Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Businesses Become Embroiled In ‘Open Carry’ Controversy

March 11, 2010 by  

Businesses become embroiled in 'open carry' controversy As proponents of carrying unconcealed handguns in public are fighting for the right across the nation, Starbucks and other chain stores have found themselves caught in the middle of the firestorm, according to media reports.

Recently gun-control advocates have petitioned the Starbucks coffee chain—whose policy is to comply with state open carry weapons laws, although it has the final say on its property—to ban guns on its premises, Fox News reported.

In the last few days pickets have been held across the country, including in Seattle where the company is headquartered, but Starbucks has reiterated its commitment to the policy, saying that banning guns at its stores might put baristas, or coffee servers, in danger.

"The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores," states the company’s official position, quoted by the news provider.

The developments are taking place as the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in one of its biggest cases in recent years, where the plaintiff in McDonald v. Chicago is urging the court to reverse the city’s 28-year-old handgun ban.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19652114-ADNFCR

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Businesses Become Embroiled In ‘Open Carry’ Controversy”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • JeffH

    The Brady Bunch is at it again, but a big thanks to Starbucks for taking a stand. Several weeks ago I sent an email to Starbucks to thank them for not caving in to the anti-gun establishment. I recieved a prompt response which said that Starbucks respects and adheres to the local and state laws. If it’s not against the law, then Starbucks doesn’t have a problem. Just another case of the liberal left Brady Bunch trying to impose their will on a law abiding business. Kudos to Starbucks for not caving in.

    • Tom

      I plan on buying all my coffee from them from now on. In appreciation for not buckling to the Brady Bunch.

    • DaveH

      They are already stepping on us with impunity. Imagine what the pushy, controlling Liberals would do to us if we were disarmed.

  • Jon Hutcherson

    I think it’s important to note that Starbucks hasn’t come down on either side of the issue. They have quite simply and rightly refused to discriminate against anyone engaging in legal behavior. It’s a sound business decision which we should be thankful for.

    • George Halepis

      Actually, they have come down on the pro-gun side. They stated that banning guns would put their employees in danger. Exactly!

      • JeffH

        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?

  • gus konstantaras

    What a wonderful country we have. The amendment rights given to us by our four fathers. Then there’s the Brady bunch who at all costs and tactics threatening to take them all away. I thank Starbucks for their fair and legal judgement to allow americans to excercise their legal and constitutional rights within the laws of the land. I rebuke the Brady Campaign and its benafactors. Paul Helmke needs to get a job because soon their will not be a job for him. Americans are becoming aware of the tactics that the Brady Campaign employ to bully in submission law abiding business owners. Brady bunch the days of your existancea numbered.

    • Ellen

      So thankful for our Country and the Constitution!! A Big Thank’s to people like Starbucks Standing tall For OUR AMENDMENT!! We all need to stand up and save America. Don’t kik it? They sell one way tickets, Bye-Bye.

  • ktras

    lokk

  • John in Springs

    Anyone who says that our right to keep and bear arms was granted us in the Constitution knows nothing about the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is a Natural right, not a granted right. The constitution only serves to guarantee that this right not be usurped.

    None of the rights that are “Protected” by the constitution are “granted” rights, because if they were, the government would have the power to remove those rights if it so chose.

    The way our founders wrote this wonderful document, seals that loophole by saying that these rights were endowed by our creator, not by the government. And that government only serves to protect these rights from abrogation.

    What Starbucks has chosen to do is right by me and I will hold them in a different perspective from now on.

  • independant thinker

    While I am in favor of both concealed and open carry I believe people should be careful about how they exercise that right. I am thinking about the large open carry demonstrations where the group goes into a business openly carrying their pistol. This caused some businesses who otherwise might not have done so to post signs forbiding open carry. In fact some have stated they were changing their policy because they were being used for the group demonstrations.

    • JeffH

      independant thinker, I don’t recall reading or hearing about “large demonstrations” of open carry walking into any establishments or businesses. I have read about small open carry groups exercising their rights without incident. In one case several years ago, there were some that went to PEETS Coffee and were asked to leave. They now get their coffee at Starbucks.

    • http://www.NRA.com Stephaan

      Ind. Thinker;
      You make a good point about big pro gun and pro carry demonstrations and the effect that they could have on certain businesses. However, I have not heard of any of these happening, and if any businesses posted no carry signs afterwords, then I would suggest that WE ALL BOYCOTT THOSE BUSINESSES, and start shopping at businesses that openly support the 2nd amendment and the Constitution.

      Remember what happened to Fred Meyer Stores during the Clinton administration when they quit selling guns because they didn’t want to take a “side” on Clintons gun control policies, and the 2nd amendment debate?
      In my opinion, a business who WON’T TAKE SIDES on the 2nd amendment issue, is just as bad as one who caves into the Brady Bunch, and the liberal socialists in government that want to ban all guns.

      I don’t drink a lot of coffee, but if any of my friends want to go for coffee, I guarantee you we will be going to STARBUCKS!!

      On the flip side, WE DON’T SHOP AT FRED MEYERS ANYMORE, and haven’t since the early 1990′s. Around 1994, the local F. Meyers had to close their home building supply department due to lack of sales. But no jobs were lost because a new Diamond Home Improvement Store opened about 4 miles away to take up the slack. I don’t know if F. Meyer had to close the rest of their sporting goods dept. because I haven’t been in there for years, but I’ll bet at the very least they have lost millions in sales statewide. A new Big 5 Sporting goods store opened up within a mile from F. Meyer store to handle gun sales, and other sporting goods for the area. I also do not shop for groceries at F. Meyer any longer, which used to amount to about $3500. per year per person. Again no jobs were lost, because a Wallmart store within 2 miles of F. Meyer expanded and opened a grocery store to fill the void.
      I no longer buy groceries, fishing tackle, boating equipment, or building supplies, or ANYTHING ELSE that F. Meyer sells, because they would not support the 2nd amendment, & no longer would sell me a gun. Multiply the money lost just from me over the course of 18 years, and then multiple that by (x?) number of people state wide, & nationwide, and you can see that their one ignorant decision has cost them a LOT OF MONEY! It was a stupid business decision when 75%-80% of the population believe in the 2nd amendment and private gun ownership.

      Locally, the only 2 places that ban firearms carry, are the Courthouse & the police department. If any businesses EVER posts “no carry signs” I “will carry” my business, and my weapon elsewhere to a business that supports the Constitution and the 2nd amendment!

      • JeffH

        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.

      • DaveH

        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.

  • CJ

    Like JeffH, I wrote to Starbucks and got the same response. I feel they should be able to sue the Brady Group for harassment.

    As for the Second Ammendment, I did some reading (NRA publications are great for this) and discovered there’s a long standing history of attempts to limit who the Constitution applies to. We have all these problems today because in 1833 the Supreme Court ruled in Barron v. Baltimore that it only applies to the Federal Government. Even with the 14th ammendment, there have been “adjustments” by later cases that really leave the Constitution’s application in question. This is why there’s so much fighting about this.

    I believe the Constituion applies to all, otherwise why would the fonders word it the way they did. There will always be a group who wants power so bad, they’ll lie to any level to get it. We just have to keep fighting.

    • Daniel

      CJ, you mean well, but the fact is the the Constitution was intended to be primarily a check on the FEDERAL government. That’s the reason for the 9th & 10th Amendments. Almost all of the document is concerned with what the feds can lawfully do, with only a few restrictions on the states. For the bulk of restrictions on state power, you have to look to the individual state constitutions.

      • George Halepis

        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.

      • DaveH

        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.

    • AJ

      I be leave the Supreme Court should repeal,over turn, amend the Barron v Baltimore case. This would solve a lot of problems. Good for STARBUCKS. I may have to start buying coffee again.

  • Raggs

    Thumb’s up to Starbuck’s

  • Charliebug

    I say we all boycott Starbucks, and make them an example.

    • JeffH

      Charliebug…an example of what? For being a corporation that adheres to laws?

    • http://www.NRA.com Stephaan

      Ummm Charliebug, YOU’VE GOT IT WRONG, unless of course you’re ANTI-2ND AMENDMENT. Read the article again. Starbucks is supporting the Constitution and the 2nd amendment!

  • Dale

    An armed society is a polite society . . .

    • DaveH

      Dale,
      I was talking to a friend about people being able to have guns in their cars and he said “If people are allowed to carry guns in their cars, I will be afraid to flip them off!”. I said “And that’s bad, why?”.

      • http://www.NRA.com Stephaan

        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..

  • Jim in NM

    Right on, John in Springs! Not very many people get the truth of our inalienable rights! To include the inalienable right of self defense, to defend the inalienable right to life. Without a means to defend, our inalienable right to life means very little without teeth to back it up.

    I have no info as to why Starbucks has taken this path, BUT, I comment them for taking the RIGHT path! I will visit their stores more often because their action, at the very least, recognizes the equality of all people under the law.

  • BOB

    Back Starbucks all the way, Back the constitution are the way, THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS applies to all legal citizens that have not commited crimes – it applies all places in all state – there should be no permit required anywhere – anytime – just be a good citizen.

  • Ellen

    Boycott – Carliebug! That lay back and take it, “Oh Goverment god” will kill us all. THINK thats why we all have brains.

  • laura

    What I don’t understand is, when we walk into a store say like Starbucks,Sears,Wall-Mart,Burger King, it’s not like we’re walking into another world like Wall-Mart Land or United Sears Kingdom we are still in the good old U.S of A. where the law is in effect, the law does not change just because I walk into another man or woman’s establishment.
    So I commend Starbucks guts for taking a stand and backing the law and not trying to under mind America.We’ve already had so many of our rights infringed upon, we have to take a stand. So I’m standing with Starbucks and all those who are with them. Oh ya they got great coffee too.

    • DaveH

      Laura,
      I respect a private establishment’s right to ban guns on their property. But I do think it would be counterproductive because the ones they really need to worry about don’t care about rules anyway.

  • http://gmail i41

    As for Wal=Mart, they will stop anyone carring a knife in a sheath, even if it a pocket knife. As for conceal carry, you had better have it concealed very good, because if you have ashoulder holster under your jacket , some manager or middle management wonk sees it or is informed about it, you are escorted out. I will not shop there!!!

    • Rick Quill

      As a carry permit holder I applaud Starbucks for standing up against the Brady Campaign and all the other far-left, progressive zealots who wish for nothing more than to destroy the very fabric upon which our country was founded. And a lot of them, I suspect, don’t even realize what their actions/beliefs are actually doing to ours and their freedoms. If they get their way they will eventually realize the consequences of their actions but by then it will be too late and those same people will be wandering around in a daze wondering what happened to their freedoms and how. I too did the same thing JeffH did and also received the same response from Starbucks. As for WalMart stopping anyone who is carrying I have not heard of any first hand experiences except for i41′s post. That said however, anyone who does have a carry permit and carries “SHOULD” be doing so in a concealed manner. It’s only smart for a couple of reasons: 1. There is no justifiable reason to advertise or bring attention to yourself, 2. If you do bring attention to yourself there may be someone who is tempted to try and get your weapon from you which could only end in a bad way, and 3. By displaying your weapon in any open area or place of business you are only showing a lack of sensitivity to adults and children alike who do not have an appreciation of the 2nd amendment or any kind of means for self-protection. Bottom line is if you are one of the extremely growing number of American Citizens that possess a carry permit and exercise your right to carry then please do so responsiblity and do so with careful thought. I personally have a favorite bar/restaurant I like to frequent that bans weapons on the premises and there are times when I carry (for example I’m on my bike and going to the Twin Cities) so when I get back to town and want to stop in for something to eat before going home I am faced with the dilemna of being there with my sidearm. But I have talked with the owner who personally supports every lawabiding citizens 2nd amendment right and he is alright with me patronizing his establishment as long as I disassemble the slide/barrel portion from the frame and keep one of the major components locked up in my saddlebag. And yes!, if I am patronizing any establishment that sells alchohol while I am carrying I DO NOT consume anything alchoholic. That should go without saying but I know I need to clarify that just the same else someone will jump on me assuming I would not be responsible enough not to imbibe any such spirits while in the possession of a firearm. One final point that I live by where the 2nd amendment is concerned – Hope for the best but be prepared for the worst. Simple but true especially in these times of economic chaos, unemployment and the type of world that Obama and his socialistic administration is trying to create for us.

      • http://www.NRA.com Stephaan

        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!

        • Rick Quill

          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”.

          • Rick Quill

            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?

        • http://www.NRA.com Stephaan

          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. .

          • http://www.NRA.com Stephaan

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

          • DaveH

            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.

        • Tom

          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.

    • AJ

      I know this for a fact. The owner of walmart if he had his was there would be no guns for sale. It is true if they see you with a gun they will ask you to leave. I go in anyway if I want to.

      I my home town a Safeway Manager asked me not come in the store with my gun. I have a conceled gun premit. I don’t shop there anymore and I told every one I know also.

  • AL

    God bless Starbucks for supporting the law!

  • http://gmail i41

    Well Rick I worked for Wal- Mart for 4 years and seen it happen. In facted I and all management got into a big fight over the Constitutional right. It involved district and regional management. Either greeters aren’t following rules or company policy. If a rifle or gun was purchased from the store and didn’t work, when returned they are stopped and detained untill upper management came to the door, even if it is a BB gun. The first time management got hinkey was over rancher who was stopped with a sheathed knife on his belt buying groceries. Know his doesn’t shop there any more. Of course Wal-Marts board has had Hillary Clinton, several Clinton department directors over the past few years. The accounting methods of stock is real dubbisus. When they got questioned by me on how the could declere losses when merchanidice was counted in I was asked to terminate as an employee. Nuff Said.

    • Rick Quill

      i41, I’m not saying it doesn’t or hasn’t happened at WalMart and quite honestly am not surprised that it does. You’re case is just the first one I’ve heard. Also, given the fact that Hillary is on the board and the fact that WalMart has aligned themselves with SEIU on the healthcare issue I”m REALLY surprised. I’m sorry to hear about your termination just because you asked a valid question. Gee you don’t suppose they were influenced by the strong-arm tactics of SEIU do you? Anyway, I hope you’ve found a better job since and I wish you the best of luck in the meantime.

  • http://gmail i41

    Adendem, stock was not counted in and should always be. Wheather machinery parts or livestock the only company I ever worked for that didn’t, but declared losses for tax purposses, helped the bottom line.

  • http://www.NRA.com Stephaan

    I say if anti-2nd amendment — are picketing Starbucks, then PRO-2ND AMENDMENT SUPPORTERS better get together and demonstrate on the same side of the building! Show your support for STARBUCKS! We have the numbers on our side, and could make the anti-gun picketers look like the puny little insignificant liberal socialist mutts that they are!

    • Rick Quill

      Stephaan I have a different perspective on this matter. I don’t claim to have all the answers (or correct answers for that matter) and maybe I’m just being ignorant here but I don’t think your approach helps. In fact I think it would just make matters worse and inadvertantly work more towards destroying all the progress the NRA and pro 2nd amendment supporters have made to date. I think the best course of action is let Starbucks (and others who may fall victim to the tactics of anti-gun protesters) follow their conscience and trust that they will stay true to their current policy. By keeping up with the issue and lending moral support via email or letting them know your disapproval if they should reverse their stance can do more good than harm. By standing opposite of the protesters as a protester yourself you may very well (and likely) end up giving more credence to the anti-gun movement and bolster an image of 2nd amendment supporters as a “bunch of gun-toting loons”. I think you and I both know that such an image is not accurate and in fact is the complete “polar opposite” of what we’re really about. In the meantime we would, under your idea, end up playing right into the hands of the “lame-stream media” and their socialistically distorted view of what it means to be an American with freedoms. And if Starbucks or any other business should reverse their policy(s) and/or stance on this matter then we can always unite and refuse to give them our business. I for one love my coffee and I really prefer Starbucks but Caribou coffee is really good too. Just my two cents worth. Intelligent argument or ignorant rubbish…..you be the judge.

      • Old Monkey

        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

        • http://www.secondamendmentfoundation.com Dylan

          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.

          • American Citizen

            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.

          • http://www.NRA.com Stephaan

            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.

      • http://www.NRA.com Stephaan

        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.

        • JeffH

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

        • Rick Quill

          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.

          • http://www.NRA.com Stephaan

            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 ‘-)

      • Tom

        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)

        • Rick Quill

          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.

  • http://www.NRA.com Stephaan

    I just sent Starbucks a thank you note for supporting the 2nd amendment at this site. It is not an email addy but does allow you to contact the company with your message.

    http://www.starbucks.com/customer-service/contact

    If anyone actually has the Starbucks “email” addy, would you please post it here? Thanks

    Jeff H, George, & Jon from way up at the top posts: What is the confusion about. Are they or are they not for the 2nd amendment. I gather that Starbucks IS SUPPORTING THE 2ND.amend. but after re-reading your posts, I am not sure. Please clarify, because there seems to be some argument between you.

    Jeff H : What exactly did Starbucks reply to you say?

    • JeffH

      Stephaan, I searched my emails and found a copy of the response from Starbucks:

      Hello,
      Thanks for contacting Starbucks Coffee Company.

      For Starbucks, the safety of our customers and partners is a paramount concern. We have existing security protocols in place to handle situations related to safety in our stores. We will continue to adhere closely to local, state and federal laws and the counsel of law enforcement regarding this issue.

      We appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective.

      Warm Regards,

      Alyssa R.
      Customer Relations
      Starbucks Coffee Company
      800 23-LATTE (235-2883)
      Monday through Friday, 5AM to 6PM (PST)

      This was the email I sent to Starbucks:
      Original Message—-
      From: JeffH
      Sent: Feb 13 2010 11:27PM
      To: Customer Relations
      Subject: store environment

      Message: I want to thank Starbucks for respecting my right to lawfully carry a firearm without incident in your establishment. It is my understanding that the Brady Campaign has attempted to attack Starbucks for allowing this legal right to open carry in other Starbucks stores. Congratulations to Starbucks for resisting this political ploy by the Brady Campaign

      • http://www.NRA.com Stephaan

        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….

        • JeffH

          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.

        • Joe H.

          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!!!

  • JeffH

    Stephaan, I didn’t keep the email, but they did not commit either way to ths support of the 2nd Amendment, that was not what I asked them for. What they responded with in a nutshell was that they support the law and that was it. They never mentioned anything about open carry or the 2nd Amendment. I don’t think they want to become the middleman in this or any issue, and I respect that. Had they taken the other position and asked the open carry parties to leave, then I would boycott them.

    • JeffH

      Found the email-see above

  • DaveH

    What gets me is how we ever let them get to the point of outlawing Concealed Carry. I would much rather people carry concealed than openly for several reasons. One is the angst that it can cause to other people. Another is the fact that it takes away the advantage of surprise from a potential victim. Also, it gives the criminal the ability to grab your weapon.
    And most of all, it only affects law abiding citizens who never know when or if that attack is going to occur. Whereas the criminal knows he is planning a crime, so he knows exactly when it makes sense to carry a hidden weapon.

    • JeffH

      DaveH, I agree with you. I would prefer concealed carry also. In California, we are allowed open carry of an unloaded weapon. Most carry semi-autos with loaded clips ready at an instants notice. I disagree that criminals wouldn’t be deterred by open carry, I think they would keep a wide berth. I’m sure most criminals wouldn’t know if the guns were loaded or not and whose to surmise one showing open carry doesn’t have a permit to CC and the gun is loaded. But you are right, concealed carry is ultimately the best course. Mainly from what I have seen, heard and discussed with a few who do open carry is that they are making a point to those that are anti-gun and that some who were initialy bothered saw that they are normal people and aren’t a threat as they have been programmed to believe.

  • American Citizen

    Whenever this issue comes up, I think of the woman in Texas who watched her parents being shot to death in a restaurant. Texas has a law that you have to keep your gun in a locked glove compartment in your car. She said if she could have had her gun in her purse, she would have stopped those killers.

    • American Citizen

      However, I would be nervous if I saw a person openly carrying a weapon as I wouldn’t know the intentions. If you legally own a gun, keep it out of sight. If a criminal does come in, you have the element of surprise.

    • Rick Quill

      Very good post American Citizen. As I was typing one of my several earlier posts I got to thinking what the outcome would have been had there been a private citizen with a concealed weapon (and permit for it) in the coffee shop in Lakewood, WA when four of Lakewood’s finest were ambushed. Had a private citizen carrying a concealed weapon been there the outcome may very well have quite different.

  • blackhat

    So, at the Irish Parade in Alexandria, VA over the weekend I ran across a mob of teenage girls protesting Starbucks. I found it quite ironic that the two adults that were shepherding them around were both drinking Starbuck’s coffee. Gotta love it!

  • Claire

    Here’s a thought—Shoot first, ask questions later.

  • JeffH
    • JeffH

      Stossel

      • Joe H.

        JeffH,
        gun control DOES reduce crime….. When you hit what you aim at it reduces crime. Especially if you are shooting at a criminal!!!!

        • Starbucks Mgr.

          Ah, Joe, ah not really, but you have it half right: having guns is a good way to control, not necessarily crime but control population increases. I’d sure hate to be at the end of a barrel by mistake, which would probably happen every tragic day of your scenario. Surely for every criminal apprehended at gunpoint, we will have hundreds if not thousands of innocent people getting killed by accident, or by more malicious, dishonest motives (justified with your argument, however…)

          • U571

            Mr pretend manager at Starbucks

            Ummm duh mr pretend manager, do you have any statistics to back that up, or is that just your ignorant opinion from your little liberal socialist mind?

            p.s. Does Starbucks have a contest where little kids can be a pretend manager for a day? For your sake I hope so, cuz that’s the only way you’ll ever be a manager, and that’s a s t r e t c h !

  • Starbucks Mgr.

    All of you, and I mean ALL OF YOU who think it necessary to sip a latte with a .44 lack the facts and live in a dream world. I am a Starbucks manager and KNOW absolutely and from personal inside contacts, that we in Starbucks will eventually claim OUR right to maintain a peaceful, stress-free environment in our stores. We will claim our right to run our business the way we want to, despite people like you. Just like other restaurants and bars having dress and age codes to follow, so will Starbucks have the same (in time). I trust you are intelligent enough to see beyond your own parochial interests and understand Starbucks has its own rights within its own stores,….. or will you disappoint me??

    Never quite understood people like you, who seem to need guns to feel secure and strong. You ALL need to get professional help, because there’s got to be something really wrong with customers who feel so self-righteous following a overly obsolete Constitutional Amendment (have you really confronted threatening bears and Indians lately??) and who need a semi-automatic to enjoy a cappuccino…..

    And please, don’t even think about threatening our workers with guns to get your way…. Silly it would be to confirm what all of us more modern thinkers have suspected of you all along…..

    sincerely,

    A Starbucks Manager who knows….

    • Josie

      Some frickin manager you are. If you really were a Starbucks manager, you would have absolutely no respect from your employees, just as you have no respect from any of us here. You are just ignorant.

  • Joe H.

    starbucks manager,
    I see you don’t say what store you manage as I’m quite sure they would find a way to get rid of you there if the higher-ups knew you were posting contrary to company policy.
    As far as your rant about having to have a pistol(I think you said gun), i don’t carry as it’s been awhile and I need to get back into it first. I just feel if it is my god given right then I will support it no matter what you would want!!!

    • Starbucks Mgr.

      Hi Joe and Jeff,

      By the way, isn’t it a bit embarrassing that Starbucks is so afraid people like you will get mad and settle a problem by shooting, that most of its reason for letting guns in stores is because of this fear??? I’d be ashamed and annoyed at Starbucks with that kind of reasoning. However, it’s true – all you gun toters do is create fear and uncertainty. Why not respect the rights of others, not to have guns inside their stores???

      Sincerely,

      Starbucks Mgr.

      • JeffH

        Little Starbucks Mgr…why use Starbucks as your disguise for your anti-gun rhetoric? Are you so upset with Starbucks that you have to try to destroy their corporate image with your scandalous attempts to portray yourself as an employee? Whose the stupid one here?

  • JeffH

    You are a lying idiot. Starbucks manager you are not! Why don’t you post your store number so I can send a copy of your post to corporate?
    You won’t because Starbucks would frown on your comments which do not reflect theirs. That and you would probably be fired!
    I’ll post my email response one more time for your little twiity mind
    Response from Starbucks Coffee Company – Case # 8064756‏
    Subject: Response from Starbucks Coffee Company – Case # 8064756
    Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 05:45:30 -0800

    Hello,

    Thanks for contacting Starbucks Coffee Company.

    For Starbucks, the safety of our customers and partners is a paramount concern. We have existing security protocols in place to handle situations related to safety in our stores. We will continue to adhere closely to local, state and federal laws and the counsel of law enforcement regarding this issue.

    We appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective.

    Warm Regards,

    Alyssa R.
    Customer Relations
    Starbucks Coffee Company
    800 23-LATTE (235-2883)
    Monday through Friday, 5AM to 6PM (PST)

  • Starbucks Mgr.

    Jeff and Joe, and all other make-believe Cowboys…..

    Well, well, all you gun-toters living in the past (you still didn’t tell me how many wild bears and Indians you had to protect yourselves from!!), you disappoint me like I thought you would. Are your rights the only rights in the world (come on now, ANSWER me)!! What about the rights of a free, private, capitalistic enterprise like Starbucks!!! Instead of protecting our rights to pursue business the way we want to, you cowboys impose and think of only YOUR rights!! You talk about protecting democracy with guns??!!! Oh my lord, just look at yourselves!!!! You can’t even practice democracy and fairplay in your own country – you’re so blinded by concern about YOUR rights, you forget about the rights of others!!! My god, and you want to protect the “free” capitalist world!!! No way, I wouldn’t trust you with protecting the rights of a Kool Aid stand!!!!

    Oh, and by the way, Starbucks Corp. already has all that I’ve written, knows my position, and will change company policy because of it.

    And oh, by the way, I’d never give my true name and address with people like you who think solving problems with a “gun” is the only way……. Trust your judgement?? NO WAY!!!

    Sincerely,

    Starbucks Mgr.

    • JeffH

      Little “Starbucks Mgr.”. Just by your comments, it is obvious you are a wanna be with absolutely no potential for ever reaching the level of a manager let alone a custodian. You are just another liberal hack using the art of the lie to make an attempt to misinform anyone that might buy ibto your deception. Sorry fool, I’m not buying it. All I asked for was your store number, nothing more. If you are so sure of yourself, why not provide that. I promise that I will never come to that store.
      Also, where do you get the idea that anyone wants to “threaten” Starbucks employees with guns. I have found them to be most pleasant, unlike yourself who only “poses” as an employee.
      For that matter, you are probably a member of the Brady Bunch.

    • JeffH

      One more thing. I would be willing to bet that you have a map with pins stuck into every Starbucks location, with pictures, news articles, adds and posters throughout your one room boardinghouse rental. I would imagine that you were turned away for employment or fired for being a radicle and upsetting customers. I also notice you love to associate yourself to Starbucks using WE and OUR in your comments. You really hate them don’t you.

  • Starbucks Mgr.

    Dear Little Jeff:

    Please read carefully what the official, public Starbucks statement mentions as a most important reason why the company for now lets gunowners bring their hardware in: the company is afraid that if it DIDN’T allow “guns” it would require us baristas to request that people like you leave the premises, a situation that the company fears would be dangerous for BARISTAS. Why? Because people like YOU might open fire. Read it and be totally embarrassed that the company you congratulate for allowing guns, does so from FEAR of gun owners that want to show off their .44s. All of you who support bringing in automatics to a Starbucks should feel shamed and NOT happy about Starbucks’ decision……

    Starbucks Mgr.

    • JeffH

      You are definitely one for the books. I hope we never meet! I’ll be able to pick you out in a crowd, but you would never no it was me. You see, I respect others whereas it’s obvious that you pre-judge people, even though you are wrong.

    • U571

      Starbucks manager???? Yeah right!! I highly doubt that!!
      Judging from your poor sentence structure and farcical interpretations, you aren’t even qualified to get the store manager a frickin cup of coffee. Heck, you aren’t even qualified to take out the trash at a Starbucks, unless somebody was supervising you.

  • JeffH

    You are one pitiful little — to think that anyone would take your anti-gun fearmongering to this level. Again, you don’t speak for Starbucks nor do you repreent them.
    For your FYI, I called their corporate number and spoke to a customer service representative today.
    Guess what, they don’t recognize your representation and they will continue to take the advice of law enforcement and local and state laws. The person I spoke with was named Mark, and he was a gentleman and a real representative of Starbucks, not a wanna-be fake like yourself.
    The final conclustion is as I have stated before…read my remarks above and go preach your anti-gun fearmongering to those that want to listen.

  • JeffH

    Ohhh…one more little request…why don’t you post the exact wording by Starbucks for all of us to see.

  • Starbucks Mgr.

    Ohhh….here you go….take special notice of the second paragraph, where the VP expresses fear that gun-toters like you, first of all won’t understand that as a private company Starbucks has it’s own rights to decide how they want the atmosphere in their stores, and second of all, might get violent when asked to leave the store, because you want to impose YOUR rights…

    All gun-toters demanding “rights” to enter Starbucks with firearms should be ashamed at the fear the VP expresses. Why can’t you accept the rights of others????

    By the way, this message below is posted on the Starbucks website….

    Vivek Varma, VP Public Relations says: (published on Mar 3, 2010)

    “We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. In this case, 43 of the 50 U.S. states have open carry weapon laws. Where these laws don’t exist, we comply with laws that prohibit the open carrying of weapons. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.

    We have examined this issue through the lens of your safety and that of our customers. Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to ask you to require law abiding customers to leave our stores. This would put you in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.

    At the same time, we have a security protocol for any threatening situation that might occur in our stores. Partners are trained to call law enforcement as situations arise. We will continuously review our procedures to ensure the highest safety guidelines are in place and we will continue to work closely with law enforcement.

    …As a company, we are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society…we believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.”

    • A Real Manager

      Fake manager;

      This is laughable. First off mr. “pretend” manager, I can tell from your wording, and lack of thought formulation skills, that you don’t have the qualifications to manage anything, much less a Starbucks. You might be qualified to clean the floors at a McDonalds, but not without close supervision.
      I am a regional manager for a large chain store, and my job is interviewing and hiring managers. I must be pretty good at sizing up people, because I have kept this position for 24 years. I doubt that you are a manager of any kind, and will probably never even be close to a managerial position, unless your mother or father hires you as such for your families business. You are lacking the qualities that I look for in a new hire. You exude absolutely none of them, & trying to pass yourself off, as something that you are not, is a sign of insecurity. You score very low on intelligence, and show no managerial skills whatsoever.
      From what I have read in your postings, the only job I would offer you in one of our stores, would be as a janitors assistant, and that would only be with VERY CLOSE SUPERVISION – 90%, by a senior employee with at least 10 years experience. If I had the choice of hiring you or anybody else, I would look seriously at the “anybody else”

  • JeffH

    little starbucks mgr.,
    Your anti-gun interpretation has clouded your anti-gun mind. You are a fanatic that has put the crime before the action. No where does this message indicate a negative respose such as your obviously biased mind. The fact that you don’t like guns drives you to a delusional belief that anyone that legaly exercises their rights to carry a gun is automaticaly a “cowboy” with a 44 looking to shoot someting or somebody. That isn’t how we law abiding citizens act. Obviously you would rather use your liberal methods to “force” us to stop. Then we might have a problem, but not a gun violence problem. In the meantime, I’ll rush off to my nearest Starbucks for a Venti Mocha and a Bear Claw while wearing my Colt 45 for all to see. They think it’s cool.
    I just don’t read into this statement like you do, but then I know about gun safety and how to conduct myself in public when others might be uncomfortable. That is what adults do. They don’t go off on a childish anti-gun rant such as you have done.
    “As a company, we are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society…we believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.”
    As I said, Mark was a gentleman when I spoke with him. Unlike you, he didn’t seem afraid of his own shadow.

  • JeffH

    little wanna be, read this part of the statement again and reinterpret it’s intent.
    “We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. In this case, 43 of the 50 U.S. states have open carry weapon laws. Where these laws don’t exist, we comply with laws that prohibit the open carrying of weapons. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.”
    You see, they refuse to be lured into the “political arena” by the Brady bunch. Not once has a law abiding “gun toter” tried to force Starbucks or any other business to allow them to practice “open carry”. There are no records of “open carry” practitioners forcing a business to adhere to the law. It is always the choice of the business. To instruct their stores to not confront law abiding citizens is a sound practice because a radical like yourself would turn a completely calm and innocent situation into an out of control situation which would embarrass Starbucks and probably result in discharge for not following company procedure. Then again, radicals such as yourself really don’t “respect” procedure anyway, it is all about your pre-conceived fears.
    Have a wonderful day little wanna be, and understand that the realities of responsible gun ownership doesn’t include “playing cowboy” or threatening the puplic at every turn. We’ll leave that to the propagandists like yourself and your organization, The Brady Bunch.

  • Starbucks Mgr.

    Hey Little Cowboys…

    Of course the VP has to state the obvious (following local laws), but maybe you should go back to 4th grade, learn to read all over again, then read the paragraph below – again – which is one of the most important reasons why Starbucks is allowing you retros to flaunt your guns: FEAR….

    “We have examined this issue through the lens of your safety and that of our customers. Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to ask you to require law abiding customers to leave our stores. This would put you in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.”

    What does the VP mean when he says, by not allowing firearms, Starbucks would be putting baristas like me and customers into an “unsafe position”?? He means if firearms were not allowed, and Mgrs. had to ask gun-toters to leave, Starbucks DOES NOT TRUST GUN OWNERS to use self-restraint to NOT use their firearms in threatening ways to get their ways (ie. remain in a Starbucks w/firearms). So the VP is actually afraid for my safety and for the safety of other customers.

    There isn’t any room for “misinterpretation” – the VP’s meaning is clear as his words are written. So you see little cowboys, you all should be embarrassed by this public statement….

    Starbucks Mgr.

  • Starbucks Mgr.

    Oh, by the way, I DO LIKE FIREARMS, and do collect them. How do you like that?? And I DO PROTECT my rights to have them. But I am totally against flaunting them in public (it’s unsafe, despite the very rare occurence they are used to stop a crime), AND I am perhaps different from most owners of guns, because I RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS to create the environment THEY HAVE A RIGHT to create in their private enterprises. I realize I do not have the right to selfishly impose my rights over and above theirs.

    All of you should know that yes, democracy is great and we have Constitutional rights, BUT, those rights END when we start imposing our rights and depriving the rights of others!!!!! I don’t see what’s so hard to understand!!! For example, a person has the right to play a sound system as loud as he/she wants, but when it’s played at 2am and is depriving the rights of others (to get sleep), then that’s when the rights to use the sound system ends.

    Apply this to the Starbucks issue. I am not saying we/you should not have the right to own or carry firearms. What I am saying is we should not impose our rights over and above the rights of others. This right ends when we start depriving the rights of other from their own, legal rights.

    Starbucks Mgr.

    • JeffH

      little man,
      Nowhere have I ever said or indicated that I have ever “imposed” my rights onto others or even said I would do such a thing. It is you who has indicated a wish, your own not Starucks, to impose your rights on another. That is a fact, not fantasy.
      That said, don’t you have a bathroom to clean or shelves to stock wanna be?

      • JeffH

        FYI, domocracy is great when you socialitic liberals don’t try to “force” your will onto others.

        • Starbucks Mgr.

          Am I living in a fantasy world or what?? Where people don’t know what they are saying or doing? You and your bretheren are clamouring for their “rights” to carry and flaunt your firearms in Starbucks. I mean this is what’s happening, right? And, Starbucks, because of fear, politically and safely says it will follow local laws (a cop out for sure), the real reason being FEAR as the VP cited.

          Oh, and you say you and your followers are NOT imposing??? Give me a break!!!! What the hell are you doing then??

          • http://www.NRA.com Stephaan

            Judging from your posts, you are obviously not even associated with Starbucks. You don’t even know the story. You have no clue how the whole Starbucks/2nd amendment issue even started, so go stick your head back up your ignorant a$$ you little mental midget. You don’t have the intelligence to manage the garbage going into and out of a dumpster, let alone a Starbucks store. You couldn’t even handle a “drive up only” store for more than an hour without screwing up. You are just another liberal socialist that knows nothing about the Constitution or the 2nd amendment, and you sure as hell don’t know a damn thing about Starbucks.

          • http://www.usconstitution.com Sandra

            mr wannabe starbucks manager;

            Yeah, you live in a fantasy world alright. You’re living in the fantasy world that you have created for yourself, where you pretend to be a Starbucks manager. How pathetic to be a liberal, a socialist, politically uneducated, and so insecure that you have to pretend to be something that you’re not. If you do actually have a job, it is probably working for ACORN or some other tax payer funded “looser organization”. Gawd you fool, get a life!!

        • Starbucks Mgr.

          Forcing my will, NO; standing up for the rights of private capitalistic enterprises, YES. Yeah, I do live in a fantasy world with you guys……

          • Linda

            You are no Starbucks manager. You’re nothing more than a pathetic little weasel.

          • Julie

            I didn’t know that Starbucks hired 13 year olds! Oh yeah, I forgot. He doesn’t work at Starbucks. He works for his mommy taking out the trash, and lives in her basement.
            Go away little boy. Go have some milk and cookies with your mummy and you’ll feel better soon. Starbucks manager? ha ha ha ha ha!! That’s a good one! If you work hard you might be able to have a newspaper route some day, and you will get some experience “managing” that.

    • Dylan

      Ummm mr wana be Starbucks mgr.

      FYI… “Firearms” does not mean pouring gasoline on your arms and setting them on fire. I’m only pointing this out to you because you don’t seem too intelligent in your posts. You sound like you are about 10 y.o. and I just wanted to clear up any confusion for you ;-)

  • http://www.ccrkba.org Dartanian

    Starbucks Mgr. says:
    March 18, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    Hey Little Cowboys…
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………
    Hey Phony manager boy;
    You use that phrase “little cowboys” a lot. Did you wanna be a little cowboy and your mommy wouldn’t let you? Well man up little guy. She knows what’s best for you. Maybe when you hit 11 or 12 she will trust you with the cap gun.

  • Starbucks Mgr.

    Well, well, well,, thank you every one on this site for giving me and the gun control organizations I work for, information about the mentalities of the gun-rights movement. Your responses to me provide us with a good idea of your thoughts and arguments, and shall be used against you in the future (yes they will be published). Preliminarily I think they will show:

    1. All of you never use intellect nor reason to discuss the points I raised, but you do use personal attacks (what does my mother have to do with this?), and offensive remarks (yes, I’ve done so too, but only in response to yours, and to study your reactions).

    2. Instead of bringing up points to counter what I say, you hide yourself by accusing me of things that are irrelevant and personal.

    My tentative conclusions are that all of you that have “attacked” me the past few days have nothing “upstairs” to really support your positions (really, is trusting me with a “cap gun” or “cleaning the bathrooms” have anything to do with the issues I’ve raised???). So, yo must resort to personal attacks. How rediculous can the above Mgr get by judging me and my work based on my viewpoints. This is tragic.

    Any case, thank you for your blurbs and statements. They will really and truely discredit the “gun movement”, NRA, etc. You and your kind will really be embarrassed by how rediculous and empty you all sound.

    Oh, I may collect my last samplings of your reactions to this, my last message. I don’t think I will be surprised about what they will be…. Go ahead, Make My Day…..

    Bye Bye

    Starbucks Mgr.

    • JeffH

      You have not raised one issue in your fantasy. The only issue you raised was an age and employment issue, and that has been covered pretty well by all of your responders.

  • JeffH

    little wanna be, good riddance. Mommy is calling you home.

  • http://www.NRA.com Stephaan

    Make believe Starbucks manager (hi Daniel) says: My tentative conclusions are, blah, blah, blah……
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………….

    Well mr faux manager, my conclusions are, that you’re nothing but a little pimple on life ass, and judging from your lack of education, both political and otherwise, we don’t have anything to worry about. If HCI, and the Brady Bunch have sent their biggest loser here to gather information, then they must really be hurting for qualified personnel. Adios Daniel, have a nice trip through la la land.

  • http://www.ccrkba.org Dylan

    mr/mrs/ms/ PRETEND Starbucks manager,

    If you think a bunch of posts by a liberal dog turd such as yourself will benefit HCI and the Brady Bunch, then you folks are a lot farther behind in the game than we thought.
    I’m sure this is beyond your scope of reasoning, but it is a Constitutional issue, plain and simple, and no amount of liberals like you posting drivel on a conservative site will have any effect on the 2nd amendment whatsoever!
    If you really want to accomplish something, you should consider donating your welfare checks to HCI every month, because your pathetic posts on here have accomplished nothing in the way of research, or fact gathering for you or your Brady Bunch. Just the fact that a politically uneducated hack like you supports them gives us all great confidence. Thanks..Dylan

  • Phil

    Hi you all, I’m a solid NRA member and gun enthusiast, and I’ve been following this discussion with this “Starbucks” mgr. I personally want to excersize my rights to carry my pistol wherever it’s legal. I sympathize with many of your view points and am annoyed that this Mgr. thinks we’re all gun happy!

    But there is one correct thing he (she?) is saying: we must respect the rights of others, including free enterprises, to enjoy their rights, especially if we are talking about their privately owned properties. Starbucks has it’s own constitutional rights to ban my pistol from their premises. I/we have no rights to force or pressure, or even petition Starbucks into allowing us in with our hardwares. We shouldn’t. You know, we want all people to respect us, but they won’t if it seems like we are forcing Starbucks to allow us in with our hardwares. If the company prefers not to have my pistol in their privately owned premises, then I – and I hope all of you – will respect this and not harp on only “our rights”. If we want people to respect our rights (including the Brady Bunch), we have to respect their rights too. Does this make any sense?

    Phil

    • JeffH

      Phil, I appreciate what you are saying. This post started out on a pretty good note. As you can see that we pretty much agree with Starbucks position and respect that. This wannabe mgr. represented himself as a spokesman for Starbucks, which he clearly is not. The backlash is not disrespect for Starbucks nor is it about the disrespect of a businisses choice to allow or dis-allow open carry.
      Afterall, this is still a free America. We are responsible and sensitive to the issues, but this little wannabe showed tremendous disrespect to the posters. You get out of it what you put into it.

      • JeffH

        I might add, that not one poster mentioned that pressure should be put on any business to allow open carry.

    • JeffH

      Phil, don’t be so naive to think that you or any other pro-gun advocate could ever garner the respect of the Brady Campaign.

  • Phil

    Yeah, I hear what you are saying too. But you never know. If the Brady Bunch is thinking like “Starbucks Mgr.”, maybe we can show them we are not disrespecting the preferences of private businesses like Starbucks, and change their minds about the majority of responsible owners like us, or at least some of their minds. But you have a point. Maybe we should just focus on winning the respect of those “in the middle” who don’t know which way to go. I think he (“Starbucks mgr”) was reacting to the actions of some hardware owners who were, or seemed to be, pressuring Starbucks to allow them in with their wares, which was reported on the news a couple weeks ago I think. I wouldn’t condone that. But I hear you and I think we can all respect the rights of others, while protecting ours.

    Phil

    • JeffH

      Phil, I’ve followed this thing since it was first brought up, and it was the Brady Campaign that started it. They are attempting to force Starbucks to stop it, using the media, picketers and any underhanded tactic they can. They are the enemy and with them there never will be a middle ground. They don’t respect you or me. The only one trying to put pressure on Starbucks are the anti-gun people. We don’t and won’t because we respect others rights.

  • http://www.NRA.com Stephaan

    Phil;
    You/we, will never be able to convince HCI, Brady Bunch, of anything.
    First of all they would have to be rationally thinking people, and they’re not! Secondly, it is not about safety, gun safety, crime reduction, or any of the multitude of reasons/excuses that they bring up. It has never been about any of those things. It is only about control of the populace, nothing else.

  • http://www.NRA.com Stephaan

    Whoever the ignorant moron was that shot the round through the congressmans window to protest the Obama care bill, YOU ARE — STUPID! You are only hurting us and the 2nd amendment. When you do stupid sh*t like that you are giving HCI and the “Brady Bunch” more ammunition to use against us.

    IF YOU CAN’T CONTROL YOURSELF, THEN USE A ROCK OR A BRICK, YOU IGNORANT FOOL!

  • Gary Owens

    Steve in Spring is correct about the first ten amendments only protecting something(personal rights)granted by God. In fact I urge each to read the Constitution and the first 10 amendments and you will see places where it is reasonable to argue either way. Now wait before you throw stones.
    This is exactly why Alexander Hamilton argued against any such amendments. In Federalist Paper number 84 He argued that the Constitution itself limited the Federal government and adding such amendments left it open for someone, some day to argue against them.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.