Starbucks: no more open carry

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It is not an anti trap to ask if one is capable of dealing with a dangerous situation when one proposes to engage in a dangerous action.

If I were going hunting with someone, I would ask about their basic knowledge of firearms safety. Having gone hunting with klutzes and worrying about such - I suppose I am an anti gunner and hunter?

If you are going to add a risk factor in your firearms usage - you should be able to deal with that risk.

That is a moral question separate from your right to have a gun. That might be constitutional but being incompetent is a reasonable question.

I might ask you if when you are voting, have you studied the issues - I don't deny you the right to vote but I'd be interested if you know anything about what you are voting about.

 

[vaeevictiss]

Ya know what, people are getting so wrapped up in what the law and the 2a means and whether it's ok or not to carry.

I'm sure ill get cussed out for this, but to put it simply, OC'ers are what caused this problem. Whether they are good or bad, whether they say anything or not, they are most certainly to blame.

A person open carrying makes people nervous and that's the honest truth. they make the antis speak up and they make the people that are on the fence fall toward the anti side.

Just understand the world isn't ready for it and conceal. If you arent trying to make a statement by open carrying, and if you can accomplish the same thing by concealing... what are you trying to do?

If in your mind you don't think you are hurting our fight, then in the least, you are not helping it. If carrying a gun is solely for self defense, then why make it an accessory to your outfit? Check your ego at the door and just hide it, that way, everyone can still be safe, and the antis can still feel safe. It's a win win.

 

[shortwave]

Quote:
Before answering remember, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about how I can keep and where I can bare arms...just that I can.

That seems like a very dangerous game to play. That type of thinking is sure to backfire hard because someone would inevitably take it too far.

Which is exactly what this thread for the most part has been about...

...Did this OC 'stunt' pulled at Starbucks by a few gun owners go too far and further a negative outlook on all of us?

And yes, the anti's could , they do and will continue to use that statement to go to far the other way as well.

Especially when we as gun owners give the anti's even half a chance to do so by doing things that are not socially acceptable, and in this case, not even necessary, and then use the mindset of," I can do this cause the 2nd. Amend. says I can and I don't have to, and won't respect the feelings or rights of others".

Keep un-necessarily "poking the bear" and we all will eventually pay the consequences.

 

[Tom Servo]

Problem solved. McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts both say they abide by open carry laws of the respective states.

The problem is emphatically not solved. The takeway for Starbucks (and anyone else in the business world watching) is that we are unreliable, ungrateful, and potentially undesirable friends to have.

The presence of alternative venues does not fix the problem we've created.

 

[Fishing_Cabin]

Before answering remember, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about how I can keep and where I can bare arms...just that I can.

That seems like a very dangerous game to play. That type of thinking is sure to backfire hard because someone would inevitably take it too far.

I will agree that it is a dangerous game to play in reference to the "shall not be infringed" in anyway crowd. There will always be places that are off limits to carry, and reasons why. Such as a detention facility, court room, and/or private property against the owner(s) wishes.

For those who think they have a right to carry on another persons property however/whenever they like, I wonder if the roles were reversed how they would feel? It is like listening to some who say they can carry anywhere they like...Well, no they can not. Beyond the legal issues with possession/carrying firearms, there is still the issue of trespassing and breaking/illegal entry as well. So there will always be restrictions on where a person may legally carry.

If, it was really like how some in the OC say, that's is legal to carry anywhere, just like a free pass, any where, any time, any reason...Then why is it a crime when an armed person breaks in to my home? They are carrying a gun, and listening to some, its legal to carry "anywhere" right? No, its not always legal. There can be reasonable restrictions.

I would like all OC proponents to document their retention training and practice before they chortle on their deterrent capacities.

That also seems like it falls into the anti trap.

If this falls in to the anti's trap, then why do many in the OC crowd keep pointing to "well law enforcement carries openly" as an excuse, without understanding that all training, qualification, ammo and firearm info is generally well documented.

They have pointed to "but, but, but the police do, but, but, but" and to me they have painted their self in a corner with that argument. Why? Many keep demanding more training and restrictions on law enforcement, claiming the police are unqualified, lack the needed training, etc, but they want less restrictions on their own carry ability.

 

[Closing The Gap]

...problem solved for now until a bunch of morons that need attention get together and decide to show their 'appreciation' by having a 'million man march' on these business's scaring people to death dressed like wanna-be Rambo's.
Instead sitting down and writing a nice 'Thank You' letter to corporate or politely thanking the owner/manager.
But I guess the later doesn't put me in the spotlight and show the world I'm willing to fight for my rights now does it.

Ya can't fix stupid!

Ummm. I was addressing the need to carry and drink coffee. Nothing more. I don't drink coffee nor do I feel the need to tell anyone how they should conduct themselves. Or name call.

 

[shortwave]

Ummm. I was addressing the need to carry and drink coffee. Nothing more

Closing the Gap

Apologies if my post was taken as a personnal response by you. It wasn't intended to be.
I figured your post was just in 'jest' and it was not intended to be directly implied towards you.

The overall point of my post is that many won't take the suttle hint that Starbucks is giving, learn from their mistakes and curb their ridiculous behaviour. The outcome of this resulting in the anti's using this whole Starbucks scenario as a club to beat all gun owners over the head with.

I don't drink coffee nor do I feel the need to tell anyone how they should conduct themselves. Or name call.

I D-D-D-DO drink coffee... c-c-c-can't ya t-t-t-tell...

But usually not at Starbucks. More of a home brew, WhiteCastle, Tim Horton or McDonalds kinda guy. Which incidently I usually cc in every one of those places.
Sometimes I even OC when I'm doin the home brew thing here at the house. Momma thinks it's sexy when I put my gunbelt on and OC as long as I have pants on under the gunbelt.

Anyways...
As a gun owner, I do feel the need to call someone out on their actions when their actions negatively affect me and people other then themselves. Which the Starbucks caper clearly did.

Again, sorry if I implied in any way in my previous post that it was specically directed towards you. It wasn't!

 

[Closing The Gap]

I appreciate the clarification. No apology necessary. Thanks just the same though.

While I understand your position I do not personally agree with it. Starbucks as a business can dictate what folks do in their stores as it is their right. But outside of their stores they have no business in my affairs.

Every person has their own life to lead. I open carry exclusively for my own reasons and in a manner in which I see fit. While I wouldn't carry a rifle on a daily basis, I feel it is not my place to tell others they shouldn't. I even use the dreaded drop leg holster when need arises. But that in itself has many in our community up in arms and would cause them to call me a mall ninja or tactical Tommy. I'm not a youngster although if I were it shouldn't make a difference.

I personally think we as a group would be far better served to organize(show who we are on a large scale) than to do all of the in fighting that I see on this board and many others. All this does is distract us from the core issue of our collective rights. The NRA while noble in its cause is not what I mean. I think we need constant large and small scale peaceful demonstrations where we can get our message across. Rather than only coming together when an active attack is underway on those rights. But I fear that will never happen with the individualism and aforementioned in fighting that goes on.

 

[SHE3PDOG]

It is not an anti trap to ask if one is capable of dealing with a dangerous situation when one proposes to engage in a dangerous action.

If I were going hunting with someone, I would ask about their basic knowledge of firearms safety. Having gone hunting with klutzes and worrying about such - I suppose I am an anti gunner and hunter?

If you are going to add a risk factor in your firearms usage - you should be able to deal with that risk.

That is a moral question separate from your right to have a gun. That might be constitutional but being incompetent is a reasonable question.

I might ask you if when you are voting, have you studied the issues - I don't deny you the right to vote but I'd be interested if you know anything about what you are voting about.

I understand what you mean, but telling people they should document their training to do a specific activity like that before they should talk about how effective it is as a means of deterrent seems to be a little twisted. At least in my mind, that's not any different than asking anyone who keeps a firearm for self defense to show documentation of their training because without training they are more likely to cause harm than good.

I don't think you are talking about an actual law that requires such a thing, but antis would very much like to force gun owners into more, likely expensive, training in order to prove we're "worthy" to own a firearm. In all likelihood such a thing would be a check in the box, and most people wouldn't learn a whole lot from it.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It would be incorrect and unwise to base an interpretation of that clause on a common dictionary definition of the word "infringed". The court has ruled "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

The key point is that "the court has ruled." Translated, that means the 2A means what the SCOTUS of today says it means, NOT necessarily what the wise gentlemen who wrote it had in mind when they wrote it.

My argument toward that is to compare the 2A with the 4A. In the 4th Amendment, the BOR says that the people shall be secure ... against unreasonable search and seizure. That automatically leaves the door open to "reasonable" searches and seizures, and the role of the court then becomes to decide in certain cases whether or not a particular search and/or seizure was "reasonable."

So the Founders were acquainted with the concept of reasonable limitations on fundamental human rights, and where they intended to allow some "reasonable" infringements on those rights, they were able to say so.

They conspicuously did NOT say that the RKBA shall not be "unreasonably" infringed. They said the RKBA shall not be infringed. Period. That's a blanket prohibition which, on its face and by its own language, does not admit of any "reasonable restrictions." Restrictions are infringements. In the context of the 2A they are not allowed.

Except that we have a SCOTUS that can't read. Or, much more likely, they know exactly what the 2A says and means, but they weren't willing to accept the inevitable backscatter that would have resulted had they interpreted the 2A to mean what it so clearly says.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm sure ill get cussed out for this, but to put it simply, OC'ers are what caused this problem. Whether they are good or bad, whether they say anything or not, they are most certainly to blame.

I disagree.

It wasn't open carriers who caused the problem, it was RKBA and OC activists who caused this problem. If an occasional person wandered into an occasional Starbucks with a handgun on his/her belt, a couple of bedwetters might have been uncomfortable, might even have left the store, but nothing would have happened.

But the activists weren't happy with being allowed to live and let live. They had to rub people's faces in it. That created a backlash, and forced the CEO into a corner.

I have always maintained that zealots of any persuasion are a danger to mankind. This is an example.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by: Closing The Gap: I think we need constant large and small scale peaceful demonstrations where we can get our message across.

Those sure have been having the desired effect, haven't they?

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Aguila Blanca: It wasn't open carriers who cuased the problem, it was RKBA and OC activists who caused this problem. If an occasional person wandered into an occasional Starbucks with a handgun on his/her belt, a couple of bedwetters might have been uncomfortable, might even have left the store, but nothing would have happened.

But the activists weren't happy with being allowed to live and let live. They had to rub people's faces in it. That created a backlash, and forced the CEO into a corner.

Yes, the strength, severity, and degree of a response will vary according to the frequency, intensity, and total occurrence of the stimuli.

 

[vaeevictiss]

I disagree.

It wasn't open carriers who cuased the problem, it was RKBA and OC activists who caused this problem. If an occasional person wandered into an occasional Starbucks with a handgun on his/her belt, a couple of bedwetters might have been uncomfortable, might even have left the store, but nothing would have happened.

But the activists weren't happy with being allowed to live and let live. They had to rub people's faces in it. That created a backlash, and forced the CEO into a corner.

I have always maintained that zealots of any persuasion are a danger to mankind. This is an example.

Perhaps, but the open carriers made it a point to show they were open carriers by specifically creating "appreciation" days that stressed just that.

I know there are open carriers that want a coffee and just carry regardless where they go, but I have also witnessed people that are open carrying just so they have a reason for an argument or confrontation like they feel the need to prove their rights to the people that really couldn't care less about them.

Some of these people were the same ones to cross that line of civility and, at that point, maturity, and started carrying long guns...i mean friggin really?!

How stupid does someone have to be to actually walk out of their house like that and think "well this will help our fight" (this also brings me to my personal belief that some of those stupid open carriers are actually antis trying to make us all look stupid).

 

[shortwave]

While I understand your position I do not personally agree with it. Starbucks as a business can dictate what folks do in their stores as it is their right. But outside of their stores they have no business in my affairs.

Starbucks is not trying to pry in our business outside of there stores and I didn't imply that they did nor do I think they have the right to do so.

I personally think we as a group would be far better served to organize(show who we are on a large scale) than to do all of the in fighting that I see on this board and many others. All this does is distract us from the core issue of our collective rights.

You may be right but that is not what happened with this Starbucks fiasco which was held on private property's without the expressed consent or approval of the owner/owners. And just because these clowns that did this happen to like firearms as I do, does not mean I will automatically have their backs.
They were as wrong as two left feet.

We're free to demonstrate in this country but there's a way to do it and hopefully reap positive reaction and there's a way to do it that will surely reap negative reaction. With the Star bucks thing, I guess we are currently seeing how not to do it.

From the onset of this thread, I have stated I am not against OC. Never have been. Even as I choose not to OC, I have no right trying to tell someone else how to responsibly carry or live until it infringes on my rights.

Just like I referred to in an earlier post, I'm glad I wasn't sitting in a Starbucks and had a member of my family swept by one of these long gun toting fools. You could bet it would have probably made the news cause I would have probably called the law myself.

If Aguila Blanca would be so kind to let me quote him...

It wasn't open carriers who cuased the problem, it was RKBA and OC activists who caused this problem. If an occasional person wandered into an occasional Starbucks with a handgun on his/her belt, a couple of bedwetters might have been uncomfortable, might even have left the store, but nothing would have happened.

But the activists weren't happy with being allowed to live and let live. They had to rub people's faces in it. That created a backlash, and forced the CEO into a corner.

I have always maintained that zealots of any persuasion are a danger to mankind. This is an example.

...this mirrors my feelings as well.

Perfectly stated Aguila Blanca

 

[Closing The Gap]

The overall point of my post is that many won't take the suttle hint that Starbucks is giving, learn from their mistakes and curb their ridiculous behaviour.

I guess I misunderstood this statement.

Those sure have been having the desired effect, haven't they?

You may be right but that is not what happened with this Starbucks fiasco which was held on private property's without the expressed consent or approval of the owner/owners. And just because these clowns that did this happen to like firearms as I do, does not mean I will automatically have their backs.
They were as wrong as two left feet.

That's not the type of demonstration I meant. What I mean is something along the lines of organized charitable work or community service. A mass clean the highways effort by gun owners or helping the homeless. Something that may be deemed newsworthy without controversy and show us in a good light for a change. Not just showing up somewhere uninvited and showing off yer guns.

 

[Tom Servo]

It wasn't open carriers who cuased the problem, it was RKBA and OC activists who caused this problem.

I'm an RKBA activist. I've contributed thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of my time to 2A causes. I've recruited, trained, and lobbied.

I'm sure as heck not responsible for this. In fact, I found myself being accused of failing to support the 2A when I warned people that this was a bad idea. Ironically, none of those people could claim that they were involved in our cause in any other aspect beyond strolling around with guns.

How stupid does someone have to be to actually walk out of their house like that and think "well this will help our fight"

It was never about helping our fight. It was about the personal gratification of certain selfish, short-sighted individuals. It was about a mindset that prioritizes publicity stunts over real work. If someone cares about the 2A, there are plenty of effective, uncontroversial ways of doing so.

Of course, those don't produce selfies and YouTube videos for people to cheer at.

And Blanca, I'm sorry if I seem to be stereotyping, but that mentality seems to be held by almost all of the open-carry types I've spoken with. I've no doubt there are some good ones. Perhaps a well-meaning movement has been co-opted by zealots, or perhaps the good ones are simply the minority. I don't know. From where I'm seeing it, the movement is doing more harm than good.

I wish I could say this incident will get them to reconsider, but sadly, I know better.

 

[Closing The Gap]

My point is that there are always going to be fringe elements. But why should we allow them to get all of the attention? Why not stop griping about them and do something positive.

My business(pornography) has a stigma. My hobby(guns) has a stigma. I do all I can to fight those stigmas. Unfortunately in both areas there are those insiders who would cast me out for my choices. Hypocrisy is my biggest pet peeve.

I intend to put my money where my mouth is... What exactly I am going to do, I can't quite say yet. But what I am not going to do is simply sit here and gripe about what others are doing while being complacent. I hope there are enough moderate, respectful gun owners who would join in and help.

Edit: this was not directed at Tom's post above.

 

[shortwave]

Perhaps, but the open carriers made it a point to show they were open carriers by specifically creating "appreciation" days that stressed just that.

You think that it might be better said, that: "Their foolish pride basically angered people that don't believe in being disrespected nor having firearms waved around them while they are trying to relax and drink a cup of coffee"

or maybe

"Their foolish pride angered management at Starbucks by making them feel as though there private property was a staging ground for the next big political gun debate of which Starbucks does not want to be involved"

Just Maybe???

 

[shortwave]

That's not the type of demonstration I meant. What I mean is something along the lines of organized charitable work or community service. A mass clean the highways effort by gun owners or helping the homeless. Something that may be deemed newsworthy without controversy and show us in a good light for a change.

You may just have something there Closing the Gap .

That's a good idea.