Do Not make a company aware of their non-compliant signs!

[mojo84]

If you really wanted to respect their decision, you would just not carry past a sign whether it was enforceable or not.

This trying to respect their wished line is just crap. Just don't walk past a no guns sign with a gun. You still get to make your decision and so does the property owner.

Your comment about people wanting to carry anywhere they want has nothing to do with this topic.

Fortunately, you don't get to tell me what to do and i don't care if you think respecting wishes is crap.

My comment concerning some people's wishes was just stating a fact that I was unaware of. I am new to the site and a waiting LTCer...I thought I would learn a little at a site like this and I was correct!

I didn't say what you said I said. I said the line is crap. If you really want to respect their wishes you just wouldn't carry past the no gun sign. You say you want to confront them. That isn't respecting their wishes.

I also am not telling you what to do. (Haven't had to say that since about third grade), I'm telling you confronting the business owner and educating him is counterproductive.

[Kiddkop]

I obviously have a different opinion.

I think a business has a RIGHT to not want weapons on private property. So, I don't care if more private business owners have a correctly posted sign. i will make a decision if I am going to do business. I have not carried a concealed weapon for 43 yrs, (with the exception of a few times as a peace officer) not carrying one into a few businesses is not a problem. Informing a business owner that a sign is incorrect is not a problem. As I said, when I first read this most I was unsure if I would notify a business owner, but people that think they have some type of right on a message board to tell me what to do makes me want to notify business owners so they can post the sign properly if their desire is to prevent Concealed weapons on their property.

I am neither a pro or anti gun nut....I am a logical person that thinks that intent matters. If the intent is to prevent carriers the business needs to post the proper signage. If the intent is to give a warm fuzzy to the anti crowd as some believe, I want to know that as well.

[mojo84]

I'm speechless.

[EEllis]

I'm speechless.

You didn't see that coming? You didn't think telling grow people that they HAD to to something might cause some to do it just because of it? You did't think people declare that all gun owners had a duty to do what they decided was correct might cause some to have issues?

Then there are all the people who fall between the two beliefs who just are not going to get into it because they just want to avoid the grief. Really man the who absolutist thing is never an effective tool to moving anyone any direction but away.

[jmra]

I'm speechless.

You and me both.

[jmra]

I'm speechless.

You didn't see that coming? You didn't think telling grow people that they HAD to to something might cause some to just because of it? You did't think people declare that all gun owners had a duty to do what they decided was correct might cause some to have issues?

Then there are all the people who fall between the two beliefs who just are not going to get into it because they just want to avoid the grief. Really man the who absolutist thing is never an effective tool to moving anyone any direction but away.

I guess I expect grown people to make educated decisions instead of doing the opposite of what they perceive they are being told to do simply because they don't like being told what to do. Maybe I expect too much. Of course I haven't seen anyone telling anyone else what to do. What I have seen is people expressing an opinion about how best to preserve our ability to continue to carry legally in as many places as possible.

[rtschl]

Wow. Just Wow. Frustrating when those on "our side" want businesses to post a compliant sign to satisfy their personal agenda. Eerily similar to OCT tactics. "It's my way or the highway and forget the rest of the CHL/2A community."

[Kiddkop]

I find it somewhat amusing that people believe they have an obligation beginning 9/1 to report government entities for improper 30.06 but don't believe they have an obligation to notify private business owner. Maybe if there was a fine associated with unenforceable signage folks would think it was the right thing to do.

[jmra]

[EEllis]

I'm speechless.

You didn't see that coming? You didn't think telling grow people that they HAD to do something might cause some to just because of it? You did't think people declare that all gun owners had a duty to do what they decided was correct might cause some to have issues?

Then there are all the people who fall between the two beliefs who just are not going to get into it because they just want to avoid the grief. Really man the who absolutist thing is never an effective tool to moving anyone any direction but away.

I guess I expect grown people to make educated decisions instead of doing the opposite of what they perceive they are being told to do simply because they don't like being told what to do. Maybe I expect too much. Of course I haven't seen anyone telling anyone else what to do. What I have seen is people expressing an opinion about how best to preserve our ability to continue to carry legally in as many places as possible.

The title of the thread isn't "Please think before you mention an non-compliant sign". It says "Do Dot!" so if you haven't seen it it may be that you haven't looked. That you generally agree probably affects how the comments are viewed by yourself. To me they were at the least a bit much and more than a bit overbearing. I also don't think anyone is doing anything just because of this thread and I don't think the manner and tone was at all helpful. I also don't think there is anything wrong with having values that weight other things than just the ability to carry as many places as possible minimizing private property concerns.

[EEllis]

Wow. Just Wow. Frustrating when those on "our side" want businesses to post a compliant sign to satisfy their personal agenda. Eerily similar to OCT tactics. "It's my way or the highway and forget the rest of the CHL/2A community."

See thats funny because I was thinking almost the same thing. That people here are stating for everyone the only possible correct way to conduct themselves and getting real upset when others have different viewpoints. And until just now no one said anything about wanting a business to post anything. The conversation was about talking to a business to see what their intent was when a sign was less than clear.

[Vol Texan]

Kiddkop,

I'm not going to engage in the mosh pit of discussion here. We have some very well learned members posting here with some strong opinions on either side, and I won't get entangled in that.

(As an aside, there are some members on this forum with whom I'll never engage on any topic here, because, as the old saying goes, "Never wrestle with a pig. You'll just get dirty, and the pig will just have fun". As a newcomer to this forum, we welcome you, and you'll soon figure out for yourself who falls within that category.)

Back on topic now: I encourage you to read this posting: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=66766&p=820110&#p819966.

I just showed you an instance where someone posted an invalid 30.06 sign, knowing full well that it had no impact on CHL holders. When asked about it, he explained the reason, and he fully expects all CHL holders to ignore it because it is improperly posted.

If this can happen once, it can happen in many places. My personal opinion is that it would be an overstatement to assume that a place posted incorrectly has this intent.

In my professional life, we have a saying. "Don't let emotion get in the way of what should be a purely data-driven decision. I have a math degree, so my way of thinking may be different, but please try this out for a change: In math, it's not necessary to prove a function is true 100% of the time. Proving it wrong in one instance is sufficient to invalidate the function. This is exactly what happened here.

So you have two camps of people arguing this subject:

• 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.

[mojo84]

One can find some good comments in this thread regarding sign speciifics and intent. At least one of them is a real bona fide attorney and doesn't just play one on here.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=75704&p=956204&hili ... 06#p956204

[Right2Carry]

Kiddkop,

O.K., but many businesses post non-compliant signs (in my opinion) to keep the hand wringing, knuckle biter anti-gun types from going bonkers with worry, all the while knowing CHLers will legally come in.

If, you feel terribly upset that non-compliant signs offend you to the max, well sure, don't do business with them.

Me, I'm going to do business with them as there are a huge number of non-compliant signs posted and I'm not going to avoid doing business with them or my choices will be very, very limited.

There is absolutely no proof that this is the case with business owners who post the wrong sign. If you are discovered you will find out pretty quickly what their intentions really are.

[jimlongley]

• 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.

Interesting exercise, but facially invalid because we have had statements from DSP that they intend to prosecute people who pass "invalid but close enough" signs, which is a small but significant subset, rendering your last blue actually green, neutralizing the last red, making it a zero sum transaction.

And most of this is an exercise in futility because only one person has been able to cite an instance where the signs got changed to valid due to a comment, and I have cited two where the signs were removed, which would make the equation net green.