On Calling Establishments and Asking about Carry Policies

[woodyrr]

I was a member of an organization - I say I was a member because I had to withdraw my support and promotion because of their decision to post against open carry.

It appears that someone called and told them they were going to visit and carry openly on the grounds. The result was the powers that be panicked and took the easiest course they could which was to post. I have had the policy of refusing to patronize posted establishments unless there is absolutely no alternative since the Oklahoma SDA law was passed some fourteen years ago and I cannot give a pass to this one organization just because I approve of their mission. We, the CHL holders on here, and others have worked wonders to whittle the number of posted establishments down tremendously over the years. With the passage of open carry, I am very pleased to see that except in a very few instances, we are not having to do it again.

I am wondering if it is a good idea to be calling places and putting them in a tight spot about their carry policy. I think it causes a lot of bad snap decisions. What do you think?

 

[davidmcbeth]

I would not waste my time calling organizations ad hoc ... but your should let them know as you see them that your business is going elsewhere..

I do this all the time around election time .. a store puts up an election sign and I complain ... most take them down.

Squeaking wheel I guess.

 

[Gary S]

If we educate people about open carry and the law as well as our right some turn there decision and remove there signs. Not only do I get that reaction but then they will ask how to get there permits. If we don't teach the ones that don't know, who will?

 

[Av8r115]

I often call ahead to check an establishment's policy when I go there the first time. I don't like wasting my time getting to a business and then finding I need to take my money somewhere else.

 

[Av8r115]

I was a member of an organization - I say I was a member because I had to withdraw my support and promotion because of their decision to post against open carry.

It appears that someone called and told them they were going to visit and carry openly on the grounds. The result was the powers that be panicked and took the easiest course they could which was to post. I have had the policy of refusing to patronize posted establishments unless there is absolutely no alternative since the Oklahoma SDA law was passed some fourteen years ago and I cannot give a pass to this one organization just because I approve of their mission. We, the CHL holders on here, and others have worked wonders to whittle the number of posted establishments down tremendously over the years. With the passage of open carry, I am very pleased to see that except in a very few instances, we are not having to do it again.

I am wondering if it is a good idea to be calling places and putting them in a tight spot about their carry policy. I think it causes a lot of bad snap decisions. What do you think?

Don't know if it's the same organization, but a couple weeks ago I called a museum that several friends and I were planning to visit to find out their policy on firearms prior to showing up at the door. As always, I simply stated that I carry a firearm everywhere I go, and asked what their policy is on firearms. The person I talked to put me on hold, then came back and said they did not have an established policy, just that they often have kids on the grounds. I was prepared to CC if necessary, and sure enough when we got to the museum a makeshift sign said no OC.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I often call ahead to check an establishment's policy when I go there the first time. I don't like wasting my time getting to a business and then finding I need to take my money somewhere else.

That's good practice .. why waste gas. But you would not call up every business just to examine their policy...

Plus policies change all the time ...

 

[Grapeshot]

Ask and you just may receive.........exactly what you do not want. "Knee jerks" are by any other definition "jerks" (illogical).

Far better IMO is to check on-line rules, lists of unfriendlies, or even to make a dry run. I understand the problem, but why make it worse with the solution?

 

[woodyrr]

To be clear, I am not in any way being critical. I simply got to see what happened, in this case, first hand, and at the other end so to speak, and wanted to share it because I was really and truly shocked at how it played out. The manner in which any organization reacts, and the result, is their problem, and theirs alone. I just wanted to find out what people thought about putting management on the spot.

What stunned me was there are many very active members of this organization who are CHL holders and, at least, vocally, strong proponents of the right to keep and bear arms. Apparently, they haven’t taken the time to think open carry through, or are actually only comfortable with the right to keep and bear arms as long as nobody sees them, or they simply don’t want to rock the boat and wind up on the "unreasonable malcontent" list with me.

If we educate people about open carry and the law as well as our right some turn there decision and remove there signs. Not only do I get that reaction but then they will ask how to get there permits. If we don't teach the ones that don't know, who will?

Unfortunately, the opportunity for education in this case, and I think there was a possibility, has passed. Now that the policy is in place, if the issue were to be reconsidered, those who are opposed to the right to keep and bear arms as well as those who are indifferent will object to reversal of the policy. For better or for worse, the issue is settled and closed.

Don't know if it's the same organization . . .

I hope you and your friends enjoyed your visit! Except for this, they are a pretty great group.