"No Guns" sign removed!

[Embalmo]

Please folks-I'll respect your right to not patronize these places, so please respect my right to continue patronizing these places.

I understand what you are saying and I respect your right, I just disagree with you ... and that's ok. We're on the same team here ... one is playing offense and the other is playing defense (I'm not sure which is which but it doesn't matter) and it takes both to win "the game".

Have a great day.

If we're on the same team then that team must be one that wants to maximize the number of places that we as CHLs may legally carry. Having the attitude, "Screw 'em if they want to put up a 30.06, they didn't like guns anyway!" is a destructive attitude that is held by a handful in this forum and only serves to increase the number of gun-free zones in this state; and strips the choice of those of us who realize that non-compliant signs (legally and realistically) are CHL welcome mats. 2nd amendment ideology is a nice sentiment, but to legally carry, we must focus on CHL realism.

Embalmo

[Aggie_engr]

Winchster
Why would you choose to patronize an establishment that doesn't share your view of the constitution?

jimlongley
Do you actually spend money in support of those places which quite obviously discriminate against you?

I can't believe that you are not able to see the gross selfishness in your actions. Thanks for making that decision for the rest of us.

Aggiedad
I asked what their corporate policy was as was curious to know if "no guns" was corporate policy or the store manager's decision to post the sign.

What exactly is there to ask? There was no 30.06 sign posted at the entrance as Texas law requires for them to legally prohibit chl's. With one glance, you already know the store's "policy" with regard to the legal carrying of arms allowed by this state.

Embalmo touched on some very good points regarding the way things are (real world chl) versus 2nd amendment ideology. I believe all of us share similar sentiment with this ideology but in practice it does not apply to the real world.

[Aggiedad]

The differences of opinon continue ... My final thoughts on this subject:
Not all noncompliant signs are CHL "welcome mats". Someone else also pointed out that even noncompliant signs let you know what the store's policy is ... GO's faded sign was not a CHL "welcome mat"; it was an old sign that came down when I inquired about it.
My emails to GO corporate did not speak for anyone else and did not imply such.
I did not make any decisions for anyone (I don't even know how to do that).
My stance on this subject = Gross selfishness? ... An opinion with which I do not agree.
I do not believe that I am absolutely right and you (those that disagree with me) are wrong in this matter (or vice versa).

Metaphorically speaking, there is more than one way to skin a cat. However, I am certain that you respect my right to disagree with your opinions just as I respect your opinions and your right to patronize businesses who have noncompliant "no gun" signs.

IMO, this horse is dead. If anyone wishes to beat it some more, go for it. The snow in Colorado is calling my name

[Embalmo]

The differences of opinon continue ... My final thoughts on this subject:
Not all noncompliant signs are CHL "welcome mats". Someone else also pointed out that even noncompliant signs let you know what the store's policy is ... GO's faded sign was not a CHL "welcome mat"; it was an old sign that came down when I inquired about it.
My emails to GO corporate did not speak for anyone else and did not imply such.
I did not make any decisions for anyone (I don't even know how to do that).
My stance on this subject = Gross selfishness? ... An opinion with which I do not agree.
I do not believe that I am absolutely right and you (those that disagree with me) are wrong in this matter (or vice versa).

Metaphorically speaking, there is more than one way to skin a cat. However, I am certain that you respect my right to disagree with your opinions just as I respect your opinions and your right to patronize businesses who have noncompliant "no gun" signs.

IMO, this horse is dead. If anyone wishes to beat it some more, go for it. The snow in Colorado is calling my name

This horse will breathe as long as there are folks that don't recognize that the only legal way that any shopkeeper can voice any intent or deny anyone their right of defense is through a valid 30.06 sign; that not any one's opinion, it's the law. Many of us have a problem when an INDIVIDUAL gambles with EVERY ONE'S ability to continue patronizing a place that wasn't denying any one's right to legally carry; the business that you corresponded with could have, and may yet post a new compliant sign. So we'd rather CHLs stick to just making decisions for themselves.

Embalmo

[Oldgringo]

If you don't want to patronize a business for whatever reason - don't. I'll make my own decisions - please and thank you.

No one cares what I think but me and I think, in this instance, Embalmo is spot on correct. Let's all mind our own business (what a novel thought) and let sleeping dogs lie. Where's the foul?

[Embalmo]

Exactly. There is only one way to find out what their intention is, and that is to ask. If they decide to go ahead and post huge and ugly compliant signs, then no loss, you either don't give them your money or you disarm before entering and I vote for no guns = no money.

[/quote]

Thank you jim;ongley-You said it better than I ever could. If a new "gun free zone" is created and one person gets to decide for the entire CHL community where they can and cannot shop, it's "no loss". And he is talking about places that never restricted guns in the first place. What if someone gets attacked in one of those "no loss" establishments?

Embalmo

[jimlongley]

The differences of opinon continue ... My final thoughts on this subject:
Not all noncompliant signs are CHL "welcome mats". Someone else also pointed out that even noncompliant signs let you know what the store's policy is ... GO's faded sign was not a CHL "welcome mat"; it was an old sign that came down when I inquired about it.
My emails to GO corporate did not speak for anyone else and did not imply such.
I did not make any decisions for anyone (I don't even know how to do that).
My stance on this subject = Gross selfishness? ... An opinion with which I do not agree.
I do not believe that I am absolutely right and you (those that disagree with me) are wrong in this matter (or vice versa).

Metaphorically speaking, there is more than one way to skin a cat. However, I am certain that you respect my right to disagree with your opinions just as I respect your opinions and your right to patronize businesses who have noncompliant "no gun" signs.

IMO, this horse is dead. If anyone wishes to beat it some more, go for it. The snow in Colorado is calling my name

This horse will breathe as long as there are folks that don't recognize that the only legal way that any shopkeeper can voice any intent or deny anyone their right of defense is through a valid 30.06 sign; that not any one's opinion, it's the law. Many of us have a problem when an INDIVIDUAL gambles with EVERY ONE'S ability to continue patronizing a place that wasn't denying any one's right to legally carry; the business that you corresponded with could have, and may yet post a new compliant sign. So we'd rather CHLs stick to just making decisions for themselves.

Embalmo

You obviously have your opinion, and I obviously think that you are misguided. As has been stated, I, and others, can't understand why you would support a business that doesn't want you and then claim that I, and those like me are magically denying to the right to do business with them. There's a simple solution to your desire to do business there if they actually put up the big ugly compliant sign, disarm and go ahead and patronize someone who does not respect you.

If you eliminate taking the ride as an argument, then you should equally, by the same reasoning, eliminate your own getting away with it ploy. You are not really getting away with anything, you are just carrying concealed somewhere that someone does not welcome you doing so, and if discovered, you are going to put a blot on my reputation, merely by virtue of getting caught, whether you take a ride or not, as there will be that shopkeeper out there saying, "Maybe my sign wasn't compliant, but it was understandable, and those arrogant CHLs just ignored it."

[jimlongley]

Exactly. There is only one way to find out what their intention is, and that is to ask. If they decide to go ahead and post huge and ugly compliant signs, then no loss, you either don't give them your money or you disarm before entering and I vote for no guns = no money.

Thank you jim;ongley-You said it better than I ever could. If a new "gun free zone" is created and one person gets to decide for the entire CHL community where they can and cannot shop, it's "no loss". And he is talking about places that never restricted guns in the first place. What if someone gets attacked in one of those "no loss" establishments?

Embalmo

Your argument makes no sense to me. The shopkeeper is under the impression that he has restricted guns, so it's not new, just compliant, and you can still disarm and give them your money.

[Oldgringo]

y'all...

I don't want to unnecessarily offend or insult anyone but is it time for the dreaded eyeroll, {sigh} and dead horse images?

[Embalmo]

You obviously have your opinion, and I obviously think that you are misguided. As has been stated, I, and others, can't understand why you would support a business that doesn't want you and then claim that I, and those like me are magically denying to the right to do business with them. There's a simple solution to your desire to do business there if they actually put up the big ugly compliant sign, disarm and go ahead and patronize someone who does not respect you.

First of all, I'm talking about CHL law, not opinion, so please stop talking about opinions so we can be on the same page with this discussion. Second, I just quoted you as saying you don't care if your actions keep me from going into a business that previously allowed guns; so you should understand why I'm asking that you allow me to make my own decision regarding where I want to shop. And third, you're talking about "getting away" with walking past a non-compliant sign, and being arrested for doing so. It isn't illegal to walk past a non-compliant sign. Again, not mine, or anyone else's opinion. We're all subject to CHL law, and that includes LEOs.

A business that has a non-compliant sign legally (and that is all that matters when it comes to CHL law) allows me to carry. If you don't agree with that, please don't shop there, but don't have this "no loss" attitude when the rest of us can't go there, or even worse, can't defend ourselves in the event of a crisis.

Embalmo

[jimlongley]

First of all, I'm talking about CHL law, not opinion, so please stop talking about opinions so we can be on the same page with this discussion.

And it is merely your opinion that you can pass a non-compliant sign with impunity, an opinion that I disagree with. I have succeeded in getting non-compliant signs removed and not replaced with the big ugly one, has your strategy resulted in any similar improvement?

Second, I just quoted you as saying you don't care if your actions keep me from going into a business that previously allowed guns; so you should understand why I'm asking that you allow me to make my own decision regarding where I want to shop.

And it is, once again, merely your opinion that the business with a non-compliant sign consciously allows guns - there is no case law, no JUDICIAL opinion, to support yours.

And third, you're talking about "getting away" with walking past a non-compliant sign, and being arrested for doing so. It isn't illegal to walk past a non-compliant sign. Again, not mine, or anyone else's opinion. We're all subject to CHL law, and that includes LEOs.

If I can't argue "you can't beat the ride" then you can't argue the other side of it. And it was aggie_engr, whose argument you have taken up, who said it was "spoiling it" for the rest of you by attempting to find out the motive for a non-compliant posting and encouraging such a location to remove it in favor of law abiding citizens, as well as pointing out their loss of income otherwise. I care if my actions truly deprive you of some freedom, but what you have right now is merely an illusion and I feel no grief over repairing your mistaken belief.

A business that has a non-compliant sign legally (and that is all that matters when it comes to CHL law) allows me to carry. If you don't agree with that, please don't shop there, but don't have this "no loss" attitude when the rest of us can't go there, or even worse, can't defend ourselves in the event of a crisis.

Embalmo

I already do not shop there, if I know about their sign, and if I already know about their sign, they have heard from me. If they have heard from me and not responded, I still do not shop there. If they have responded and have not taken down non=compliant signage, then have a record showing that they do not intend to comply with Texas Law and I feel no compunction about passing that sign, in part because if they have me arrested, I have documented their refusal to comply, and will see them in civil court. If they have responded and taken down non-compliant signage, then they have received a letter of thanks from me, and I even recommend them to friends. If they have either responded or not and changed to the big ugly sign, then I feel no loss, and also feel that I have defended you and others like you against a possible false arrest as well as saving you from supporting someone who actively dislikes you.

I will continue to do it my way, and you can go your way, and agree to disagree with our opinions, and that is what they are, no facts, no case law, nothing more than opinion, and you have not presented an argument that has changed mine one whit, and I assume you don't care for my arguments either.

[Embalmo]

First of all, I'm talking about CHL law, not opinion, so please stop talking about opinions so we can be on the same page with this discussion.

And it is merely your opinion that you can pass a non-compliant sign with impunity, an opinion that I disagree with. I have succeeded in getting non-compliant signs removed and not replaced with the big ugly one, has your strategy resulted in any similar improvement?

Second, I just quoted you as saying you don't care if your actions keep me from going into a business that previously allowed guns; so you should understand why I'm asking that you allow me to make my own decision regarding where I want to shop.

And it is, once again, merely your opinion that the business with a non-compliant sign consciously allows guns - there is no case law, no JUDICIAL opinion, to support yours.

And third, you're talking about "getting away" with walking past a non-compliant sign, and being arrested for doing so. It isn't illegal to walk past a non-compliant sign. Again, not mine, or anyone else's opinion. We're all subject to CHL law, and that includes LEOs.

If I can't argue "you can't beat the ride" then you can't argue the other side of it. And it was aggie_engr, whose argument you have taken up, who said it was "spoiling it" for the rest of you by attempting to find out the motive for a non-compliant posting and encouraging such a location to remove it in favor of law abiding citizens, as well as pointing out their loss of income otherwise. I care if my actions truly deprive you of some freedom, but what you have right now is merely an illusion and I feel no grief over repairing your mistaken belief.

A business that has a non-compliant sign legally (and that is all that matters when it comes to CHL law) allows me to carry. If you don't agree with that, please don't shop there, but don't have this "no loss" attitude when the rest of us can't go there, or even worse, can't defend ourselves in the event of a crisis.

Embalmo

I already do not shop there, if I know about their sign, and if I already know about their sign, they have heard from me. If they have heard from me and not responded, I still do not shop there. If they have responded and have not taken down non=compliant signage, then have a record showing that they do not intend to comply with Texas Law and I feel no compunction about passing that sign, in part because if they have me arrested, I have documented their refusal to comply, and will see them in civil court. If they have responded and taken down non-compliant signage, then they have received a letter of thanks from me, and I even recommend them to friends. If they have either responded or not and changed to the big ugly sign, then I feel no loss, and also feel that I have defended you and others like you against a possible false arrest as well as saving you from supporting someone who actively dislikes you.

I will continue to do it my way, and you can go your way, and agree to disagree with our opinions, and that is what they are, no facts, no case law, nothing more than opinion, and you have not presented an argument that has changed mine one whit, and I assume you don't care for my arguments either.

We can't have any sort of discussion as long as you pit opinion against CHL law; that's why I asked you not to. Take a look over that little white booklet they gave you and get back to me.

Embalmo

[terryg]

I have tried to stay out of this, but it is sooooo hard.

First, I want to clarify that my opinion differs from jimlongley and Aggiedad in that I don't think the status of a non-compliant sign should be mentioned to a business. But I firmly support the polite communication of lost dollars based upon a posted no-gun policy regardless of whether it is legal or not. I think that only good things can come from this with no real chance of non-compliant signs becoming compliant.

I have just one set of questions for Embalmo and Oldgringo and any others firmly opposed to any communication. This is intended to understand your point of view and frame of mind better. It is not meant to offend in any way.

Embalmo, you stated:

... and strips the choice of those of us who realize that non-compliant signs (legally and realistically) are CHL welcome mats

How far does that go? Lets say there was a restaurant near The Great Outdoors (that recently removed its gun buster signs due to Aggiedad's efforts) that was similar to it in food, atmosphere, and price. But, this restaurant, TOGO (The Other Great Outdoors), did not remove it's gun buster signs after Aggiedad communicated with them.

If your choice was between these two establishments, would you view them as equal? Lets say you had to drive 5 miles past TOGO to get to The Great Outdoors, would you drive the extra distance? Do you truly see it as a welcome mat equal in weight to a door with no anti-gun postings?

We have gone around the bush in other threads, so I am not really trying to solve anything here. I am really just trying to understand your positions more. And with this question group, I will bow out.


Thank you,

t

[jimlongley]

First of all, I'm talking about CHL law, not opinion, so please stop talking about opinions so we can be on the same page with this discussion.

And it is merely your opinion that you can pass a non-compliant sign with impunity, an opinion that I disagree with. I have succeeded in getting non-compliant signs removed and not replaced with the big ugly one, has your strategy resulted in any similar improvement?

Second, I just quoted you as saying you don't care if your actions keep me from going into a business that previously allowed guns; so you should understand why I'm asking that you allow me to make my own decision regarding where I want to shop.

And it is, once again, merely your opinion that the business with a non-compliant sign consciously allows guns - there is no case law, no JUDICIAL opinion, to support yours.

And third, you're talking about "getting away" with walking past a non-compliant sign, and being arrested for doing so. It isn't illegal to walk past a non-compliant sign. Again, not mine, or anyone else's opinion. We're all subject to CHL law, and that includes LEOs.

If I can't argue "you can't beat the ride" then you can't argue the other side of it. And it was aggie_engr, whose argument you have taken up, who said it was "spoiling it" for the rest of you by attempting to find out the motive for a non-compliant posting and encouraging such a location to remove it in favor of law abiding citizens, as well as pointing out their loss of income otherwise. I care if my actions truly deprive you of some freedom, but what you have right now is merely an illusion and I feel no grief over repairing your mistaken belief.

A business that has a non-compliant sign legally (and that is all that matters when it comes to CHL law) allows me to carry. If you don't agree with that, please don't shop there, but don't have this "no loss" attitude when the rest of us can't go there, or even worse, can't defend ourselves in the event of a crisis.

Embalmo

I already do not shop there, if I know about their sign, and if I already know about their sign, they have heard from me. If they have heard from me and not responded, I still do not shop there. If they have responded and have not taken down non=compliant signage, then have a record showing that they do not intend to comply with Texas Law and I feel no compunction about passing that sign, in part because if they have me arrested, I have documented their refusal to comply, and will see them in civil court. If they have responded and taken down non-compliant signage, then they have received a letter of thanks from me, and I even recommend them to friends. If they have either responded or not and changed to the big ugly sign, then I feel no loss, and also feel that I have defended you and others like you against a possible false arrest as well as saving you from supporting someone who actively dislikes you.

I will continue to do it my way, and you can go your way, and agree to disagree with our opinions, and that is what they are, no facts, no case law, nothing more than opinion, and you have not presented an argument that has changed mine one whit, and I assume you don't care for my arguments either.

We can't have any sort of discussion as long as you pit opinion against CHL law; that's why I asked you not to. Take a look over that little white booklet they gave you and get back to me.

Embalmo

Like I said, it's nothing more than your opinion, nothing in the book says you will not be arrested, nothing in the book says that you may pass a non-compliant sign with impunity "In order to provide notice that entry on property by a license holder with a concealed handgun is forbidden, Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(A) requires that a written communication contain the following language:" it is merely your opinion that it does, and not the opinion of a court or the Attorney General.

[Embalmo]

Embalmo[/quote]

Like I said, it's nothing more than your opinion, nothing in the book says you will not be arrested, nothing in the book says that you may pass a non-compliant sign with impunity "In order to provide notice that entry on property by a license holder with a concealed handgun is forbidden, Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(A) requires that a written communication contain the following language:" it is merely your opinion that it does, and not the opinion of a court or the Attorney General.[/quote]

Since neither of our opinions matter when it comes to CHL law, I asked you to discuss actual law and you couldn't, so I'm going to have to terminate this discussion.

Embalmo