Chuck E cheese in Pearland posted (improperly)

[Embalmo]

Embalmo

This thread is very similar to a thread about Buffalo Wild Wings. I went there recently and they wanted us to give them $5 each for whatever was on the TV;
Embalmo

I dont get it. Who wanted $5 each for whatever was on what tv?

I think it was boxing; I always go to Wings N More, but wanted something different. They would've gotten $50 from me that night, but instead they've lost my business forever.

[Embalmo]

An angry letter as a first coorespondance is probably not going get get favorable results. Best case scenario, it's ignored; worst case scenario, a new compliant sign is posted there and maybe other locations too.
Embalmo

What is the basis for this? I have written many an angry letter that has produced results. A few years back I even wrote CEC Entertainment about lack of service and poor quality food. They did respond; they called me.

I usually do not write nice touchy feelly letters when I complain.

If you had a business and someone (out of the blue) accused you of having no regard for children's safety and threatened you with public scrutiny as an initial contact, would you be inclined to acquiesce. To maintain credibility, one must write a letter of complaint in such a way that the recipient is given a opportunity to correct a problem without being insulted or threatened.

Embalmo

[terryg]

I made a posting error, to wit:

There are many, many businesses with non-compliant no gun signs and you can simply ignore them. Boldly walk right on by with your concealed carry because you have a CHL and "those signs are meant for you"

I meant to say: those signs "AREN'T" meant for you

Abraham, I am afraid I have to disagree with you and Embalmo. I worked through this logic in another post and can really not come up with a reason to not complain to a company about their anti 2A policies. Here is my reasoning, please feel free to let me know if you think it is flawed (just substitute Chucky Cheese in for AMC):

First, let me state that I don't think any company should be informed that they are displaying non-compliant signs. Some here subscribe to the school of thought that it would be better to have them be black and white than fall into the grey area of posting non-complaint signs. But that is not what I am about to argue.

-----

It seems that you can boil down a CHL holder's response to entering (and presumably doing business) with an improperly posted business to two options:

1. Enter away - the sign has no legal bearing on CHL holders so pretend it is not there.
2. Don't give them your business - it doesn't really matter that the sign is invalid. I don't want to give my money to someone who attempts to restrict my 2A rights.

There may be additional arguments or variations on these positions, but that about sums it up, right?

Nothing I am going to suggest or present should have any bearing on those in camp 1. Nothing what-so-ever.

For those in camp 2, I have read a lot of post suggesting that one should simply avoid the place. Giving them a TSRA card or calling/writing a letter is simply a pointless waist of time. That position seems a bit silly to me for a couple of reasons:

1. There are examples of companies who have changed their policies because of customer communication. Many have been posted on this forum and include banks and restaurants.

2. It is widely known in PR circles that a single call or letter represents more than just the one person making the complaint. How many people can't be determined. It depends upon the size of the company and presumptive information about the size of potential customer base effected by the issue. That presumed figure for the CHL community will certainly be smaller than other groups, say mothers with small children or other demographics. But no matter how small - your one single voice will still represent more customers than just yourself.

3. While no-one can guarantee any results from a customer informing them that they are losing business. What I can guarantee is that the only thing less effective than informing them of your protest is a 'silent protest'!

The third item is especially true for small groups such as ourselves. Yes, you get the satisfaction of knowing that you didn't give money over to an entity that stands in opposition to rights that you hold dear. But they will likely not realize this without that call or letter and the impact will not likely be enough to force them to close for lack of business.

-----

How does this apply to the situation at hand? Well, we don't truly know WHY some previously posted AMC theater locations are no longer posted, do we? But less play a few scenarios:

1. If we assume that it was due to CHL holder complaints, then those in Group 2 could contact them to let them know we will be returning to their theaters. This will only strengthen the argument and the relationship. Group 1, who have been going to AMC theaters the whole time are completely unaffected by the postings and the removal and so are not affected in any way. They don't need to contact them because it never impacted their options.

2. Lets say the signs were removed because they recognized they were invalid and they plan on posting proper 30.06 sign in the near future. Contacting them with positive affirmation for the sign removal may be short lived, but still offers an opportunity to convey the message. Group 1 is still unaffected as the proper signs were coming anyway.

3. Signs removed because they were invalid and they don't plan to fix (jimlongley's supposition). Again, Group 1 is unaffected. Group 2 can offer positive affirmation that, regardless of the reasoning, it was still a good fiscal decision.

4. Finally, perhaps some local owner/managers made the call to drop the signs for one reason or another. With this scenario, perhaps Group 2's communication will alert AMC corporate to the posting removals and they will scold the local theaters and force them to repost. Group 2 did not mention that the old postings were invalid, so there is no reason to think that they will suddenly 'upgrade' their postings. If they do, it was not because of any communication from Group 2. So it has no impact on Group 1 because before the removal, they still attended while improperly posted - so they can continue to do so. Group 2 may have been able to attend for a while at the un-posted locations - but AMC corporate was still anti 2A the entire time so Group 2 probably doesn't want to support AMC at all. Even though the local theater became un-posted, some of that money still made its way to corporate AMC.

So, what did I miss? Other than being a very lengthy post, where is the error in my logic?

t

[Embalmo]

I'm not going to reply to more than one thread at once, it's just too complicated. There is simply no pay-off to complaining about a non-compliant sign; but there is a risk that the sign may corrected. I often wonder why one shouldn't include a compliant 30.06 sign in the same envelope as the letter of complaint.

Embalmo

[Oldgringo]

If you had a business and someone (out of the blue) accused you of having no regard for children's safety and threatened you with public scrutiny as an initial contact, would you be inclined to acquiesce. To maintain credibility, one must write a letter of complaint in such a way that the recipient is given a opportunity to correct a problem without being insulted or threatened.Embalmo

That PLUS the letter absolutely must be concise and to the point with proper paragraphs.

No one is in the least bit interested in reading a long drawn out harangue about NOTHING. We read long {stinky} dissertations when we were in school studying for tests; business owners are not studying for a test.

[Embalmo]

Also, how can a company be stepping on our toes when they don't post a compliant sign?

[Oldgringo]

Also, how can a company be stepping on our toes when they don't post a compliant sign?

and has been said 3,679 (+/-) times, let sleeping dogs lie and go on about your business, please.

[Leroy]

I have to agree with the noncompliant sign...walk right past. Don't you think a franchise like Chuckee Cheese has lawyers out the ying yang that know exactly what is compliant and is not? It makes the sheeple feel better when they see it. My question is what the heck are you doing at chuckee cheese on your birthday..with NO kids? Sorry Uncle Fester..just had to ask.

[Leroy]

aww heck....sorry..just went back and reread the OP..dont know how I got it convoluted about the bday party thing...that was embalmo. I need to pay more attention...trying to get kids in bed...watch the news..download music AND keep tabs on the forum.

[Embalmo]

I have to agree with the noncompliant sign...walk right past. Don't you think a franchise like Chuckee Cheese has lawyers out the ying yang that know exactly what is compliant and is not? It makes the sheeple feel better when they see it. My question is what the heck are you doing at chuckee cheese on your birthday..with NO kids? Sorry Uncle Fester..just had to ask.

It was ideal-My wife set the whole thing up. The food was good and inexpensive and the games were cheap enough for all of us to play for hours. There were no kids allowed, so the grown-ups were able to play and spend time together without having to chase any kids. I got the idea from the last time my son went to my BCHLFF's (Best Concealed Handgun License Friend Forever) son's birthday party and we decided that CEC would be great without any kids getting the way. Uncle Fester?

Embalmo

[terryg]

I'm not going to reply to more than one thread at once, it's just too complicated.

Umm, ok.

There is simply no pay-off to complaining about a non-compliant sign; but there is a risk that the sign may corrected. I often wonder why one shouldn't include a compliant 30.06 sign in the same envelope as the letter of complaint.

Well, all I can say is that I couldn't disagree more.

1. If there is no mention of the sign being non-compliant in the letter, there is no reason to think the letter will prompt them to suddenly discover the 'error of their verbiage'. If anything, by claiming (whether it actually does or not) that the sign turns away your business because you carry a gun, you are only confirming that the sign does what it is intended (by them) to do.

2. To say there is zero chance of a pay-off ignores the experience of forum members who, on at least two occasions that I have read, have in fact changed policy by complaining which resulted in signs being removed. IIRC, these were both actual 30.06 signs. (I would try to find them, but a search for 30.06 signs on this forum generates a LOT of hits. But one was a bank.)

Now I do agree, no offense to jamisjockey, that tone of his letter could have been improved.

[terryg]

Also, how can a company be stepping on our toes when they don't post a compliant sign?

and has been said 3,679 (+/-) times, let sleeping dogs lie and go on about your business, please.

If a person or a company can be further educated about the ineffectiveness of GFZ, why would we not make the effort to do so. Even if it is only a small percentage of companies that will respond and change policy, it still works wonders IMO for the advancement of 2A rights. So as long is there is little risk of the non-complaint sign being made compliant by the communication, then I would ask, why not make the effort?

It is true that CHL holders are a pretty small percentage of the population. But I think we greatly underestimate the influence that we could yield with this particular issue if we practiced corporate communication more.

[terryg]

Also, how can a company be stepping on our toes when they don't post a compliant sign?

and has been said 3,679 (+/-) times, let sleeping dogs lie and go on about your business, please.

Said in my best Ricky Ricardo:

Oldgringoooo! You've got some splainin to do!

I thought I remembered you falling on my side of this issue in the past. I found it here.

You said:

2nd - why do we continue to inform companies that they have the wrong sign posted?

Again, it does not appear that the OP did this. He let them know that he didn't like their stated corporate anti-gun policy. He is encouraging us to do the same so that they will connect this policy with a negative impact on their bottom line. This is completely independent of the enforceability of any posted signs.

He did not inform them that their signs may be non-complaint. The distinction is very significant. I completely support his actions in this way.

You may be onto something. , there is a difference between mentioning generic policy as opposed to discussing specific signage. The offending businesses can be advised of our objections without having an invalid sign mentioned.

So what gives? You have a change of heart?

[Embalmo]

I'm not going to reply to more than one thread at once, it's just too complicated.

Umm, ok.

There is simply no pay-off to complaining about a non-compliant sign; but there is a risk that the sign may corrected. I often wonder why one shouldn't include a compliant 30.06 sign in the same envelope as the letter of complaint.

Well, all I can say is that I couldn't disagree more.

1. If there is no mention of the sign being non-compliant in the letter, there is no reason to think the letter will prompt them to suddenly discover the 'error of their verbiage'. If anything, by claiming (whether it actually does or not) that the sign turns away your business because you carry a gun, you are only confirming that the sign does what it is intended (by them) to do.

2. To say there is zero chance of a pay-off ignores the experience of forum members who, on at least two occasions that I have read, have in fact changed policy by complaining which resulted in signs being removed. IIRC, these were both actual 30.06 signs. (I would try to find them, but a search for 30.06 signs on this forum generates a LOT of hits. But one was a bank.)

Now I do agree, no offense to jamisjockey, that tone of his letter could have been improved.

First of all, I need this to be the last time that anyone pops off with "Umm ok" after quoting me. We are only talking about complaining about non-compliant signs in this thread (the OP indicated that the sign was probably non-compliant), so any examples of a compliant 30.06 sign being successfully removed do not pertain to this thread. Non-compliant signs do not affect CHLs in any way, so it doesn't matter if they're removed; so there can't be any legitimate pay-off.

Bottom line: A sign can only legally affect us if it's compliant.

Embalmo

[Embalmo]

Also, how can a company be stepping on our toes when they don't post a compliant sign?

and has been said 3,679 (+/-) times, let sleeping dogs lie and go on about your business, please.

Said in my best Ricky Ricardo:

Oldgringoooo! You've got some splainin to do!

I thought I remembered you falling on my side of this issue in the past. I found it here.

You said:

2nd - why do we continue to inform companies that they have the wrong sign posted?

Again, it does not appear that the OP did this. He let them know that he didn't like their stated corporate anti-gun policy. He is encouraging us to do the same so that they will connect this policy with a negative impact on their bottom line. This is completely independent of the enforceability of any posted signs.

He did not inform them that their signs may be non-complaint. The distinction is very significant. I completely support his actions in this way.

You may be onto something. , there is a difference between mentioning generic policy as opposed to discussing specific signage. The offending businesses can be advised of our objections without having an invalid sign mentioned.

So what gives? You have a change of heart?

This needs to stop. This is not what this forum is about.