Starbuck's Caving In

[Bill of Rights]

As has been argued in the OC argument thread, it sounds like you're saying, "It's not illegal, but it might be made illegal if we do it, so let's not do it even though we can." Isn't the net effect of that the same thing as a law being passed? Could not the same be said of CC?

Despite the commentary, even from SB, it's not about OC, specifically. The antis don't want us to even have, let alone carry our guns. I look for them to keep pushing the issue if they should become aware of people CCing. I look for them to keep pushing for laws saying guns may not be carried in any public place, and we'd rather you didn't have them at home, either, but if you do, you have to keep the gun disassembled and the ammo locked in a box, buried out in your yard, or some crazy idiocy like that.

Let's not, as gun owners, allow them to polarize us and turn us against each other with this crap. The focus needs to be on the freedom to carry if someone chooses to do so. Starbucks can make their policy, and I am of the opinion we should respect their choice to do so by not patronizing their establishment.

I don't wish for it and indeed, I hope I'm wrong, but I'll be surprised if the number of their stores being robbed doesn't increase now. Maybe they'll see the error of their ways.

Blessings,
Bill

Did a search, didn't see it. This is why open carry advocates (not individuals who really feel the need, but "that guy" who straps an ar to his back to prove a point) tick me off.

everything is legal until it is not. Laws can be changed, Had we just left starbucks out of it there wouldnt be this change. Ugh.

BBC News - Starbucks asks customers not to bring guns into outlets

 

[avboiler11]

Another article that makes the same point:

Our own worst enemy | The Bang Switch

Guy

From the aforementioned article:

now isn’t the time for hysterics

Some people need to take a deep breath, chill the F out, and see this for what it is:

Absolutely nothing.

MDA is claiming this as a "victory" for their cause (when it clearly is not) because Starbucks has "banned" guns in their stores (which they clearly have not). MDA's position is little more than textbook PR spin.

Chess people, not checkers. Starbucks is no more an "enemy" toward gun owners today than they were a day or month or year ago and any argument otherwise is little more than an emotional response to a perceived slight against those that carry open OR concealed firearms.

The sun will rise tomorrow, and gun carriers will continue to go to Starbucks...and absolutely nothing will have changed.

 

[Sylvain]

So if you are legally carrying a gun in their store you are not welcome but if you're a LEO legally carrying a gun you are welcome?

Does that mean guns are only dangerous for the other customers if there is no shiny badge next to it?

 

[indydrew1]

[h=1]Starbucks CEO interview...

Strappuci-No! Starbucks CEO Tells CNN Why He Asked Gun Owners Not to Pack Heat in His Stores[/h]
Strappuci-No! Starbucks CEO Tells CNN Why He Asked Gun Owners Not to Pack Heat in His Stores | Mediaite



The day after the deadly mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard thrust the debate over gun regulation back into the spotlight, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz took a respectful, non-binding stand by publishing an open letter to customers asking them not to carry guns in his company’s coffee shops. In an interview with CNN’s Poppy Harlow, Schultz took pains to explain that “This is not a ban,” because he doesn’t want his employees put in the position of confronting gun-toting customers.
In the open letter, to be published in newspapers on Thursday, Schultz explains that this request is not a policy position, but a response to events that he says have drawn his company, unwillingly, into the fray:

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.
​

Schultz is referring to events organized on Facebook, which even included an August 10 armed demonstration at a Starbucks in Newtown, Connecticut, just two miles away from Sandy Hook Elementary School, that forced the store to close early.
In an interview with CNN’s Poppy Harlow, Schultz explained his decision, stressing that this is not a ban, nor is it a public policy statement. “I think it’s important to start the conversation by framing the fact that Starbucks is not a policymaker,” Schultz said, “and in fact, we’re not pro or anti-gun.”
“However, we do believe that guns should not be part of the Starbucks experience,” he continued. “As a result of that, making that decision, we are respectfully requesting that those customers who are carrying a gun just honor the request and not bring the gun into Starbucks.”
Schultz also emphasized that “This is not a ban. And the reason it’s not a ban is that we don’t want to put our own people in a position of having to confront somebody who is carrying a weapon. Those customers who will bring in the gun, we hope they won’t, we’re still going to serve them, we’re not going to ask them to leave.”

 

[BiscuitNaBasket]

They are REQUESTING. Not the same as forbidding.

That's still picking a side except they sprinkle sugar on the change to make it sound better. "You can still spend your money here but, even though you're obeying the law, you're not welcome." That's all that the CEO's statment says to me.

What they're doing is sitting on the fence trying not to choose sides because they're a coffee shop and shouldn't have been brought into the gun debate in the first place. Mr. Schultz's request is an honor system. He said that he's giving us the benefit of the doubt that we'll abide by his request. What this means is that if we go against his wishes then we're not respecting it and are essentially breaking his rules. If you continue to carry a firearm on their property then you are "not welcome." I don't know how that could be any clearer.

Neither pro or anti gun crowds won anything. There was nothing to win, only something to lose.

 

[indydrew1]

So if you are legally carrying a gun in their store you are not welcome but if you're a LEO legally carrying a gun you are welcome?

Does that mean guns are only dangerous for the other customers if there is no shiny badge next to it?

No it just means that cops are always welcome even though they have guns on them. The general public is in general not afraid of guns if it's on a cop. Also you are still allowed to OC in Starbucks, they would just prefer you don't. Which is there right as property owners, as it is your right to say what takes place on your property. No one is telling anybody they cant OC, they just would prefer you don't. When you have people bringing AR's and shotguns, in your place of business that sells coffee, well you might not be happy about that. I run a business, I have customers that OC all the time, no one says anything. On the rare occasion another customer will ask me if thats ok, or to call the cops. Thats when I inform them of my companies policy, and the law. If someone brought a shotgun into my business for the sole point of making a political point, and this was happening multiple times, around the country? Do we really expect the general public to be ok with 2 guys sitting outside the front door of Starbucks with long guns? It may be legal, but there is no reason for it, other then to start crap, get attention, and make a scene.

 

[Doug]

No big deal.
Starbucks has politely requested that those carrying firearms, openly or concealed, not visit their stores.
I sent them an email saying I will abide by their request.

Why go where you're not wanted?
There are plenty of places to buy coffee.

 

[Roadie]

As has been argued in the OC argument thread, it sounds like you're saying, "It's not illegal, but it might be made illegal if we do it, so let's not do it even though we can." Isn't the net effect of that the same thing as a law being passed? Could not the same be said of CC?

Despite the commentary, even from SB, it's not about OC, specifically. The antis don't want us to even have, let alone carry our guns. I look for them to keep pushing the issue if they should become aware of people CCing. I look for them to keep pushing for laws saying guns may not be carried in any public place, and we'd rather you didn't have them at home, either, but if you do, you have to keep the gun disassembled and the ammo locked in a box, buried out in your yard, or some crazy idiocy like that.

Let's not, as gun owners, allow them to polarize us and turn us against each other with this crap. The focus needs to be on the freedom to carry if someone chooses to do so. Starbucks can make their policy, and I am of the opinion we should respect their choice to do so by not patronizing their establishment.

I don't wish for it and indeed, I hope I'm wrong, but I'll be surprised if the number of their stores being robbed doesn't increase now. Maybe they'll see the error of their ways.

Blessings,
Bill

Agreed. Pro gun FB pages are blaming "OC idiots" and OC morons" for this, giving more fuel for the anti gun fires. You don't think anti gunners read pro gun websites and FB pages? Don't bet on it. They see this as a win for them, and they see us attacking each other and will use that as a win for them as well.

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

Agreed. Pro gun FB pages are blaming "OC idiots" and OC morons" for this, giving more fuel for the anti gun fires. You don't think anti gunners read pro gun websites and FB pages? Don't bet on it. They see this as a win for them, and they see us attacking each other and will use that as a win for them as well.

Shooters: We are our own worst enemy

 

[indydrew1]

Agreed. Pro gun FB pages are blaming "OC idiots" and OC morons" for this, giving more fuel for the anti gun fires. You don't think anti gunners read pro gun websites and FB pages? Don't bet on it. They see this as a win for them, and they see us attacking each other and will use that as a win for them as well.

There is a big difference between OC'ing a Glock 19 and OC'ing a Mossberg 930. In a Starbucks. IMHO. If you are OC'ing a Glock 19 you are exercising your rights, protecting yourself, and in general are not causing a scene. If you got the 930 in a Starbucks, your just causing a scene, and wishing daddy hugged you more. Look at me, look at me. There is just no reason for it, other then to make a political point or make a scene. Neither of which the business owner wants or needs.

 

[88E30M50]

I just got back from OC'ing at the SB on 135. Not a word was said, but then again, they've never said anything before and are instructed to not say anything now. I will write the company to let them know that I will not agree to leave my gun unattended in my car, nor will I agree to stop carrying it. If they have an issue, they can ask me to leave and I will gladly do so. Until then, it's business as usual.

 

[88E30M50]

Shooters: We are our own worst enemy

Most certainly not. We have far worse enemies on the anti-gun crowd than we do in someone that OCs a firearm.

 

[indydrew1]

Ok maybe the last one is off point...

 

[MeatyBacchus]

There is a big difference between OC'ing a Glock 19 and OC'ing a Mossberg 930. In a Starbucks. IMHO. If you are OC'ing a Glock 19 you are exercising your rights, protecting yourself, and in general are not causing a scene. If you got the 930 in a Starbucks, your just causing a scene, and wishing daddy hugged you more. Look at me, look at me. There is just no reason for it, other then to make a political point or make a scene. Neither of which the business owner wants or needs.

Unless you're in dress clothes, All the same really.

 

[nakinate]

I haven't heard of any guns "going off" in a Starbucks recently. If there really have been this many people taking guns into Starbucks recently then why has no one been shot? This goes against everything I've learned from the media!

 

[actaeon277]

To the "OCers have ruined it" crowd.

Really, do you think so.
Do you mean that once the anti-g crowd found out you were CCing, they wouldn't protest?
Heck, they were protesting BEFORE any OC or Appreciation Day.

BEFORE.

They did NOT want ANY guns there CC or OC.
They don't discriminate either way.


And CCing is not Invisible Carrying.
I don't know how many times over the last 20 years or so that I've seen someone's EDC printing or showing as they moved around.

 

[BravoMike]

To the "OCers have ruined it" crowd.

Really, do you think so.
Do you mean that once the anti-g crowd found out you were CCing, they wouldn't protest?
Heck, they were protesting BEFORE any OC or Appreciation Day.

BEFORE.

They did NOT want ANY guns there CC or OC.
They don't discriminate either way.


And CCing is not Invisible Carrying.
I don't know how many times over the last 20 years or so that I've seen someone's EDC printing or showing as they moved around.

Maybe I missed it but I don't recall any anti-OC comments here. What I have read are "anti-OC for a political cause" comments, as in shotguns and AR's. Also the fact that some that are pro-gun have claimed in the past that Starbucks was pro-gun themselves just because they where trying to abstain from politics. We can clearly see now that this was not true. It does not matter whether of not the anti crowd was making a scene BEFORE the pro-gun side. It matters that we (the pro-gun side) have helped escalate the situation and Starbucks felt compelled to take a stance, as soft as it may be. Would it have helped that if we would have done more of a silent protest like continuing to support Starbucks by purchasing their coffee and writing letters saying that we appreciate them not taking a side? Would this have made us look like the good guys and the anti's as the bad guys and let them fall on their sword? Maybe, maybe not, but we know that what was done did not necessarily help.

 

[GuyRelford]

Maybe I missed it but I don't recall any anti-OC comments here. What I have read are "anti-OC for a political cause" comments, as in shotguns and AR's. Also the fact that some that are pro-gun have claimed in the past that Starbucks was pro-gun themselves just because they where trying to abstain from politics. We can clearly see now that this was not true. It does not matter whether of not the anti crowd was making a scene BEFORE the pro-gun side. It matters that we (the pro-gun side) have helped escalate the situation and Starbucks felt compelled to take a stance, as soft as it may be. Would it have helped that if we would have done more of a silent protest like continuing to support Starbucks by purchasing their coffee and writing letters saying that we appreciate them not taking a side? Would this have made us look like the good guys and the anti's as the bad guys and let them fall on their sword? Maybe, maybe not, but we know that what was done did not necessarily help.

Very well-said.

 

[GuyRelford]

Here is the Fox59 story for which I was interviewed.

Starbucks at center of gun control debate | Fox 59 News ? fox59.com

Guy

 

[chezuki]

We're glad Starbucks sided with us on this issue.

Ugh... Doesn't sound like the other side feels like Starbucks is staying "non-political".