Guardian UK: Starbucks's guns and lattes policy

[marmar]

by Richard Adams

Starbucks's guns and lattes policy
Not just a shot of expresso? Starbucks says it's happy for customers to openly display their guns in its US outlets


Of the good reasons to avoid Starbucks – the over-priced, burned coffee or the crushing of independent competitors – here, in the US, is another: the danger of getting hit by bullets from customers' guns.

The state of Virginia has allowed "open carry" of guns for many years, and reinforced by law since 2004, allowing the carrying or wearing of guns in public other than assault rifles. Individual stores and businesses retain the right to exclude guns from their premises – but Starbucks has decided not to exercise that right. The result is scenes such as this, as reported by the Associated Press:

Dale Welch recently walked into a Starbucks in Virginia, handgun strapped to his waist, and ordered a banana Frappuccino with a cinnamon bun. He says the firearm drew a double-take from at least one customer, but not a peep from the baristas.

Gun rights activists have been targeting Starbucks' branches around the country, holding meetings in which dozens carrying guns turn up and buy lattes. Starbucks itself won't comment, other than making a statement that the company follows state and local laws and has its own "safety measures" in place in its stores. ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/01/guns-starbucks-virginia

[Skittles]

1. glad I never liked Starbucks

I've always thought they were fucked

[maxsolomon]

2. Starbucks is smart to stay out of this fight.

a gun-wielding macho man orders a BANANA FRAPPUCCHINO? WTF, Dale Welch!

[proteus_lives]

3. Gun rights post in GD? Let the stereotypes flow!

The newish rules of civility in the guns forum don't rule here.

Let the anti-rights ignorance roll. It just makes the antis look foolish and desperate.

[vadawg]

4. kinda makes sense to let open carry in your store if you operate in an area where it happens

it would be kinda dumb to turn down all the patronage if you required people to have to take their weapons off before coming in, luckily i carry concealed so i dont need to worry about it but if i had to remove my glock and leave it in my car i would just go elsewhere...

[Abq_Sarah]

5. The caption on the picture is BS

More bangs per cup: Starbucks allows guns to be brandished in its US stores.

Starbucks does not allow guns to be brandished. Brandishing a firearm is illegal. The fact that someone might be afraid of firearms doesn't mean the person with a properly holstered pistol is "brandishing" it.

[proteus_lives]

6. The comments section is hilarious as usual.

It always is in Brit mags. 90% "Oh, those ghastly Americans". :rofl:

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. The best response imo comes near the end of the comments:

"It used to be that the sun never set on the (British)
Empire. Now, the sun never sets on Brits complaining about
Yanks."

[proteus_lives]

25. Nice.

And it's about right.

[Libertas1776]

7. Geez, could this article be any more out there...

god, walking into a Starbucks stateside isn't going to be like walking into the gunfight at the OK Corral. It may break your bank and give you indigestion but that's about it. This article makes just as much sense as if I said anyone who walks into a Costa Coffee in England is guaranteed to get stabbed by a pack of knife wielding "chavs."

[Euromutt]

31. If I could rec a single post, I'd rec this one (n/t)

[elfin]

8. Pimping out the Second Amendment

Pimping the Constitution despite the historical realities of the creation of the National Guard has paid off big time for the gun mongers.

Have never gone into their stand alone outlets, but buy the coffee in the supermarket -- no more.

Starbucks is dead to me

I HATE the open carry movement. It is an oozing pus-filled infection spreading across our nation.

Open carry is just the latest expression of those who pimp out the Second Amendment to serve their pecuniary/power and perceived emasculation issues, exacerbated by Fox etc. for their own gain..

And, of course. the Supremes are set to go along with this with the current "majority.'

I have NO problem with hunting guns and NO problem with home ownership for self defense, as long as the registered owner understands the risk to his/her family. Just do NOT bring that risk outside your home to me and my dear ones

Instead, support the local law enforcement to handle issues

[Abq_Sarah]

9. I have no problem with the 1st amendment

As long as people are only allowed to say things I agree with.



Sound familiar?

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. Why do you think open carriers present a risk to you?

I ask this as legal gun owners usually don't commit crimes, and the illegal ones tend to conceal their guns.

Perception vs. reality...

[elfin]

12. Because illegal carriers can blend in --

until the moment strikes and then it is clear their weapons are loaded. Never mind othesr in the vicinity may send them to Kingdom Come via the same laws.

Blood shed is bloodshed -- why make it easier??

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. True, but it doesn't seem to be a problem in the places that do allow it

Someone out there who lives where OC is allowed, feel free to chime in here

[PavePusher]

16. Vermont, New Hampshire, Utah and Arizona...

Bloodbaths all.

Ooops, not really, it would seem.

I have open carried in all those states, with no panic in the streets.

Am I doing it wrong, or are you letting your paranoia slip the leash?

[paulsby]

24. WA state too

not very popular here, but perfectly legal to open carry

i open carry every day i work. it's a job requirement

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

30. Ohio too.

[PavePusher]

44. Oops, sorry guys.

I didn't mean to leave anyone out, just listing the places I have personally been armed.

I just had an idea. I think I'm going to make it a goal to visit/revisit all the states where my Second Amendment Rights are protected (i.e. Open and Concealed Carry). With pictures at the borders of those places I won't even drive through if I can avoid it (Illinois, anyone?).

Hmm, this could make for some interesting road trips. Most of the U.S. west of Texas/Nebraska

You'll probably be able to track my progress by the string of murder and violent crime in my wake. :sarcasm: Hey, that's what so many anti-Rights people would have us believe...

[PavePusher]

17. Oops, sorry F.I.

I didn't mean to imply you had paranoia, that was directed to the previous poster.

[Statistical]

35. Virgnina. Also it has never been illegal in VA so that is 200+ years of history.

[PavePusher]

19. You aren't making any sense at all.

Please elaborate?

[ManiacJoe]

20. The Bad Guys tend not to open carry due

to it being illegal for them to possess the gun at all. The cops tend to know the local Bad Guys by sight.

[SteveM]

34. Yep, beat me to it. I think the controller/prohibitionist is constructing...

a new fear, ignoring the fact most HyperPunks and thugs keep their guns hidden because the police would have a Blue Light Special on their sorry asses, otherwise.

I think the controller/prohibitionist has visions of Walt Disney's mousetraps and ping-pong balls.

[Statistical]

36. Couldn't "illegal carriers" just blend in by hiding their weapon?

1) Put gun in waistband
2) Pull shirt over gun

Oh yeah they already do that. So what exactly would prohibiting open carry do again?

[AtheistCrusader]

38. No they would never do that, that is illegal.

[Statistical]

41. LOL. Oh of course. Those lawful-unlawful criminals are the sneaky ones.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. I know my first thought upon seeing someone wearing a gun on hip would be 'definitely a criminal'

Actually, with the attitude some people take with the police around here, I should probably include the sarcasm tag.

[spin]

15. Question, how do you feel about concealed carry? (n/t)

[PavePusher]

18. How often will local law enforcement...

be at your elbow, should you become a victim of crime?

Oh yeah, just about half past never.


Why do you hate Civil Rights?

[Callisto32]

46. Because s/he considers that particular right unsavory.

Same way some used to feel about a black person using "their" facilities.

[Statistical]

21. My rights don't stop at the edge of my property.

I am sad you don't understand that.

It is a right. It is just like freedom of speech, or press, or trial by jury, or protection from warrant-less search.


You may not like it, you may not understand it but you can't put your fingers in your ears and go LALALALLA and make it go away.

Don't like it? The founders included a method to modify the Constitution.

[paulsby]

23. THIS local law enforcement supports the RIGHT of people to protect themselves and their loved ones

in AND out of the home

as most (street) cops i know do.

congrats also on a penis canard reference and the false implication that carrying a gun outside the home increases risk to people.

[proteus_lives]

26. So much fail, so little time.

Millions CCW and open carry, you're not at risk.

Stop living in fear.

[shadowrider]

27. So what you're saying is

You don't want people to open carry and to leave issues to local law enforcement who open carries, is that it?

[SteveM]

33. "Pimps?" "oozing pus?" "emasculation issues?" Where you been, lately?

[Callisto32]

45. Whoa.

"Pimping the Constitution despite the historical realities of the creation of the National Guard has paid off big time for the gun mongers."

The historical realities of its creation? You mean, that it was created?

"I have NO problem with hunting guns and NO problem with home ownership for self defense, as long as the registered owner understands the risk to his/her family. Just do NOT bring that risk outside your home to me and my dear ones<.>"

A holstered weapon is not a risk.

"Instead, support the local law enforcement to handle issues<.>"

A bird in the hand, and all that.

[cowman]

14. The

UK Gaurdian should just STFU

[paulsby]

22. evidenceless rubbish

"Of the good reasons to avoid Starbucks – the over-priced, burned coffee or the crushing of independent competitors – here, in the US, is another: the danger of getting hit by bullets from customers' guns"

any reason to believe one is in greater danger from bullets striking you at a business that allows carry vs. one that doesn't?

i have seen exactly ZERO in my travels

[shadowrider]

28. Come on

Don't you know there's article after article detailing LEGAL CCW holders just going berzerk and firing indiscriminately?

:sarcasm:

[paulsby]

42. oh yea. i forgot about those

fwiw, i never open carry (except when at work, where i have to).

and i never drink starbux coffee. because i can make my own coffee at home. i don't really get the point. heck if i was going to pay $$ for coffee, i'd go to a bikini barista at least. get value for my money.

but i just may go to starbux once a week now to support them. i think this is sound policy and i am glad they did not cave.

i see VERY few people in WA who open carry, but on occasion you will see one.

it's hilarious that many people will still call dispatch apoplectic when it does happen "OMG there is a guy walking down the street with a GUN"

and dispatchers have to calmly tell these people that it's perfectly legal and the cops can't and won't stop somebody for exercising their rights.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

29. BS Article. The second line is a major strawman.

"Starbucks says it's happy for customers to openly display their guns in its US outlets"

No Starbucks did not say that. They said they will allow Starbucks franchises to adhere to the set city & state laws of their locale.
They are not advocating any position on gun rights... simply stating whatever the norm is in a franchises locale should be the policy of that franchise.
It's the easiest thing (administatively and legally) to do from a corporate standpoint. Let the state deal with politics and policies.

[SteveM]

32. Yep, like a drove-by shooting, the prohis are shaking down Starbucks...

They can't accomplish much at the national level, they can't accomplish much at the state level, they can't accomplish much at the local level. So, they take aim at a company which merely says they are following applicable law. And the methodology? The usual distortions, enabled by the ever-compliant MSM (even if it is now most cooperative overseas).

"Starbucks says it's happy for customers to openly display their guns in its US outlets"

The usual fabrication of falsehood. Starbucks never said such a thing, only business as usual.

"Brandishing" (as per the headline)

The Guardian is so purposefully ignorant, they don't want to admit that brandishing is already a crime in the States.

I can't help but think Starbucks was "chosen" by the controller/prohibitionists because it has a "suspect" reputation among U.S. progressives which might make for an easier time of bitch-slapping the company.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. I expect better from the guardian.

This article is a heap of inflammitory garbage.

[X_Digger]

39. Well, it is a blog post (given gravitas by the guardian's name).. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Just realized that.

Op-ed piece. Ignorant author.

Query for our friends across the pond: Does 'brandishing' mean something less than holding the gun in your hand, at the ready?

In america, the usage in legal terms means you are pointing it at things, not wearing it in a holster on your hip.