TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote:

Embalmo wrote:First of all, I'm talking about CHL law, not opinion, so please stop talking about opinions so we can be on the same page with this discussion.

And it is merely your opinion that you can pass a non-compliant sign with impunity, an opinion that I disagree with. I have succeeded in getting non-compliant signs removed and not replaced with the big ugly one, has your strategy resulted in any similar improvement?

Embalmo wrote: Second, I just quoted you as saying you don't care if your actions keep me from going into a business that previously allowed guns; so you should understand why I'm asking that you allow me to make my own decision regarding where I want to shop.

And it is, once again, merely your opinion that the business with a non-compliant sign consciously allows guns - there is no case law, no JUDICIAL opinion, to support yours.

Embalmo wrote: And third, you're talking about "getting away" with walking past a non-compliant sign, and being arrested for doing so. It isn't illegal to walk past a non-compliant sign. Again, not mine, or anyone else's opinion. We're all subject to CHL law, and that includes LEOs.

If I can't argue "you can't beat the ride" then you can't argue the other side of it. And it was aggie_engr, whose argument you have taken up, who said it was "spoiling it" for the rest of you by attempting to find out the motive for a non-compliant posting and encouraging such a location to remove it in favor of law abiding citizens, as well as pointing out their loss of income otherwise. I care if my actions truly deprive you of some freedom, but what you have right now is merely an illusion and I feel no grief over repairing your mistaken belief.

Embalmo wrote:A business that has a non-compliant sign legally (and that is all that matters when it comes to CHL law) allows me to carry. If you don't agree with that, please don't shop there, but don't have this "no loss" attitude when the rest of us can't go there, or even worse, can't defend ourselves in the event of a crisis.

Embalmo

I already do not shop there, if I know about their sign, and if I already know about their sign, they have heard from me. If they have heard from me and not responded, I still do not shop there. If they have responded and have not taken down non=compliant signage, then have a record showing that they do not intend to comply with Texas Law and I feel no compunction about passing that sign, in part because if they have me arrested, I have documented their refusal to comply, and will see them in civil court. If they have responded and taken down non-compliant signage, then they have received a letter of thanks from me, and I even recommend them to friends. If they have either responded or not and changed to the big ugly sign, then I feel no loss, and also feel that I have defended you and others like you against a possible false arrest as well as saving you from supporting someone who actively dislikes you.

I will continue to do it my way, and you can go your way, and agree to disagree with our opinions, and that is what they are, no facts, no case law, nothing more than opinion, and you have not presented an argument that has changed mine one whit, and I assume you don't care for my arguments either.

jimlongley wrote:

You obviously have your opinion, and I obviously think that you are misguided. As has been stated, I, and others, can't understand why you would support a business that doesn't want you and then claim that I, and those like me are magically denying to the right to do business with them. There's a simple solution to your desire to do business there if they actually put up the big ugly compliant sign, disarm and go ahead and patronize someone who does not respect you.

jimlongley wrote: Exactly. There is only one way to find out what their intention is, and that is to ask. If they decide to go ahead and post huge and ugly compliant signs, then no loss, you either don't give them your money or you disarm before entering and I vote for no guns = no money.

Aggiedad wrote:The differences of opinon continue ... My final thoughts on this subject:
Not all noncompliant signs are CHL "welcome mats". Someone else also pointed out that even noncompliant signs let you know what the store's policy is ... GO's faded sign was not a CHL "welcome mat"; it was an old sign that came down when I inquired about it.
My emails to GO corporate did not speak for anyone else and did not imply such.
I did not make any decisions for anyone (I don't even know how to do that).
My stance on this subject = Gross selfishness? ... An opinion with which I do not agree.
I do not believe that I am absolutely right and you (those that disagree with me) are wrong in this matter (or vice versa).

Metaphorically speaking, there is more than one way to skin a cat. However, I am certain that you respect my right to disagree with your opinions just as I respect your opinions and your right to patronize businesses who have noncompliant "no gun" signs.

IMO, this horse is dead. If anyone wishes to beat it some more, go for it. The snow in Colorado is calling my name

Aggiedad wrote:

Embalmo wrote:

Please folks-I'll respect your right to not patronize these places, so please respect my right to continue patronizing these places.

I understand what you are saying and I respect your right, I just disagree with you ... and that's ok. We're on the same team here ... one is playing offense and the other is playing defense (I'm not sure which is which but it doesn't matter) and it takes both to win "the game".

Have a great day.

And I do much the same thing when I make contact, I point out that keeping law abiding gun carriers from doing business with them merely costs them money while making no one safer, and ask if it is corporate policy, local policy, or policy at all. If the reply is, as I have had happen, something on the order of "For the safety of our patrons we do not allow guns on our premises" I will, and have, point out that the sign does not comply with TX law and thus would and could be ignored by CHL holders without violating the law, although I would not be doing so as it was my intention to boycott them and influence as many people as I could to follow my lead.

I'm a bit surprised at the "turn a blind eye and keep your mouth shut about non-compliant signs" comments. Whether a business posts a no guns sign that is legally enforceable or not, their intent was certainly posted so then the question is ... Why would any CHL holder want to support a company that denies one's freedom guaranteed by the Constitution? Yes, I know, concealed is concealed so who would know but again, why support that business? I don't get it.

I pointed out that it the was not unlawful for me to cc in their restaurant (there was wording on the sign that said it was) but that worst thing I could be guilty of was misdemeanor trespassing if I were asked to leave and refused to do so.

Yes, I could have continued to silently ignore the sign but why patronize a store that doesn't support my rights? Once politely notified, if the signs hadn't come down, I would not have gone back. They did and I will.