TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Why, why, WHY do CHL holders persist in trying to inform the ignorant that their signs are not compliant?

It is said, among other things, that, "...a little learnin' can be a dangerous thing...". I'm forever amazed at the number of folk who take a 8-10 hour Texas CHL class and apparently think that course qualifies them to be lawyers and judges, etc.

The unfortunate part of our current legal system really leaves them no choice. Let's take the example of Grapevine Mills. You and I look at the sign, agree that the wording doesn't match the TPC and therefore the sign is unenforceable. The chief of police in Grapevine just doesn't happen to agree with our assessment. The Irving Convention Center has a properly worded 30.06 sign but the TPC doesn't give them the right to post it. I won't want to bet on the results if one of Irving's finest notices a bulge in your shirt while you are there. From my view point, the "big boys" in the crowd aren't getting it right either.

The thread about the soldier and carrying in the hospital while he may or may not have consumed enough alcohol to make him intoxicated is another example. For me, none of this is cut and dried and having the discussions about it makes me far less likely to make a stupid and potentially very expensive mistake in judgement.

I must have missed something...


Where/when did the OP tell them they had a non complaint sign?

steveincowtown wrote:I must have missed something...


Where/when did the OP tell them they had a non complaint sign?

I don't believe he did. I was just voicing a general complaint, because that particular issue has appeared on these pages before, and it is kinda sorta related to this one.

The idea of "let sleeping dogs lie" applies in both this OP and in other threads.

To chasfm11's point, I have a couple of responses (these are alternatives, not rebuttals):

1. In the case of nearly but not quite compliant signs, concealed is concealed.
2. In the case of ignorant and lawbreaking chiefs of police, concealed is concealed.
3. If "concealed is concealed" an unacceptable risk in the face of #1 or #2, spend your money elsewhere. If a shop owner in the Grapevine Mills Mall ever asks me (outside of the mall) why I refuse to shop there, my answer will be simple: "There isn't a single thing you have in your store that I can't find somewhere else, without paying any more for it, and without being treated like a criminal even though I have passed a background check that you haven't passed." When asked to explain, I'll explain it. "I'd love to give you my business, but as long as you are doing business inside a mall that will not allow me in, AND THAT WILL THREATEN ME WITH ARREST FOR ENTERING, I'll take my business elsewhere."

If the sign is close to compliant, #3 is my default.

The Annoyed Man wrote: If "concealed is concealed" an unacceptable risk in the face of #1 or #2, spend your money elsewhere. If a shop owner in the Grapevine Mills Mall ever asks me (outside of the mall) why I refuse to shop there, my answer will be simple: "There isn't a single thing you have in your store that I can't find somewhere else, without paying any more for it, and without being treated like a criminal even though I have passed a background check that you haven't passed." When asked to explain, I'll explain it. "I'd love to give you my business, but as long as you are doing business inside a mall that will not allow me in, AND THAT WILL THREATEN ME WITH ARREST FOR ENTERING, I'll take my business elsewhere."

Hooter's would not be my first choice for a night out on the town anyways.

Crossfire wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: If "concealed is concealed" an unacceptable risk in the face of #1 or #2, spend your money elsewhere. If a shop owner in the Grapevine Mills Mall ever asks me (outside of the mall) why I refuse to shop there, my answer will be simple: "There isn't a single thing you have in your store that I can't find somewhere else, without paying any more for it, and without being treated like a criminal even though I have passed a background check that you haven't passed." When asked to explain, I'll explain it. "I'd love to give you my business, but as long as you are doing business inside a mall that will not allow me in, AND THAT WILL THREATEN ME WITH ARREST FOR ENTERING, I'll take my business elsewhere."

Hooter's would not be my first choice for a night out on the town anyways.

Me either, I'd rather go to a POPEYES or a HARDEES. Those places have really good vittles with a dignified ambience. Now, if someone else is footin' the bill, take us to Ruth's Chris.

To make it simple, once I find out a place that doesn't allow CHL's, I just walk away.

Crossfire wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: If "concealed is concealed" an unacceptable risk in the face of #1 or #2, spend your money elsewhere. If a shop owner in the Grapevine Mills Mall ever asks me (outside of the mall) why I refuse to shop there, my answer will be simple: "There isn't a single thing you have in your store that I can't find somewhere else, without paying any more for it, and without being treated like a criminal even though I have passed a background check that you haven't passed." When asked to explain, I'll explain it. "I'd love to give you my business, but as long as you are doing business inside a mall that will not allow me in, AND THAT WILL THREATEN ME WITH ARREST FOR ENTERING, I'll take my business elsewhere."

Hooter's would not be my first choice for a night out on the town anyways.

Crossfire, I suspect you are not Hooter's target audience. -- Marty, on the other hand...

(Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that Marty is interested in Hooters, but that Hooters is more interested in Marty than you.)

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=59117" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks like between what OP of this thread did along with the OP on the thread where all of this originated from, our choice of places to enjoy mediocre fare along with a particular ambiance while maintaing a high level of personal security will eventually be reduced by 1.

TexasCajun wrote:viewtopic.php?f=7&t=59117

Looks like between what OP of this thread did along with the OP on the thread where all of this originated from, our choice of places to enjoy mediocre fare along with a particular ambiance while maintaing a high level of personal security will eventually be reduced by 1.

I realize that this is a CHL thread, but to paraphrase the title of the OP, "I don't give a Hoot about Hooters." At the request of a friend, I had dinner there once. Some time later I had lunch and have found no reason to go back.

Giving them some credit, their fried pickles are pretty good, but only if you get them crisp, fresh and hot right out of the deep frier, rather than the greasy limp dill slices that they keep warm under their heat lamps.

WildBill wrote: Giving them some credit, their fried pickles are pretty good, but only if you get them crisp, fresh and hot right out of the deep frier, rather than the greasy limp dill slices that they keep warm under their heat lamps.

Yuck!

Rex B wrote:I think RPB has it right. You need to read between the lines.

If that person was asked to leave because he was carrying, I bet there was more to the story.

What do you want to know to the story I told you everything that happen. I didn't go show everyone that i was carrying. I stated he approached me after I got up to use the restroom and adjusted myself. Possibly accidently exposing. I was in there for 4 hours and he appraoched me right before I was about to leave and went to the restroom. I admitted that was poor on my part when I got up and adjusted myself. Hence, why I got on here to share this and see what all I did wrong/right.

And you ask why 4 hours? because I was enjoying the WS game.

Anyone remember that episode of Undercover Boss where some big wig from the Hooters home office went to work in a restaurant in the DFW area, and observed a restaurant manager treating the waitresses like farm animals? The manager had them eating beans from a bowl without using utensils.

If you haven't seen the show, the premise is to take an executive and have them do a low level job, while in disguise.

Hooters obviously has their priorities skewed - they foster this type of environment for their employees, but go out of their way to try to prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their rights.

And the food is horrible....

Stripes Dude wrote:Anyone remember that episode of Undercover Boss where some big wig from the Hooters home office went to work in a restaurant in the DFW area, and observed a restaurant manager treating the waitresses like farm animals? The manager had them eating beans from a bowl without using utensils.

If you haven't seen the show, the premise is to take an executive and have them do a low level job, while in disguise.

Hooters obviously has their priorities skewed - they foster this type of environment for their employees, but go out of their way to try to prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their rights.

And the food is horrible....

So, you no longer frequent your neighborhood Hooters?

Every Hooters I've ever been in has only had the good ol "Unlicensed Possession" sign, and usually is a really odd spot to boot.
I haven't seen the post yet where the guy was asked to leave but obviously he wasn't concealing properly if someone saw it which resulting in him being asked to leave.