Starbucks caved

[Xtasy]

A Right Not Exercised is a Right Lost

I get it that Starbucks does not want to be in the middle of a political game. But I do think we there is one essential issue :

If in the state open carry is your right, then it is absolutely okay to use this right. If you walk to Starbucks open carrying to get your cup of coffee without any motif of a political statement, why should you be harassed by other citizens who don't agree on you exercising your right?

It does not matter if you agree on open carry or not, just replace it with any right, should you give up that right because others don't agree that you use it?

What will be the next step? Don't open carry because it might scare somebody? If you take away that right what will happen after that?
I bet concealed carry will be the next, and as they can't remove concealed carry they will back No Gun zone signs with legal power. Now you can't really go anywhere armed as the places will get plastered with those signs.

Well I have the right to wear a ski mask into a 7-11 in July.
Doesn't mean I am going to do it because it would be plain stupid.
Just because I can do something doesn't mean I should do it.

True, but if you decide to do it you should not be subject to any harassment. Just look how many people got stopped by LE because they used their right of open carry.
Would you be okay being stopped because you used your right of wearing your ski mask to 7eleven?

 

[UncaGrunny]

A Right Not Exercised is a Right Lost

I get it that Starbucks does not want to be in the middle of a political game. But I do think we there is one essential issue :

If in the state open carry is your right, then it is absolutely okay to use this right. If you walk to Starbucks open carrying to get your cup of coffee without any motif of a political statement, why should you be harassed by other citizens who don't agree on you exercising your right?

It does not matter if you agree on open carry or not, just replace it with any right, should you give up that right because others don't agree that you use it?

There's the rub: your right to carry is in conflict with the owner's right to control behavior of guests on his property.

My mother used to resolve this conflict with the time-honored phrase, "your rights end where my nose begins."

Look at it this way: If you had a crowd of strangers not known to you walk up your garden path to your front porch, set up a bullhorn, a bunch of tents & then spend the next several hours delivering a loud speech demanding the banning of all private gun ownership and their intent to stay where they were, on your property, until this goal was achieved, be it weeks, months, or years...

Would you come out and join them endorsing their exercise of their 1st amendment rights, or would you take the (lawful) steps necessary to remove them from your property?

Where does their right to exercise their inalienable guaranteed free-speech rights end, and your right to control your property begin?

 

[raymo2u]

id probably end up in jail if it kept up after years and years in my ear
i dont shove my rights in your ear unless you do it first...my gun doesnt speak unless provoked and it my right to bear it and i will do so how i want without your say. freedom of speech like in the rules in the forum isnt so free and saying the things people dont want to hear for to long. can irratate someone. i see a difference in walking with a gun holstered and walking around voicing how you think we should live and do things.

"you" does nit imply anyone specific or in this forum

 

[arjay]

The problem with open carry is that unless you're in a rural/hunting environment ,regardless of the law,most people will regard you as a nut at best and a criminal at worst.That's just reality.

 

[raymo2u]

and i could be...in todays definition, and thats fine by me

 

[tompehret]

The wife & I hold CCW licenses. I carry daily; she carries outside of work. We're also regular and loyal Starbuck's customers. On the Saturday of the "carry" demonstration we went by our local S-buck's, got our drinks and told an employee who knows us by sight how we appreciated that Starbuck's had kept off the Gun Free Zone wagon and instead, have a policy of: it's legal and none of our business what our customers do. (I for one am glad there's somebody who doesn't want to mind my business.)
She was polite, and appreciative of the comment. Good enough for us.
I read the CEO's letter. Sounds like he ASKED gun owners to not use his premises as a place to demonstrate. I still feel comfortable there and will continue to patronize their stores, all while carrying. Concealed, that is.

 

[Xtasy]

There's the rub: your right to carry is in conflict with the owner's right to control behavior of guests on his property.

Here in Florida you can legally carry into every store you want. If you get asked by the owner to leave you have to comply otherwise you are trespassing.

So Starbucks has a couple options :

Allow open carry and concealed carry
Ban open carry and ask customers to leave if they open carry
Ban all firearms from their stores

The same goes in case they have customers who are turning it into a political event. They don't like it then ask them to leave, as simple as that.

Not every person carrying open has a political motif. I would be happy to be able to sometimes just open carry here in Florida because of the heat.

My mother used to resolve this conflict with the time-honored phrase, "your rights end where my nose begins

That is absolutely correct BUT then Starbucks has to make a clear statement where they want to draw the line

Look at it this way: If you had a crowd of strangers not known to you walk up your garden path to your front porch, set up a bullhorn, a bunch of tents & then spend the next several hours delivering a loud speech demanding the banning of all private gun ownership and their intent to stay where they were, on your property, until this goal was achieved, be it weeks, months, or years...

As for me or Starbucks we can ask them to leave. If they don't comply they commit trespassing and can be charged.

Would you come out and join them endorsing their exercise of their 1st amendment rights, or would you take the (lawful) steps necessary to remove them from your property

I would kick them out but as I said somebody open carrying to a store does not necessary make a political statement

Where does their right to exercise their inalienable guaranteed free-speech rights end, and your right to control your property begin?

You can ask them to leave your property or charge them with trespassing but you can't do anything if they stand in front of your property on a public road

 

[Arik]

I make my own coffee but I cant always drive home to get it and drive back to my work or wherever I am at the moment.

Lets not drag gay marriage or religion into this

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

 

[HKB]

Grind and make your own coffee. It will taste so much better and you don't have to worry about a pound of sugar in a cup.

Starbucks caved in a long time ago. They were supporters of Obama since before his first term and are also pro gay marriage. This news does not surprise me.

Exactly! You are with us or against us.... Starbucks is trying to be politically correct to appease the anti-gun liberal crowd.... that spells one thing... against us. I'll be brewing from home!

 

[raymo2u]

i like his white suit

 

[walkin jack]

I have never liked their coffee. It all tastes burnt to me. But I do agree with the comment in the letter that said no gun owner should ever set foot in any Starbucks again. I wasn't planning to anyway but now I for-sure will not.

 

[UncaGrunny]

You can ask them to leave your property or charge them with trespassing but you can't do anything if they stand in front of your property on a public road

I think you and I are in near-total agreement here, sir.

But, isn't Shultz's letter pretty much doing the same thing as asking someone to leave, by just asking people to not openly carry into the stores in the first place - especially for purposes of politics - without penalty if someone chooses not to follow his wishes?

Why would an individual confrontation & the threat of police intervention be necessary, if you know how the owner of the property feels up front?

Seems to me more is to be gained (& less is to lost) by not forcing this guy into the position of having to set a full-on formal policy actually prohibiting private-citizen carry into his stores (which would be used by anti-gunners to great propaganda advantage every time violations of the rule made the evening news), by forcing a show-down where he admittedly holds all the cards, should he choose to play them.

To me it seems like he's taking a reasonable, reasoned approach, even if I disagree with his reasoning - - sharp contrast to recent corporate knee-jerk political posturing like what Dick's Sporting Goods did post-Sandy Hook, by ending MSR sales in their stores. That decision cost them dearly enough that they've been working to recapture those lost sales through an affiliated division.

Remains to be seen how much business this may cost Starbucks. It's for sure it will cost them some; up to the owners to decide if it's worth it.

Your mileage may vary, of course. Nothing saying we have to agree, I'm just interested.

Nothing better than kicking important topics around with smart, passionate people.

 

[arjay]

Look at me Im a stud! The vast majority of people look at that photo and think Wow what a *******... Get a concealed permit and use it.Intimidating little old ladies impresses no one..

 

[duppie]

I find it rather ironic and telling that some of the the participants of this thread who advocate the simplistic "you're either for us or against us" or "We have the right to open carry" edict in this instance all have low thread counts compared to the members we know and trust....
I make no judgments but make it a habit to disseminate all info carefully and with a critical eye.......

 

[Xtasy]

I think you and I are in near-total agreement here, sir.

True

But, isn't Shultz's letter pretty much doing the same thing as asking someone to leave, by just asking people to not openly carry into the stores in the first place - especially for purposes of politics - without penalty if someone chooses not to follow his wishes?

Well I don't like the idea of a company asking you to give up your right for them, which is pretty much what he does.
I find it disturbing.

I would prefer if they would ask everybody who open carries to leave as soon as they enter the store on the base that it is their property and on non compliance they can file charges.

I consider that the proper legal way to handle it and not asking citizens to give up rights given by the State / Constitution.

Why would an individual confrontation & the threat of police intervention be necessary, if you know how the owner of the property feels up front?

Well, you can apply that for any right you have. Should you now each time make sure that you give up the appropriate right to please the owner?

Seems to me more is to be gained (& less is to lost) by not forcing this guy into the position of having to set a full-on formal policy actually prohibiting private-citizen carry into his stores (which would be used by anti-gunners to great propaganda advantage every time violations of the rule made the evening news), by forcing a show-down where he admittedly holds all the cards, should he choose to play them.

Well if he wants to remain neutral it would have been better to just say nothing or announce that Starbucks will not tolerate political events on their property.

To me it seems like he's taking a reasonable, reasoned approach, even if I disagree with his reasoning

I think it is more an economic approach. He knows lots of gun owners went to Starbucks because of their policy. He wants them to continue buying coffee and please the liberals. So a reasonable approach as I stated above would have been banning any political events at Starbucks , including Pro Gun and Anti Gun events.
The question of course is when does open carry acts as a political statement?

- - sharp contrast to recent corporate knee-jerk political posturing like what Dick's Sporting Goods did post-Sandy Hook, by ending MSR sales in their stores. That decision cost them dearly enough that they've been working to recapture those lost sales through an affiliated division.

Nothing to add there

Remains to be seen how much business this may cost Starbucks. It's for sure it will cost them some; up to the owners to decide if it's worth it.

I think it will cost them some business in the beginning but I feel that lots of open carry people will cave in due to the single reason because they don't carry open for making a political statement.

Your mileage may vary, of course. Nothing saying we have to agree, I'm just interested.

I don't think it was a good idea at all showing up with AR15, small steps are required. A open carried nicely holstered handgun would have made the same statement without being to invasive for the little scared sheep

Nothing better than kicking important topics around with smart, passionate people.

Very true

Look at me Im a stud! The vast majority of people look at that photo and think Wow what a *******... Get a concealed permit and use it.Intimidating little old ladies impresses no one..

A right not exercised is a right lost. Especially in current times where politics run berserk we have to fight every single right we have, if we give one up we will eventually lose all.

I find it rather ironic and telling that some of the the participants of this thread who advocate the simplistic "you're either for us or against us" or "We have the right to open carry" edict in this instance all have low thread counts compared to the members we know and trust....
I make no judgments but make it a habit to disseminate all info carefully and with a critical eye.......

Do low thread counts make somebody's opinion less valuable or what do you want to say exactly?

 

[sceva]

My feeling is that just because you have a right to do something does not mean that you SHOULD do it all the time. Open carry is one of those areas where a little common sense goes a long way; there are places for it and places that being discreet makes more sense and concealed carry is the way to go. The decision to carry a firearm carries a lot of responsibility with it.

 

[duppie]

As in any trusting relationship a certain amount of time and experience must be accrued before a that relationship is considered valid.....at least IMHO....so the answer is Yes. I, as a new member of this forum expected to "make my bones"and gradually gain credibility if not acceptance...I in turn expect the ones who come after me to contemplate the same.....

 

[labworm]

Look at me Im a stud! The vast majority of people look at that photo and think Wow what a *******... Get a concealed permit and use it.Intimidating little old ladies impresses no one..

Some people should just stay out of the advertising business.
The knuckleheads constantly crying for attention do nothing for us responsible gun owners.

 

[Xtasy]

As in any trusting relationship a certain amount of time and experience must be accrued before a that relationship is considered valid.....at least IMHO....so the answer is Yes. I, as a new member of this forum expected to "make my bones"and gradually gain credibility if not acceptance...I in turn expect the ones who come after me to contemplate the same.....

Unfortunately the post counter does not show any experience. There are people with very high post counters who train every weekend their drills and tactics on the shooting range hitting the paper target probably have not the same experience then somebody with a low post count but served active in war zones like Afghanistan.
I think you should base the credibility on what people write, not on some number. Especially in this forum people will get called out very quickly if somebody writes nonsense

 

[duppie]

Unfortunately the post counter does not show any experience. There are people with very high post counters who train every weekend their drills and tactics on the shooting range hitting the paper target probably have not the same experience then somebody with a low post count but served active in war zones like Afghanistan.
I think you should base the credibility on what people write, not on some number. Especially in this forum people will get called out very quickly if somebody writes nonsense

Agreed....but the subject at hand has little to do with putting holes in paper and more with a understanding of the nuances of being a asset or liability to the cause of firearm owners and the perception of the group as such. Combat experience is little necessary as much as a sensible mind and experience and history of that mind . Justly or not, is judged by post count simply because Idiots seldom linger.....