I'm very sorry. I did not mean to offend and will refrain from this in the future. My post was a very long one, but it was laid out very logically and the logic seems, to me, to be very sound. But it didn't matter, because you simply skipped it. So I had no real response to that. Again, I apologize.Embalmo wrote:First of all, I need this to be the last time that anyone pops off with "Umm ok" after quoting me.
If compliant signs have been successfully removed via corporate communications, why would it be unreasonable to conclude that non-complaint signs can also be removed via the same methods? The goal is to change corporate policy. The corporate policy is what determines that the business will post a sign. Whether or not the sign is complaint is simply a matter of how well versed in Texas law the company is.Embalmo wrote: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.
And I guess this is where I disagree the most. True, a CHL holder can legally carry past a non-complaint sign - which is something I have done myself. But I don't think that is the bottom line. I believe that wide spread anti 2A corporate policy does indeed have a negative impact on all CHL holders - whether they chose to carry past the sign or not. That, to me, is the real bottom line.Embalmo wrote: 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.
I also believe that there is nearly zero chance of a non-compliant sign being made compliant due to a corporate communication that doesn't mention legal compliance. So therefore, I believe that no harm can come communicating and there is a small chance that good can come from communicating. So I ask, why not communicate?