TexasCHLforum.com

Vol Texan wrote:

• Some say, "I won't ruin it for the rest of us by informing the businesses that they have posted incorrectly."
• Others say, "I'll go ahead and tell them so that I can determine their intent."

So lets look at those two situations and see what could be the outcome using a decision tree method (for this analysis, blue is a neutral outcome, green is a result that has us gaining ground, and red is a result that loses ground):

• "I won't ruin it for the rest of us by informing the businesses that they have posted incorrectly."
  • If they don't really care, then nothing happens. Result: Nothing happens. We neither win nor lose, and they neither win nor lose.
  • If they really don't want us to carry, then nothing happens. Result: Nothing happens. We neither win nor lose, and they lose nothing, because they go on believing that nobody is carrying, while we are allowed to carry on, per Texas law.

• "I'll go ahead and tell them so that I can determine their intent."
  • If they don't really care, then they may take down their sign, or leave it posted invalid. Result: We might get the sign removed, or they may leave the old sign up.
  • If they really don't want us to carry, then they may post, and they may inform others as well. Result: We win nothing, and we lose one or more places that we can carry legally.

Note that nothing is green, because there is no situation where we gain ground.

So, assuming blue is 'neutral', and red is 'bad', what value is there in selecting the second option? I'm not trying to marginalize your perspective, but I'm trying to determine why anyone would choose an option with a potential to win nothing or lose something, when the other option has no potential for gain or loss at all.

I welcome your response.


P.S. I may be incorrect here, but I believe that some of the folks suggesting that telling the business just to determine their intent may be LEOs as well as CHL holders. If this is true (and I'm not 100% sure if it is), then their entire premise is disingenuous. They have nothing to lose, because as a LEO, they can still carry if the place gets posted properly!!! They have nothing to lose. We non-LEO CHL holders are the only ones who lose in this situation.
This was not a LEO bashing statement. A long long time ago, in a distant land, I, too, wore a badge. I no longer do, however, and I don't envy them the job anymore. The job they do now is much more difficult (and dangerous) than the one I did back in the late '80s.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

EEllis wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

EEllis wrote:While I wouldn't bring a non compliant sign to the attention of a business to scoff about how they got it wrong or to correct them I disagree that there is something wrong with bringing a non compliant sign up with a business.
if someone is truly anti then I want to know to be able to decide how I spend my money. I can't do that if I don't know if posting an unenforceable sign is intentional or not. That is just one reason I could see possibly approaching a business. There are others. We each make our own choices you will not make mine for me. And no one else should feel pressured by people on here about their choice either.

How about this angle then....... if you see a non-compliant sign, go ahead and approach the manager and tell him you are leaving and won't be shopping there because of the anti-2nd Amendment attitude displayed in his sign...... but DON'T educate him about the sign's non-compliance! That way, you get to express your displeasure, and you don't ruin it for other CHLs who might want to still shop there. Go ahead and make that decision for yourself, but don't force your decision on others by educating the owner/manager about the sign.

Umm, no.

jimlongley wrote:I still don't understand what is being ruined?

Your chance to give an obvious anti-gun nut your money?

Your chance to give an obvious anti-gun nut who can't even be bothered to comply with the law your money?

You chance to give an obvious anti-gun nut who can't even be bothered to comply with the law and would gleefully see to it that you were incarcerated for the rest of your life and your guns confiscated and ground up and buried your money.

If they have a non-compliant sign I am informing them. Of the number of times I have done this, I have only seen the signage change twice, and that was when Bass Pro shops TOOK DOWN their signs in response to my complaint and the city of Plano removed theirs. Not one other has ever replaced a non-compliant sign with a compliant one.

That these people are exposing their ignorance is a source for our mirth, but don't think for a second that they wouldn't hesitate to at least attempt to prosecute you if you are discovered on their property in defiance of their sign, and if it happens to be an anti- gun nut cop who shows up, you can bet you'll take the ride.

When you push - through your actions, not mine - a anti-gun owner into posting a compliant sign, you have taken away one of MY options, which you don't have the moral authority to do to me.

I get it. I don't want stores to post signs at all. I am NOT in favor of them. But, some stores are going to, and it is MY right to choose whether to withhold my dollars or not from that store. When you educate such a store owner into replacing his invalid gunbusters sign with a valid 30.06 sign, you have removed from ME the option to carry into his store if I want to. I WON'T carry past a valid sign, and I WILL withhold my business from a store with a valid sign. But if they have a simple gunbusters sign on the door - as does my bank of many years for instance - and YOU walk in there and inform them that their sign is invalid and that they have to post a valid 30.06 sign, now I have to change banks - no thanks to you. In other words, it is your actions that will have caused a previously nonexistent burden to be placed on my life - not the ignorant store owner's. He might have been content to just let things ride with the gunbusters sign. My local bank is just one branch in a larger corporation. The gunbuster sign on the door may have zero to do with the personal convictions of a single one of the employees, from the president on down. In fact, none of the original employees who worked there when I opened my accounts are still working there. It may have been purely a corporate decision. But if you go in there and make a big deal out of it to the president/manager, they may refer it up the chain of command to corporate, and a decision may come down to post valid signage.....and I have to change banks.....thank you very much.

If you can't see that, then I can't help you.........but do me a favor then and stay out of my neck of the woods and don't force any of MY local merchants into posting correct signage. And I will promise to do the same for you.