Guns no longer welcome at Starbucks

[NavyLCDR]

I have to say that open carry activism is what did us in on this one. If you push someone hard enough and long enough they push back.

Can I ask you why you don't blame the anti-gun groups for pushing Starbucks? Is not if you push someone hard enough thay will cave in an equal theory?

 

[Warp]

I don't blame them one bit, and I am not at all surprised by this.

They've been a center of attention for this for too long.

Personally although I do sometimes open carry, and I have gone to Starbucks and spent money on days that some gun grabbing group was planning to boycott, I have never open carried there...and certainly not in a "haha look what I can do" sort of manner.

It seems that at least a few other people have done so, and Starbucks is tired of it.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"I have to say that open carry activism is what did us in on this one. If you push someone hard enough and long enough they push back."


Bingo.

And note that the statement says that people carrying firearms will still be served, and will not be asked to leave.

So...... the policy is still the same:


"We follow applicable laws" but would you PLEASE take your political activism someplace else so we can make a living here?"



Willie


.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I see once again the anti-gun groups are getting off scott free and the pro-gun people are getting the blame, even from other pro-gun groups. It's no wonder we can't win any big victories.

You would never hear talk among the anti-gun groups similiar to "Well now you did it! Now you pushed them to allow firearms! You rallied too hard. You were too vocal. You were too in your face! Now look what you did, you pushed them to allow firearms!"

When will we learn that we have to actively stand up and fight and that just being quietly submissive isn't going to accomplish anything?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Open Carry Demonstrations & Anti-Gun Protests no longer welcome at Stabucks

Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Howard Schultz, Starbucks chairman, president and chief executive officer

. . . .

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.

. . . .

Starbucks Open Carry Request

Reaction: "Good for you Starbucks!!!! good for you Howard Schultz not afraid to stand up to gun toting tea baggers!!!!!"--maltese77.bs

To: "Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners."--Howard Schultz

I think Howard Schultz is more tired of people like maltese77.bs gleefully "ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction" and unfortunately is afraid to stand up against the ratcheters. The man just wants to sell coffee in his coffee shops.

For myself, my handgun carry permit covers open and concealed carry but out of concern that a hoplophobic loon like maltese77.bs may freak out and hysterically 911 report "man with a gun", I carry concealed. So I feel that I am in compliance with Howard Schultz' no open carry protest request.

Looking at the news on this this morning, the photo may have been staged: it showed the rear end of a patron sitting with a pistol in holster (and skin showing above his belt) and several anti-gun protesters standing with signs. We should all remember: in 1997 about 56,000 legal British handgun owners (including the Olympic target shooting team) lost their rights because a Gun Control Network (about four activists) kept up media and political prssure and handgun owners stayed quiet hoping things would blow over.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Can I ask you why you don't blame the anti-gun groups for pushing Starbucks? Is not if you push someone hard enough thay will cave in an equal theory?

Because the anti gun groups didn't show up at Starbucks with rifles strapped to their backs. That's the kind of thing that tends to present a negative image to people.

To be completely fair perhaps I should have said "I have to say that open carry extremist activism is what did us in on this one." And it usually is the extremist on both sides that cause the problems.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I carry concealed. So I feel that I am in compliance with Howard Schultz' no open carry protest request.

If you were to enter a business and you were presented with these words on the glass door at eye level before you walked in:

WE are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

would you say that your concealed firearm was in compliance with the business' request?

 

[Trunk Monkey]

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.”

Straight from the Barrista’s mouth, open carry extremist activism is what killed us at Starbucks.

 

[pezo]

The places these things happen must be odd political hot spots or something. I see open carriers all the time ( I notice cause I'm a gun guy ) and nothing extraordinary happens except business transactions. I see them mostly at the grocery store no biggie, at resteraunt a and just lately at a seven eleven. If its in a holster nobody cares either way. We must be more sensible here. Ill bet if someone oc'd in a Starbucks around here not one person would give a darn. That said I always exclusively carry concealed but for a tatical reason don't like showing my cards.

 

[MagnunJoe]

Never went to Starbucks. I don't believe in spending $5 for a cup of coffee.

 

[Warp]

Because the anti gun groups didn't show up at Starbucks with rifles strapped to their backs. That's the kind of thing that tends to present a negative image to people.

To be completely fair perhaps I should have said "I have to say that open carry extremist activism is what did us in on this one." And it usually is the extremist on both sides that cause the problems.

I agree.

When people openly carrying rifles show up at Starbucks, and then the police come, and it's this big ordeal...Starbucks doesn't need that. Starbucks doesn't want that. They just want to sell their dang coffee (and other items).

My PERSONAL stance has been that open carrying a handgun somewhere like Starbucks should be just fine (though I have never OC'd to Starbucks, partly because I saw something like this coming all along) but showing up with a rifle is just not beneficial. You can do it if you want and it's legal...but don't be surprised when Starbucks turns around and does this.

 

[Blue Brick]

So what…..Starbucks has overpriced coffee and their store is full of tree hugging wimpy mother earth loving dirt head communist hippies.

 

[Warp]

So what…..Starbucks has overpriced coffee and there store is full of tree hugging wimpy mother earth loving dirt head communist hippies.

I don't think calling people names is doing to help anything.

But, please, if you do so in public, I think it would help OUR image if you used the correct "their".

BTW: My wife loves Starbucks and gets it all the time. She does not fit any of the descriptions you gave in your name calling tirade. Please realize you will just offend a bunch of people, including those on "your side", by calling everybody who goes there names.

 

[Blue Brick]

Per CNN, it is only a request not a mandate.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The places these things happen must be odd political hot spots or something. I see open carriers all the time ( I notice cause I'm a gun guy ) and nothing extraordinary happens except business transactions. I see them mostly at the grocery store no biggie, at resteraunt a and just lately at a seven eleven. If its in a holster nobody cares either way. We must be more sensible here. Ill bet if someone oc'd in a Starbucks around here not one person would give a darn. That said I always exclusively carry concealed but for a tatical reason don't like showing my cards.

There were several places in Washington where open carriers meet for coffee at Starbucks every week because that is where we were welcome (no meeting close to my town, I use we to indicate opencarry.org that I am a member of). No political activism, just getting together and shooting the bull over the last weeks events like a mom's club or a computer club or any other group of people with a similar interest. The employees liked the people because they were regular customers. Now... we will just go somewhere else.

If Starbucks just wanted out of the controversy they would have told the anti-gun groups to please take their political activism somewhere else as well, but they didn't do that, did they? Once again, the anti-gun groups get off scott free. Even the pro-gun people are blaming the other pro-gun people and nobody blames the anti-gun side.

 

[Blue Brick]

I think it would help OUR image if you used the correct "their".

Done.

 

[gpjoe]

Well, never frequented Starbucks anyway, and never will. Worst coffe on the planet.

 

[hso]

WE shot ourselves in the foot on this making their businesses a place for us to make a statement.

Such overzealousness hurts companies like Starbucks, that would have continued to stay out of the 2A debate had they not been dragged into it.

Everyone that used their private business for a public stage shares responsibility for this turn of events.

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.

 

[Blue Brick]

Please realize you will just offend a bunch of people, including those on "your side", by calling everybody who goes there names.

It’s a description not a name and a fitting one. They need something else to do besides sitting around all day….plus a bath.

 

[spottedpony]

I dont patronize starbucks, and though I may not support the, "dont carry" request, I do support their right to make such a request, Just like i'd support anyone here who made such a request regarding their home or business. It's not any different than requesting, no smoking, no drinking, or any other questionable activity. They do have the right to make such rules. (and personally, I don's support open carry anyway, Just because its legal in some places, doesn't mean it represents a good image of law abiding firearms owners)

Now what I'm wondering is IF, just like any other "gun control" issue anyone with criminal intent will obey such a request or rule, or anything you want to call it.
As I see it now, Starbucks has made public the knowledge we dont want armed people in our establishments, so come on criminals we're fair game for an armed robbery.
Far fetched? maybe, criminals like nothing better than being able to commit a crime and have no opposition.

 

[NavyLCDR]

WE shot ourselves in the foot on this making their businesses a place for us to make a statement.

Such overzealousness hurts companies like Starbucks, that would have continued to stay out of the 2A debate had they not been dragged into it.

Everyone that used their private business for a public stage shares responsibility for this turn of events.

That's right! The anti-gun groups had nothing at all to do with making Starbucks a place to make a political statement and dragging them into the 2A debate. Nothing at all. We should just quietly ignore the anti-gun groups because every time we take a stand against them, it's our fault when an anti-gun policy or law gets enacted. It was the pro-gun groups' fault that California enacted stronger gun possession laws too.

 

[Warp]

It’s a description not a name and a fitting one. They need something else to do besides sitting around all day….plus a bath.

Do you ever go to Starbucks?

 

[benEzra]

I posted the following over at Sebastian's place (some minor language redacted here out of respect for Art's grandma).

If I read this correctly, they aren't saying they're posting their stores. It looks to me like this a plea for voluntary restraint because they are trying to find a way to stay neutral and *not* post their stores.

Look, gay rights activists have made a lot of well-deserved headway in the last decade by being smart, by being very careful about their public image, and by making straight people comfortable around them and helping them realize GLBT's are just regular people. How far do you think they'd have gotten if instead of reasoned argument, they crashed conservative church services and businesses in large numbers, dressed as provocatively as they could legally get away with, and sat loudly talking GLBT politics in the front row? Because that's about how people open carrying rifles and shotguns into Starbuck's in order to make political statements are coming across. Yes, you have a right to carry a rifle, but we are in a war of public opinion here, and being a flaming idiot about your tactics hurts us in that war.

Starbucks isn't lost yet, but it is going to be unless some gun rights activists start looking at the big picture. And if gun owners abandon them over this plea for discretion, then they will probably go ahead and post their stores because they'd have nothing else to lose.

I'll patronize their stores, unless they post (and of course at that point, I wouldn't).

 

[Derek Zeanah]

CNBC just covered bits and pieces of this blog post.

 

[Blue Brick]

Do you ever go to Starbucks?

Yes.