Outback Steakhouse following Starbucks

[Right2Carry]

These signs are also used by businesses who don't want to put up the 30.06 sign because they don't want to alienate us (the CHL community), but they want the anti crowd who doesn't know the statutes to feel like they are on their side. I've seen this happen when headquarters issues a mandate to put up "no gun" signs, but the local management doesn't want to, so they "tongue in cheek" put up a worthless sign to look like they comply.

If this is the case, I give them credit.

There are no facts to back up this statement. This is just more justification to spend money in an establishment that really doesn't want your gun or your business.

Really? You couldn't be more wrong.

I'm in the restaurant/retail business and I know of three different restaurant franchises who do exactly this. Corporate says put up a sign, but doesn't specify which one.

So once again you make my point, they put up the wrong sign in ignorance. The intent of the corporation is to deny firearms. I will not give my money to a corporation that wants to limit my constitutional rights.

[Abraham]

zzzzzzzzzzzzz cough, snore, zzzzzzzz

[hillfighter]

They do indeed respect my right to carry. Otherwise they would post 30.06.

If that's what you think about the letter Howard Schultz wrote, I disagree. If that's what you think when a national chain doesn't have a Texas-specific sign, I disagree with that too. Respectfully but vigorously.

[chasfm11]

They do indeed respect my right to carry. Otherwise they would post 30.06. I will never understand why any CHL would care about a sign that isn't a 30.06 or a 51%.

Let's use Buffalo Wild Wings an example. I'm shooting from the hip here but I think that I remember doing the research a few months ago. The sign that they put up DOES prohibit concealed carry in State in which their corporate headquarters is located. I suspect that the reason that it is posted in the other States, too, is that the C Suite person (CEO, CFO, etc.) gave a direct order that those signs be put up on all of the restaurants. He/she did not give the order to have a staff person figure out what it took to prohibit CC in all the States where they do business. I don't know how one could expect them to prohibit CC in their home State and give a wink, wink, we respect your gun rights in the States where the sign doesn't mean anything legally. If they did it with malice aforethought in their home area, it was intended to be the same everywhere. It is an implementation failure, not a lack of intent.

I do care. I do not knowingly do business with companies that don't want to respect my 2nd Amendment rights. I realize that my personal boycott means about as much as my vote did in the last election but I do it anyway. I've written a few letters telling the companies why and have never gotten a response. I didn't expect one.

I believe that the gun control advocates are ideologically stalwart. They never miss an opportunity to capitalize on any situation that presents itself to advance their cause. The gun rights people don't take the same approach. While there are occasional protests, voting with their pocketbooks would mean a lot more. There always seem to be good reasons to give business to places like Outback. I personally can think of none. I'm not advocating militancy and picketing businesses like the gun control groups do. But I do believe that we, collectively, could have an impact if we would all just act according to our beliefs and do business with companies that are not blatantly anti-gun. I view posting a gun control sign, legitimate or not, as a political act. I can play in that sandbox, too.

[puma guy]

In my book Outback is a third rate eatery. The last time I ate there was my LAST time. The meat was tough, the service poor and prices were high. Golden Corral has better steak.

Besides the fact they serve tasteless, low quality steaks with poor service the times I've been they now want to offend a large portion of their patrons with idiotic signs. I had no reason to ever go there again, but now if I'm invited to a dinner there I will decline and state the reason why.

[Stripes Dude]

Stripes Dude,

Thanks for the info - I thought such might be the case. It's a compromise I can live with.

Some of us though seem too rigid to process this information with a "you must do what I demand attitude or I'll hold my breath until I turn blue"...

Exactly. Some may not have the business background to understand the franchisee/franchiser relationship, but often, the franchisee has to follow suit with corporate mandates. In these cases where there are philosophical or political differences, some will try to find ways around it. Not saying its wrong or right, but it is the case....whether or not an Internet forum member says there are no facts to back it up.

[Right2Carry]

Stripes Dude,

Thanks for the info - I thought such might be the case. It's a compromise I can live with.

Some of us though seem too rigid to process this information with a "you must do what I demand attitude or I'll hold my breath until I turn blue"...

Exactly. Some may not have the business background to understand the franchisee/franchiser relationship, but often, the franchisee has to follow suit with corporate mandates. In these cases where there are philosophical or political differences, some will try to find ways around it. Not saying its wrong or right, but it is the case....whether or not an Internet forum member says there are no facts to back it up.

What facts have you provided? You have spoken a few words about what you think a few franchises might be doing, but you offered no tangible evidence to support your position. When you can provide something in writing from one of more of those franchises stating that is why they put up those signs, then you will have something factual to substantiate your claim.

[suthdj]

Went to one once about 8-9 years ago food was tasteless and bland never went back so they can post all the signs they want.

[Embalmo]

They do indeed respect my right to carry. Otherwise they would post 30.06.

If that's what you think about the letter Howard Schultz wrote, I disagree. If that's what you think when a national chain doesn't have a Texas-specific sign, I disagree with that too. Respectfully but vigorously.

The only practical way that a business can respect my right to carry is to not restrict me from carrying in their establishment. I honestly don't care what their intent is when they hang a sign. Simply put, their opinions mean nothing to me. They are not my friends. If their food is good and reasonably priced, I'll eat it if they let me in with a gun. I actually hope their intent is to keep me out with my gun because I get to see anti-gun person FAIL.

M. Ball Moe

[Cedar Park Dad]

In my book Outback is a third rate eatery. The last time I ate there was my LAST time. The meat was tough, the service poor and prices were high. Golden Corral has better steak.

Agreed. They are pretty bad.

[Oldgringo]

"No rules, just right, eh Mate".

The last Outback I ate in was in Fayetteville, NC about 15 years ago. It was a Ft. Bragg business dinner and it was poor...to say the least.

If everybody keeps 30.06 posting their eateries, etc., we will just have to make do at home, eh Mate?

I have yet to see an eatery posted with a 30.06 sign.

Okay.

[Jihans]

I think this discussion boils down to one of personal commitment. I think all reasonable people will agree that the vast majority of businesses that post a "no guns" sign on their business, whether it is a legal sign in Texas or not, have the intent of not allowing people with guns to enter.

Some people say that they will carry into any business unless prohibited by a legally worded and posted sign; regardless of any other signs posted. They feel that the intent of the business owner is irrelevent- if the sign isn't legal I'm carrying and spending my money. That's fine.

Others think that if the business doesn't want people legally carrying guns into their businesses and post a sign saying so... whether a legal sign or not... they will simply not do business there. Sure, they have the "legal right" to ignore the non-compliant sign but they feel that if the businesses intent is to keep them out, they won't spend any money there. That's fine.

As I read all the posts in this thread... and the many others on this subject, I feel that it always boils down to one of commitment to the principals at stake. Some say that if they don't want me in there, I won't spend my money there, period..... others say that unless they legally bar me from coming in, I'm coming in and spending my money, if you wanted to keep me out you should have posted a legal sign......... It's all commitment. Neither view point is right or wrong..... just degrees of commitment!

[Abraham]

" I think all reasonable people will agree that the vast majority of businesses that post a "no guns" sign on their business, whether it is a legal sign in Texas or not, have the intent of not allowing people with guns to enter."

I disagree and I'm reasonable.

Sentences that start out " I think all reasonable people will agree "...are self serving pretension.

Stripes Dude pointed out: "These signs are also used by businesses who don't want to put up the 30.06 sign because they don't want to alienate us (the CHL community), but they want the anti crowd who doesn't know the statutes to feel like they are on their side."

There's no intent to bar people with guns.

Non 30.06 signage is a sort of rascally compromise.

[texanjoker]

Since the signs don't work, they might be posted to make their anti gun clients think they are anti gun. I know my credit union has the red circle with the slash over a handgun, which really does help keep bank robbers out .

[bizarrenormality]

According to some of the arguments here, somebody with an Obama bumper sticker is probably a Republican.