The Starbucks Coffee Company has become the subject of national media attention because some gun activists have decided to wear their guns openly, with loaded ammunition magazines close by, in Starbucks stores in California.
Starbucks says it doesn't want to be embroiled in the gun laws debate. I don't blame them for wanting to avoid controversy -- but they can't be left out of it. By choosing to appease these gun rights demonstrators -- demonstrators whose antics make many gun owners in our country blush -- they have put the concerns of the rest of their customers aside. By allowing guns in its stores, the company is jeopardizing the safety of its customers and employees.
That's why we have asked concerned citizens to sign a petition urging Starbucks to change its policy. That's why we've posted on our website a sample letter people can sign and give to the manager of their own local Starbucks, asking them to tell the company to change the policy. And we're just getting started spreading the word about this issue. Sorry, Starbucks.
Starbucks says it is simply complying with the law. But it would also be complying with the law if it barred guns from its stores. Peet's Coffee and Tea and California Pizza Kitchen, both of which banned guns after these demonstrations began, also are complying with the law. The law allows Starbucks to set the basic rules for its property. The issue is not the law. The issue is Starbucks' choice to allow guns in its stores.
Starbucks says it does not want to have to bar customers who are abiding by the law. But when Starbucks bars someone who is not wearing a shirt or shoes from its stores, or ejects someone who is loud and offensive, it is barring a customer who is abiding by the law. It is not against the law to dress differently or to exercise free speech rights, but it may be against company policy.
Retail businesses have the right to set policies that go beyond the minimum requirements of the law in running their businesses. Starbucks has a policy that endangers its customers and employees, particularly since there are virtually no restrictions on who can openly carry guns -- no permits, no training, no proficiency requirements and no knowledge of the laws is required. And since law-abiding gun owners can drop, lose or unintentionally misuse guns, allowing openly carried guns in Starbucks is bad policy. (Indeed, just this past September a gun activist at an "open carry" picnic was charged with reckless use of a firearm after his gun went off in a parking lot.) As long as it maintains that policy, we will be critical of that policy.
The gun extremist want an America where there are guns everywhere: not just in coffeehouses, but also in bars, churches, parks, banks and classrooms.
By capitulating to the gun extremists because they want this issue to "go away," Starbucks has made a hazardous mistake. Having seen what the gun pushers demand when they are given an inch, I again urge the company to reconsider its policy.
Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on blog.bradycampaign.org and the Huffington Post.
Paul is not going to be happy.
Yep, they sure do.
They can also defer to local and state law, which is what Starbucks is doing.
Get over it, you lost.......again.
Have they been bought off by the NRA as well?
They sent out a ten-point thesis paper for the 2008 presidential election, basically to smear Obama. Six out of these points were outright |ies, two were debatable, and only two were true.
Since I campaigned for Obama, and most of my neighbors are die-hard pro-gun people, I did call the IRA out on their papers. I wrote an email, got a formal reply, and then called there several times. I finally got to talk to a high-ranking person and questioned them about their false talking-points. I had him cornered to the point where he actually had to admit that the NRA is spreading BS. End of story was, this:
"The paper is approved by Mr. DeLapierre, so basically we consider it true."
Thank you!
Right back at you.
BTW , You might want to look up current US Code Title 10 Sec 311
ALL US Male Citizens age 17 to 44 are AUTOMATICALLY considered part of the unorganized militia.
--Tao21Zen
Yes, anti-gunners would.
That is why their ideology is an evil that is being stamped out, slowly but surely.
It's one thing to pay an arm and a leg for a latte, do I really need to put my life at risk for their drinks because someone with compensation issues feels the need to play Dirty Harry?
Given that "crossfire" has yet to occur, your concern does not appear to be rational.
"It's one thing to pay an arm and a leg for a latte, do I really need to put my life at risk for their drinks because someone with compensation issues feels the need to play Dirty Harry?"
To what "compensation" issues do you refer, and to whom do you refer?
So the question is, in such a situation where you have someone entering a premises and open fire on those there, would one prefer for that person to be the only one armed. In Incidents like the Virginia Tech Shooting and the Luby Cafe Massacre in Killeen Texas, when the mass shooters where the only ones armed, the death toll body counts was 32 and 23, respectively. However, in Salt Lake City Mall shooting, the New Life Colorado church shooting, the Pearl High School Shooting, the Appalachian School of Law shooting, (and others) where at least one armed citizen was present to intercede, the death toll were 5, 2, 2, and 2, respectively.
Emotionally charged rhetoric aside, I would would rather be in the later category where fewer people are killed.
It really opened my eyes.
Murder, felonious assault, manslaughter, rape, domestic violence, kidnapping, road rage, aggravated robbery, drug dealing, gun smuggling, terrorism, you name it.
Mass murderers Christopher Spreight (whose victims included three children), George Sodini (The Gym Shooter) and Nidal Hasan (who killed 13 soldiers and wounded 29) all had CCW's.
Between 2007 and 2009 seven police officers were killed in the line of duty by individuals with CCW permits.
Now am I saying that all CCW permit holders are criminals - of course not. What I am saying is in many of the cases reported you have individuals who either didn't have the emotional or mental control to deal with an interactive situation that needn't have ever become violent. Because of their severe lack of emotional maturity they thought that if they had a firearm that people would be more likely to take them seriously. They create altercations because they have their "iron teddy bear" with them and allow the situations to come to a violent end.
I know a number of conservatives that have swore off Starbucks for their image as being a company that caters to liberal ideology. They have all "changed their tune" and started patronizing Starbucks based on (1) its embrace of celebrating Christmas instead of the "happy holidays" political correctness (our local one even had christian Christmas carols playing) and (2) its recent announcement that it will defer to local and state laws regarding firearms possessions on its property, rather than trying to dictate behavior through its own internal policies.
I would more than happy to trade out more of your kind with more of our kind. :-)
http://www.wreg.com/news/wreg-man-with-knife-shot-dead,0,2103052.story
----------
Police say a man with a knife raced through the parking lot just after 3:00 p.m.. Witnesses say the man chased a delivery driver and others, but was killed when he tried to lunge his knife at one driver leaving the parking lot. The driver pulled a gun and killed his attacker on the spot.
"I just seen him shoot down. I thought he was just shooting in the ground. Obviously, he was shooting the gentleman with the knife," says Byron Cook who watched the ordeal from start to finish, along with his three year-old grandson.
Witnesses say two little girls were inside the car when the attacker lunged at the driver.
"He had his two step-daughters in the car with him. So, he really was trying to look out for them when he shot him," says Brandon Jones, who says the girls appeared to be younger than ten. "Yeah, they saw everything that happened. One of them was real shaken."
.
Witnesses say the shooter was stabbed, but appeared to be okay. Police have not released the name of the attacker.
----------
Would the anti-gunners here have preferred this step-father of these little girls (both under 10) had been unarmed and unable to defend these little girls?
ECS
http://www.wreg.com/news/wreg-man-with-knife-shot-dead,0,2103052.story
---
Police say a man with a knife raced through the parking lot just after 3:00 p.m.. Witnesses say the man chased a delivery driver and others, but was killed when he tried to lunge his knife at one driver leaving the parking lot. The driver pulled a gun and killed his attacker on the spot.
"I just seen him shoot down. I thought he was just shooting in the ground. Obviously, he was shooting the gentleman with the knife," says Byron Cook who watched the ordeal from start to finish, along with his three year-old grandson.
Witnesses say two little girls were inside the car when the attacker lunged at the driver.
"He had his two step-daughters in the car with him. So, he really was trying to look out for them when he shot him," says Brandon Jones, who says the girls appeared to be younger than ten. "Yeah, they saw everything that happened. One of them was real shaken."
.
Witnesses say the shooter was stabbed, but appeared to be okay. Police have not released the name of the attacker.
---
Would the anti-gunners here have preferred this step-father of these little girls (both under 10) had been unarmed and unable to defend these little girls?
I hope they continue as each and every time they respond in this manner, those who are 'sitting on the fence' lean more towards the side of firearm rights. If this is typical of the types of responses Starbucks is receiving, I'm sure they will continue to follow the law in lieu of the inconsequential 'protests' being staged outside a few of their stores.
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:SBUX
(choose the 1month option)
Haha... Starbucks' stock has been steadily on the rise since Paul's condemnation of their firearms in store policy.
The lamest, most puerile response is to scream, "You're no conservative!"... just because I express aversion to being in a Starbucks full of people carrying rifles around... as if walking around brandishing your firearms (as everyone well knows, one needs one's rifle to bag a Cappucino...) were the whole meaning of a coffee break.
If anyone's interested in whether I'm "conservative", read the record of my posts. Otherwise (with ALL due respect), shut up.
If any of you screechers really is a conservative, I presume you care more than a jot about private property and its associated rights. If Starbucks had an ounce of common sense, they'd prohibit entry into their store with visible firearms. If state law allows concealed weapons, so be it - but then, what are we talking about? No one's complaining (try to keep up) about Starbucks customers legally carrying concealed weapons (see... because no one sees them... am I going too fast?).
BUT, just as I have the right to say, "You can't enter my home carrying that bazooka" (that's my constitutional RIGHT - do you CARE about that, conservatives?), Starbucks has the RIGHT (the lie here being their pretence that they DON'T) to say, "No, sorry, that's not going to happen in our store."
If I went too fast for you, go back and review.
As I have pointed out, anti-gunners only care about 'private property rights' when it is in support of property owners banning guns on their property. When private property owners support firearms on their property anti-gunners look to have laws passed to prevent this.
In the same fashion, Paul only cares about "States right to legislate its own laws" when the laws desired add to the already numerous anti-gun laws on the books. When States prefer to use their "state's right to legislate its own laws" to pass more gun-friendly laws, anti-gunners look for federal anti-gun laws to be passed that States' would have to comply with.
Most states differentiate between banrdishing, carrying, and transporting. Please learn the difference.
"No one's complaining (try to keep up) about Starbucks customers legally carrying concealed weapons "
Actually, yes they are.
"Starbucks has the RIGHT (the lie here being their pretence that they DON'T) to say, "No, sorry, that's not going to happen in our store." "
And conversely they have a right to not say that. But their exercise of that right seems to really torque Helmke and the gun control crowd.
BTW, many of us here who are pro-2nd Amendment and pro-firearm are not conservatives.
That depends on the state you're in, sometimes the city.
Texas only allows concealed carry, Wisconsin only open.
Some states require a permit for either way.
Several states follow the Constitution, not interfering with citizens' rights.
Imagine if driver's licenses were that way, or marriage licenses (oh, wait - that's already happening), or meeting friends for coffee.
You'd have to keep a list of which states honor your state's driver's license, and pay for training and licensing in other states if they didn't but you wanted to drive there. Then you'd have to remember which states drive on the left, which on the right, where is the red light stop and where is it go.
Or say you're in CA & you want to meet some friends at Starbuck's. You have to apply for a state permit, undergo a background check, pay a fee, & wait 7 days once the state ok's your permit before you can get together, then you're only allowed to have a total of 4 people.
When you travel to GA, you can meet without a permit, but only once a month, and the limit is 10 people.
In VT, there's no restriction - you can have as much coffee as you want, of whatever type, with however many friends you can fit into the coffee shop.
Crazy? Yep. And it's what gun owners have to deal with.
If any other fundamental right were treated the same
How? Someone carrying a gun for self-defense is only a danger to criminals who intend to harm or kill her. Citizens with concealed carry permits are far LESS likely than the average person to be arrested for anything, let alone a violent crime.
Multiple victim public shootings drop in states that pass shall-issue CCW legislation. (4)
See:
1) An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Carry Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population, William E. Sturdevant, PE, September 11, 1999
2) Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in San Antonio Express-News,
September, 2000
3) Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report, Florida Department of State, 1998 – Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, December 1998
4) Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement, Lott John R., Landes William M.; University of Chicago – covers 1977 to 1995
While one of the robbers was escorting a 71 year old man into a restroom, he thought to be executed, the 71 year old used his own legally carried firearm to defend himself. He killed one and wounded the other robber. Later, the other robber was charged with the murder of his partner in crime.
http://www1.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/MI53001/