threats of public scrutiny, they're gonna' wonder what your beef is and quickly realize that their sign is your problem.

If I had a business and someone wrote me a letter such as that, I would go out of my way to make sure no one like that could ever enter my business again by posting the biggest, most valid sign possible; to keep those angry, threatening CHLs as far away from my property as possible. I might even look into metal detectors.

Embalmo

Again, what facts do you have to back this up?

BTW: I am a business owner and do not play one on TV.

[speedsix]

...looks like the allcaps above were used for emphasis...no anger implied...the anger/frustration was expressed in small letters in the preceding sentence...

...we all know what PROPERLY worded signs mean...I have contacted business owners/managers about my feelings on them...to no avail...

...IMPROPERLY worded signs may be:
1)due to ignorance...we have nothing to gain by educating them
2)the owner/manager's way of pacifying the corporate, insurance, or superior's orders and still keeping the door open for our business...let sleeping dogs lie and don't make a point of the error so that they can correct it..

...if we quietly go about our business, obeying the letter of the law...the chances are slim that we will ever have a discussion with the management/employers...and end up getting them to PROPERLY post ...concealed weapons just aren't a topic of conversation when they're concealed...why give them a chance to notify us verbally that they're off-limits?


...so, if they do it CORRECTLY...comply...if they do it WRONG...walk on by...

[Commander Cody]

I posted one time in this thread and said it would be only one. But I feel compelled to post one more time. I think this has become hostile and should be locked…. IMHO

[terryg]

...IMPROPERLY worded signs may be:
1)due to ignorance...we have nothing to gain by educating them

Your probably right ... most of the time. However, there are a few occasions where CHL holders did gain by educating them as shown in this thread.

[Embalmo]

Seriously-You need to chill with the angry (all caps) posts here; there are other forums on the Internet for that. If you write an angry letter accusing a business of having no interest in the safety of their patrons with threats of public scrutiny, they're gonna' wonder what your beef is and quickly realize that their sign is your problem.

If I had a business and someone wrote me a letter such as that, I would go out of my way to make sure no one like that could ever enter my business again by posting the biggest, most valid sign possible; to keep those angry, threatening CHLs as far away from my property as possible. I might even look into metal detectors.

Embalmo

Again, what facts do you have to back this up?

BTW: I am a business owner and do not play one on TV.

Common sense; a letter like that only confirms why that person put any sign up in the first place. The bottom is: if a non-compliant sign is taken down, it helps no one. If a non-compliant sign in corrected it hurts us all. The notion is just about as bright as the condemned man who reminds the warden to plug the chair in.

I highy suspect that many of these "signage missionaries" do so as an opportunity to tell people that they have a CHL and
carry a weapon. I prefer to keep it concealed, keep it quiet, and follow the law as it is written.

Embalmo

Embalme

[speedsix]

...IMPROPERLY worded signs may be:
1)due to ignorance...we have nothing to gain by educating them

Your probably right ... most of the time. However, there are a few occasions where CHL holders did gain by educating them as shown in this thread.

...I stand corrected...great example...I've bumped a lotta wasp's nests in my life...a coupla times got away without a sting...my policy is try not to bump wasp's nests...

[terryg]

I highy suspect that many of these "signage missionaries" do so as an opportunity to tell people that they have a CHL and
carry a weapon. I prefer to keep it concealed, keep it quiet, and follow the law as it is written.

That seems pretty presumptive. Perhaps they/we are just eternal optimist tilting at windmills. There are a lot of people on this board who have become, by their own admission, CHL ambassadors with their family and friends for the purpose of educating others and advancing the 2A cause. Would you assign the same 'bragging' motive to those as well? Please don't take this the wrong way - I am not trying to be testy. I just wondering if there is a difference in these two positions to your way of thinking?

I have not yet contacted a business, though I suspect I will. I simply have not yet chosen to avoid a place of business due to it's posting - legal or not. I came close not too long ago. I was in EyeMasters getting glasses for my daughter. After we were in the store and almost finished, I noticed the non-compliant sticker on the door. But we had already done our research for insurance and spent a lot of time, so I just stayed and finished the transaction.

But if I had chosen to avoid giving them my business, I would not have told them in person. I would have sent a politely worded letter explaining why they didn't get my business and letting them know who did get it and about how much we spent (+ insurance). So, I don't see how I would get the fulfillment of showing off my CHL status with a mailed standard business letter.

[terryg]

...IMPROPERLY worded signs may be:
1)due to ignorance...we have nothing to gain by educating them

Your probably right ... most of the time. However, there are a few occasions where CHL holders did gain by educating them as shown in this thread.

...I stand corrected...great example...I've bumped a lotta wasp's nests in my life...a coupla times got away without a sting...my policy is try not to bump wasp's nests...

Sure. I'm not saying everyone should go out and send letters - although I do think it could be more effective than people think. But what I don't see is the logic in thinking that a letter that mentions nothing about the signs being non-complaint, will cause them to post compliant signs. That just seems nonsensical to me.

If anything, the letter writer is saying "Your sign is keeping me out of your store." If the business is sternly anti-2A, this will only confirm to them that the sign works. All of those who wish to continue to carry past it, can do so just like before, perhaps even with extra confidence.

[speedsix]

"...But what I don't see is the logic in thinking that a letter that mentions nothing about the signs being non-complaint, will cause them to post compliant signs. That just seems nonsensical to me..."
...I don't either, and I didn't read that into your letter which, taken as it was written, would deal with their attitude about 2A and NOT their method of placing signage...I was commenting only on the futility of contesting the point with them that they'd posted at all...and I WAS being pessimistic