New store in Lafayette

[ATM]

It is a request he has a right to make, though. And a request which we have no right to ignore.

About the only request I couldn't ignore is a request to leave that store if asked.

 

[Benny]

About the only request I couldn't ignore is a request to leave that store if asked.

Not the only one.

If only I had a nickel every time I've heard, "sir, I'm going to have to ask you to put your pants back on or I'm calling the police."

I'm not a fan of pants...Since when is it a crime to want to feel comfortable?

 

[Hammerhead]

Not the only one.

If only I had a nickel every time I've heard, "sir, I'm going to have to ask you to put your pants back on or I'm calling the police."

I'm not a fan of pants...Since when is it a crime to want to feel comfortable?

Hahaha

Get a kilt.

 

[Bill of Rights]

 

[Bang-bang]

I was in Bradis on saturday, they had the same sign. Too Bad the door was help open and I really didnt "see" the sign.

 

[wsenefeld]

After reading this post, I went into a shop on the east side of indy on post road, I asked him why the sign and he said his insurance is lower for having it. He doesn't mind anybody bringing it a loaded weapon as long as it stays holstered. If you wish to carry it, aim it, waive it around, it better be unloaded.

 

[DownByTheTracks]

I stopped in at the store mentioned in the OP and talked to the owner, Ken about this thread. Ken's a really nice guy and he seemed to be surprised that the sign was causing a loss of business. He said that he was required to have it posted for the insurance company.

He hopes that potential customers will understand and stop in and see him regardless of the sign.

 

[jgreiner]

I stopped in at the store mentioned in the OP and talked to the owner, Ken about this thread. Ken's a really nice guy and he seemed to be surprised that the sign was causing a loss of business. He said that he was required to have it posted for the insurance company.

He hopes that potential customers will understand and stop in and see him regardless of the sign.

I doubt it has to say exactly what his says. Applied Ballistics just asks that you HOLSTER your weapon, and if you don't have a holster, they will even loan you one.

And I bet the folks working there don't unload theirs.

 

[raider600]

I stopped in at the store mentioned in the OP and talked to the owner, Ken about this thread. Ken's a really nice guy and he seemed to be surprised that the sign was causing a loss of business. He said that he was required to have it posted for the insurance company.

He hopes that potential customers will understand and stop in and see him regardless of the sign.

Next time I'm in town, I will stop by. That sign wont stop me from being a patron. Lots of cry babies on here...well OP more so I guess.

 

[Expat]

I stopped in at the store mentioned in the OP and talked to the owner, Ken about this thread. Ken's a really nice guy and he seemed to be surprised that the sign was causing a loss of business. He said that he was required to have it posted for the insurance company.

He hopes that potential customers will understand and stop in and see him regardless of the sign.

+1 for doing that.

 

[Rookie]

Next time I'm in town, I will stop by. That sign wont stop me from being a patron. Lots of cry babies on here...well OP more so I guess.

What's with the influx of trolls today?

 

[DownByTheTracks]

I doubt it has to say exactly what his says. Applied Ballistics just asks that you HOLSTER your weapon, and if you don't have a holster, they will even loan you one.

And I bet the folks working there don't unload theirs.

He explained that this wording covers the company for any type of ND.

 

[Double T]

When I asked the guy at the LGS it's typically for insurance and not for a ccw/open carry. That way if you want to trade and there is an AD/IDVit's on the person who brought it in.


Which looks like it has been said...

 

[Expat]

What's with the influx of trolls today?

Sometimes it seems every thread has a couple of them popping up. Weird though, a lot of them show they have belonged for a year or more but never posted more than 50-60 times. Now suddenly they are posting.

 

[ATM]

He explained that this wording covers the company for any type of ND.

Covers them for what?

I have no idea what a sign would have to do with indemnification from damages associated with a patron's negligence.

They should find a better insurance company.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Next time I'm in town, I will stop by. That sign wont stop me from being a patron. Lots of cry babies on here...well OP more so I guess.

If you're willing to choose not to exercise your rights or to ignore those of the property owner, that is your business. Kindly refrain from namecalling on INGO. (And just for the record, were it anyone else you'd insulted, I'd have removed your post and possibly removed you for a couple of days. Were I to do so with it being me about whom you said that, it would, IMHO, be an abuse of the authority I have here, so if something does happen, it will be done by one of the other members of the staff.)

Mr. Cardwell went in and talked to the owner, which is good; now he's aware that there are people who object both to his signage and the elitist tone it carries (I'm quite sure that LEOs and of course, anyone working there do not disarm or unload to enter.) I did have a tinge of concern that I'd not given him a chance to explain or to even know there was an objection, but I had no way of doing that there, that day, other than perhaps by a phone call. Nonetheless, that no longer concerns me. He's chosen to maintain the "insurance company myth". That is his right. For his sake, I hope he has enough customers that don't care about their rights. For this country's sake, I hope there are enough Americans who treasure and defend their rights, rather than just bend over and take what's being given to them.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[esrice]

Lots of cry babies on here...well OP more so I guess.

Kindly refrain from namecalling on INGO. (And just for the record, were it anyone else you'd insulted, I'd have removed your post and possibly removed you for a couple of days. Were I to do so with it being me about whom you said that, it would, IMHO, be an abuse of the authority I have here, so if something does happen, it will be done by one of the other members of the staff.)

Direct name-calling of another member is against the rules. As such, please refrain from doing so. Failure to heed this in-thread warning by anyone will result in their temporary banning.

Please continue without resorting to insults and name-calling. Thank you.

 

[Hammerhead]

I want to know what you people who cringed and clucked your tongues (I'm being nice) when I stated that I ignore signs because they're stupid requests are going to say now that the store proprietor has said that it's not an attempt to deny rights so much as an attempt to appease an insurance company.

You still going to hold fast your stance that I'm somehow violating the property rights of the business owner by exerting my rights, thereby being a (fill in the blank)?

Bill is holding to his convictions by not patronizing a store that even unintentionally or accidentally is denying the rights afforded to everyone. I applaud him for not wavering, even in the face of information exempting holstered firearms, because the sign still exists. I will still ignore stupid signs, "requests" and "company policies" as absurd and nonsensical and shop where I please. This does not mean that I will shop at businesses that have the signs if I choose not to, it means that the signs anywhere hold no meaning to me.

+1 Bill.

 

[DownByTheTracks]

Covers them for what?

I have no idea what a sign would have to do with indemnification from damages associated with a patron's negligence.

They should find a better insurance company.

That's above my pay grade, just repeating what Ken told me.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I want to know what you people who cringed and clucked your tongues (I'm being nice) when I stated that I ignore signs because they're stupid requests are going to say now that the store proprietor has said that it's not an attempt to deny rights so much as an attempt to appease an insurance company.

You still going to hold fast your stance that I'm somehow violating the property rights of the business owner by exerting my rights, thereby being a (fill in the blank)?

Bill is holding to his convictions by not patronizing a store that even unintentionally or accidentally is denying the rights afforded to everyone. I applaud him for not wavering, even in the face of information exempting holstered firearms, because the sign still exists. I will still ignore stupid signs, "requests" and "company policies" as absurd and nonsensical and shop where I please. This does not mean that I will shop at businesses that have the signs if I choose not to, it means that the signs anywhere hold no meaning to me.

+1 Bill.

Thank you, sir. I wish I could say that I really was doing that completely. As TMU317 pointed out, there is some level of hypocrisy. I make myself feel better by saying that I hope to make a positive change by not patronizing his business until the sign changes, but I think he's made it clear that that doesn't disturb him at all. This saddens me, but I can't say it surprises me... the "no loaded guns" thing seems to be a myth to which some store owners wish to hold tight. I will continue to patronize those who don't pre-emptively remove things and instead, remove people who cause problems.



Blessings,
Bill