There is generally one sure way to win the support of private businesses: hit them at their bottom line. If I can demonstrate or convince them that their revenues and/or profits will suffer, few will stand on principle and will instead switch sides in a moment.
The key is to avoid certain emotional hot buttons. I've written a carefully worded letter that can be easily edited for the particular situation. I won't reproduce it here because I want everyone to write their own letter. Three unique letters stressing subsets of the same points will have much more impact than three identical letters signed by different people.
The points that I make:
This is true, at least for me. I take other measures besides carrying a gun, such as avoiding places with No Guns signs. :-) This point also defuses the various emotional issues about allowing me to carry a handgun on their premises, or at least redirects it to someone else not party to the current discussion.
This is the most important point. As a percentage of population, CHL holders are a small group. In Texas, it will be a measurable group, and a merchant may decide that he can absorb the loss of their patronage. However, he cannot measure the number of people that do not hold a CHL, but recognize the benefit of the umbrella that protects all law-abiding citizens. If I can instill a fear that many more people (such as all gun owners) might go to his competitors, I will have his undivided attention.
According to US Dept. of Justice statistics, 1 out of 25 urban households, and 1 out of 40 suburban households were victims of violent crime each year from 1987-1989.
It might be appropriate to fill in some of the more stringent pre-requisites, but I stuck with this summary.
I might even suggest that they give CHL holders a discount. :-) Seriously, the best policy is no policy at all, in the context of liability. The merchant then defers to state law on the matter. It is the creation of special circumstances that creates liability.
I should note that this may be unique to Texas. This is a relatively recent discovery -- as noted by at least one police department.
In Texas, the minimum training and proficiency requirements and background checks are approximately the same for CHL holders and sheriff's deputies. Furthermore, criminologist Don B. Kates, Jr. has documented that LEOs are over five times more likely to shoot an innocent bystander, even when compared to all civilian gun owners.
This one is optional. Since all my financial transactions are itemized and categorized on my computer, it only takes a moment for me to calculate this information. If I don't get the desired response, I plan to follow up with another letter in a year or so detailing how much revenue they missed. I might even stuff the envelope with receipts from their competition!
If the merchant reads this closely, it should scare the hell out of him. I suspect that it will be only a matter of time before a CHL holder or even a non-CHL holder wins a substantial judgement after being injured on the premises of a business that has posted a No Guns sign.
Again, this widens the scope of my boycott. Remember that I am trying to instill doubt as to whether I and my family and friends are actually CHL holders. For the purposes of this letter, I want to separate myself from that small group, and instead appear to represent a group of people that is much larger.
Now that I've itemized the points that
I make, I also want to list the ones that I intentionally
omit:
No, No, No! The specter of a firefight between the good and bad guys is a sure way to reinforce the hysteria of anti-gun activists. Besides, it hardly ever happens except in the movies or on TV.
I know this is true, and I think it's obvious. However, I chose to leave it out in order to avoid the inadvertent mental construction of the previous scenario. No one wants to think that crime might occur on their premises. You may have noticed that my included points describe a fear of violent crime elsewhere -- we have periodic well-publicized instances of driveway robberies that appear to have originated with the choice of a potential victim while they are exiting from a store.
The 2nd is a limitation on the powers of the federal government (and on the states via the 14th, even if the Supreme Court doesn't agree -- yet). It doesn't apply to private entities.
I have a rather unpopular view on this issue, but I'll simply note that CHL holders have not yet achieved standing as a protected minority in the US. I have no desire to join those ranks, but unless it occurs, this particular aspect of a complaint will fall on deaf ears.
An ad hominem attack is not going to convince anyone, and it is more likely to further inflame them.
I implied this in my included points. However, I have chosen to not state it explicitly, because one possible response is: We will be happy to escort you to your car. That's not an acceptable answer to me for a variety of reasons, but none of them are the fault of the merchant.
I don't think it is appropriate to challenge such a policy by suggesting that I can easily defy it. I might also be setting myself up for a confrontation if I ever find it necessary to visit the merchant in question when there are no acceptable alternatives.
I want to stress one important guideline: I avoid
strident and/or vehement statements that are likely to aggravate or antagonize
my intended audience. I want to portray myself as a pleasant and reasonable
person that they would want as a customer. Hurling vindictive accusations
would be the fastest way to get my letter tossed into the trash, or worse
yet -- displayed as an example for ridicule and/or justification for continuing
their present policy.
Finally, I will close by explaining that I plan to note a business's address and go home to write a letter like I describe above, rather than confronting the owner, manager, or other employee in person. There would be no chance of getting into a confrontation with someone that tries to escalate the discussion into a very public argument. I will get a chance to make all of my points without getting side-tracked. I also think there is a better chance that my letter will be seen by the decision makers higher up the management chain. But, your mileage may vary -- let experience be your guide.
Send Comments/Suggestions to the Webmaster