I respectfully disagree with boycotting locations with generic "no guns" or ghostbuster signs. Businesses are doing this because it allows the charges to be upgraded in the event that a crime with a weapon occurs in that store.cbr600 wrote:That's true. When I see a "no guns" sign, I'm likely to do business elsewhere, regardless of whether the sign is 30.06 compliant. I'm just amazed that some people see an ethical difference between ignoring an invalid sign and ignoring an invalid sign. I believe a close-but-no-cigar attempt at 30.06 signage is really no different than a 2" ghostbuster sticker, and the law agrees. I also believe both are the moral equivalent of a "Whites Only" sign. Other people feel differently and I respect that.TX Rancher wrote:I just think this is one of those questions that don’t have a definitive answer. Each person will have to decide on their own what is “Right� and what is “Wrong� when presented with signage that is not up to the standards in 30.06.
CHLers rarely commit violent crimes; therefore, those signs do not apply to us. I don't think these business owners are trying to keep us out of their stores. If they were, they would post the 30.06.
As for Babies R Us with their non-compliant sign, I would turn around and not bother with them. They've made their point, and I'll make mine by taking my business elsewhere. Most mothers-to-be are registered at more than one location, and Target is a very popular one. I've never seen a 30.06 sign at Target, and they have an excellent baby department.
There are way too many businesses that aren't posting 30.06 for me to justify patronizing one that does.
JMO