In case you missed it, last Saturday was "Starbucks Appreciation Day." No, it was not a gesture of support from lovers of strong coffee (like me). The "appreciation" was on behalf of Americans who believe it is their sacred right to have a handgun with them wherever they go - even to carry it openly to make sure the rest of us know who are the real defenders of the Second Amendment.
The "open carry" movement has been convening groups of its followers to meet up at restaurants and coffee shops, with pistols, revolvers and ammo hanging from their hips. Two major retail chains who were "open carry" targets (so to speak) - California Pizza Kitchen and Peet's Coffee & Tea - reacted quickly by announcing strict "no guns" policies. Starbucks, on the other hand, has earned the "appreciation" of the gun-toters by becoming the "safe house" for the "open carry" movement.
Starbucks' official response has been to offer the assurance that it will "continue to adhere closely to local, state and federal laws" on this issue. This is an evasion, not an answer.
The fact is that Starbucks would also "adhere closely to local, state and federal laws" by prohibiting guns on its premises. The law allows Starbucks and other retail businesses to make their own policy on guns. Starbucks has made a choice to recognize the rights of a few gun extremists to show off their weaponry in its stores and ignore the rights of the vast majority of its customers to enjoy their coffee and muffins free of the fear, intimidation and risk of violence inherent in the "open carry" experience. Starbucks seeks to hide behind "local, state and federal law," but in truth, there is no place for it to hide.
For a glimpse into its future as the corporate best friend of the gun-toters, Starbucks should consider the experience of a California restaurant chain, Buckhorn Grill. On February 6, a Buckhorn restaurant in Walnut Creek, California, was visited by about 100 men carrying their highly-visible guns. A recent New York Times editorial said this must have "looked like a casting call for a Sam Pekinpah shoot-'m-up." Shortly thereafter, Buckhorn's management made clear that the restaurant had always had a "no weapons" policy and apologized for the "misunderstanding" that had led to the "open carry" event. How many gun carriers need to show up at Starbucks for the company to realize what a nightmare it is creating for its customers and employees?
The issue here is much bigger than Starbucks and involves more than just "open carry." Starbucks' new gun-wielding friends envision an America in which guns permeate American society. A pitched battle is underway that will determine whether their vision is realized. It started with the gun lobby's largely successful campaign to make it easier to obtain a license to carry concealed weapons in public. Now the "gun rights" extremists are trying to break down the barriers limiting where concealed weapons can be carried. As of this week, with the shameful acquiescence of the Obama Administration, loaded guns will be allowed in national parks for the first time since they were banned by the Reagan Administration. In over twenty states, the gun lobby has tried, and thankfully failed, to pass legislation to force colleges and universities to allow guns on campus. The battle continues.
It may be that "open carry" will turn out to be the "secondhand smoke" of the gun debate. On the tobacco issue, it was one thing for people to subject themselves to the unhealthy effects of cigarettes. It was quite another for the effects of smoking to be so visibly inflicted on non-smokers. Smoking in public became a new, and transforming, focus of the debate, leading to far-reaching restrictions on where people can smoke.
On the gun issue, although the carrying of concealed weapons in public subjects everyone to enormous risk, the risk is, by definition, concealed. Perhaps this is why my tobacco-growing home state of Virginia now no longer allows restaurant customers to smoke, but will allow them to carry concealed weapons (and may now be poised to allow them even to carry concealed in restaurants that serve alcohol!). "Open carry," unlike concealed carry, confronts everyone with the risks of guns in public, in a very direct and highly-visible way. We can only hope that the "open carry" movement will backfire, bringing our country back from the brink of the "guns everywhere" vision of America now being foisted on us by the NRA and the most dedicated supporters of its extremist agenda.
Over 27,000 Americans so far have signed the "no guns" petition circulated by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and CREDO Action calling on Starbucks to keep guns out of its stores. Please join them by going to www.bradycampaign.org. Tell Starbucks that, in your America, parents ought to be able to take their families into coffee shops without facing the intimidation and danger of guns.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's new book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy.
The only thing causing fear is anti-gun hysteria itself. I have carried openly on a couple occasions (not Starbucks) and nobody gave me a second glance. They assumed I was a cop (including a cop) because I don't dress, act, talk like a nutball tea bagger.
Maybe what needs to be regulated is the creepiness and or stupidity of 2nd Amendment, single-issue activists who carry guns openly to make a political statement rather than a bona-fide need to carry for personal security.
Did it ever occur to anyone that if more people carried openly, crime would plummet because of the visible deterrent? Don't you think people would get accustomed to seeing handguns in plain sight just like they are accustomed to it in rural areas?
The root issue here isn't Starbuck's policy. The root issue is that gun control advocates have an irrational fear of a mechanical device called a firearm, which without criminal intent, is no more dangerous than an automobile.
I have no plans to carry in a coffee shop but I applaud Starbucks' decision to respect local laws and not cave to anti-gun hysteria. My guess is any boycott of Starbucks will last about as long as the time caffeine withdrawal takes to kick in.
"You have not taken an oath to protect me, and it is not your job to carry it."
No one in the US has taken an oath to protect individuals. Even the police don't take such an oath, and the Supreme Court has ruled that they do not have a duty to protect individuals. However, each of us has the right to do the job of protecting ourself. Therefore, it IS my job to carry my means of self-defense.
"Don't question my fear that you may be a little "off" or triggerhappy, or that I may get caught in some crossfire between you and some other open carrier who thinks your double latte is actually his."
You are correct, your fear shouldn't be questioned. It should be treated and cured.
We win, you lose, Starbucks doesn't want to play, now let's get to work.
But PLEASE, we are in the first world, in the 21st century, and you feel the need to openly display a DEADLY WEAPON. You have not taken an oath to protect me, and it is not your job to carry it. Don't question my fear that you may be a little "off" or triggerhappy, or that I may get caught in some crossfire between you and some other open carrier who thinks your double latte is actually his. That is just as reasonable, and I daresay, to most evolved people, far more reasonable, than whatever fear leads you to think you might just have to gun someone down at a Starbucks! I fear the weapons I see. You fear the possibility of weapons.
The difference is, I don't have a constitutional right to drink coffee without apprehension. So I will vote with my feet. Luckily, you can't swing a dead (by natural causes) cat in my town without hitting an alternative coffee house.
It is because of your second amendment rights, that you still have the freedom to say that.
Correct on both counts.
I carry a firearm to protect me, not you.
It's not my job, it's my Right.
That's your choice.
Just don't mess with my Rights.
I myself would never carry a gun. But I really don't see the point in railing against Starbucks for simply following the law of the land, as in the consitution.
Criminals will carry guns whether it is allowed or not, with or without a permit, whether they can legally buy them or not. Those who would use guns to hurt others will always be able to obtain them and will use them regardless. The only people that gun control laws truly prevent from owning or carrying a gun are the law abiding ones, and law abiding citizens are not a threat to anyone.
4 dollars for a cup of coffee is criminal.
Uh oh.
There are more guns in America than people.
According to you, virtually all of them are defective.
Uhhhhh...it is perfectly legal to carry loaded weapons in state parks.
Not sure where you are getting your info, but it is wrong.
Personally I see absolutely no reason to do that and have zippo fear of guns. However, I would be wary of the mindset of the idiot carrying an open gun. Anyone who feels that need must live in a fearful demon haunted world. I call it “frightened little man” disease.
So, if these “little men” are challenged for a fight they will kill someone instead of a fair fight. As I say “little men” and cowards to boot.
Shooting, let alone killing and “unarmed person” likely would trigger a family law suit and probably end up in prison time. Fearing for your life(in your mind) from a fist fight with an unarmed man does not justify killing him and would be a huge over reaction and excessive use of force. Keep your bravado to yuppie Star Bucks or perhaps The Gap type ladies stores.
"A roving band of men with guns spread across Baker Beach in San Francisco on Saturday. But most beachgoers didn't even notice, even with the weapons visibly holstered.
The men, after all, had come to pick up trash and, in the process, quietly preach their gospel."
"Brad Lawrence came to Baker Beach on Saturday so he could take video of people bathing nude, which is common in the north section of the beach. But it was too cold for the bathers, and in their place, Lawrence saw the men with guns.
"I was shocked," said Lawrence, 37, who lives in the adjacent Sea Cliff neighborhood. "I'm afraid of guns."
Whatever happened to the old beach where one could be a peeping Tom in peace?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/27/BAVJ1C8CE6.DTL
oxymoron