Starbucks: no more open carry

[zukiphile]

Starbucks had a reasonable and respectable policy and the zealots had to turn their businesses into the front lines of their personal war.

Starbucks still has a reasonable and respectable policy, i.e. that it is acceptable to them that people carry in their stores, that a carrier is to be welcomed and served as usual and is not to be confronted by staff.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Now it comes down to a question of legality, Tom.

Oh my, yes, they said pretty please with sugar on top!

Sorry, but until they stop being wishywashy and actually make a decision, I'll continue to exercise my rights under the law and according to my conscience.

I never participated in any of these open carry "appreciation days" because I saw them to be counterproductive.

I have a LOT less respect for Starbucks now than I did before.

What they are trying to do (what they've done all along, really) is straddle the fence and offend no one so that everyone will keep buying their coffee.

They're still trying to straddle the fence. Sorry, but I don't intend to smash my ghoolies trying to straddle it with them.

The entire line of "we don't take a position because it's up to the legislators to take that position," simply does not wash because legislators in many CCW states have already given the store the recourse they need to follow if they don't want guns in their stores.

Sorry, but homey don't play that game.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Starbucks still has a reasonable and respectable policy, i.e. that it is acceptable to them that people carry in their stores, that a carrier is to be welcomed and served as usual and is not to be confronted by staff.

Starbucks now officially has a "No Guns" policy, that they are currently choosing to not actively enforce.

It's not acceptable to them that people carry guns in their stores. If I asked you not to bring a gun to my house but told you I wouldn't have you arrested if you did, would you think I thought it was acceptable for you to bring one?

Whether or not we might see that as "reasonable" absent any other consideration, it is a lot less friendly than the previous policy. The previous policy was brought to an end by the unreasonable action of the Open Carry zealots. Not the regular guy who chooses to open carry but the same guys who ended open carry in California and wear a kydex wrapped AR-15 in downtown Nashville.

Most of use don't consider a policy of "No Guns" to be very reasonable. Starbucks is doing their best to make both sides happy, still, which is a little surprising in itself but I don't think "No Guns" is very reasonable under most circumstances.

Truth be told, it's probably more reasonable than I would have been though.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"It's not acceptable to them that people carry guns in their stores. If I asked you not to bring a gun to my house but told you I wouldn't have you arrested if you did, would you think I thought it was acceptable for you to bring one?"

If your house were open to the public as a storefront operation, had large amounts of cash laying about, and had no security at all?

You're damned right I'd bring a gun.

Sorry, but your argument simply does not fly.

Corporations are NOT humans. You don't have houses in 50 states and who knows how many countries.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

That's not the point, Mike.

If I tell you not to bring a gun to Point A but I won't have you arrested you if you do, am I "gun friendly"?

It's not about business versus residence.

It's not very gun friendly and it's undeniably a lot less gun friendly that their previous, completely neutral stance.

 

[Tom Servo]

What they are trying to do (what they've done all along, really) is straddle the fence and offend no one so that everyone will keep buying their coffee.

And I understand that. Their business is to sell coffee. They're not in the politics game. We forced them into it, and they're trying to find a way out without telling us to take a hike.

If I were in Schultz's shoes, I'm not sure I'd have done much differently.

In other news, Shannon Watts is taking credit for the policy change on the Million Moms Demand Thousands of Stuff site:

Because Starbucks is a business icon, this policy change represents a sea change in American culture, which is finally shifting away from allowing guns in public places. Much like smoking was once accepted on airplanes and drunk driving was abided without severe penalties, it is becoming passé for gun advocates – who may or may not have background checks, training or permits – to bring their weapons to public places.

This Saturday is apparently going to be "Celebrate Starbucks Saturday."

 

[zukiphile]

Starbucks now officially has a "No Guns" policy, that they are currently choosing to not actively enforce.

It's not acceptable to them that people carry guns in their stores. If I asked you not to bring a gun to my house but told you I wouldn't have you arrested if you did, would you think I thought it was acceptable for you to bring one?

There is no evidence in this thread that Starbucks has a "No Guns" policy. On the contrary, the evidence of the release above is that their policy is that carriers will be welcomed and served and are not to be confronted by staff. If that is a "No Guns" policy, it is exactly the sort of private party firearm restriction I can live with.

It is literally acceptable as a matter of Starbucks' written policy that people carry within their stores. They explicitly accept it.

What did they do for carriers before this? Was my coffee free if they saw my firearm?

Since this organization will treat a carrier exactly the same way after this announcement as it did before this announcement, it is not a change in policy at all.

 

[lcpiper]

Actually I find much of that memo ambiguous. It's written like a FAQ, question and answer style, and where some questions make a specific point of addressing issues as Open Carry situations, answers to those questions lose that distinction and become much more casual and vague.

I was not really familiar what all happened or how long it's been going on. I agree that the people involved behaved poorly and displayed poor judgement. But it seems StarBucks let this drag out far too long and should have reacted immediately.

From the outset Store Managers should have confronted demonstrators immediately,

"If you are here to buy coffee then by all means come on in and be served, but if you are here to demonstrate please do it somewhere else, this is a business, not a pulpit."

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

There is no evidence in this thread that Starbucks has a "No Guns" policy.

Wow. Really? I'm not going to keep bantering such nonsense back and forth.


This is like Mitt Romney trying to spin his concession speech into victory dance.

There's a photo posted of their OWN LETTERHEAD that specifically says "We are respectfully asking our customers not bring weapons into our stores." It didn't occur to me that just because I won't be arrested and/or kicked out of the store, just how friendly that really is!

That's not a No Guns policy? You've got to be kidding.


Look what Tom Servo posted from the Million Moms response. Sure sounds like they think it's a really Pro-gun stance, eh?

They used to be neutral. Their officially policy is now No Guns (or any other weapons).

Man, I'm glad we won that fight! Here I thought being told to please not to bring my gun seemed like I wasn't allowed to bring my gun!

Clearly, I was mistaken.

 

[zukiphile]

Wow. Really? I'm not going to keep bantering such nonsense back and forth.

Yes, really. You are under no obligation to respond.

There's a photo posted of their OWN LETTERHEAD that specifically says "We are respectfully asking our customers not bring weapons into our stores." It didn't occur to me that just because I won't be arrested and/or kicked out of the store, just how friendly that really is!

That's not a No Guns policy? You've got to be kidding.

That is incorrect. I don't have to be kidding.

Brian, what is the difference in the policy for treatment of an armed person before and after this letter?

If it is the same, this isn't even a change in policy; it is a public relations letter, the likely intent of which is to avoid making their business a battleground for a civil rights argument.

Letting you come in, with an instruction to staff to welcome and serve you, and an explicit prohibition on confronting you is not reasonably described as a No Guns policy.

 

[Tom Servo]

This is like Mitt Romney trying to spin his concession speech into victory dance.

...and we've got binders full of gun people who aren't getting it.

Notice this part of the memo:

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.

That can easily be read as, "as soon as they show their butts, we can say we gave them a chance."

And show their butts, gun people will. This has already been proven. While I doubt Ms. Watts or her organization had a direct influence on this decision, she claims that it will morph into an actual ban within 12 months' time. I think she's being conservative.

This is why we can't have nice things, people.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"That's not the point, Mike."

Actually, it now very much IS the point.

The entire premise of the conversation has shifted.

It's no longer about whether Starbucks allows or doesn't allow firearms.

It's now about the response and responsibilities of gunowners based on applicable state law.

If Starbucks is NOT prepared to take a stand as it is defined by law, I'm not prepared to give a damn what their internal "policy" may or may not be.



Regarding Starbuck's "policy..."

A policy is a principle or protocol to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes.

Based on that, Starbuck's statement is not a No Guns Allowed policy because there is absolutely no emplaced mechanism for them to enforce it.

Will they post their stores according to applicable state laws? No.

Will they ask armed customers to leave? No.

Starbuck's statement cannot be claimed to be a No Guns Allowed policy because there is no mechanism in it for guiding decisions by store staff and there is no achievement of any rational outcome (i.e., making thier stores gun free).

Thus, Starbucks has no No Guns Allowed policy. They have a corporate statement that is essentially meaningless.

 

[dakota.potts]

As I said, there are those of us who believe in open carry as a right and an effective means of self protection.

Many of us who did tried to talk demonstrators out of doing so with AR-15s (which we know scare people) and flags and turning it into a big issue.

My philosophy has always been, if you honestly feel you can best protect yourself by open carrying an M60, you should be allowed to do so.

But these protests were dishonest. There's a difference between open carrying one day where you run into grab a cup of coffee and going to sit outside with video cameras and activist group T shirts.

It was ours to lose. All we had to do was not screw it up. It's almost comical (yet too sad) how we did the one and only thing they told us not to do like some kind of 4 year old children.

I would like to think that in an open carry state, I could still open carry into Starbucks, grab my coffee in a reasonable manner, act politely and leave. I believe this would happen -- if only we could trust the envelope pushers to back off.

As I posted in my open letter response, everything the demonstrators did was the right of a US citizen. Yet it was absolutely the wrong place and time. Starbucks aren't policymakers or political enemies (not until we pushed them anyways). They just wanted to remain neutral.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"They're not in the politics game."

And yet that is EXACTLY what they have been attempting to play all along, the politics game of Anti vs. Pro.

And this corporate memo (I'm not going to call it a policy because it isn't one) only indicates that they are STILL in the politic game.

If they were to take a firm stand one way or another, they would remove the element of politics.

But God forbid they potentially scare away some of their customers.

Yes, we brought this on ourselves by being silly about it. But with this memo, Starbucks is doing nothing to resolve the situation.

I'd have a lot more respect for them corporately if they would say "GTFO, you're no longer welcome and our stores are formally posted."

Right now it smacks of a weak and vascilating parent begging a misbehaving child to, well, behave.

Every time I go to a restaurant I see how effective that is...

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

And show their butts, gun people will. This has already been proven. While I doubt Ms. Watts or her organization had a direct influence on this decision, she claims that it will morph into an actual ban within 12 months' time. I think she's being conservative.

This is why we can't have nice things, people.

Absolutely agree on all counts.

Responsible (respectful) gun owners will do just as they request and not go inside their stores. Irresponsible and disrespectful gun owners will do what they did that brought about this policy change (but at least it's a pro-gun policy)and will intentionally carry openly into Starbucks stores just to show them "who's boss".

Starbuck's next step will be to actively enforce their No Guns policy, and who could blame them?

If I were in their shoes, I probably wouldn't have taken this intermediate step. It's good for PR though, as it seemed to have convinced a good many people on both sides that it's a victory.

 

[zukiphile]

But God forbid they potentially scare away some of their customers.

Yes, we brought this on ourselves by being silly about it. But with this memo, Starbucks is doing nothing to resolve the situation.

I'd have a lot more respect for them corporately if they would say "GTFO, you're no longer welcome and our stores are formally posted."

They do not want your respect; they want your money.

I get the sense that some of you believe this memorandum, tailored for public release, manifests the deeply held convictions of its authors. That would fundamentally miss the point of a public relations proclamation, to avoid a controversy that does not benefit stockholders.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Actually, law abiding gun owners will continue to pursue their daily activities based on black letter state law.

Starbucks is the one that is being irresponsible by ignoring the relief granted to it under the laws of the various states in which they do business.

Hey Brian, Diane Feinstein has ask you repeatedly to give up your guns.

Are you going to be a disrespectful citizen and not acquiess to her wishes?

After all, it's REALLY all about being respectful and responsible, and what better way to show that you respect the wishes of the Senator from California, and to show that you are a responsible person, than to give up your horrid guns?

 

[Tom Servo]

They have a corporate statement that is essentially meaningless.

While it may be meaningless in terms of practical application, it still articulates their wishes.

That's what hacks me off. There's a Starbucks I go to four times a week. They're fast and efficient, and they're good people. I like them. In fact, I like them enough to have made a point of speaking to the manager about their prior policy (the "carry your gun but don't be a jerk about it" one) and telling her I appreciated their support.

(I wonder how many of the black rifle lookhowcoolIam Open Carry folks bothered to do even that.)

Now, the corporate office has decided they don't want me carrying there. I suppose I could mumble "concealed means concealed" and bear in mind that there are no legal penalties for carrying anyway.

However, if I do so, I'm telling them that what they want is irrelevant to me, and that I don't respect them. You may not want me to belch loudly at the dinner table. There's no law against it, and I don't think you'd kick me out for it, but if you've made it clear you don't want it, I'll skip seconds on the bratwurst.

So, yes, there's something to be said for courtesy and consideration. A huge lack of both got us into this, and if I continue to frequent them without respecting their wishes, it feels pretty darned questionable.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

This discussion has helped me immensely.

I've always got all these old people coming into the shop and trying to pay with exact change. It takes forever and drives me crazy.

I didn't know what to do about it until now, because I didn't want to make anybody mad.

What I'll do is advertise that no one over age 55 is allowed in my shop but I'll continue to serve them when they come in. Most folks over 55 will assume that they aren't allowed, you know because I advertised that part, but they won't realize that my employees have been told to just go ahead and serve everybody anyway because I didn't intentionally advertise that part, somebody leaked it. Sure, the folks on the AARP discussion forum will know but everybody else will think I have a ban on anyone over 55.

I won't even run afoul of any laws, since I'm not actually forcibly removing anyone from the store.

I could do the same thing with ALL the "Protected Classes". So long as I still serve them, I can tell all of them that they're not allowed and I know that most of them won't bother coming in anymore.

That'd be totally allowed, right? Since I'm not actually banning anyone? I wonder how those protected classes would feel about it? They'd probably think I was pretty nuetral, eh? Maybe even Pro-Protected Class?

 

[zukiphile]

...So long as I still serve them, I can tell all of them that they're not allowed

That is inapposite, since it isn't Starbucks policy that arms are not allowed.

However, if I do so, I'm telling them that what they want is irrelevant to me, and that I don't respect them.

I have a girl who makes my coffee and even brings it to me sometimes. I don't know what she thinks about firearms. I never thought to ask because her views on the topic are not relevant to me. That isn't a lack of respect, but a recognition of social limits.

Why should the girl at the coffee shop be different?