Starbucks says guns are no longer welcome in their stores

[kpete]

Apparently Starbucks doesn't really appreciate all those Starbucks Appreciation Days that gun owners have been holding.


Starbucks says guns unwelcome, though not banned
By CANDICE CHOI, AP Food Industry Writer
Updated 3:06 am, Wednesday, September 18, 2013

NEW YORK (AP) — Starbucks says guns are no longer welcome in its cafes, though it is stopping short of an outright ban on firearms.

The fine line that the retailer is walking to address the concerns of both gun rights and gun control advocates reflects how heated the issue has become, particularly in light of recent mass shootings.[/div

MORE:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Starbucks-says-guns-unwelcome-though-not-banned-4823265.phphttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/18/1239668/-Starbucks-says-guns-are-no-longer-welcome-in-their-stores

[TreasonousBastard]

1. In other words-- it backfired and...

the gunnies are scaring away paying customers.

[panader0]

2. This "request" will backfire too I'll bet.

The gunners will make a point of carrying in Starbucks now.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

7. LOL

Why do you need a gun to get a coffee? Is the coffee going to attack you?

[MattBaggins]

9. Coffea ARABICA?

Gun strokers and right wingers are not known for their intelligence.

[IronLionZion]

13. Guns don't kill people. Texans kill people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre

[GreenStormCloud]

21. Because of the other places one may go in the same trip.

One does not teleport directly from home to Starbucks. You have to travel there. Most people who go to Starbucks are only stopping in Starbucks, while on their way to somewhere else, often several other places. All of those places will have parking lots or parking garages. Some may be in a bad part of town. Carying a gun gives one the ability to defend against violent crime.

According to the FBI there are over a million violent crimes reported every year. The number of unreported violent crimes can only be estimated, but it is bound to be a high number.

[marmar]

3. 'says guns unwelcome, though not banned'

What does that mean though? Sounds like they're issuing a statement for public consumption, but not really planning to do anything.

[d_r]

5. it means

"don't be such a dick, people"

[Robb]

8. That's exactly it. From the BW article:

Starbucks will not ban firearms outright. “That would put employees in a very uncomfortable position of confronting somebody with a gun,” Schultz said. “Recently, however, we’ve seen the ‘open carry’ debate become increasingly uncivil, and in some cases even threatening,” he wrote in his letter.

“We want to give responsible gun owners a chance to respect our request,” he wrote. “The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.”

Gun enthusiasts have a chance to not look like assholes here. $10 says they don't take the opportunity.

[2ndAmForComputers]

15. Fable. Scorpion. Frog. River.

[Paladin]

4. I wonder if Gun Enthusiasts are smart enough to walk away from this one.

Naaaaaah.....

[NuclearDem]

6. Perhaps it's best there shouldn't be any guns in a place that serves caffeine.

Nothing makes guns safer than jittery and hyper trigger fingers!

[LuvNewcastle]

10. I'm guessing they've had instances where idiots have

taken their guns out and shown them to people like they were new iphones or something. That would be an accident waiting to happen, and it would definitely make me leave a place. They don't want to piss off the gun owners, but they still want to keep the rest of their customers. One would think that a person would want to conceal their gun in a public place so not to scare anyone, but some assholes don't see the point of carrying one if they can't show it off.

[Lizzie Poppet]

11. I suspect they'll never know, most of the time.

I find those "open carry demonstrations" counterproductive and asinine, but I suspect that the number of guns in Starbucks won't change in any measurable way because of this. Most people who carry do so with the weapon concealed.

[LiberalLovinLug]

12. Looking at this story from Canada

Do you realize how bizarro world this sounds?

[Le Taz Hot]

18. Looking at this story from the U.S.

Yep.

[laundry_queen]

19. Another Canadian here

I know what you mean by bizarre, could you imagine seeing a gun in a Starbucks here? Or a Tim's for that matter? Everyone would run out screaming. I know I would.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. One of my local Starbucks serves law enforcement.

One, two cops, sure I can handle that. One day they were writing reports, can't blame them. Good AC, wireless, coffee, what is there not to like? I was made very uneasy by the three detectives, in suit and tie and 9mm. They only had the ID, not a badge visible.

This is not an open carry state.

[SidDithers]

32. In Canada, tho, when Starbucks says "Please don't bring your guns into the store"...

the Canadian responds "Sure eh? No problem. Sorry 'bout that."



Sid

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Yup

Though my local Starbucks serves local pd and pd detectives, they are both packing, openly.

And the letter bellow clarifies it

[Marrah_G]

17. Same- I've never seen someone just walking around with a gun where I live

I can't imagine seeing someone with an AR-15 strapped to their back in my local walmart. I also don't know why anyone would stay in a store where there was an armed person.

[UTUSN]

20. A couple of months ago my local community/police were provoked and disrupted

by "open carry" jerks who were touring the state, standing outside each community's police headquarters, asking (demanding) to get their picture taken with a "long arm" (rifle) slung on their shoulder "because it's (their) right". They claimed to be "educating" the public and police about their right to Open Carry the rifles, whether walking up the street, standing on a street corner, or whatever (like the Utah jerk last year with an automatic rifle inside a JC Penny). Their m.o. is to call the police the day before and tell them they intend to walk up a street with a rifle slung the next day and tell them they don't need to respond to 911 calls from concerned citizens, and if the police arrest them they put out a call to their fellow NUTS who then rally in the hundreds with all the media covering them, they threaten to sue, and then get an apology and an "education" meeting with the police. They claim that the sight of goons with rifles in public should be considered "NORMAL" and that goons with rifles in public should be PRESUMED TO BE "GOOD" guys. In my region, in different communities, some police let them do their provoking. My local police arrested the dude, and sure enough the predicted rally happened. The police were humiliated by the local wingnut talk radio, who knows whether they apologized. I was glad to see this item below, where police in another state reacted exactly the same as mine and did NOT apologize and totally deflated the 2ndAmendment and "NORMAL" arguments.

The jerks who invaded my community had Twitter/FB accounts with pseudonyms, were associated with the whole nest of vipers: Alex JONES, Ron PAUL, Libertarians, Open Carry, Secede, militia, the whole bag of wax enchiladas. I detest the repulsive jerks.

[UTUSN]

22. The whole Starbucks letter w/highlights; "open letter" not subject to copyright edits

[font size=5]Posted by Howard Schultz, Starbucks chairman, president and chief executive officer[/font]

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Dear Fellow Americans,

Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]Starbucks[/FONT] stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]have been thrust unwillingly into the middle[/FONT] of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]request that customers no longer bring firearms[/FONT] into our stores or outdoor seating areas.

From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a “third place” between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing[/FONT] people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]comfortable respite[/FONT] from the concerns of daily life.

We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]balance of rights and responsibilities[/FONT] surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.

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 [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]should be addressed by government and law enforcement — not by Starbucks[/FONT] and our store partners.

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

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.

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting[/FONT] for many of our customers.

I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today’s request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors.

Sincerely,

Howard Schultz

*************

[Marrah_G]

28. I would be extremely un nerved to see people walking around with guns

Talk radio has become hate radio

[Daniel537]

30. If state law allows open carry

Then they are indeed well within their rights to openly carry a firearm. Police don't get to decide whether or not they like someone exercising their legal rights.

[UTUSN]

35. Many of us, including law enforcement & judicial & legal scholars, disagree

From a couple of recent threads (if I have time later, I'll find them to link for you). And sometimes the simplest remedies are best: "Disorderly Conduct" or "Disturbing the Peace".

*********QUOTE********

Time to set the record straight. The modern right-wing interpretation of the Second Amendment "guaranteeing the individual's right to keep and bear arms" is an ideological innovation that has occurred within the last 50 years.

The real reason for the Second Amendment:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
Tuesday, 15 January 2013 09:35
By Thom Hartmann


The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.



In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states. ....


Sally E. Haden, in her book Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas, notes that, "Although eligibility for the Militia seemed all-encompassing, not every middle-aged white male Virginian or Carolinian became a slave patroller." There were exemptions so "men in critical professions" like judges, legislators and students could stay at their work. Generally, though, she documents how most southern men between ages 18 and 45 - including physicians and ministers - had to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.

And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.

By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.



http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore?currentPage=7
And the origins of the modern right-wing ideological argument re: the Second Amendment:



The National Rifle Association was founded in 1871 by two men, a lawyer and a former reporter from the New York Times. For most of its history, the N.R.A. was chiefly a sporting and hunting association. To the extent that the N.R.A. had a political arm, it opposed some gun-control measures and supported many others, lobbying for new state laws in the nineteen-twenties and thirties, which introduced waiting periods for handgun buyers and required permits for anyone wishing to carry a concealed weapon. It also supported the 1934 National Firearms Act—the first major federal gun-control legislation—and the 1938 Federal Firearms Act, which together created a licensing system for dealers and prohibitively taxed the private ownership of automatic weapons (“machine guns”). The constitutionality of the 1934 act was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939, in U.S. v. Miller, in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, argued that the Second Amendment is “restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security.” Furthermore, Jackson said, the language of the amendment makes clear that the right “is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.” The Court agreed, unanimously. In 1957, when the N.R.A. moved into new headquarters, its motto, at the building’s entrance, read, “Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shooting for Recreation.” It didn’t say anything about freedom, or self-defense, or rights. ...
In the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. began advancing the argument that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to carry a gun, rather than the people’s right to form armed militias to provide for the common defense. Fights over rights are effective at getting out the vote. Describing gun-safety legislation as an attack on a constitutional right
gave conservatives a power at the polls that, at the time, the movement lacked. Opposing gun control was also consistent with a larger anti-regulation, libertarian, and anti-government conservative agenda. In 1975, the N.R.A. created a lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, headed by Harlon Bronson Carter, an award-winning marksman and a former chief of the U.S. Border Control (AND KILLER). But then the N.R.A.’s leadership decided to back out of politics and move the organization’s headquarters to Colorado Springs, where a new recreational-shooting facility was to be built. Eighty members of the N.R.A.’s staff, including Carter, were ousted. In 1977, the N.R.A.’s annual meeting, usually held in Washington, was moved to Cincinnati, in protest of the city’s recent gun-control laws. Conservatives within the organization, led by Carter, staged what has come to be called the Cincinnati Revolt. The bylaws were rewritten and the old guard was pushed out. Instead of moving to Colorado, the N.R.A. stayed in D.C., where a new motto was displayed: “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.”
In 1991, a poll found that Americans were more familiar with the Second Amendment than they were with the First: the right to speak and to believe, and to write and to publish, freely.

“If you had asked, in 1968, will we have the right to do with guns in 2012 what we can do now, no one, on either side, would have believed you,” David Keene said.
Between 1968 and 2012, the idea that owning and carrying a gun is both a fundamental American freedom and an act of citizenship gained wide acceptance and, along with it, the principle that this right is absolute and cannot be compromised; gun-control legislation was diluted, defeated, overturned, or allowed to expire; the right to carry a concealed handgun became nearly ubiquitous; Stand Your Ground legislation passed in half the states; and, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5–4 decision, that the District’s 1975 Firearms Control Regulations Act was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia wrote, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.” Two years later, in another 5–4 ruling, McDonald v. Chicago, the Court extended Heller to the states.



http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/two-men-parade-around-wisconsin-farmers-market-carrying

Two Men Parade Around Wisconsin Farmers Market Carrying AR-15 Rifles

Charles Branstrom, 27, and Ross Bauman, 22, were held at gunpoint and placed in handcuffs by police for the stunt last Saturday, prompting outrage from a local pro-gun group.

"I would never blame police for following up on 'man with a gun' calls, but they still have to behave within the limits of the law and abide by people's constitutional rights," Nik Clark, president of the gun rights group Wisconsin Carry, Inc. told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "I believe the police were acting outside of their legal authority when they pointed guns at the individuals and involuntarily detained them." ....

According to the Journal Sentinel, the recording shows Branstrom and Bauman walking down the street when they are confronted by police who ask why they are brandishing their weapons.

"For self-defense," Branstrom said. ....

Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn dismissed the Second Amendment argument levied by pro-gun groups while denouncing both Branstrom and Bauman.

"In a post Aurora-Newtown environment, it's a reckless and irresponsible stunt to strut around in public with an assault-style weapon and think police should assume you're well-intentioned," Flynn told the Journal Sentinel. "It's just absurd. This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. These characters and those who support them should be ashamed of themselves."

*************UNQUOTE*********

[Daniel537]

38. It doesn't matter what any of them think, it matters what the law states.

The idea that police should start inventing charges of "disturbing the peace", which is what they usually do when someone actually confronts them on their rights, is something right out of a dictatorship. Police don't get to decide when they can disregard the law.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. But I get to not visit

Or spend my money, in those states.

I also can urge citizens to follow California and ban open carry, by law, end of discussion, punishable by prison term if need be. (Long arms)

This is disruptive behavior, whether you like it or not.

[Daniel537]

40. Whether its "disruptive" or not is irrelevant.

Police must follow the law, period.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. I agree, so let's give the officers the laws they need

To first give verbal warnings, and next citations, finally arrest, and go see a judge.

IMHO the only weakness is that it is only a misdemeanor, not a felony.

The exception of course is the Hollywood exception. Cops usually have an officer on site when long arms are involved during filming, and the studio has a weapons handler with all kinds of state and federal permits. Some, depending on movie are fully automatic.

Short arms, the cops can and will stop you and make sure it's not loaded. It's a hassle.

Take a guess how many people even try to open carry outside of a select group of performers in costume?

Cops have less is this an idiot trying to make a point or a bad guy?

[liberalhistorian]

43. But rights and the law are not

absolute. If the exercising of a right causes public disruption, then the police have the right to address it. It's kinda like free speech. You have that right, under the law, but it is not absolute. You cannot deliberately scream "fire" in a crowded theater or public place, causing disruption and disorder, and then claim your "right" to free speech. That is not exercising a right, that is causing disruption and police then have the right to call you on it. Same with guns.

[UTUSN]

44. Bravissimo!1 And for your FDR avatar, too!!!!!!1 n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

24. There are people in Portland, Tacoma, etc. who walk in carrying concealed.

You are around them, you just don't see it. Carrying a rifle is a pain-in-the-butt.

[el_bryanto]

16. Guns are looky-lus - everybody knows that. I've never seen a gun buy anything

They just kind of come in and shuffle around and then leave. You can't blame Starbucks for not wanting them in the store.

Bryant

[GreenStormCloud]

26. I have been in Starbucks, armed (concealed) and bought stuff. N/T

[el_bryanto]

33. Look - I'm pretty sure that even if your gun hadn't been hiding away

It still wouldn't have bought anything. Next time take your gun put it on the counter and see what it does - my guess is it won't even pull out it's wallet.

Bryant

[Lurks Often]

23. Both sides dragged Starbucks into a political issue it wanted no part of,

Starbuck's policy was to simply follow state law in regard to the carry of firearms within their stores.

[Hoyt]

27. I think they got a bit tired of folks like those below showing up.

[tridim]

29. W.T.F????

Not that I'd ever go to Starbucks, but if I happened to be in the vicinity of those idiots I'd get the hell out of there fast.

[upaloopa]

31. I don't want to be anywhere near those fools.

I think we should all have the policy that if we see a person carrying a gun into a business we are in, we walk out and let it be know to the business and on social media that we will not do business there unless they have a no gun policy.

[LuvNewcastle]

34. Just as I suspected, they've been playing with their guns at Starbucks.

Guns don't scare me as long as I see them handled responsibly. I get concerned, however, when I see people removing their guns from their carrying place, because really the only reason anyone should move his gun is if he's going to fire it. These people who are posing with their guns and pointing them off in different directions are not responsible gun owners. I'd say they need their weapons confiscated.

This is why we can't have nice things. Idiots fuck things up for the rest of us, so rights that some people enjoy must be taken away because of the foolishness of others. The 2nd Amendment cannot be used to justify the possession of guns by everyone, at least not in public places. It's been demonstrated over and over again that too many people just cannot handle guns properly, and they are a danger to themselves and others. Carrying guns in public needs to be stopped for non-official people.

[cherokeeprogressive]

36. Their stores, their rules.

Good for them.