TexasCHLforum.com

zuikowarrior wrote:Actually, I went there to get a photograph of the illegal gunbuster sign that was there previously for reference use. I had no intention of spending money there until I found all visible indications that it was now a 2A friendly business.

I'm not sure that the absence of a gun buster sign makes a business 2A friendly.

zuikowarrior wrote:Actually, I went there to get a photograph of the illegal gunbuster sign that was there previously for reference use. I had no intention of spending money there until I found all visible indications that it was now a 2A friendly business.

What is illegal about a gunbuster sign?

jmra wrote:Friendly fire...

I think the point is getting missed.

The point everyone is trying to make is that it really serves no good purpose to bring the lack of a sign to the attention of "higher-ups" who may not be aware of what the situation is at that location (but now are thanks to the message you sent). We old timers write to executives about signs that exist and cause us displeasure, not ones that are not there or not legally binding upon us. The informal rule is if there is not a sign which stops us, don't talk about it with the company.

sugar land dave wrote:The point everyone is trying to make is that it really serves no good purpose to bring the lack of a sign to the attention of "higher-ups" who may not be aware of what the situation is at that location (but now are thanks to the message you sent). We old timers write to executives about signs that exist and cause us displeasure, not ones that are not there or not legally binding upon us. The informal rule is if there is not a sign which stops us, don't talk about it with the company.

Exactly. Thank them with you business.

If we contact them to inform them why we won't be giving them our business due to an enforceable sign we have nothing to lose.

sugar land dave wrote:The point everyone is trying to make is that it really serves no good purpose to bring the lack of a sign to the attention of "higher-ups" who may not be aware of what the situation is at that location (but now are thanks to the message you sent). We old timers write to executives about signs that exist and cause us displeasure, not ones that are not there or not legally binding upon us. The informal rule is if there is not a sign which stops us, don't talk about it with the company.

Given the tasteless theme of this restaurant and the constant criticism of their food, I've never been in one them.

No, I'm not a prude, but c'mon, can their theme be any more sophomoric?

zuikowarrior wrote:Actually, I went there to get a photograph of the illegal gunbuster sign that was there previously for reference use. I had no intention of spending money there until I found all visible indications that it was now a 2A friendly business.

Small correction; ... The sign is not illagle.
A sign that does not comply with 30.06 requirements is arguable unenforceable, but not illagle.

Abraham wrote:Given the tasteless theme of this restaurant and the constant criticism of their food, I've never been in one them.

No, I'm not a prude, but c'mon, can their theme be any more sophomoric?

Can it still be considered sophomoric if they're not trying to hide what their theme is or be sneaky about it? It's kinds like Twin Peaks, except that TP's food is better.