Starbucks: no more open carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see subjects at least as "goofy" in local gun shows. No everyone who supports 2d Am. rights or has a firearm is smart or a friend. That is a matter separable from a defense of the right itself.
Click to expand...

I agree that most that have attended gun shows have seen people 'mall ninja' attired and look, IMO,just as "goofy".
If we go to a gun show, we should expect to see people with guns, people picking guns up fondling them, etc. People attending firearm events are, for the most part, gun interested. It's a firearm event.

People go to Starbucks(or other public places) with a bit of a different mindset and don't expect to have to put up with someone walking around fondling their firearm.

Would it be fair to say that Starbucks line of thought BEFORE this (for lack of better words) flood by OC'ers to their stores was:

...Starbucks would not make it illegal ,would welcome and not refuse service to patrons responsibly carrying guns in their stores.

Now Starbucks thoughts AFTER the flood:

...We would appreciate people not bringing guns into our stores.

For those implying that 'a few bad apples' don't eventually ruin it for the rest of us, please note that Starbucks new line of thought affects all of us. The letter Starbucks put out does not say 'they do not want those that openly fondle guns in their stores' or 'if you can't use common sense while carrying in our stores you're not welcome.
They're new line of thought is directed to ALL gun owners.

And don't think for one minute that the anti's with the aid of most of the anti-gun media and this anti-gun administration will not hesitate to paint all gun owners with a wide brush using this whole Starbucks scenerio along with some of the ridiculous pics currently available on the net as us being an overbearing, disrespectful, 'bully' type group that has little respect for the general public. I think it would be a very safe bet that the wheels of the anti's are churning while we discuss this.

I can see the headlines now,

"Starbucks gave gun owners a chance to act responsibly and they blew it"...

... complete with pics. showing a moron weilding the dreaded 'black rifle' sitting in Starbucks lobby with a kid sitting at a table in the background. :rolleyes:

What is really sad is this warning shot across the bow to us gun owners by Starbucks will most likely not be heeded and the next step by Starbucks will be posting signs making it illegal to have guns on their property period.

When this happens it will be a more juicier chapter in the story for the anti's and yet a bigger switch for them to whip our butts with.

In short...we(a few gun owners with little to no common sense) are supplying the butt for the butt kicking contest.
 
Last edited:
There are places where OC is appropriate; but, it's not in downtown/urban settings.
Click to expand...

Oh, maybe that's seems correct for your view given where you live, but here in Arizona there is nothing wrong with OC anywhere except those places where it is expressly forbidden. And you can not predict when or where you might see someone open carrying and the one thing I have never seen is anyone making a fuss over it.

What is unacceptable in one area may be perfectly acceptable in another. For instance, how about a guy with his six-gun strapped to his hip in line at my bank? I have seen this frequently and it isn't discouraged at all, it just is.
 
Guess I will be going to Caribou Coffee.

I only open carry a few times a year while hunting.

I use to open carry twice a week as part of my plane clothes security job. One chic at a gas station had a meltdown. But after talking to her she was OK with it. Even invited her to the range where I was working part time to bust some caps. She explained that she was from the North East and was not use to seeing people walking around with guns strapped on. Her hands were shaking and her voice was shaking. You would have thought that I was dressed like Michael Myers and that she just ran into me in the shadows.

lol

:)
 
rawiron1 said:
I use to open carry twice a week as part of my plane clothes security job. One chic at a gas station had a meltdown. But after talking to her she was OK with it. Even invited her to the range where I was working part time to bust some caps. She explained that she was from the North East and was not use to seeing people walking around with guns strapped on. Her hands were shaking and her voice was shaking. You would have thought that I was dressed like Michael Myers and that she just ran into me in the shadows

:)
Click to expand...

Do you blame her for her reaction? For all she knew you were there to rob her. The gas station by my house has bullet proof glass because they've been robbed a few times.

But yes, in some areas like AZ open carry may be completely acceptable. In a lot of other areas around the country it isn't.
 
I use to open carry twice a week as part of my plane clothes security job. One chic at a gas station had a meltdown. But after talking to her she was OK with it. Even invited her to the range where I was working part time to bust some caps. She explained that she was from the North East and was not use to seeing people walking around with guns strapped on. Her hands were shaking and her voice was shaking. You would have thought that I was dressed like Michael Myers and that she just ran into me in the shadows.
Click to expand...

Now imagine what a girl like that would have done if an entire group of people had been their advocating for the 2A by open carrying all sorts of weapons. The thing is, there are a lot of people like her. They aren't used to seeing guns out in the open, but forcing that experience upon them is just going to make them fear it even more. I'd be willing to bet that very, very few people have been swayed by the actions of the open carrying demonstrators. Again, I'm not saying open carry is bad, but using it as a form of demonstration in mass groups like that is daunting to some people and hurts far more than helps
 
Stevie-Ray, IIRC the Starbuck's near Sandy Hook did specifically request no political demonstrations; I believe Starbuck's corporate reiterated that request.

That didn't work, so now we get this.
Click to expand...
I did not know that, there wasn't any postings or such in the Starbucks around here. This, as they say, "changes things." But, as I said, they were not likely to lose the sale of my occasional Mocha Frappucino.;)
Again, to me at least, the fact that Starbuck's is not posting their stores sends the hidden message, "we are not taking sides, just keep us out of it please." IE, conceal and be discreet.
Click to expand...
That's sort of what I'm thinking as well. The "no engagement" rule covers discreet carriers that may have been outed by someone only guessing. Again, as I said, I will continue to go there, seldom as it is, and I will continue to CC.
 
The appropriate place to open carry is in .... The United States of America. Why? Because it is our right to do so and several people have died for our right to do so. No matter what anyone's opinion or fear is, it is your right. We should not cower because of worrying about others unreasonable fear of guns. If you are worried about our rights being taken away, they can't. It is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Imagine if Rosa Parks decided to sit where they said she was suppose to just so that she would not make white people feel uncomfortable. But instead, people were uncomfortable by her choice and she stood up to those who denied her the right to be equal to all others.

Incase anybody has not read my previous posts, I believe unholstered and unslung weapons in public is foolish and will probably get you shot. I do not condone that behavior. Every business has the right to control what happens within the boundaries of their business and Starbucks has not done anything wrong to pro or anti gun groups.
 
If you are worried about our rights being taken away, they can't. It is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

This is how it is supposed to be, but our rights which shall not be infringed seem to get chipped away at more and more every year. I'm not saying that it isn't one's right to open carry, but doing so for the purpose of demonstration is unintelligent to say the least.

Picture this, if you can. You've never known much about guns aside from what you hear on TV and see in the movies, but one day while minding your own business at Starbucks, 8 guys with AR's slung across their back come barging in talking about how our forefathers would have started a revolt by now. While you may have not had much of an opinion before, you've now seen first hand what seems to you to be what gun owners are all about.

Someone in that situation is incredibly unlikely to accept an invitation to the range after such an event, and they will likely form their first impressions of all gun owners based around what they saw. That doesn't help.

An anti in that same position sees those same guys walk into Starbucks, immediately thinks they are all raving lunatics, and likely tells all of their friends, some of whom may be fence-sitters, about the experience while peppering it with a little of their own political views.

It also seems like most gun owners don't particularly promote this type of activity. I know if I were to see those same guys walk into Starbucks, I'd think they were complete idiots for doing something that seems so harmful to the very thing they are advocating.

Perhaps my opinion is somewhat warped, but that's just how I see things.
 
Sigh....too many times we (gun owners, supporters of 2A) shoot ourselves in the foot. It's a good thing when a company like Starbucks does not put up a stink about firearms being brought into their business. What happens? Some geniuses decide to go overboard and brandish firearms in public. Some of the pictures I saw made these people look like real bozos or some characters in a cafe in Beirut.
Maybe I'm being too harsh but if I (someone comfortable with firearms and a CC citizen,) would feel very uneasy being in a room with them, how would other customers feel? If I looked up and saw a person walking through the door with an AR-15, I might actually consider going for my gun and ducking under my table. Why couldn't gun owners just quietly thank them by buying their product? Stunts like this just reinforce the impression that some have that gun owners are nuts.
 
I did not know that, there wasn't any postings or such in the Starbucks around here. This, as they say, "changes things."
Click to expand...
This was the sign on the door of the Newtown Starbucks that greeted the Black Rifle Brigade when they showed up for Appreciation Day.

23096976_BG1.jpg


That's what made the news. The thousands of us who showed discretion and civility while frequenting their establishments didn't.

I'm guessing most previously disinterested parties took a look at that sign and thought "wow, thanks gun guys. You closed down my Starbucks."
 
The irony about protesting Starbucks by open carrying there is denying their right to establish their place of business. Even more ironic is they are the biggest pro gun company outside of the gun industry.... in that they dont care as long as you keep it concealed.

of all the places to further our cause, Starbucks is not the place. If we honored their request now, it would stay a victory for RTKBA.
 
I'm guessing most previously disinterested parties took a look at that sign and thought "wow, thanks gun guys. You closed down my Starbucks."
Click to expand...

...and most likely left that Starbucks, grumbling to everyone they came in contact with. Saying something to the effect of " Damn retarted gun owners, wished they would hurry up and ban all guns."

Then they went home all mad, turned on the local news and got to hear about all the gun related crime that happened that day.

Beautiful!
 
I'm not a fan of open carry. It is guaranteed to freak some people out and there are legitimate reasons for them to be freaked out about it. Heck, I'd be freaked out in some circumstances. If my weapon is concealed, I have my weapon if I need it and nobody cares because they don't know.
 
It is guaranteed to freak some people out and there are legitimate reasons for them to be freaked out about it.
Click to expand...

That would depend on where your at.
There are many places in the U.S. that OC is very socially acceptable.
People that live there are used to seeing people with a holstered pistol on their hip standing in the bank,store, gas station, restaurant, etc.

What WOULD probably un-nerve even a few of these people used to seeing OCers is if they were standing in line at the bank and a guy came walking through the front door with a long gun (or pistol) in hand.

Why?
They're not used to seeing it.

Since I have only visited a few places where OC was the norm... for those that live in a place like this, correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Last year when going through a security area with someone who was very verbally anti-gun..he complimented me for not being a gun nut and he was very relieved I wasn't packing.
Well, my wife had got me one of those holster shirts that was built for either handedness and thus could hold two pistols. I was curious how that would feel on an all day test and thus was packing both my .357 magnum and my Walther PPS the whole time during this.
He had no clue. He was happy and I was happy. It just works out so much easier for everyone when it's concealed.
 
Posted by Vurtle: The appropriate place to open carry is in .... The United States of America. Why? Because it is our right to do so and several people have died for our right to do so.
Click to expand...
The existence of a right is not a sufficient reason for doing anything.

No matter what anyone's opinion or fear is, it is your right.
Click to expand...
It is lawful in some jurisdictions and not in others.

We should not cower because of worrying about others unreasonable fear of guns.
Click to expand...
Prudent behavior and cowering are two different things

If you are worried about our rights being taken away, they can't. It is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
The Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to carry openly.

But if it did, that right could most certainly be taken away. Read and head Article V of the Constitution of the United States.
 
Vurtle said:
...No matter what anyone's opinion or fear is, it is your right. We should not cower because of worrying about others unreasonable fear of guns. If you are worried about our rights being taken away, they can't. It is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights...
Click to expand...
And that is the same sort of short sighted view that gave us Starbuck's most recent position.

  1. While the Supreme Court has agreed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, it is well established in Constitutional Law that constitutionally protected rights may, to a limited extent and subject to particular standards, be limited of regulated. The full scope and extent of permissible regulation of the RKBA is a long way from being fully worked out in the courts.

  2. Even though the Second Amendment protects (to some extent) the RKBA from government interference, it does not protect it from private action. The Second Amendment applies only to government and does not constrain private conduct. So business (unless prohibited by statute) can refuse admittance to persons bearing guns.

  3. Alienating other while proclaiming "it's my right" will not advance the interests of gun owners.

...Imagine if Rosa Parks decided to sit where they said she was suppose to just so that she would not make white people feel uncomfortable. But instead, people were uncomfortable by her choice and she stood up to those who denied her the right to be equal to all others...
Click to expand...
I'm going to propose the "Rosa Parks Corollary" to Godwin's law. If an extended discussion of this sort "advocacy" subject goes on long enough, someone will toss in an inapposite reference to Rosa Parks. Folks do so without really understanding the why such acts of civil disobedience were effective in the Civil Rights Movement.

  1. Effective civil disobedience during the Civil Rights Movement was part of a well orchestrated, well organized, non-violent, multilayered program reflecting good planning and political acumen. Consider Rosa Park's story.

    • Rosa Parks had a long history of being actively involved in the organized Civil Rights Movement:
      ... joining the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP in 1943, serving as the chapter's youth leader as well as secretary to NAACP President E.D. Nixon—a post she held until 1957...
      Click to expand...

    • At the time of her arrest Mrs. Parks was an adviser to the NAACP.

    • On 1 December 1955, Rosa Parks was the third African-American since March of that year to be arrested for violating the Montgomery bus segregation law. One was Claudette Colvin, a 15-year-old girl who was arrested some nine months earlier. E. D. Nixon decided that Claudette would be a poor "poster-child" for a protest because she was unmarried and pregnant.

    • The night of Mrs. Parks' arrest, Jo Ann Robinson, head of the Women's Political Council, printed and circulated a flyer throughout Montgomery's black community starting the call for a boycott of Montgomery's city buses.

    • Martin Luther King, Jr., as president of the Montgomery Improvement Association and pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, together with other Black community leaders, then organized the boycott of the Montgomery bus system. That boycott reduced Black ridership (the bulk of the bus system's paying customers) of Montgomery city buses by some 90% until December of 1956 when the Supreme Court ruled that the bus segregation laws of Montgomery, Alabama were unconstitutional (Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (1956)).

  2. During the days of the Civil Rights Movement of the '50s and '60s the acts of civil disobedience, violations of law, involved very normal, benign, human acts: taking a seat on a bus for the ride home after a hard day at work; sitting at a lunch counter to have a meal; a child registering to attend school; registering to vote; voting; etc. These are normal, every day thing that White folks took for granted. And it became profoundly disturbing for many White to see other humans arrested for doing these normal, benign things simply because of the color of their skin.

  3. Those acts of civil disobedience were favorably reported by the mainstream media, and favorably commented upon on college campuses and in sermons in houses of worship across the nation, helping to generate great public sympathy for the cause.

  4. During the Civil Rights Movement mainstream media was largely sympathetic. Today a mainstream largely hostile to the RKBA helps build fear and antagonism.

  5. A tired black woman arrested for taking a seat on a bus is something that many ordinary people could respond sympathetically to. Does anyone really think that a man criticized (or even wrongfully arrested) for the possession of a gun is likely to produce anything like a similar degree of sympathy in a non-gun owner -- especially after Columbine, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook?
 
I think some people fail to understand "the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed". To clarify, any law that regulates how you carry is infringing. Maybe some of the people here should become politicians. Seeing as how you can have something so clearly written and you still try to make it say something else.

I thought I was surrounded by patriots who stand for the constitution. I didn't think I was around people who would give up their libertys to help people "feel" safe and comfortable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top