Notify a business owner of unenforceable signs?

[mojo84]

Do you believe one should bring unenforceable non-compliant signs to the attention of the private business owner to clarify their actual intent for having a non-compliant sign posted? Please share why or why not in the thread.

Hopefully, we can keep from arguing in this one since there is already multiple threads arguing over what is right and wrong. Please just state your reasoning for your position.

[Taypo]

Nope. None of my business why they did what they did and I'm not about to limit my own ability to defend myself.

[txglock21]

Nope. None of my business why they did what they did and I'm not about to limit my own ability to defend myself.

This.^

[Kiddkop]

Yes, it is the RIGHT thing to do!

[Abraham]

mojo84,

Thanks for this poll.

If a business has a gun buster sign, (read unenforceable) I love it.

I will legally walk past it and do whatever business I came there to do.

Gun busters signs don't apply to me nor do they even in the slightest cause me to emote any negativity regarding their presence.

[The Annoyed Man]

My opinion - in THIS thread - is that mono84's poll is a brilliant retort, and makes my point in other threads.

[Pawpaw]

Not no, but heck no.

If they're just trying to placate some hoplophobe, OK I'll play along.

If they're too stupid or lazy to do the research, I'm certainly not doing it for them.

[Taypo]

My opinion - in THIS thread - is that mono84's poll is a brilliant retort, and makes my point in other threads.

I love the polls lately. Between this and the Whataburger poll, it's reassuring to know where we, as a group, stand.

Downside: These results have probably been screenshotted and forwarded to the mailing lists of MDA, Bloomberg and whoever else is griping about us walking past signs.

[mojo84]

Taypo,
I see what you are saying. However, I don't think this poll will give them much more ammunition than what they already have. It just indicates our opinion about whether or not we have an obligation to verify a business owner's intent. If a business owner has special rules, they should use the properly legal means to notify their customers of their intent. The law spells out those means of notification.

Just as we are expected to follow the law, business owners, which I am one, should also.

[RJGold]

with what Abraham and pawpaw said...

[Taypo]

Taypo,
I see what you are saying. However, I don't think his poll will give them much more ammunition than what they already have. It just indicates our opinion about whther or not we have an obligation to verify a business owner's intent. If a business owner has special rules, they should use the properly legal means to notify their customers of their intent. The law spells out those means of notification.

Just as we are expected to follow the law, business owners, which I am one, should also.

No disagreement from me at all. Not losing a wink of sleep over the grabber's opinion. It doesn't matter what we do - they'll lie, cheat and steal to make their point.

[joe817]

with what Abraham and pawpaw said...

+2. I can't add any more than what's already been said.

[SA_Steve]

The bigger issue is "do you liked to play lawyer" on everything you notice in your life?

[mojo84]

We've had 80 views of this poll and topic with only 22 votes. Please consider voting as I think it will be good to see what the forum in general thinks on this.

Also, in case you are concerned, the votes are private. I and the other members cannot see them unless I just don't know where to look. I assume the mods and Charles are the only ones that can see how anyone voted.

[rtschl]

with what Abraham and pawpaw said...

too.

There are businesses that post that I don't have an alternative to. Not notifying a business affects no one. By notifying a business, you have now put me and my family at risk if they decide to post a compliant sign. I wish I could live in the fairy tale world that only interacts with businesses that supports 2A/CHL. But that world does not exist. It will never exist.