Ok Jeff, Thanks for taking the time to find it and posting it here.
I have not received a reply to mine yet, but I didn’t send them an email because I never did find their email addy. I left them a T.Y. message at their home page contact space, so I may not ever get a reply..
Their answer to you is kind of a non committal middle of the road response isn’t it? They don’t say they are absolutely going to support 2nd. amendment, but rather just tell you what their safety policy is. It sounds like a “please all” response.
It reminds me of an answer I received from one of my Senators (a newly elected liberal Dem.) re: 2nd amendment. He said he would follow the laws, blah, blah, blah, but did not actually give me a straight answer about where he stands on the 2nd. amendment. It was a non-committal letter that he could just as easily be sending to all the members of the gun control Brady Bunch. It said “something” but it said “nothing” at the same time. I’m sure you have received them from your reps before, the kind of letter a “politician” sends when they don’t want to lose any voters on either side lol Like they think we don’t know what game they’re playing ha ha ha
May your aim, and eyesight always be true my friend….

Stephaan, I fully understand their position. By taking the middle road they have incensed the anti-gun establishment which suits me just fine. It is the fact that they haven’t given in to the antis that pleases me and I’m just fine with that. Always shoot straight and true my friend.

Stephaan,
Our paper ran a picture of a starbucks Saturday and it showed a father holding up his baby boy and on his hip was an auto!!!! They had a write-up about how they have decided to follow the laws. Quite a good picture, a good statement also!!!

Monkey votes with his wallet. Like Whole Foods, I occasionally patronize them. Presently I patronize Whole Foods MORE than I did before after being attacked for its Libertarian views.

Mind your OWN business, treat your people properly, provide great products, make a decent profit, and control your costs.

Though pricey, I will make a point of supporting Starbucks if they follow the law and mind their own business

Right on Old Monkey!
Voting with your wallet is the ONLY THING businesses understand, and I as well as every other 2nd. amendment supporter on here applaud you. I’m not familiar with “Whole Foods Company” but if we had them here I would support them. Your post, and others on here about certain stores not allowing weapons carry, and other stores no longer selling guns in their sporting goods departments like->(FRED MEYERS, ANTI 2ND.AMENDMENT company) will prompt me to call my friendly Albertsons Food Store tomorrow, and ask the manager where they stand on this issue. Thanks to you and all the others for bringing this up.
I hope everybody else does likewise with EVERY BUSINESS THEY PATRONIZE!

p.s.
In case any of you missed it, FRED MEYERS STORES ARE ANTI-2ND. AMENDMENT.

If your gun is concealed, how would they know you have it on you? I would rathe have a law-abiding citizen who is legally carrying a concealed weapon on the premises in case a person with criminal intent carrying a weapon comes on the premises.

American Citizen;
Some of the conversations on here are discussing “concealed carry” and some are about “open carry” so it IS confusing. The best way to determine which are talking about which, is to start above and re-read down, and even then it can still get muddled.

I agree “concealed carry” is better in most cases for all the reasons posted on here, and also because of the unfair stigma that is attached to guns by the left wing liberals that makes a few “gun fearing” people go into liberal socialist, anti-2nd amendment convulsions at the mere sight of one.

In big cities I think “c c” is a must, because people are just not used to seeing guns all the time, (some have NEVER seen a gun except on TV) but in many smaller cities and towns (where I live) it is quite normal to see a person carrying open.

Rick;
Some good points there, but I was not advocating that the 2nd amendment supporters show up at Starbucks carrying guns to protest against the anti-gun protesters. I would recommend that NOBODY be carrying in that scenario, as the LSM would just portray us as red neck, gun toting radicals. You know that is how they would spin it.

I agree that supporting Starbucks and every other pro 2nd amendment supporting business, with emails and phone calls AND our business is a great idea. As soon as I get off this blog I am going to look up their email addy and send them a thank you, as well as pass it and this story along to all on my email list.

My differing opinion as to yours, is this: If I have learned anything from life it is that “the squeaky wheel, ALWAYS gets the grease”! The liberal socialists play this game incessantly!

Whatever the loudmouth protesters are protesting, THEY GET THE MEDIA COVERAGE! The illegal aliens protesting for amnesty, while flying their Mexican flags above ours ON OUR SOIL where they are residing illegally, the anti gun nut cases screaming for more gun control, the list goes on and on, but I think you get my drift.

By us just sitting and writing letters, instead of going out and showing the media that there is an equal, or larger group of people on the PRO side of the 2nd amendment issue, we are missing a big opportunity. Otherwise, what are the lame stream media to surmise? That there are no supporters of the 2nd.amend.? This is how they will “rationalize it” “spin it” They ALWAYS do this.
We can’t leave it all to the NRA, SAF, CCRKBA, and GOA. They can do it for us in the courts, but are we too lazy to do our part?
We need to be willing go out and stand face to face with the anti-gun zealots for our belief in the 2nd amendments, and show the media that we have as many, or more numbers, otherwise we are just dropping the ball. My best example: Look at what the T.E.A. parties have accomplished.

I fully agree with you, and would have no problem exercising those rights.

Stephaan, please accept a thousand apologies. I misunderstood your post about standing opposed to the anti-gunners as having a show of force while carrying. My bad. I do agree with you whole-heartedly that we need to be more vocal in our defense and I agree wholly yet again with the previous posts here about “using our wallets” to voice our positions. The bottom-line is all corporations and small businesses alike understand is how much money they are making (or losing). Again, I apology for misunderstanding your previous post.

No apology necessary Rick. I did not say “unarmed” in my first post, I was just assuming you could read my mind lol… Going armed for a “2nd amendment support” protest would be the last thing I personally would do, because I am very sensitive about the Constitution and especially the 2nd amendment, and those anti-2nd liberal — trying to subvert it would probably set me off, and I would most likely be the first one to lose my temper and start shooting those idiots if they started a riot.
I would much rather kill them slowly, one stroke at a time with a base ball bat. The enjoyment lasts a lot longer that way ‘-)

Rick, A protester doesn’t have to engage it’s opponent to be effective.
I agree that going to an anti-gun protest with the intention of facing off with those idiots is a no-win situation.
BUT – going with signs and guns is can be very effective. Especially is the protest is silent.
And, if the Brady Bunch chides or heckles the pro-gunners IGNORE them,
Think about the affect that would have. If the news media were there and showed the anti-gunners LOUDLY protesting and the pro-gunners quietly/peacefully carrying their signs and NOT engaging in yelling matches – who’s going to look like the loonies?
If the media asks for comments one person should be designated to speak for the group and everyone else should refer the report(s) to them.
That person, then, could keep the answers short and controlled. No yelling (except to be heard over the din made by the anti-gun nuts).
The phrase “Silence is golden” could have a tremendous impact if used properly. Just sayin’ ;0)

Tom, the problem is how the LSM misconstrues their coverage of any public demonstrations peaceful or otherwise. If it doesn’t align with their idealogy they cut off the interview and make some remark that the “angry mob” doesn’t even know what they’re talking about. Remember the interview/coverage by that female reporter in Chicago last year at the TEA Party rally? I think she was either NBC or MSNBC but the fact is in the end she ended up showing the country what she and her news organization was really about. They were about informing the viewers with what they wanted the viewers to know. And if that means distorting the truth, telling falsehoods, and denying the opposition a chance to rebuke their accusations then so be it. I don’t know about you but it reminds me of what USED to be taught in our schools about world history……..specifically, Communism and their methods of propaganda distribution.

Rick;
If the owner of your favorite restaurant requires you to disassemble your weapon before you can bring it into his establishment, then HE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE 2ND AMENDMENT! He has attached HIS OWN SET OF RULES TO IT!
And what good does it do you to carry a disassembled “INOPERATIVE” weapon anyway? If you happen to need your weapon in “serviceable” condition to protect yourself or other patrons while you are there, what are you going to do? Ask the criminal to PLEASE WAIT while you go out to your motorcycle, retrieve your slide from the saddlebag, reassemble your weapon, and return to face him? That is absolutely ludicrous! That business owner DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT!
How do you feel about only being able to carry the frame, or the slide into this business establishment? It is TOTALLY WORTHLESS THAT WAY! What are you going to do if you ever need it? Are you going to THROW IT THEM?
Wake up Rick, and tell this restaurant owner that HE IS INFRINGING on your 2nd amendment right, and you will go elsewhere for lunch if he doesn’t let you carry it assembled and in serviceable condition! A disassembled, inoperative gun is as WORTHLESS as a gun without ammunition. It is no better than a rock or dirt clod.
That guy is IGNORANT!

First of all Stephaan, I understand why he has the policy he has. His customers range from young to very Senior and he used to allow the carry of weapons in his establishment but started to receive concerns about allowing weapons inside. Especially from the elderly. I can understand his position on the matter because if he loses their patronage then a good share of his business is lost. He told me that if it weren’t for that he wouldn’t have the ban in place. Secondly, the establishment is very small where everyone quickly gets to know each other and it has never had any history of trouble. Finally, the owner himself has guns and a permit and that’s only because of the need to make deposits after closing time. So to say that he doesn’t support the 2nd amendment just isn’t true. He just has to be pragmatic in the matter and protect his investment. Unfortunately that sometimes means falling back on the old saying “the customer is always right”.

One final point here Stephaan. You asked what good does it do to carry an “inoperable/disassembled weapon?”. Simple, I’m not carrying at that point for protection. I could just lock the entire weapon in my saddlebag but parking is reserved for bikes in the front and in full view of anyone inside looking out so rather than simply lock an “assembled” weapon in my saddlebags where everyone can see me doing so I try to minimize any potential threat should someone just walk out, pop the lock and grab the weapon. To further minimize any problems I lock the frame in the bag while placing the slide/barrel and loaded clip in my vest/coat pocket. Since every legally sold gun generally has a ballistics test from the factory associated with every barrel prior to sale, by keeping the barrel on my person minimizes the risk of it getting into the hands of someone who could just find another frame for it and use it in an illegal act. Does this satisfy your question?

Rick;
No it doesn’t really satisfy my main question/statement because it only explains why you are satisfied with the situation, although I can now understand why you are comfortable not carrying in this “low crime” establishment.
However the fact remains that this hypocritical business owner is enjoying HIS 2nd amendment right because he has HIS GUN on the premises, BUT DENIES YOU THE RIGHT to have yours! This is the part that is difficult for me to understand, and also WHY YOU WOULD PUT UP WITH THIS? Is the foot that good?? This is exactly how the liberal socialists apply the rules, regulations, laws, the Constitution, AND THE 2ND AMENDMENT, to the rest of us! It’s OK for them, but NOT OK for us!

A second point/question: The whole idea of “concealed carry” is that your weapon is suppose to be “concealed”! Not visible to anybody. How is he, or any of these “older people” going to know that you, or anybody else, are even carrying? Doesn’t this make his rule moot, or is he going to search everybody upon entering? How did these “older patrons” even know that anybody was carrying, and cause him to make this assanine rule in the first place?
I carry large sums of money in and out of my bank from time to time, & I asked my bank if I could carry concealed inside their bank, and if they had metal detectors that I couldn’t see. They said yes I could carry as long as it was “concealed”. Do you see the irony here between my bank and your restaurant? My bank who could have hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake supports my 2nd amendment right, and your restaurant does NOT support yours.
Whether it is an issue of concealed carry or open carry, any time you are denied either, it is an infringement of your 2nd amendment right. .

sorry, on the 7th line down my post is suppose to say::
“is the (food) that good” lol?

It is the owner’s right to run his establishment as he sees fit. Of course, you might think that also would apply with smoking. I guess it just depends on whether a person believes in property rights or not. Liberals don’t.
I would just avoid the establishment as others have suggested.

Rick, I don’t know where you’re from, but here, we can’t carry guns into any establishment in which 40%, or more, of it’s revenue is from alcoholic beverages.

Ha ha ha ha
Also makes ignorant criminal sticks afraid to do lots of other things too, like break into your car, car jack you, break into your house, rape your wife, murder your kids, wife, and entire family, rob you on the street……. The list is endless..

Daniel, you mean well, but the 2nd Amendment refers to the people. It would make no sense to say that the feds can’t ban guns but the states can.

Bull! The Constitution gives the Federal Government only limited powers, and gun control wasn’t one of those powers. It would make no sense at all to go to the trouble of establishing a Bill of Rights which applied only to the Federal Government, when the Feds weren’t given the power to usurp those rights in the first place.
Notice that the Liberals don’t question whether Freedom of Speech, or Search and Seizure rules apply to the States.
Liberals will stretch and bend the Constitution any way they can to get their way.
Leaders will always push for Absolute Power, that is the nature of the beast. And it is up to the citizens not to allow them to get away with it.

Stephaan, kudos to you. If a business doesn’t want guns in their establishment, that is their prerogative. However as you said, it is also the choice of those that do support the 2nd Amendment to choose who they do business with.

Good Job, Stephaan. It’s about time we show them that Liberals aren’t the only ones who can boycott. I recently dropped State Farm as my insurer of 16 years because they caved to the Color of Change and quit running commercials on the Glenn Beck show. I told them they lost me when they messed with my Freedom.

I think you are wrong about that as I have recieved an email response from them, after sending a thank you email. If you have a link to back that up, could you provide it please?