Help - Critique my Letter to the Board of Arvest Bank over New Gun Ban

[hoog]

Help - Critique my Letter to the Board of Arvest Bank over New Gun Ban

Within the last month or so my bank has posted the misguided "no gun" symbol. I have seen this symbol go up in several places since we passed a law that allows CCW permit holders to open carry starting next month. I will likely use this basic letter for several of these businesses but I am starting with my bank.

I love this bank and I hate to leave so I am hoping they will change their policy back. I am writing this letter to the board and I would like any advice on how to make it better (shorter, longer, clearer, more facts, less facts, better arguments, etc.)


Edited11:20 25OCT12:

Board of Directors,

As a long-time customer, I noticed that recently there have been No Gun signs posted at all your branches in the Lawton, Oklahoma area.

Criminals, by definition, will not obey any handguns laws, and they will not obey No Gun signs and, in fact, may see businesses that post them as an easy target.

As a state licensed concealed firearms permit holder, I have had an extensive criminal background check performed by the state to ensure I am qualified to legally possess and carry a firearm. The criminal has not. If the branch’s recent ban on handguns is based on the belief that customers will be overly concerned in seeing other bank patrons carrying handguns openly perhaps a sign banning the open carry of handguns would be better.

Your new firearm policy risks losing more Oklahoma customers than could possibly be off-set by whatever benefit you expect that policy to provide. While it is your right to post such signs, continued restrictions on my constitutional right to carry a firearm and to protect myself will only force me to take my banking business elsewhere, a situation I believe we both would like to avoid.

Sincerely,

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[kapnketel]

I think it is a well written letter that does not "go political". Good tone. would not change a thing.

[darbo]

"Unfortunately the branches in my area have recently put up a sign of a prohibition sign with a handgun in it."

To me this sentence is not a smooth read.

[OldVet]

In a word, it's too wordy, too long. One page at most. Business letters need to be brief and to the point. They may not consider your reasoning as sound. Banning firarms as political? They're looking at it as a security and liability standpoint, not as political.

Before I work up a suggested version, a few questions:
1. Is this happening at all branches in your area?
2. Do the signs carry legal weight in OK?
3. Do you intend to take your business elsewhere if the signs remain?
4. Are other banks doing likewise in light of the recent changes in OK carry law?

[ghost tracker]

Edit, trim & simplify. "Your new firearm policy risks losing more Oklahoma customers than could possibly be off-set by whatever benefit you expect that policy to provide. A bank with no customers is no bank. Fix it or...adios."

[OldVet]

Here you go, OP. Adjust to the situation as you see fit.

As a long-time customer, I noticed that recently your branches have posted No Gun signs at all your branches.

Criminals, by definition, will not obey any handguns laws, and they will not obey No Gun signs and, in fact, may see businesses that post them as an easy target.

As a state licensed concealed firearms permit holder, I have had an extensive criminal background check performed by the state to ensure I am qualified to legally possess and carry a firearm. The criminal has not.

While it is your right to post such signs, continued restrictions on my constitutional right to carry a firearm and to protect myself will only force me to take my banking business elsewhere, a situation I believe we both would like to avoid.

Sincerely
OP

[Mike1956]

Looks good to me. Ship it.

[tacman605]

No offense intended and wish you luck with the letter. The following statement though has no factual basis.

Those intending to commit a crime with a gun on your property are actually more likely to commit the crime knowing that the law abiding patrons of the bank will not be able to defend themselves. Violent criminals intentionally seek out gun free zones, like your bank, knowing they are able to target unarmed victims.

There is not any factual documentation that I have been able to find that shows businesses that post "No Gun Signs" are anymore likely to get robbed than those that welcome guns. If this was the case gun shops would never ever be robbed. It is all up to the bad guy and what his intentions are. Please do not compare horrid acts committed in a school, church, spa and so on to a specific criminal act such as a bank robbery they are two different animals.
I just offering an observation leave it in if you want to leave it in go ahead but if they actually consider what you are asking and ask for proof to back it up there is none. If someone has something please post it as I have not been able to find it.

[Mike1956]

No offense intended and wish you luck with the letter. The following statement though has no factual basis.



There is not any factual documentation that I have been able to find that shows businesses that post "No Gun Signs" are anymore likely to get robbed than those that welcome guns. If this was the case gun shops would never ever be robbed. It is all up to the bad guy and what his intentions are. Please do not compare horrid acts committed in a school, church, spa and so on to a specific criminal act such as a bank robbery they are two different animals.
I just offering an observation leave it in if you want to leave it in go ahead but if they actually consider what you are asking and ask for proof to back it up there is none. If someone has something please post it as I have not been able to find it.

Nice catch. One unproven assertion can be used to dismiss the entire body of work.

[oakchas]

Old Vet has it right... He and I like to write... I'm much more verbose..

You have paragraphs in the original.. but in a formal letter they should be split with a blank line. And you might possibly even go "old school" and indent the first line of each.

I regret to inform you that your letter will do no good, BTW... I can almost guarantee that the bank and its lawyers have predetermined that theirs is the best course of action given the pending law's enactment.

So write it as long as you want... But if you want it read, go for the shorter version... at least they will hear you... after the first few lines of a diatribe (well thought out, or not) it will get tossed.

Start picking your new bank...

[hoog]

@ Darbo - Your right I’ll fix it.

@Oldvet - Too wordy is what I was thinking too. I’ll shorten it probably to be a lot more like your suggestion.
1. Is this happening at all branches in your area?
a. Yes -All the Arvest Bank Branches
2. Do the signs carry legal weight in OK?
a. Yes
3. Do you intend to take your business elsewhere if the signs remain?
a. Yes
4. Are other banks doing likewise in light of the recent changes in OK carry law?
a. Other businesses have posted gun ban signs but I don’t know about other banks.

@tacman605 - You’re right I thought I had read an article that showed how criminals, mass shooters in particular targeted gun free zones but since I can’t find the link. I will not use the information.

[paaiyan]

2. Do the signs carry legal weight in OK?
a. Yes

Prove it.

[hoog]

Prove it.

Title 21 Chpt 53 Section 1290.22 - Business Owner's Rights
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nothing contained in any provision of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title, shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of any person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to control the possession of weapons on any property owned or controlled by the person or business entity. B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle.
§21 1835.1. Entry or Presence Upon Premises of Place of Business of Persons Convicted of Certain Crimes.
A. Every person, partnership, corporation or other legal entity engaged in any public business, trade, or profession of any kind wherein merchandise, goods or services are offered for sale may forbid the entry or presence of any person upon the premises of the place of business, if the person has been convicted of a crime involving entry onto or criminal acts occurring upon any real property owned, leased, or under the control of such person, partnership, corporation or other legal entity. Such crimes shall include, but are not limited to, shoplifting, vandalism, and disturbing the peace while upon the premises of any place of business of the person, partnership, corporation, or other legal entity.
B. In order to exercise the authority conferred by subsection A of this section, the owner or an agent of the owner of a public business, trade, or profession must notify the person whom the owner or agent desires to prohibit from such owner's place of business.
C. No person shall willfully enter or remain upon the premises after being expressly forbidden to do so in the manner provided for in this section. Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this section, upon conviction, shall be guilty of trespass and shall be punished by a fine of not more than Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) or by confinement in the county jail for a term of not more than thirty (30) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
D. The provisions of this act shall not preclude any other remedy allowed by law.
Laws 1989, c. 246, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1989.

[paaiyan]

Two separate sections, as noted by the different section numbers. These are not relevant to each other and if the site you pulled them from put them together it seems rather deceitful to me. See my notes below.

Title 21 Chpt 53 Section 1290.22 - Business Owner's Rights
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nothing contained in any provision of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title, shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of any person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to control the possession of weapons on any property owned or controlled by the person or business entity. (Unlike EVERY other section of statutes regarding the carrying of firearms, this one DOES NOT prescribe a punishment for a violation of the language contained within. This is not a statement that it is illegal to carry into a posted establishment, else it would prescribe a punishment for doing so. This is simply a statement that business owners have a legal right to control the presence of firearms on their premises. This holds no more legal weight than a sign at a movie theater prohibiting outside food and drinks.)
B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle.

(Separate sections)

§21 1835.1. Entry or Presence Upon Premises of Place of Business of Persons Convicted of Certain Crimes. (Split up the different subjects here. "Persons convicted of certain crimes" "Premises of place of business" "Entry or presence upon" This whole section is regarding specifically: "Persons convicted of certain crimes" entering or being in/on the premises of a business. This has nothing to do with concealed carry, and its inclusion next to a statute which does concern concealed carry is questionable at best, downright deceitful and degrading [by implying concealed carriers are criminals] at worst.)
A. Every person, partnership, corporation or other legal entity engaged in any public business, trade, or profession of any kind wherein merchandise, goods or services are offered for sale may forbid the entry or presence of any person upon the premises of the place of business, if the person has been convicted of a crime involving entry onto or criminal acts occurring upon any real property owned, leased, or under the control of such person, partnership, corporation or other legal entity. Such crimes shall include, but are not limited to, shoplifting, vandalism, and disturbing the peace while upon the premises of any place of business of the person, partnership, corporation, or other legal entity.
B. In order to exercise the authority conferred by subsection A of this section, the owner or an agent of the owner of a public business, trade, or profession must notify the person whom the owner or agent desires to prohibit from such owner's place of business.
C. No person shall willfully enter or remain upon the premises after being expressly forbidden to do so in the manner provided for in this section. Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this section, upon conviction, shall be guilty of trespass and shall be punished by a fine of not more than Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) or by confinement in the county jail for a term of not more than thirty (30) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (This doesn't apply to us, because we are not the convicted criminals mentioned earlier.)
D. The provisions of this act shall not preclude any other remedy allowed by law.
Laws 1989, c. 246, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1989.

[archer51]

Help - Critique my Letter to the Board of Arvest Bank over New Gun Ban

Within the last month or so my bank has posted the misguided "no gun" symbol. I have seen this symbol go up in several places since we passed a law that allows CCW permit holders to open carry starting next month. I will likely use this basic letter for several of these businesses but I am starting with my bank.

I love this bank and I hate to leave so I am hoping they will change their policy back. I am writing this letter to the board and I would like any advice on how to make it better (shorter, longer, clearer, more facts, less facts, better arguments, etc.)

Arvest Bank of Trustees,
I have been a member and avid supporter of Arvest bank for many years. I like your policies, your tellers, and your ease of banking both online and in person. Through my praise for your bank I have convinced several friends to open an account with you. I had planned to do business with your bank for many years but a recent policy change on your part may force me to find another bank.
Unfortunately the branches in my area have recently put up a sign of a prohibition sign with a handgun in it. For years the Arvest bank branches in my area have not prohibited me from legally carrying my concealed weapon and now I can’t. Unfortunately your bank does not provide armed guards to escort me to and from my vehicle and protect me when I am doing business with your bank and now your policies prohibit me from protecting myself.
As a Citizen with a concealed handgun license, I have no felony convictions, have never been convicted of domestic violence, have no history of mental illness or drug addiction, have passed a background check by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, have my fingerprints on file with the Authorities, and have passed mandatory training in both the use of a firearm and the applicable law. Can you say that about your other customers?
I understand that Oklahoma recently changed its law to allow those with a concealed carry license to have the option to carry the handgun in an open holster as well. If your recent ban on handguns is based on your belief that your customers will be overly concerned in seeing other bank patrons carrying handguns openly then you simply need to post a sign banning the open carry of handguns.
Banning concealed carry is a political statement and does nothing to protect the customer or employee. Those intending to commit a crime with a gun on your property are actually more likely to commit the crime knowing that the law abiding patrons of the bank will not be able to defend themselves. Violent criminals intentionally seek out gun free zones, like your bank, knowing they are able to target unarmed victims.

Sincerely,

I disagree very strongly on this statement. You want your legal carry to be allowed, but someone elses legal carrying to not be.