Closing The Gap
New member
I believe this to be more accurate.
Last edited by a moderator:
Starbucks: no more open carry
- Thread starter SHE3PDOG
- Start date
- Status
I believe this to be more accurate.
Contributing money to the legal branches of gun rights organizations is perhaps the best way to support the 2A without causing any controversy whatsoever. Regardless of how anyone feels about certain groups, there is power in the immense numbers that some of them claim for membership.
Organizing stuff like what Closing The Gap mentioned is bound to bring about some much needed positive publicity. I can't think of anyway that it could be turned against us, but perhaps I'm being short sighted.
I'll add that contacting your representatives is also a good way to support the 2A if you have neither the time nor money to do the above things.
Someone mentioned that Dunkin' Donuts also allows open carry. Starbucks is probably a lost cause by now, but if these types of rallies continue on at the other locations, nothing good can come of it. There are other ways to support the 2A without changing the public perception of gun owners for the worse.
The sad thing is that this scenario had already been played out once and apparently nothing was learned the first time.
Here's a story about 2 businesses which previously had no openly stated policy came out publicly against open carry after rallies started becoming popular in the area.
http://blog.sfgate.com/scavenger/2010/01/29/peets-and-cpk-tell-open-carry-customers-no-guns-allowed/
Eventually there was enough public outcry that CA banned all forms of open carry to put an end to it.
It would probably be smart for local gun clubs/organizations to do highway cleanups--especially in the areas where it is possible to sponsor a length of highway and get a sign put up telling who's responsible for that section of highway.
That would be a situation where the persons doing the cleanup could carry openly (where legal) and yet remain not only completely benign but also have the potential to create positive publicity. It would be highly unlikely for that sort of thing to be perceived as threatening or alarming in any way and yet it would be high-profile and the persons involved would obviously be involved in work that benefits the community.
It's not as fun or as easy as drinking coffee, but sometimes worthwhile endeavors require a little effort.
Andy Blozinski
New member
For several unrelated reasons, you'll never find me in a Starbucks. That being said, I see no practical reason why a long arm is required for portable self defense. If I were in a Starbucks and someone walked in packing an AK-47, I'd be a moron not to at least immediately wonder if bad stuff was about to happen.
That being said, let me make it clear I also own an AK-47 and it was used for real to deal with multiple home intruders. So, I'm not trying to get righteous on people who own assault rifles. I just don't think it's smart or polite to take it to the grocery store when I can pack a .357 magnum and nobody knows.
That being said, let me make it clear I also own an AK-47 and it was used for real to deal with multiple home intruders. So, I'm not trying to get righteous on people who own assault rifles. I just don't think it's smart or polite to take it to the grocery store when I can pack a .357 magnum and nobody knows.
Incase someone did not know this, most of the open carry using rifles has taken place in Texas. Citizens are open carrying their rifles because Texas directly violates the second amendment and does not allow open carry of pistols. On top of that, Texas requires its citizens to ask the state government to have the right to conceal carry. Having to ask the government for permission to exercise your right is tyranny. That is why they are open carrying rifles. Most of these people would not normally carry a rifle around.
Based on some people's views of open carry is bad because it makes people nervous, let me give you this scenario.
Our local rivers flooded this weekend, so three of us kayaked the one that is usually too low to travel on. Rivers are a public waterway. I have worked on most of these ranches and know the families of these ranches. We were 14 miles into our trip and I saw one of the landowner's wives walking her dog near the river. I could see she was spooked, so I said "hello Mrs ....". She answered back "who is that?" I guess she couldnt see us very well. I said "it's W...... V......" She said hello back and then we stopped and talked for a few minutes. I could tell she was very nervous that people were kayaking down the river in the middle of nowhere. Her family moved from Odessa last year and we are the first people she has seen come down the river in a year. She was very concerned about her safety and started asking me who all knows about this river and questions like that. She knows my family well and my wife is best friends with her daughter in law. She suddenly was worried that people were going to start coming on to her land and camping and leaving trash and so on. Based on her reaction, does this mean that because she was uncomfortable with people legally kayaking a public water way, we should give up our freedom that we enjoy? Should the government step in and tell us we cannot travel on a public waterway just so that landowners whose property touches that river will not feel unsafe. I am not talking about private property rights, but I am relating this to those who think we shouldn't open carry so that we don't upset people based on their unwarranted fears.
This lady in particular is very nice, but I think had she not known me, she would have called the game warden without good reason.
Based on some people's views of open carry is bad because it makes people nervous, let me give you this scenario.
Our local rivers flooded this weekend, so three of us kayaked the one that is usually too low to travel on. Rivers are a public waterway. I have worked on most of these ranches and know the families of these ranches. We were 14 miles into our trip and I saw one of the landowner's wives walking her dog near the river. I could see she was spooked, so I said "hello Mrs ....". She answered back "who is that?" I guess she couldnt see us very well. I said "it's W...... V......" She said hello back and then we stopped and talked for a few minutes. I could tell she was very nervous that people were kayaking down the river in the middle of nowhere. Her family moved from Odessa last year and we are the first people she has seen come down the river in a year. She was very concerned about her safety and started asking me who all knows about this river and questions like that. She knows my family well and my wife is best friends with her daughter in law. She suddenly was worried that people were going to start coming on to her land and camping and leaving trash and so on. Based on her reaction, does this mean that because she was uncomfortable with people legally kayaking a public water way, we should give up our freedom that we enjoy? Should the government step in and tell us we cannot travel on a public waterway just so that landowners whose property touches that river will not feel unsafe. I am not talking about private property rights, but I am relating this to those who think we shouldn't open carry so that we don't upset people based on their unwarranted fears.
This lady in particular is very nice, but I think had she not known me, she would have called the game warden without good reason.
Open carry, when done inappropriately, makes people nervous.
It's really not a matter of open carry being bad, it's that it can have negative effects when it's not done prudently.
There are all kinds of things that are bad if not done prudently but that are just fine if done in an appropriate manner.
First of all, if someone walks in to a place of business with an unslung long gun, any fears the occupants feel would NOT be unwarranted. It's not normal behavior and it is cause for alarm. Even gun shops generally require that guns be cased before entering.
Second, whether the fears are unwarranted or not, if enough people are frightened/upset/enraged/whatever, it can lead to the laws being changed to become more restrictive. It's already happened in CA as a result of an open carry push that took place there. In a misguided effort to expand OC and to educate the public, OC activists began holding rallies in public businesses.
Initially some businesses changed their policy to prevent OC on their premises, but eventually it became problematic enough (in the eyes of the public) that it was banned entirely.
Let's face it. virtually NOBODY, not even LE normally carries a rifle to a coffee shop and that's a huge part of the problem.
Vurtle,
Your posted scenario is not unique to Texas.
I live in the country in Ohio in the middle of the woods. Seeing people walking around here toting long guns is an everyday thing. Seeing people run up and down these country roads on ATV's or tractors with long guns in scabbards or slung over their shoulder is no big deal either. No one even gives a second look. Hearing people shooting at targets around here is as common as when I lived in the 'hood' and the gangs shot at each other.
But I assure you that if one were to go in town and walk into the bank or a store with a long gun, they would be met with a different acceptance. Even if everyone in the bank in town lived out here where I do and used to seeing it out here. Why? Cause it's just not normal behaviour.
There was once a thread here on TFL in the Hunting forum talking about pro hunters versus anti hunters. And what pro hunters sometimes do that unnecessarily aggravates the anti hunting crowd.
The subject came up about hunters being on a hunting trip, shooting a deer, field dressing it and later, going in a restaurant and sitting at a table without washing up first. Having blood all over their clothes and up to their elbows. I remember sitting reading the thread and while most posters agreed that this should not be done , a few of the posters commented trying to defend actions like this and a few just took the stance that other people in the restaurant should just look away if they didn't like it.
In other words, the attitude of:
"I don't care if actions like this may hurt public opinion of all hunters. I'm not breaking any laws , I'm gonna do what I want and screw whoever doesn't like it".
In the general publics eyes, that attitude hurts all us 'barbaric' hunters and is the same attitude that was taken in the Starbucks scenario which,in turn, hurt all gun owners as well.
It's all about common sense and respect for others in which there surely seems to be a lack of with some in the gun owning/hunting community.
Your posted scenario is not unique to Texas.
I live in the country in Ohio in the middle of the woods. Seeing people walking around here toting long guns is an everyday thing. Seeing people run up and down these country roads on ATV's or tractors with long guns in scabbards or slung over their shoulder is no big deal either. No one even gives a second look. Hearing people shooting at targets around here is as common as when I lived in the 'hood' and the gangs shot at each other.
But I assure you that if one were to go in town and walk into the bank or a store with a long gun, they would be met with a different acceptance. Even if everyone in the bank in town lived out here where I do and used to seeing it out here. Why? Cause it's just not normal behaviour.
There was once a thread here on TFL in the Hunting forum talking about pro hunters versus anti hunters. And what pro hunters sometimes do that unnecessarily aggravates the anti hunting crowd.
The subject came up about hunters being on a hunting trip, shooting a deer, field dressing it and later, going in a restaurant and sitting at a table without washing up first. Having blood all over their clothes and up to their elbows. I remember sitting reading the thread and while most posters agreed that this should not be done , a few of the posters commented trying to defend actions like this and a few just took the stance that other people in the restaurant should just look away if they didn't like it.
In other words, the attitude of:
"I don't care if actions like this may hurt public opinion of all hunters. I'm not breaking any laws , I'm gonna do what I want and screw whoever doesn't like it".
In the general publics eyes, that attitude hurts all us 'barbaric' hunters and is the same attitude that was taken in the Starbucks scenario which,in turn, hurt all gun owners as well.
It's all about common sense and respect for others in which there surely seems to be a lack of with some in the gun owning/hunting community.
Last edited:
gaseousclay
New member
agreed. it seems to be a culture of "Me, Me, Me," and everyone else be damned. I'm perfectly fine with concealed carry and even OC where it's acceptable and legal, but when someone OC's purely to agitate non-gun owners and gun-owners alike it truly does a disservice to those of us in the gun community.
OldMarksman
Staff
That is a personal opinion, but it is invalid: the question has been adjudicated, and it has been determined that neither the prohibition of open carry of pistols of pistols nor the requirement for a permit to cary violates the rights of Texas citizens.
.In the event that one of those incidents should result in the death or serious injury of someone carrying a long arm in the wrong place at the wrong time, triers of fact would have to determines whether it involved "unwarranted fears", or a reasonable belief that the injured person had presented an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
The way some people on this board describe the prevailing prosecutorial climate in Texas, one might think the latter to be the more likely outcome.
I think I see the problem here.
People fail to understand that the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. They are worried that the government is going to take away or regulate their rights. Guess what? They cannot take away your right to keep and bare arms. They cannot regulate how and where you carry your arms. Only private businesses and properties can regulate that on their premises. We are to keep our government in line and to not let them infringe on our rights. Where are the patriots who will stand up to tyranny? Did the founding fathers fight a tyrannical government with "legal process". Hell no they didn't. They stood strong and said "We will not let you violate or natural rights. We will not let you abuse our freedoms!" Young men stood in the way of cannonballs flying at them so that you can have the rights you have today. Do not be the cowards who let the government take away your natural rights! Do not be afraid to stand for your rights!
People fail to understand that the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. They are worried that the government is going to take away or regulate their rights. Guess what? They cannot take away your right to keep and bare arms. They cannot regulate how and where you carry your arms. Only private businesses and properties can regulate that on their premises. We are to keep our government in line and to not let them infringe on our rights. Where are the patriots who will stand up to tyranny? Did the founding fathers fight a tyrannical government with "legal process". Hell no they didn't. They stood strong and said "We will not let you violate or natural rights. We will not let you abuse our freedoms!" Young men stood in the way of cannonballs flying at them so that you can have the rights you have today. Do not be the cowards who let the government take away your natural rights! Do not be afraid to stand for your rights!
OldMarksman
Staff
How so?
You obviously do not understand Article V of the Constitution of the United Sates of America. The Constitution can be amended, and the Second Amendment can be repealed.
You either have not read, do not understand, or do not accept the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller.
No matter. It is that ruling that counts, and your baseless opinion does not.
I'm not sure what it is you are advocating, but if it is the continued use of adversarial tactics and antagonistic behavior, you need to understand that one very predictable result is the potential enactment of further restrictions on the carrying of firearms.
I didn't know so many gun owners were just as passionate about their coffee as they are about guns!!!
Perhaps I should open a gun-friendly coffee chain called "GunBuck's Cafe" and compete directly with Starbucks - that is what Gunbroker did to Ebay, right?. I bet I could get free advertising if I encourage antis to picket in front of my shop too! A target with a 6-shot 1 inch group will get you 50% off a large coffee of your choice AND you get to pin your target on the Wall of Fame. Ahhhh, just dreaming.......
Perhaps I should open a gun-friendly coffee chain called "GunBuck's Cafe" and compete directly with Starbucks - that is what Gunbroker did to Ebay, right?. I bet I could get free advertising if I encourage antis to picket in front of my shop too! A target with a 6-shot 1 inch group will get you 50% off a large coffee of your choice AND you get to pin your target on the Wall of Fame. Ahhhh, just dreaming.......
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Bare?
It's BEAR!
It would be an interesting case if someone walked into a mall or church with an unslung AR and was shot by a CHL.
I'd bet the jury would let you go in TX, if you were even prosecuted (depending on county).
Next, if the posts tend towards some kind of armed action - the thread gets closed and the poster may find himself or herself out the door.
It's BEAR!
It would be an interesting case if someone walked into a mall or church with an unslung AR and was shot by a CHL.
I'd bet the jury would let you go in TX, if you were even prosecuted (depending on county).
Next, if the posts tend towards some kind of armed action - the thread gets closed and the poster may find himself or herself out the door.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Respectfully, Vurtle's opinion is not invalid. I have stated before and I will likely state again that the SCOTUS is simply wrong on the 2A and the RKBA.OldMarksman said:
What you are referring to, I believe, is the current view (as expressed by Justice Scalia in Heller) that the RKBA is subject to reasonable restrictions. Other decisions have held that the government may "regulate" the mode of carry but may not ban it ... thus, where a state allows concealed carry they may ban open carry.
However, none of that can be found in the Second Amendment. Regulation = restriction = infringement. The 2A does NOT say that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be "unreasonably" infringed. The 2A IS a blanket prohibition on the government's restriction (regulation) of the keeping and bearing of arms. As my Zen teacher used to stress, "That's what is." The fact that the SCOTUS has chosen to interpret it otherwise doesn't change what the 2A so clearly states. It just means we still have a lot of work to do.
And I don't see how anyone can argue that it is constitutional for a state (like Texas) to prohibit ALL modes of carry unless you first obtain a permission slip from the state. That's not "regulating" carry, that's TAXING carry. Even Ohio understands that ... which is how Ohio came to have a concealed carry license. Unlicensed open carry is legal in Ohio, as it is in Pennsylvania and a number of other states that requires licenses/permits for concealed carry.
Isn't that what we call the "Supreme Law of the Land"? Didn't our founding fathers not only establish the Constitution, but also established the Supreme Court? Or, do we just pick and choose which things the Founding Fathers stood for in supporting only those things we like and agree with?
- Status