Writing a letter to my bank, need arguments

[Will938]

My bank (Cyfair Federal Credit Union) has always been CHL friendly. On the way in they always had the gunbuster sign and the signage about unlicensed possession. A few months ago I walked into my bank to make a deposit, I saw the unlicensed possession signage and kept walking towards the doors. At the last second, as I was crossing the threshold into the bank that big fat 30.06 caught my eye. So, with the Sheriff several feet away suspiciously eyeballing me now, I stepped back and read the sign a few times. Sure enough they had changed it. So I went back to my car, disarmed, and went about my business. As I was leaving I got the number for some lady who takes calls about the bank's policies. At that same time a lady there admitted that she also has a CHL and hates the policy, after exchanging high fives I left and gave the policy rep a call. She said she would look into it and call me back. I forgot about it until now, she claims to have called a few times though I answer/return all calls and didn't notice any from the bank.

Anyhow, after explaining the frustration at almost committing a crime because of the similar signage and lack of notice, I went through the usual arguments as to why the policy is useless. She relayed that this was the decision of the board, and I needed to take it up with the president. We were cordial through the conversation, I laid it on a bit when I commented about almost committing a crime.

So here I am, writing a letter to the president of my bank. I'm 100% positive that with a bit of help I can put together a letter that they'll have no retort to, so I was looking for opinions of how to best attack this and what to add. I figure I need to keep this down to a few paragraphs, no long winded explanations, just a point with a logical argument to back it up that's hard to retort. I also plan to attach some reputable statistical evidence if they wish to look it over.

Here's what I'm thinking:

Two key points:
- I've been a lawbiding citizen all my life, the uneventful change in policy very nearly caused me to commit a Class A misdemeanor *cue snippet of of 30.06 to show crime and 12.21 from the Penal code showing penalties . Explain the unpleasant situation.

- I am responsible for my own safety, and the bank is preventing me from adequately protecting myself to and from my car. They are also causing me to disarm in order to comply with them, which spawns the possibility of an accident/violation of 46.02, which is also a Class A misdemeanor.

Reasons why the policy doesn't make sense:
- CHL holder is less likely to commit crime than most of the population (backed with statistics)
- The policy has no effect on the safety of the bank (criminals don't abide by law)
- In a normal distribution 234 members of our credit union would also be licensed and in the same position I am ( # license holders backed by DPS stats, pop backed by gov't site, # of members backed by bank itself)




That's what I've got planned, I'd appreciate more points, advice, anything you guys have to offer. If anyone is a member of my credit union and would like to write a letter with me that'd be great, would show that I'm not just some lone trouble maker or something.

[Kythas]

The bank is a business. Tell them that this policy, if it stands, will force you to take your business elsewhere. In this economy every business is scrambling for every customer they can get. If you make the point that the new policy may cost them customers, then that's something they'll probably take note of.

[mr.72]

If it were me, I'd just leave the bank and send them a letter letting them know why they lost my business -- forever.

I have a zero-tolerance policy with banks.

[Oldgringo]

Send a letter to the bank president, tell them you're leaving and why - short, sweet and to the point. Don't waste your breath with arguments or justifications.

[quidni]

Check robbery stats. Which banking facilities have been hit the most over the last five years, and which the fewest - and find out whether those institutions post or not.

There's a large local credit union in El Paso that gets hit by robbers on a regular basis. They post. Maybe not enforceable 30.06 posting, but it's clear that firearms are unwelcome there. There's also a large (nation-wide) bank here that has been hit maybe once that I know of in the last couple years or so. They don't post at all.

IMO, a higher likelyhood of getting robbed also implies a greater chance (i.e. liability) of employees and/or customers being grabbed as hostages if something goes south....

[Will938]

I'm not calling it quits yet. If they just made a misinformed decision why shouldn't I give them another shot? I'll write this letter and see where it goes, if they tell me to screw off I'll write them another one letting them know why I'm taking my business elsewhere.

[srothstein]

The point I would make is that they are not only disarming you while inside the bank, but also on the way to and from your car. Any businessman who carries his deposits to the bank, or change back, is now at extreme risk. Considering the number of cases of robbers who wait by banks and ATM's for customers who just made withdrawals, ask the bank if they are really willing to put their customers at risk like that.

[Liberty]

While I don't pretend that I understand the reasoning of the 30.06 posters. You may want to address the lack of accidents also. There is a statistic floating about being many times more likely to be shot by lightning than wrongly shot by a CHL'er

[anygunanywhere]

I'm not calling it quits yet. If they just made a misinformed decision why shouldn't I give them another shot? I'll write this letter and see where it goes, if they tell me to screw off I'll write them another one letting them know why I'm taking my business elsewhere.

I am sorry to disappoint you, but there is no such thing as a misinformed decision when your rights to defend yourself are concerned.

Anygunanywhere

[stash]

Like some of the others here have said, I would write them a letter telling them your are leaving and explain why. I don't know why but credit unions seem to have more of a penchant to post 30.06. There are a lot of friendlier institutions out there that would really like your business.

Stan

[Kawabuggy]

I think I would start by writing a letter and then asking specifically why the policy change. IF you can get a response to that, then you know exactly how to counter their position. I think your idea of sending a letter with all of the statistical information in it is worthwhile, I just wonder how much of it they will actually read. The average attention span of most adults I know is about as long as a concealed handgun pistol barrel, so they are not likely to read through the entire thing.

As others have mentioned, keep it short, sweet & to the point. If you can get them to tell you why the policy change, address those reasons specifically. One letter. If you don't get the answer you are looking for, your 2nd, and last, letter needs to be a "Dear John" explaining that you can't condone doing business with an institution who places unnecessary demands on it's customers that compromise said customers safety, and that you feel your needs would best be met by a more modern thinking organization.

[Rayden]

That 30.06 sign is useless in preventing a shooting crime. It only have an effect on law abiding citizens. Do they seriously think that a criminal would look at that sign and put his gun back in his car and grab a knife instead?

[Oldgringo]

That 30.06 sign is useless in preventing a shooting crime. It only have an effect on law abiding citizens. Do they seriously think that a criminal would look at that sign and put his gun back in his car and grab a knife instead?

...or go to a robber friendly bank?

[thelurker]

I found this posted from another forum (I think) and it perfectly addresses your concerns. It's even for a credit union! I cannot remember the individuals name, so I can't give credit where credit is due, but he did say to copy and use as needed. Seems this is as good a time as any. Here goes...

Jane,

Friday when we came by the credit union I noticed a new sign by the door on my way in. It was a laminated sign with the language from Texas Penal Code 30.06 on it. This is the section that deals with trespass by holder of license to carry concealed handgun.

I have a few questions. Why was the sign posted, and is it the intentions of the credit union to prohibit CHL holders from entering the premises? Do you feel that members or your staff are any safer by prohibiting members who have their CHL from entering when carrying concealed.

My reason for asking this question is pretty simple. Code section 30.06, is only enforceable against a person that has a Texas CHL. Those persons have spent somewhere near 300 dollars, to take the required 10 hour course on Texas Law and handgun proficiency, have submitted photo’s, finger prints, and passed both a state and federal background check, in order to legally carry a concealed handgun. The persons who have their CHL have not been convicted of a felony, have not been convicted of a class A or B misdemeanor in the past 5 year under penal code 42.01, is not delinquent on child support, does not have a history of mental illness, are not delinquent on any state debts or taxes, or student loans, are not under any protective or restraining order or had a past history of family violence, and doesn’t have a history of alcohol or drug related charges in the past 10 years, along with some other criteria. This can all be found under General Code 411.172. I would guess that most of the members and even the employees of the credit union have not undergone this extensive of a background check.

Based on the information from the Texas DPS website, CHL holders were 4 to 9 times less likely to be convicted of a crime in our state from the years 2002 to 2006 than the population as a whole.

The signage posted does not keep someone who is carrying a concealed handgun illegally from entering your credit union, because they are not licensed holders of permits. Those people are already breaking the law. That sign will also not stop someone who is intent on coming into the credit union to do harm either. They are after all going to be engaged in criminal activity, and criminals by their nature do not obey the law.

Again I ask what is the purpose for posting the signage? Has someone who is a permit holder come into the credit union and displayed their firearm or made it visible to your employees? If they have, they have broken the law and that person needs to be dealt with. Texas law already covers that. I can assure you that since Texas has allowed persons to legally carry concealed handguns in 1995, members have entered the credit union and done business without alarm to the staff or other members, since it was not known to them.

Since I don’t foresee the credit union installing metal detectors which prohibit entry into the institution of people carrying firearms, or armed security guards in the near future, what is my assurance that someone won’t walk through your doors armed and ready to kill members or staff in order to get what they want? I take seriously the protection of myself and my family; therefore I have taken the appropriate steps to comply with Texas law on this issue and will continue to do so. If the intention of the credit union is to prohibit CHL holders from entering the building while carrying their firearm, then I will be forced to make the decision to continue to do business with this credit union or find another institution that does not take this stance on persons licensed to carry handguns in Texas. As far as I know your credit union is the only institution in our community with this policy.

I look forward to hearing from you on this issue, and also the removal of the signage posted by the entrance, as I cannot think of any reason why persons abiding by Texas law would be asked not to enter this institution. I ask that the personal information in this letter not be shared with anyone who is not directly responsible for the posting of the signage by the credit union due to the nature of the topic.

Thank you,

XXXX