Guns no longer welcome at Starbucks

[Mousegun]

I often hear that open carry makes people aware of guns and rights etc.

This is true but it can and seems to have unintended consequences, most of which are bad for the cause.

Frankly it surprises me that some lawmakers haven't introduced legislation that stops the potential problem of a panicked society in many of the states that allow open carry.

The only place I have heard of open carry "meets" doing any good is in Virginia where the VCDL (Virginia Citizens Defense League) held them. The VCDL is a very active organization with a large group of people that will travel far and wide to protect their rights. A good friend of mine is one of them. It seems that they jumped on the cause early in the game before the lunacy of recent events and got off to a good start. They did it in a reasonable manner by NOT using anything other than well holstered hand guns and avoiding the big stuff like we have seen in previous picture posts.

These are trying times for all people that value personal liberty and freedom and as we have seen, all it takes is one to make a larger impact than dozens or even hundreds.

I personally attempt not to frequent an establishment that disallows firearms but if I absolutely, positively had to have a cup of joe and there was no other place to go, I would hit Starbucks concealed until the day they changed policy to a no gun show.

 

[coloradokevin]

I've picked up on a few posts in this thread that speak to an issue that has always kind of concerned me when we talk of 2nd Amendment issues. There is often a significant distinction between doing what is "legal" and doing what is "right", and I think that fact sometimes gets lost in the rhetoric. Even then, an action may be legal, and "not wrong", but still lack common sense or intelligence.

Criminal laws define a minimum standard of behavior by which people must conduct themselves... go below this standard and there's a penalty. Not all laws are just and fair, and not everyone agrees on what is just and fair (hence the cause of many fine internet debates). But, similarly, just because someone's actions are legal does not automatically mean their actions are just and fair, or even remotely sensible. In my LE career I've seen numerous examples of people who were behaving legally, but also in a totally reprehensible manner that made me despise them.

Bringing this more directly towards the issue at hand, lets not forget that what you can legally do does not always define what you should do, or the manner in which you can demonstrate a mature level of common sense. Sure, in some jurisdictions you can walk into a Starbucks to get your pumpkin spice latte while carrying your AR-15 in-hand. But, does it help our cause? The extremists would argue that: "it's legal, so who cares?"

Well, this might ultimately serve as a case study about what happens when we push our behavior right up to the "legal limits".

 

[Warp]

I often hear that open carry makes people aware of guns and rights etc.

This is true but it can and seems to have unintended consequences, most of which are bad for the cause.

Frankly it surprises me that some lawmakers haven't introduced legislation that stops the potential problem of a panicked society in many of the states that allow open carry.

The only place I have heard of open carry "meets" doing any good is in Virginia where the VCDL (Virginia Citizens Defense League) held them. The VCDL is a very active organization with a large group of people that will travel far and wide to protect their rights. A good friend of mine is one of them. It seems that they jumped on the cause early in the game before the lunacy of recent events and got off to a good start. They did it in a reasonable manner by NOT using anything other than well holstered hand guns and avoiding the big stuff like we have seen in previous picture posts.

These are trying times for all people that value personal liberty and freedom and as we have seen, all it takes is one to make a larger impact than dozens or even hundreds.

I personally attempt not to frequent an establishment that disallows firearms but if I absolutely, positively had to have a cup of joe and there was no other place to go, I would hit Starbucks concealed until the day they changed policy to a no gun show.

Simple "open carry" isn't the problem here.

Unfortunately the part in bold is all too true.

Also, unfortunately, it isn't even dozens or hundreds on the other side (lawful, peaceful, 'reasonable', regular-daily-activities open carry) because so many people, even (especially?) among gun owners and gun carriers are terrified of other people seeing them with a gun.

 

[nipprdog]

http://practicaltacticalpodcast.com/starbucks/

Travis Haley makes a good point.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

That sort of "hey, look at me" stunt is not what OC means.

The thing is beatledog it doesn’t matter how often you say that the fact is that to a lot of people that is exactly what OC means.

 

[Mitlov]

The thing is beatledog it doesn’t matter how often you say that the fact is that to a lot of people that is exactly what OC means.

Yeah, there's "open carry" of "I've got a 1911 secured in a proper holster on my hip because it really doesn't fit comfortably inside my waistband"...the sort of open carry that LEOs also do. And then there's "open carry" where you get a group of people parading with AR-15s in their hands to make a political statement. I'm not saying either is wrong, but they're two TOTALLY different things, and the fact that they share a name I think has made it a lot harder to calmly discuss the former with fence-sitters.

 

[Warp]

Yeah, there's "open carry" of "I've got a 1911 secured in a proper holster on my hip because it really doesn't fit comfortably inside my waistband"...the sort of open carry that LEOs also do. And then there's "open carry" where you get a group of people parading with AR-15s in their hands to make a political statement. I'm not saying either is wrong, but they're two TOTALLY different things, and the fact that they share a name I think has made it a lot harder to calmly discuss the former with fence-sitters.

This is why we have terms like "open carry activists"...so we can differentiate between people who open carry (like myself), and people who do the parading around with friends with rifles to get attention/rustle feathers/whatever.

Right or wrong, subjective views differing, projections of motives from others, whatever whatever...everybody can agree they are different.

 

[Mitlov]

Question about open-carry practicalities and etiquette

EDIT: meant to be in a separate thread

 

[BSA1]

sigh!

As long as their blood in water the posters on this thread will keep feeding on each other. I guess no one has a explanation on how motorcycle riders changed their outlaw image to mainstream citizens welcome in most business even though they wear the same leather vests and clothes, ride the same hogs and proudly show the same image.

 

[Warp]

sigh!

As long as their blood in water the posters on this thread will keep feeding on each other. I guess no one has a explanation on how motorcycle riders changed their outlaw image to mainstream citizens welcome in most business even though they wear the same leather vests and clothes, ride the same hogs and proudly show the same image.

If you have a point to make, would like to draw a parallel to them, and think doing so would be constructive or productive then please, by all means...out with it.

 

[beatledog7]

Trunk Monkey, Mitlov:

Yes, they are two different things: OC and braggadocio. The pictures posted here and elsewhere of these people with long guns in Starbucks are examples of braggadocio.

 

[orionengnr]

Navy LCDR's post is on the money

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

If you are carrying concealed are you not bringing a firearm into their store? Unless you are authorized law enforcement personnel. I'm sorry, I must be missing something. Where did they say concealed firearms were welcome but open carry wasn't? The letter states that only LEO firearms are welcome.

Sorry, Starbucks...you can't have it both ways.
You have staked out your position. Now live with the consequences.

Concealed carriers...it is now up to you to stake out your position.
Do you want to continue to contribute to Starbucks' bottom line?
Or do you want to uphold the strength of your (supposed) convictions?

To simplify:
It's known as "putting your money where your mouth is".

 

[Mayvik]

The Westboro Baptists are exercising their rights when the show up at a military funeral.

I think most people can probably figure out from my example how I feel about this particular situation...but if not I'll spell it out. Just because you CAN do a thing does not mean you should, and if you are doing it just because LOOK AT ME, well there is no law against being <...foolish...>, either.

Often we are our own worst enemy because people don't / can't think about the consequences of their actions.

 

[BSA1]

Warp can do.

Right now the comments on this thread are somewhat split on open carry of handguns and mostly against open carry of any type long gun. In fact folks that open carry long guns are even being called names and given labels.

Bikers use to have a very negative image as do folks that open carry handguns and especially long guns have now. Bikers were viewed as undesirable socially unfit for most of society just as open carry folks are being treated on this forum.

Now days bikers are treated much differently. The are welcome in businesses and treated with respect. Folks do not panic at the mere sight of a biker or a group of them.

But someone open carrying has folks on this forum diving for cover, drawing their guns in expectation of a firefight and calling the police.

So this leads to the question of what changed the image of bikers? They wear the leather vests, clothes and ride the same hogs. In fact businessmen and well paid professionals go out of their way to copy the biker image and ride the same hogs.

So without knowing anything about me you are entirely comfortable with me coming into your workplace or sitting down in the table next to you even though I am concealed carrying.

But if I open carry it is cause for alarm even though I am the same person.

Or am I?

Maybe somehow the weapon has cast a evil spell on me when I open carry it. If that is the case then the Libs must be right that banning guns will stop crime.

 

[TarDevil]

Concealed carriers...it is now up to you to stake out your position.
Do you want to continue to contribute to Starbucks' bottom line?
Or do you want to uphold the strength of your (supposed) convictions?

To simplify:
It's known as "putting your money where your mouth is".

Yes, I will contribute to Starbucks' bottom line with a clear conscience. Neither you or anyone else will define my convictions.

 

[Warp]

Warp can do.

Right now the comments on this thread are somewhat split on open carry of handguns and mostly against open carry of any type long gun. In fact folks that open carry long guns are even being called names and given labels.

...people who open carry long guns into Starbucks and make a big deal out of it because Starbucks took a neutral stance.

ESPECIALLY when it involves actually holding and handling said long gun while in the store.

To be specific and accurate.

But someone open carrying has folks on this forum diving for cover, drawing their guns in expectation of a firefight and calling the police.

You are WOEFULLY mistaken.

Standing in the middle of Starbucks with a shotgun at port arms is not just "open carrying".

Neither is showing up with a pack of friends all carrying AR style rifles, just to draw attention.

It is something far more/different than that.

So this leads to the question of what changed the image of bikers? They wear the leather vests, clothes and ride the same hogs. In fact businessmen and well paid professionals go out of their way to copy the biker image and ride the same hogs.

So without knowing anything about me you are entirely comfortable with me coming into your workplace or sitting down in the table next to you even though I am concealed carrying.

But if I open carry it is cause for alarm even though I am the same person.

No, it isn't, and nobody ITT is saying that it is.

Have you read the thread?

A handgun in a holster, or a long gun in a sling = open carrying.

A gun in your hands = something different.

Maybe somehow the weapon has cast a evil spell on me when I open carry it. If that is the case then the Libs must be right that banning guns will stop crime.

People standing in a business...one whose business model has absolutely NOTHING to do with firearms...holding a shotgun (or rifle, we have pics of both in this thread) in their hands...that is something to be weary of.

 

[X-Rap]

I'd have to put a "some" in front of bikers. Not all are fine upstanding "RUB'S".

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by BSA1: But someone open carrying has folks on this forum diving for cover, drawing their guns in expectation of a firefight and calling the police.

You have completely misunderstood one important thing: no one on this forum has suggested diving for cover or drawing guns in response to open carry.

Those comments were made regarding persons who walk into businesses with long guns in hand, or who come in and wave their handguns around.

Such behavior is completely irresponsible, in a coffee shop or in a bank or in a gun store, and it is likely to give others an articulable basis for a reasonable belief that they faced an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

The biker analogy is off topic an irrelevant, but as long as you have brought it p, bikers who display reckless behavior do not share the improved image of the older set. Not too many weekends ago, a biker rally in our area brought police warnings and a heavy police presence, and imprudent riding resulted in numerous arrests.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Can anyone suggest action that Starbuck's could take to be neutrally positioned?

The backlash from the 2A side could certainly cause other businesses to consider the implications of appearing to be gun-friendly.

Where's the bigger picture here?

Sure I can. How about their previous policy:

Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Please note, most importantly, that he also stated it was a "request, not a ban".

Try explaining the differenct to a judge in court if you're arrested for any kind of violation involving a gun, even trespassing:

YOU: "But judge, he said it was a REQUEST, not a BAN!"

JUDGE: "So, you admit he REQUESTED you not bring a firearm into his place of business and you deliberately decided to do otherwise. Is that what you're saying?"

 

[Warp]

Try explaining the differenct to a judge in court if you're arrested for any kind of violation involving a gun, even trespassing:

YOU: "But judge, he said it was a REQUEST, not a BAN!"

JUDGE: "So, you admit he REQUESTED you not bring a firearm into his place of business and you deliberately decided to do otherwise. Is that what you're saying?"

Would you please explain how a person is going to be arrested for trespassing?

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Yes, I will contribute to Starbucks' bottom line with a clear conscience.

Me too friend. In fact I did today just before class. It was delicious, and I didn't feel bad about it at all.

But someone open carrying has folks on this forum diving for cover, drawing their guns in expectation of a firefight and calling the police.

I don't think anyone has suggested doing that from seeing someone open carry. Walking in brandishing a weapon is an entirely different story. If someone walks through the door of a restaurant or coffee shop holding an AR or a shotgun in their hands any sane person would fear the worst these days. Like it or not, that's just how it is.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Would you please explain how a person is going to be arrested for trespassing?

Sure. Note that the laws very from state to state on this BUT...

A business, property owner, or resident has the right to restrict access to his property however he/she deems fit (federal discrimination laws not withstanding here). If the business owner says "no firearms in my place of business", and the person who has been so informed chooses to either enter the place of business or not to leave it, then he's trespassing.

This applies regardless of whether or not the particular state has any "no gun sign" statute on the books.

YMMV depending on state statutes...which is important, because Starbucks is in all 50 states, last I checked.

 

[Warp]

Sure. Note that the laws very from state to state on this BUT...

A business, property owner, or resident has the right to restrict access to his property however he/she deems fit (federal discrimination laws not withstanding here). If the business owner says "no firearms in my place of business", and the person who has been so informed chooses to either enter the place of business or not to leave it, then he's trespassing.

This applies regardless of whether or not the particular state has any "no gun sign" statute on the books.

YMMV depending on state statutes...which is important, because Starbucks is in all 50 states, last I checked.

Can you list an example of a state where the law would allow an arrest based on the CEO's letter/memo?

 

[hovercat]

I like the Jefferson quote in the previous post.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

After re-reading Mr. Schultz's letter several times and doing a little googling on the history of events myself, I can somewhat understand what he's trying to do.

He's very concerned about people on BOTH sides of the fence making spectacles over the political issue of gun rights and activism in his place of business. It's not doing his business any good either way.

In fact, if I were a business owner and people started using my business name in conjunction with their political agenda and staging events in my places of business, I'd be pretty darned upset myself. They'd be deliberately walking all over MY rights as a business owner just to pursue THEIR political agendas.

As for those who may complain that "it's the gun owners who are taking the brunt on this one", well maybe so. That's the nature of the beast. HOWEVER, Mr. Schultz has taken great pains to talk exclusively about open carry in his letter, even though his request is NOT worded specifically towards open carry. And he DID mention that he's suffered from anti-gun crowds, as well.

He and his business was placed between a rock and a hard place on this.

THAT SAID, it might be worth looking into whether or not the STORES are posting "no guns signs" or otherwise promenantly posting the no guns policy in their stores. If they're not, then take that for what it's worth and QUIETLY comply just as you would normally. QUIETLY comply...as in "concealed means concealed" and "within the bounds of local law".

Take Starbucks back out of the limelight.