Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Press Release - Connecticut Carry Statement about ‘Starbucks Appreciation Day’

  1. #1
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Thumbs down Press Release - Connecticut Carry Statement about ‘Starbucks Appreciation Day’

    Connecticut Carry Statement about ‘Starbucks Appreciation Day’

    The Importance of Showing Respect to Property Rights and Owner’s Wishes

    Connecticut, August 10, 2013: Connecticut Carry leadership learned about an event called ‘Starbucks Appreciation Day’ on August 8th at approximately 9:30pm through the opencarry.org Connecticut forum. Connecticut Carry and its leadership has, since November 2010, advised against rallies or events involving firearms at Starbucks locations. This was due to a request from Starbucks to not use their stores as political rally points for the issue of carrying firearms:

    We recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws. Advocacy groups from both sides of this issue have chosen to use Starbucks as a way to draw attention to their positions.

    As the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue. As a company, we are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society. Our Starbucks family knows all too well the dangers that exist when guns are used irresponsibly and illegally. Without minimizing this unfortunate reality, we believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.
    Starbucks Corporate Policy Memo dated March 16, 2010


    Connecticut Carry respects the rights of a property owner like Starbucks to ask to not be used as a civil rights battleground. We also appreciate their neutral stance even when they encounter a very vocal minority that requests absurd things like policies against firearms in public businesses.

    While we absolutely respect and support the right of every citizen of Connecticut to bear arms in any manner they choose, we must also conduct ourselves in a responsible and respectful manner. Connecticut Carry had no part in organizing or sponsoring this event. Likewise, we were unable to find any organization or person that would take responsibility for organizing this event.

    We hope that in the future, the wishes of Starbucks will be respected in accordance to their policy. Firearms carriers who simply carry their firearms as they wish in their daily business and save rallies and events for property that is welcoming will help our cause the most. Respecting the property rights of Starbucks is the best way to show appreciation for a business that has been through a lot of turmoil for not taking a negative stance on our rights.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Is it the viewpoint of CT Carry that with any business that does not want to be the meeting point
    of people who wish to support then 2nd amendment, who wish to meet, assemble to discuss important issues and news of the day, should not venture into businesses who have not expressly said they they welcome being a meeting point of the discussion of political issues?

    Then all businesses would be "off-limits" in the eyes of CT Carry as hardly any businesses would invite such assemblies?

    http://www.starbucks.com/assets/02be...87a4ba84e0.pdf

    Starbucks (like other businesses) say they want to be involved (link above) ... they give $$ to political causes. Like it or not, they are involved, through their own actions and being part of the public.

    IMO they need to publicly choose at this point; right now, it appears as if they are anti - they refused to serve OCers.

    I don't respect the rights of those who do not respect mine.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 08-10-2013 at 03:19 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Press Release - Connecticut Carry Statement about ‘Starbucks Appreciation Day’

    The press release speaks for itself. Your attempt to put words in our mouth is shameful and will not be answered directly.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    The press release speaks for itself. Your attempt to put words in our mouth is shameful and will not be answered directly.
    Hey, that's words of a lawyer...

    Your letter is quite clear: do not exercise your right to assemble unless expressed permission by a business owner is given if we wish to assemble at a coffee shop or other business.

    Crystal clear.

    I gave you an opportunity to correct such a grave encroachment of our rights to assemble - you have chosen not to address the issue further.

    You sound like DESPP.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Another message to David Godbout

    Again I find myself offering my opinion that your attitudes and posts do more harm than good.
    I am convinced that you suffer from some type of psycological disorder where you need to be heard on every topic.

    I'm sure I'm not alone in my opinion.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post
    Again I find myself offering my opinion that your attitudes and posts do more harm than good.
    I am convinced that you suffer from some type of psycological disorder where you need to be heard on every topic.

    I'm sure I'm not alone in my opinion.
    You are a broken record Ed. And I mean "broken" in the broadest sense.

    Fat and broken who likes to talk about his glorious ties to DESPP and Mr. Harding or whatever that kicked out loser's name was. "Look I have a letter!!...a LETTER!" Oh boy.

    How did that California case turn out for you Ed?

    **** crickets ****

  7. #7
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    How did that California case turn out for you Ed?
    How did your permit application work out for you David?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thc0M_ZdK80

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke7Uhu_ZUSM
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    How did your permit application work out for you David?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thc0M_ZdK80

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke7Uhu_ZUSM
    It worked out well ... I never expected to get my permit (IQ of ED = 5) ... I argued several points:

    1) that the Board cannot ask questions of witnesses (compare Chapter 14 that says HOs can ask witnesses ? to the board's related statues that allow them to investigate while the action is pending, not during an active hearing) [the board could not believe a person actually brought this up!! the indignity!]

    2) that I don't have to complete the arrest record & MV record sections (that the board agreed with)

    3) that one does not need to get "safety class training" [the board did not agree with]

    4) that one does not need provide a DD214 [military security reasons -board did not agree with]

    5) that a cop cannot represent the town - only a licensed attny can [I won on this point-you saw an attny representing the town, did you not?]

    6) that fingerprints are not necessary (I lost on this point & I kinda of agree with their viewpoint after they explained it to me, even though the town said it was not needed at the time (evidence though) ~ hence no appeal)

    So I was successful on several points....I did not expect to win the case. And I did speak fast, I wanted stuff in the record before anyone could object. So fast and loud is the manner by which I presented my case. And argumentative...if you do not ague then your objections are waived. I wanted to waive nothing.

    In admin cases I am fast and loud and very argumentative. Don't like that? You don't want to be my hearing officer then lol.

    get ready for my next hearing before the board .... it will be a show to behold ...

    And the link? Irrelevant -- a court would never hear it -- only see a written transcript. Get the commissioners mad and they make mistakes ... and they did, many of them.

    Its an adversarial system. deal with it commissioners or get a new job. make me wait 8 months? You'll have a mean spirited litigant on your hands...who does not care how they rule.


    The board also did not rule on my eligibility -- just that the application was incomplete.

    And I have my guns so your analysis of me is clearly delusional.

    I meant to be an a**hole in front of the board and to appear the way I did .... it was part of my strategy ... I don't think we need permission to carry

    And how did your CA case go?

    Lets get back to the subject matter of this tread Ed. You seems obsessed with me.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 08-10-2013 at 08:53 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •