Starbucks gun debate heats up

[USMC1911]

The fact is, around here, including liberal downtown Seattle, some people regularly open carry into Starbucks, as they do almost everywhere else they go. And those liberal "normal" customers hardly give it a second thought; same for most of the employees of Starbucks. It's not as scary as the Brady folks try to make people believe.

Very true. The poll on AOL is almost 3 to 1 in favor of open carry with more 70,000 votes so far. I like it!

 

[USMC1911]

This practice is offensive because society has changed. Its no longer the old west. People are no longer conditioned to see people out in public with guns on their hips. Right or wrong, its the way it is.


Just because the old west is long gone I am glad my right to open carry dident go with it! There was once a time when many things were socially unacceptable and people stood up for themself and got things changed. If everyone dident do someting just because someone dident like it, nobody would ever do anything.

 

[treemanx]

Ive seen these debates on NWFA before, and every time I do I see that even folks in the gun community have been poisoned with anti-gun sentiments.

When did open carry become equal to "offensive" or likened to wearing a shirt with offensive pictures or wording? Open carry is a RIGHT folks! Just the same as concealed carry. The anti-gunners have worked hard to make everyone believe that carrying a weapon openly on your hip is some affront to civilized society, and the fact is that it is NOT!

These people who get "offended" by seeing someone open carrying need to explain their uncomfortable feelings for all to hear. Do they believe that these individuals are criminals with some nefarious intent? The fact is, criminals don't wear their guns openly, they hide them! These offended folks should feel at ease that there is a law abiding citizen near them with the firepower to stop anyone with criminal intent!

I can't believe that there are gun owners who would say, "don't carry open, because all your doing is making everyone uncomfortable and not helping the cause of gun ownership." Don't you realize that the more of you they get to feel that way, the closer they get to making it illegal to open carry? Then they'll start working on concealed carry.

Someone posted earlier here that exercising our right to open carry to protect the right is like shouting into your cell phone to protect 1A rights. Well, that is a sad manipulation of the truth.

The closer to reality example would be if someone told you not to speak out about hemp products, because it was offensive. Speaking out about hemp would ensure that your 1A rights were being exercised and not in threat of being limited. However, if everyone spooked away from speaking of hemp, and it started becoming something akin to leprosy, it would be much easier for government officials to begin limiting your ability to speak about it, as most would believe it was wrong. This is just an example, but its much closer than shouting into your phone.

 

[Ravenous]

Ive seen these debates on NWFA before, and every time I do I see that even folks in the gun community have been poisoned with anti-gun sentiments.

When did open carry become equal to "offensive" or likened to wearing a shirt with offensive pictures or wording? Open carry is a RIGHT folks! Just the same as concealed carry. The anti-gunners have worked hard to make everyone believe that carrying a weapon openly on your hip is some affront to civilized society, and the fact is that it is NOT!

These people who get "offended" by seeing someone open carrying need to explain their uncomfortable feelings for all to hear. Do they believe that these individuals are criminals with some nefarious intent? The fact is, criminals don't wear their guns openly, they hide them! These offended folks should feel at ease that there is a law abiding citizen near them with the firepower to stop anyone with criminal intent!

I can't believe that there are gun owners who would say, "don't carry open, because all your doing is making everyone uncomfortable and not helping the cause of gun ownership." Don't you realize that the more of you they get to feel that way, the closer they get to making it illegal to open carry? Then they'll start working on concealed carry.

Someone posted earlier here that exercising our right to open carry to protect the right is like shouting into your cell phone to protect 1A rights. Well, that is a sad manipulation of the truth.

The closer to reality example would be if someone told you not to speak out about hemp products, because it was offensive. Speaking out about hemp would ensure that your 1A rights were being exercised and not in threat of being limited.

I'm not saying don't carry openly, it is your right. I am saying don't get all of your friends together with the requirement that they all open carry and then go to Starbucks and act like that is your way of supporting Starbucks. You are doing it to show you can, which benefits nobody. If you want to improve the image of open carry gun owners, set up a food drive, adopt a highway, arrange an event where the people that support gun rights are making a difference. Open carry while you do it but make a positive difference and people will notice. Penny Arcade raised ~$1.8 million dollars last year for children's hospitals through a charity designed to show that gamers are not just anti-social basement dwellers. The local motorcycle clubs have their annual teddy bear drive up to the Shriner's Hospital. These actions help alleviate the negative stigma attached to these groups of people. Gathering at a Starbucks because you can doesn't help the stigma at all and could have the opposite effect. If Starbucks feels they are loosing income from this then they will ban guns on their premises and we all loose. The fact of the matter is you have the right to do as you wish as do I. I am no less a supporter of any of our rights than you are and would love to see social acceptance of open carry. However the ability to take a life in seconds does make a lot of people uncomfortable... I honestly don't know how to make it more acceptable. I am just looking at it from the side of Starbucks.

 

[Paulwa]

Boy I am very mixed about all this. I believe we need to defend our right to arm ourselves openly as 2A rights designate. I actually think that CC should be a right without having to pay for it or register it either. But strapping on a gun and going public leaves me somewhat troubled. Why would you need to in most cases except to uphold the fact that you can legally do it? Now there might be some areas where having a gun at the ready might be very beneficial to your and others safety. It is a very real right and a very real use for personal safety. But for most cases openly carrying weapons on your hip might appear more negative and harming to our rights as viewed by the majority of the public. Also if everyone feels comfortable with open carry why is it necessary to appear in groups instead of just wearing it during normal everday public activity without the moral support of friends of like mind? Is there fear of Police officials interacting with your 2A right and the more people carrying the safer you feel? I'm not being anti but just trying to understand motivations. I agree if open carry is what it takes to maintain 2A rights then by all means lets all strap them on and carry them everywhere we can legally go with them and get the people around us used to seeing us armed and feeling safe. The other problem that crops up is pulling that weapon in defense and firing it. Better have a ton of money in the bank to hire lawyers to protect the legality of what you have done. Also if you enter a firefight between criminals and police it is going to be dam hard for officers to see you as backup and not one of the criminals. I would think it would be very hard to turn away from that situation but if you didn't you might be taken down by the police. Is a life worth it, especially your own to support your right to carry?
Any answers? I definately am not anti gun and am not against carrying, but there are problems.
Paul

 

[MountainBear]

I'm not getting back into a CC vs. OC debate. There's no point in wasting the bandwidth. There are simply those of you who will think that open carry is perfectly fine no matter what. There are those of us that think its imposing your beliefs on someone else in a very intimidating fashion. Neither are going to change the others minds. Have fun with this one, I'm not going to participate...

 

[tionico]

two things...

the way this whole thing started was in the Calif Bay Area, where it is nearly impossible for anyone to get a CHL. A group of pals decided to check, and learned OC was legal.. PROVIDED the gun was not loaded. (ammo readily available in a mag or speed loader is also legal). They began their OC campaign to raise awareness that common, decent, law abiding folks CAN possess arms in public, and not spill blood into the streets. It was a deliberate decision to put arms in front of people long conditioned to fear them as evil and dangerous. At first, LEO got many panicked calls.. "there's a man at the ______, and HE'S GOT A GUN!!!!!! (same thing happened here in Washington years ago, and it took a while for LE to get it straight, and educate the public. Now, 911 operators are trained to ask pertinent questions.. "what's he DOING with the gun?" Well, nothing, BUT ITS THERE ON HIS WAIST". "Well, Ma'am, that's perfectly legal for him to have it there".

Same thing has been happening in California... people are beginning to get accustomed to it, and don't panic and call the cops. Cops have slowed WAY down on "checking up" on OC weapons, having been told by their supes that it IS legal... as long as it isn't loaded.

Funny thing, they used to meet in Palo Alto area in a Peet's..... until Peet's changed their policy and banned arms from their places. SO-- the tried the Bux... who had a corporate policy of lawfully carried weapons are OK by us. Somehow, the press in Calif got wind of it, and has blown it all out of proportion. Now Brady's Whiners are on to it, trying to make a fuss over it. So far, there has been nothing bad happen.... though they DO have a way of antagonising, far more than an individual walking into a Charbux or Home Depot with a weapon on his hip, minding his own business just like everyone else in the store.

SO, here we have the anti-gun wackjobs being far more obnoxious than a guy simply stopping in for a cuppa with a gun on his hip. So, WHO"S rocking the boat? As ever, its the Brady Brats.

Second, Starbux have given their corporate position that arms are OK with them. Leave them alone, let them go about their work in peace. There are a bunch of OTHER places where people frequent, and need to learn that guns are OK. Peet's need to change their corporate policy, as do other places that ban guns.

Careful though, here in Washington please remember that any venue that serves alcohol and is restricted to 21 and over in age is a gun-free zone by state law. (this needs to change, but until it does, don't carry into such a place. I believe its a felony... so its bye bye guns, for a LONG long time)

I understand Home Depot's corporate policy is that guns are allowed in their stores. Behave yourself, (OK, I know all of us will....) and there won't be a problem. Anyone goes nutzo, politely inform them that it is perfectly legal, and safe.

In any case, never flaunt or strut that you're carrying. Go about it just as if you weren't. The sooner people get used to seeing arms anywhere and everywhere, the easier time we'll have of pushing the Brady Brats back into their sandbox where they belong, and stopping up their cakeholes with duct tape. Maybe then we'll have a shot at REAL carry, no more Mother May I.

 

[LCspeedsteel]

I like how the brady campaign spokesman says "guns intimidate people". If people are sincerely intimidated by a pistol on my hip while I'm ordering and paying for a coffee with a polite tone in my voice, and a smile on my face... then they are the most ignorant people in our society. We need to organize something where everyone who wants ZERO gun rights gets a free airline ticket to a country (i don't know... Columbia, India, or Russia) where they get to live for 2 years or so, and really see what it's like to need a gun. Of course this airline ticket would be 2 ways so they could come back here and appreciate their new love for firearms.

 

[tionico]

[ We need to organize something where everyone who wants ZERO gun rights gets a free airline ticket to a country (i don't know... Columbia, India, or Russia) where they get to live for 2 years or so, and really see what it's like to need a gun. Of course this airline ticket would be 2 ways so they could come back here and appreciate their new love for firearms.[/QUOTE]

might I recommend Sunny Mexico, where they can see (and attempt to survive) the results of civilians being debarred the use of arms, in a society where there have been more people killed by guns since 2006 than the total number of deaths in Iraq since we first went in there in 2003...... IF they manage to remain alive for two years, they'd come running back here and find the first gunstore they can, and buy their own handgun. I guarantee it.

 

[LCspeedsteel]

well, im glad that one person so far liked the idea... any others? you know it would work!

 

[Paulwa]

What would everyone think about being required to take a course (free or minimal support charges) if they decided to open carry? (I also think the gun should be loaded with an empty chamber and police could challenge whether the gun had an empty chamber at any time if questioned) What the **** good is an empty weapon..could get you killed fast! The course should be a very comprehensive course including legalities of our 2A rights, responsibilities in the event the weapon is drawn in public and what laws would be affected by those actions. The actual firing of the weapon in an event might require full police report with witnesses. How carriers should deal with citizens opposed at various levels to your weapon being there. A course for non carriers regarding 2A rights might be considered also if they want to contest those rights.

I don't know but I think more in the way of education is needed before everyone begins packing a weapon (I think concealed carry should be free also and personal choice). Firing that weapon puts you into a very real court battle and a very expensive one that could be very deadly to your way of life.

Should everyone fall under the2A right? How about mentally ill or challenged persons? Definately there should be a point where people who have committed acts of crime would be denied the right to bear arms individually (perhaps in military action it would be allowed).
What do you think about these points?
Paul

 

[LCspeedsteel]

...I don't know but I think more in the way of education is needed before everyone begins packing a weapon (I think concealed carry should be free also and personal choice). Firing that weapon puts you into a very real court battle and a very expensive one that could be very deadly to your way of life.

Should everyone fall under the2A right? How about mentally ill or challenged persons? Definately there should be a point where people who have committed acts of crime would be denied the right to bear arms individually (perhaps in military action it would be allowed).
What do you think about these points?
Paul

Washington requires no training before issuing a CHL, while Oregon requires an NRA approved safety class at any point in your life... and as far as criminals(convicted FELONS, or domestic violence) and mentally ill... they are not supposed to have weapons... yes they get them sometimes, but that's why the general public is armed as well... to defend their own lives. As much fun as it is to laugh and make fun of the legal system... the part about keeping weapons out of criminal hands is probably about as good as its gonna get... fingerprint, jail time for both parties supplying weapons to those who aren't supposed to possess them... etc.

 

[CharlesAFerg]

two things...

the way this whole thing started was in the Calif Bay Area, where it is nearly impossible for anyone to get a CHL. A group of pals decided to check, and learned OC was legal.. PROVIDED the gun was not loaded. (ammo readily available in a mag or speed loader is also legal). They began their OC campaign to raise awareness that common, decent, law abiding folks CAN possess arms in public, and not spill blood into the streets. It was a deliberate decision to put arms in front of people long conditioned to fear them as evil and dangerous. At first, LEO got many panicked calls.. "there's a man at the ______, and HE'S GOT A GUN!!!!!! (same thing happened here in Washington years ago, and it took a while for LE to get it straight, and educate the public. Now, 911 operators are trained to ask pertinent questions.. "what's he DOING with the gun?" Well, nothing, BUT ITS THERE ON HIS WAIST". "Well, Ma'am, that's perfectly legal for him to have it there".

Same thing has been happening in California... people are beginning to get accustomed to it, and don't panic and call the cops. Cops have slowed WAY down on "checking up" on OC weapons, having been told by their supes that it IS legal... as long as it isn't loaded.

Funny thing, they used to meet in Palo Alto area in a Peet's..... until Peet's changed their policy and banned arms from their places. SO-- the tried the Bux... who had a corporate policy of lawfully carried weapons are OK by us. Somehow, the press in Calif got wind of it, and has blown it all out of proportion. Now Brady's Whiners are on to it, trying to make a fuss over it. So far, there has been nothing bad happen.... though they DO have a way of antagonising, far more than an individual walking into a Charbux or Home Depot with a weapon on his hip, minding his own business just like everyone else in the store.

SO, here we have the anti-gun wackjobs being far more obnoxious than a guy simply stopping in for a cuppa with a gun on his hip. So, WHO"S rocking the boat? As ever, its the Brady Brats.

Second, Starbux have given their corporate position that arms are OK with them. Leave them alone, let them go about their work in peace. There are a bunch of OTHER places where people frequent, and need to learn that guns are OK. Peet's need to change their corporate policy, as do other places that ban guns.

Careful though, here in Washington please remember that any venue that serves alcohol and is restricted to 21 and over in age is a gun-free zone by state law. (this needs to change, but until it does, don't carry into such a place. I believe its a felony... so its bye bye guns, for a LONG long time)

I understand Home Depot's corporate policy is that guns are allowed in their stores. Behave yourself, (OK, I know all of us will....) and there won't be a problem. Anyone goes nutzo, politely inform them that it is perfectly legal, and safe.

In any case, never flaunt or strut that you're carrying. Go about it just as if you weren't. The sooner people get used to seeing arms anywhere and everywhere, the easier time we'll have of pushing the Brady Brats back into their sandbox where they belong, and stopping up their cakeholes with duct tape. Maybe then we'll have a shot at REAL carry, no more Mother May I.

Exactly. People must be educated, and the truth hurts. Unfortunately, there needs to be more of an educational front to these movements, instead of only shocking people. I completely agree with them, though.

 

[Rapid1]

the issue here is about Starbucks, not OC vs CC. we should be thankful that a high profile business that likely counts a large percentage of their market to the liberal, anti-gun crowd would rather not get involved in this controversy. why anyone would want to keep the controversy going is beyond me. our rights are under fire whether we exercise them or not.

the suggestions about supporting their business make sense. the ones about using them as an example, do not. if we continue to force their hand on this, they may be forced to make a business decision, as they should, which may not be the one we are all applauding right now.

just carrying a gun in public because you can, does nothing constructive to the cause. OC while performing public service, or things of helpful nature to everyone, may very well improve opinions of those on the fence. those opposed to it will simply scream louder.

as was said earlier, time to move on from Starbucks...they've shown their colors, buy their products and thank them for it...not ram it down their throats.

 

[longcolt]

I went into Starbucks on Saturday, ordered my Vanilla Latte and Scone and I was armed with a handgun, extra magazine and my folding knife. All concealed, of course and I was happy that they decided to follow state and local laws and not bow to the Brady Nutcases.

 

[tionico]

I would oppose mandatory "education" before being allowed any class of "bearing arms". The Constitution is very clear....shall not be infringed means shall NOT be infringed.. NO requirements, hoops, Mother May I permissions, fees, licenses, approvals, course requirements..... shall not be INFRINGED. Means just that.

Now, it would be in the best interest of society to work at making such training available to the public as a free or low cost option. Perhaps, as part of a penalty for minor infractions relating to firearms, require a course in safety and the law... much as those minor offenders now have an option, or are sometimes required, to take a traffic safety course. But to REQUIRE such a course... absolutely not.

Why? Partly because there are some jurisdictions that have such requrements in place now, and abuse this, utilising it as a means to prevent individuals from being able to carry anything. Many legal resident aliens, as covered under the Constitution as you and I ("the right of THE PEOPLE....",, note, it does NOT say "citizens", Nor does it have any age restrictions). would have an extra high bar to weather before being allowed to make use of a right God has given them, and that the government is not to infringe. Requiring a class would do just that. Some folks do well at exams, others stink at them. Any course would, to BE a course, include some sort of examingation, a given score allows one to pass. Many states that require training now use it to make it nearly impossible for anyone to qualify. California requires specified training in many counties.... in some (Humboldt, I know) the cost is outrageous... more than a good quality handgun. They put a high stress on marksmanship... excessively so. And if one does not score well enough one is denied the requested permit. I understand Illinois, New Jersey, and I think Connecticut or Massachussetts, also do this. Hey, most of those places, not even the cop on the beat can score well enough, but they get a pass on account of their badge and uniform.

As to dangerous criminals, mentally disturbed, etc.... they are already debarred the use of arms by the Constitution. Commmit a felony crime, and Constitution declares you many not vote or hold public office until your record is cleared, you have paid all your fines, done all your time and community service, parole/probation is satisfied, and you have applied to the court system to have your rights restored... the right to arms, to vote, and a few other suchh things, are all wrapped up in the same sections. So, Federal law proscribes the dangerous classes of people from the use of arms already, and should NOT change.

One thing, though... look into the laws of any state. there are many offenses that used to be considered infractions, perhaps minor misdemeanours. Most of them (violent crimes against persons, murder, rape, assault with injury, attempted homicide, actual homicide, drunken driving involving the death of someone else.... any serious crime involving a firearm (hit a minimart with a baseball cap, paper bag, its a serious crime, but won't get your rights taken away on conviction. Add in a handgun, you WILL do hard time, lots of it, and should NOT EVER regain your right to arms.

What DOES need to happen is that accused, when charged with some crime, and have involved a firearm in the commission of that crime, need to have the additional charges laid against them involving illegal use of firearms.... which should carry stiff penalties. I would even support random, unannounced, inspections of cars and homes of past convicted felons, to assure they don't have arms in their homes. Had Clemmens been inspected like this, he'd not have had access to the handguns he used in the Lakewood Officer slayings. Felons have forfeited certain rights.... and liberties. They cannot vote or have the use of arms. Why not add compromising their Fourth Ammendment right to freedom from search...... of their persons and premises. Some courts order this for drugs..... why not guns as well? Some huge percentage of crimes involving guns are previously convicted felons who have not the right to arms. This needs strengthened, radically. Elimminate those felons from the pool of armed residents... you've eliminated the lion's share of new crimes involving guns. Simple...

 

[Artilleryman]

the issue here is about Starbucks, not OC vs CC. we should be thankful that a high profile business that likely counts a large percentage of their market to the liberal, anti-gun crowd would rather not get involved in this controversy. why anyone would want to keep the controversy going is beyond me. our rights are under fire whether we exercise them or not.

the suggestions about supporting their business make sense. the ones about using them as an example, do not. if we continue to force their hand on this, they may be forced to make a business decision, as they should, which may not be the one we are all applauding right now.

just carrying a gun in public because you can, does nothing constructive to the cause. OC while performing public service, or things of helpful nature to everyone, may very well improve opinions of those on the fence. those opposed to it will simply scream louder.

as was said earlier, time to move on from Starbucks...they've shown their colors, buy their products and thank them for it...not ram it down their throats.

very well said!

 

[torpedoman]

More on the Starbucks open carry laissez-faire policy


http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/8ef...cks-Guns/id-p07708dc4c1314c2a9f807cf5532aada7


Starbucks asks not to be center of gun debate
MAE ANDERSON, Associated Press Writers
MANUEL VALDES, Associated Press Writers

SEATTLE (AP) — Coffee chain Starbucks Corp. is sticking to its policy of letting customers carry guns where it's legal and said it does not want to be put in the middle of a larger gun-control debate.

The company's statement, issued Wednesday, stems from recent campaign by some gun owners, who have walked into Starbucks and other businesses to test state laws that allow gun owners to carry weapons openly in public places. Gun control advocates have protested.

The fight began heating up in January in Northern California and has since spread to other states and other companies, bolstered by the pro-gun group OpenCarry.org.

Some of the events were spontaneous, with just one or two gun owners walking into a store. Others were organized parades of dozens of gun owners walking into restaurants with their firearms proudly at their sides.

Now, gun control advocates are protesting the policy. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, launched a petition drive demanding that the company "offer espresso shots, not gunshots" and declare its coffeehouses "gun-free zones." And Wednesday, that group delivered 28,000 signatures to the coffee giant's headquarters in Seattle.

The group also held a press conference near Seattle's Pike Place Market, just a few yards away from where the first Starbucks cafe opened. Gun rights advocates showed up as well, some carrying handguns in holsters around their waists.

Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign said carrying guns intimidates and frightens people, and said the group thinks Starbucks will "do the right thing" and change its policy.

"They're putting their workers in harm's way by allowing people to carry guns into their stores, especially open carry," Malte said.

More than a dozen pro-gun supporters, some with Starbucks coffee cups in hand, chanted during the press conference, at points interrupting speakers.

"I think the (Brady campaign is) trying to strong-arm private businesses into banning the rights of the people," said Bev Carman of Everett, Wash. Carman held a sign that said: "Criminal Control not Gun Control."

Businesses can choose to ban guns from their premises. And Starbucks said Wednesday that it complies with local laws in the 43 states that have open-carry weapon laws.

"Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position," the company said in its statement.

It said security measures are in place for any "threatening situation" that might occur in stores.

Starbucks asked both gun enthusiasts and gun-control advocates "to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue."

Starbucks shares closed Wednesday down 27 cents, or 1.2 percent, to $23.06.

Sounds like they decided to make coffee rather than public policy and I think it is a wise decision on their part. Lets get a cup of coffee and discuss it.

 

[Paulwa]

Tionico I agree with much of what you say. I think the 'people' spoken of in the constitution are legal citizens though. Any alien would have to go through channels I think to verify their their justification for a gun. I agree the course should be minimal with no examination other than minimal to see that all of the course had been attended. I don't think any firing range should be required. Just a knowledgeable gun teacher observing that the gun owner knew all the safety and performance of his weapon to the extent he would not be a danger to himself or others.

As for the police checking whether criminal probationers has guns, dream on they can't even keep up with rapists and child abusers that have been released on probation or even if they are wearing their ankle unit if required. Our police forces in my opinion are too mixed. They have some men not really qualified nor trained enough to really get out and enforce the law. Most of them retreat to the mundane radar and ticket routine and driving intoxicated (yes this is also important). Don't get me wrong we do have a lot of crack law enforcement people but the mix makes the department less than efficient. Staying out of trouble and time served guarantees promotion through the ranks leaving true qualification of law enforcement behind. I am not putting any Police or Sheriff dept down, just overall it seems it takes way to much time to arrive at the scene of a crime these days. I doubt there is any way to speed up these times either. I spent about three years on a local police dept as a reserve with training and cruiser experience with trained officers. I have seen some officers who were too fearful for their well being to be on the cutting edge of enforcement. I really think they should have been weeded out at the beginning for their own good and the good of the commmunity they served.They were great people in many cases but a good officer would be a little unsure of that type of partner in split second decisions. That is what I have seen in years past. I haven't a clue whether it is this way today. Officers may get much more training these days. Any here on this board? Anyway this is a subject probably most lawmen would not even talk about. Just my opinion.
Paul

 

[19 Adam]

I wear my shirt to Starbucks as often as i can, its always a big hit with the Baristas.