On the News again

509rifas said:

I've been stopped several times by officers who knew me and asked specifically if I was "packing heat."

Click to expand...

Unless it was obvious they were joking, I'd think they weren't trained very well.

Perhaps it's a generational vernacular thing. To people in my age group (under 30) "packing", "holding heat," "got heat/heater," simply mean carrying. There is no criminality implied.

Click to expand...

I see using proper terms as showing who's educated about the topic & who rides the short bus.
Gun grabbers usually aren't educated about guns, so use words like "packing heat", "toting", etc.

sudden valley gunner said:

in my opinion they want their own version of Jim Crow laws... one not based on melanin but just as bigoted.

Click to expand...

Maybe if we had revolver-only events they'd be happier?
Or ones where only stainless guns were welcome?
Or my favorite, tactical tupperware only!

As a community we do NOT need to walk around on egg shells and begging people to let me keep our rights, or hoping that if we just keep our heads down and stay quiet that "no one will notice us." That's a surrender mentality.

Click to expand...

Fine but don't put words in other people's mouths. That's unethical.

deanf said:

But Starbucks is not a "pro-2a" business, and they have asked not to be represented as such. They are a "follow state law" business. The OC movement has coopted Starbucks and put words in their mouth - an unethical thing to do. I predict it will backfire. That's my opinion. If Starbucks does go anti and we boycott, few will notice or care, but we will regret turning over that rock.

Click to expand...

+1

Wikipedia:

In 2010, the Brady Campaign proposed a boycott of Starbucks due to their gun policy.[211][212] At that time, Starbucks released a statement saying "We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. That means we abide by the laws that permit open carry in 43 U.S. states. Where these laws don't exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores."

Click to expand...

I believe it's disingenuous to promote Starbucks as a pro-2A establishment, and the further bastardization of its policies by the media and both sides of the issue will ultimately make Starbucks choose a policy that neither side will like. It's a no-win situation for Starbucks and it's tried to state that.

Oh, if anyone would like to inform Dr. Sandy Brown of the "backward" laws of this state (and assuming his view extends to the Constitution), here's his email: sandy@firstchurchseattle.org

deanf said:

But Starbucks is not a "pro-2a" business, and they have asked not to be represented as such. They are a "follow state law" business. The OC movement has coopted Starbucks and put words in their mouth - an unethical thing to do. I predict it will backfire. That's my opinion. If Starbucks does go anti and we boycott, few will notice or care, but we will regret turning over that rock.

Click to expand...

I agree. There are many businesses that just follow state law but we don't harvest their logo for our gain. Walmart, Home Depot, Dick's, etc. Why haven't we used any of them?
By intentionally twisting what these companies have said we are only subverting our own goal.
In my eyes it is no different than telling a child they may have one cookie and they take the cookie and a cupcake.

By the way, Costco does not comply with State law when they arbitrarily say, "No Firearms Allowed". We're talking about about firearm laws not private property laws.

You guys understand that "following state law" doesn't mean anything with regard to firearms in WA right?

In WA, private property owners do not have to allow open or concealed carry, or they can.

So just saying that "starbucks/random business/purple octopus follows stats law" means they are acting within the law by either allowing firearms, or not allowing it.

An example of starbucks NOT following state law would be them stating they refused to do business with certain ethnicities or requiring patrons to perform illegal actions.

I am not trying to be a semantics nerd here, I am trying to point out that starbucks would be perfectly legally justified, under state law, in banning firearms from their stores but they don't. That's key.

deanf said:

But Starbucks is not a "pro-2a" business, and they have asked not to be represented as such. They are a "follow state law" business. The OC movement has coopted Starbucks and put words in their mouth - an unethical thing to do. I predict it will backfire. That's my opinion. If Starbucks does go anti and we boycott, few will notice or care, but we will regret turning over that rock.

Click to expand...

This!

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

Alpine said:

You guys understand that "following state law" doesn't mean anything with regard to firearms in WA right?

In WA, private property owners do not have to allow open or concealed carry, or they can.

So just saying that "starbucks/random business/purple octopus follows stats law" means they are acting within the law by either allowing firearms, or not allowing it.

An example of starbucks NOT following state law would be them stating they refused to do business with certain ethnicities or requiring patrons to perform illegal actions.

I am not trying to be a semantics nerd here, I am trying to point out that starbucks would be perfectly legally justified, under state law, in banning firearms from their stores but they don't. That's key.

Click to expand...

When reading Starbucks' stance, it is clear that unless open carry is restricted or prohibited by federal/state/local laws/statutes, they will not create a story policy to ban firearms. The legal entitlement to ban/allow on private property/businesses, while the true letter of the law, is not what Starbucks' is conveying.

For example, if WA had a law that prohibited firearms in any food service facility that had a maximum capacity of over 15 people, Starbucks would have to legally comply in certain stores, but not all.

The way I look at it is that Starbucks could easily, with very little effort, put in place a "no firearms" policy like many other stores have done especially in a very liberal area like Seattle. The fact that they haven't when they easily could, IMO, makes them 2A friendly. I guess some would technically call this "2A neutral." I can see both viewpoints.

Originally Posted by deanf But Starbucks is not a "pro-2a" business, and they have asked not to be represented as such. They are a "follow state law" business. The OC movement has coopted Starbucks and put words in their mouth - an unethical thing to do. I predict it will backfire. That's my opinion. If Starbucks does go anti and we boycott, few will notice or care, but we will regret turning over that rock.



By Decklin:
I agree. There are many businesses that just follow state law but we don't harvest their logo for our gain. Walmart, Home Depot, Dick's, etc. Why haven't we used any of them?
By intentionally twisting what these companies have said we are only subverting our own goal.
In my eyes it is no different than telling a child they may have one cookie and they take the cookie and a cupcake.

By the way, Costco does not comply with State law when they arbitrarily say, "No Firearms Allowed". We're talking about about firearm laws not private property laws.

Click to expand...

You both make good points regarding Starbucks not being openly a "pro 2a" company. But I don't necessarily agree with either of you regarding Starbucks/Schultz changing his mind about following State law in regards to our right to carry on his corporate properties.

First and foremost, Schultz is a businessman. He has gotten publicity from this whole thing. Profits are good. I think he knows full well that having the stickers/shirts etc out there is free advertising and good for his business.

Should we actively promote Starbucks as a Pro-2A company? Not necessarily. But we can certainly, as we have been doing, reward them for choosing to follow State Law and publicly stating that loud and clear.

I base my opinion [and it is certainly only my opinion ] on this from his very public statement at the shareholders meeting a while back regarding the money he is making for his Shareholders, when he backed the Marriage equality issue. He is not afraid to take a stand, if it makes money for the Corporation/Shareholders.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...re-if-they-dont-like-companys-stance-on-gays/

decklin said:

I agree. There are many businesses that just follow state law but we don't harvest their logo for our gain. Walmart, Home Depot, Dick's, etc. Why haven't we used any of them?
By intentionally twisting what these companies have said we are only subverting our own goal. <snip>

Click to expand...

Walmart, Home Depot, Dick's, ect. are not right-infringing-liberal hangouts, Starbucks is.

OlGutshotWilly said:

You both make good points regarding Starbucks not being openly a "pro 2a" company. But I don't necessarily agree with either of you regarding Starbucks/Schultz changing his mind about following State law in regards to our right to carry on his corporate properties.

First and foremost, Schultz is a businessman. He has gotten publicity from this whole thing. Profits are good. I think he knows full well that having the stickers/shirts etc out there is free advertising and good for his business.

Should we actively promote Starbucks as a Pro-2A company? Not necessarily. But we can certainly, as we have been doing, reward them for choosing to follow State Law and publicly stating that loud and clear.

I base my opinion [and it is certainly only my opinion ] on this from his very public statement at the shareholders meeting a while back regarding the money he is making for his Shareholders, when he backed the Marriage equality issue. He is not afraid to take a stand, if it makes money for the Corporation/Shareholders.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...re-if-they-dont-like-companys-stance-on-gays/

Click to expand...

+1

A lot of semantics are afoot. However, IMHO if you aren't opposed to something then you by default are FOR something. "Neutrality" is the cowards/politician's way out and their should be no real estate afforded to that position of "neutrality". Just following the law/orders was not justifiable in the Nuremberg trials and it shouldn't be here either. They indeed have a choice in the matter and have CHOSEN to follow state law which means they are pro 2A. Alpine stated it would take very little effort to place "No Guns Allowed" signs at the entrance to their establishments but they haven't. Seattle Mayor is also encouraging businesses in his jurisdiction to also "follow state law" and we label him an "anti" but Starbucks is "neutral" because they say so?

Lovenox said:

A lot of semantics are afoot. However, IMHO if you aren't opposed to something then you by default are FOR something. "Neutrality" is the cowards/politician's way out and their should be no real estate afforded to that position of "neutrality". Just following the law/orders was not justifiable in the Nuremberg trials and it shouldn't be here either. They indeed have a choice in the matter and have CHOSEN to follow state law which means they are pro 2A. Alpine stated it would take very little effort to place "No Guns Allowed" signs at the entrance to their establishments but they haven't. Seattle Mayor is also encouraging businesses in his jurisdiction to also "follow state law" and we label him an "anti" but Starbucks is "neutral" because they say so?

Click to expand...

Why? I think it was courageous for Switzerland to remain neutral even though all the power houses were working her. Seemed to have worked out well for them.

It's a smart business move, don't discriminate, don't get involved in a debate were the supporters of either side can paint you one way or the other in a bad light.

sudden valley gunner said:

Why? I think it was courageous for Switzerland to remain neutral even though all the power houses were working her. Seemed to have worked out well for them.

It's a smart business move, don't discriminate, don't get involved in a debate were the supporters of either side can paint you one way or the other in a bad light.

Click to expand...

Courageous to remain neutral? That's a first. Convenient, yes, courageous no. Courageous would actually be to take a stand much like you and I do everyday with OCing. Convenient is more like the CC'ers that don't wanna cause a "commotion" by Ocing and thus fall just shy of fully practicing their 2A rights. How is it a smart business move when a) we have shown our support for the establishment by holding meetings there and by proxy they have drawn the ire of the anti's? The anti's don't care that "they are following state law". To them it is a soft endorsement and since they have seen our buying power they won't cower anytime soon. b) as stated earlier they aren't neutral in everything with their pro-homosexual marriage stance and all. So, courageous? No, Convenient? Yes. They are a corporation and are following the trade winds of public opinion. Would they have endorsed homosexual marriage 20 years ago? Nope. In either event I am happy that I get to carry in their establishment so I frequent them instead of places that kick me out.