I appreciate where you are coming from. It just kinda took me by surprise. He was talking about they are posting official info for employees about a policy change, and when I asked to see the corporate memo stating the change he said yes and then came back with these B&W printed images that I'm assuming came from Google images, and told me signs like this were going to be put up at each store. I just... I needed to make sure that he knew that a sign like this was not going to do any good. I'm of the opinion that I don't want them thinking that they can put up a sign and that does something, so I guess we're both on differing sides of there same end opinion, so to speak. I think that by making him think a sign does something, he'll feel empowered to put up a sign, which will maybe lead to another and another. Then when you start telling them the sign doesn't matter, maybe it's too late. Maybe there's enough of them that they go ahead and lobby to make signs carry weight of law here. I'd rather they just know that a sign does nothing to stop me from entering a property and state preemption specifically has my back on this. By emphasizing state preemption I hope he does go look at the info on the OC pamphlet and see that state preemption does allow me to carry wherever I please and decides it might be best to leave policies like this to the state legislature.
We're both using different means to an end, but both with the intention of ensuring that signs do NOT carry weight of law. I would never have ever told them "well.. there wasn't a sign..." or indicate signage would ever make a difference to me, I hope that impression was not given.
The thing about even mentioning the sign, and it having no effect until verbally being asked to leave, puts the suits on notice that they need to plug the holes in their policy, and how to do it. Now, they may modify their policy and have the local manager/staff look for OCers as they enter, and to ask them to leave before they even order.