Starbucks new Firearm Policy? Found this online..

deepdiver said:

IMO, this whole thing is for putting 2A activists on notice. The corp has asked more than once for people to not make guns an issue in and around their stores. Carry, don't carry, no one cares as long as you don't make a deal out of it or draw attention to it - they are a coffee shop not a gun shop. Their requests were blatantly ignored. So how do they get rid of the activists, placate their hippie customer base and maintain their generally libertarian position of just follow the local and state laws? Tell the 2A types that they are not welcome with their guns but decline to set up any enforcement mechanism internally or externally for that position. If they really wanted to keep out anyone carrying they would have announced that they were posting no firearm signs nationwide.

This is corporate speak. This is a follow-up, but this time screaming, to repeated ignored requests to activists to leave them out of the whole gun thing entirely so they can just sell coffee dammit.

Click to expand...

+1

Now your chances of getting cited for disorderly conduct is much higher if you do something idiotic like carry an AR into Starbucks since their position is clear now.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

I think some of you are so addicted to their coffee that you are being forced to defend them, and rationalize any spending of money at a business that boldly stated that you are not welcome. He even said that the only reason they didn't ban guns is because they are afraid confronting someone with a gun. That in itself is insulting. Why can't you people get that through your thick skulls.

got_heat said:

I think some of you are so addicted to their coffee that you are being forced to defend them, and rationalize any spending of money at a business that boldly stated that you are not welcome. He even said that the only reason they didn't ban guns is because they are afraid confronting someone with a gun. That in itself is insulting. Why can't you people get that through your thick skulls.

Click to expand...

A: I don't spend money at Starbucks. I don't really like coffee, especially at $5. I'm not defending the practice of spending money there; I'm defending their decision, because we grossly disrespected their wishes, repeatedly.

B: That reason is clearly specious, and designed to further appease the anti-gunners by appealing to their own absurd fears. Having to confront someone doesn't stop other anti-gun businesses from enforcing outright bans.

This is obviously exactly what deepdiver said it was – a notice to us, and an appeasement to the anti-gunners.

I won't defend that appeasement itself, but we did bring this on ourselves. (Some of us, at any rate.)

How many folks have staged a "Walmart appreciation day"? What about IHOP? What about [insert random business here]? Why did we have to single Starbucks out, against their express wishes to not be singled out? Why – because the antis did so first? Pfft.

I cannot even drink coffee anymore and in fact have been to Starbucks a total of 2 times in my life. My point which small minded people seem to be failing to understand is that they never professed to be pro gun they simply said they would follow state law. Where people got the idea that demonstrating at Starbucks was a good idea I will never know.

I do know they asked to be left out of the political bickering and as such we should have left them alone!


Stay informed about MOC events in your area http://miopencarry.org/updates

marshaul said:

A: I don't spend money at Starbucks. I don't really like coffee, especially at $5. I'm not defending the practice of spending money there; I'm defending their decision, because we grossly disrespected their wishes, repeatedly.

B: That reason is clearly specious, and designed to further appease the anti-gunners by appealing to their own absurd fears. Having to confront someone doesn't stop other anti-gun businesses from enforcing outright bans.

This is obviously exactly what deepdiver said it was – a notice to us, and an appeasement to the anti-gunners.

I won't defend that appeasement itself, but we did bring this on ourselves. (Some of us, at any rate.)

How many folks have staged a "Walmart appreciation day"? What about IHOP? What about [insert random business here]? Why did we have to single Starbucks out, against their express wishes to not be singled out? Why – because the antis did so first? Pfft.

Click to expand...

Except they adamantly stayed neutral until now.

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Gun-rights-supporters-back-Starbucks-despite-boycott-220952681.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/30/opinion/watts-beck-guns-starbucks/index.html

Interestingly enough we don't hold rallies at IHOP but La Open Carry Awareness League holds regular monthly meetings at at least 3 different IHOPs. Our Northwest Chapter meets at a Shreveport IHOP, the South East Chapter meets at an IHOP in Laplace and I have a meeting scheduled for tonight in Baton Rouge at an IHOP. Doubt we will be holding IHOP Appreciation Day rallies but we tip well and the waitresses are always friendly.

They are still neutral.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

coorsleftfield said:

They are still neutral.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

Click to expand...

Did you bother to read it?

http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/18/news/companies/starbucks-guns/index.html

"We've seen advocates on both sides of this debate use Starbucks as a staging ground," Schultz said. "Starbucks is not a policy maker. We're not pro- or anti-gun," but believes that guns "should not be part of the Starbucks experience." He said people carrying guns into Starbucks have made other customers uncomfortable.

Click to expand...

Here is an interesting part:

Schultz said customers who bring in guns will still be served and won't be asked to leave. Starbucks isn't imposing a ban on firearms because "we don't want to put our people in the position of having to confront somebody who's carrying a weapon," he said.

Click to expand...

In other words, "We don't want to confront someone for carrying because we are scared the law abiding citizen exercising his/her right to bear arms."

sraacke said:

Interestingly enough we don't hold rallies at IHOP but La Open Carry Awareness League holds regular monthly meetings at at least 3 different IHOPs. Our Northwest Chapter meets at a Shreveport IHOP, the South East Chapter meets at an IHOP in Laplace and I have a meeting scheduled for tonight in Baton Rouge at an IHOP. Doubt we will be holding IHOP Appreciation Day rallies but we tip well and the waitresses are always friendly.

Click to expand...

Sure, and plenty of folks had regular, uneventful meetings at Starbucks, too.

That's quite distinct from going on Facebook bragging about "STARBUCKS APPRECIATION DAY!!!11onederp"

protias said:

In other words, "We don't want to confront someone for carrying because we are scared the law abiding citizen exercising his/her right to bear arms."

Click to expand...

In other words, "maybe the antis will finally shut up if we throw them a bone (i.e., we can't actually kick them out becuz we too a'scared to!), and maybe the pro-gunners will finally get the hint about SAD (Starbucks appreciation days) if we tell them they 'aren't welcome'".

protias said:

Here is an interesting part:Schultz said customers who bring in guns will still be served and won't be asked to leave. Starbucks isn't imposing a ban on firearms because "we don't want to put our people in the position of having to confront somebody who's carrying a weapon," he said.


In other words, "We don't want to confront someone for carrying because we are scared the law abiding citizen exercising his/her right to bear arms."

Click to expand...

No, in other words - we want the 2A activists who dragged us into the middle of this to go away, but Bob who lives in the apt down the street, OCs and comes in regularly is still welcome to do the same but if we say that we could be sued so we'll just tell the activists to go away, not ask Bob to leave when he comes in and in the process ostensibly throw a bone to the hippie and hipster antis who make up our largest customer base but who also, understanding slogans but not gun laws, won't realize that we invited Bob to keep continue visiting armed or not.

Because if this Fortune 500 company really wanted to get eliminate customers carrying firearms, they have plenty of attorneys to explain to them how to post their locations appropriately and they can add how to call 911 to have the cops make someone leave who is violating a no firearms sign to their training videos. But, they are not doing that are they?

Item number three pissed me off though.

"If a armed customer becomes disruptive what do I do?"

Why not ask "If any customer becomes disruptive what do I do?"

or

"If an unarmed customer becomes disruptive what do I do?"

Starbuck is dead to me, I respect their rights and will not support the buisness that clearly wants to have it's cake and eat it also.

If my protection isn't welcome than neither am I in my view. Bow to political correctness and the anti's, it is their coffee shop now.

deepdiver said:

No, in other words - we want the 2A activists who dragged us into the middle of this to go away, but Bob who lives in the apt down the street, OCs and comes in regularly is still welcome to do the same but if we say that we could be sued so we'll just tell the activists to go away, not ask Bob to leave when he comes in and in the process ostensibly throw a bone to the hippie and hipster antis who make up our largest customer base but who also, understanding slogans but not gun laws, won't realize that we invited Bob to keep continue visiting armed or not.

Because if this Fortune 500 company really wanted to get eliminate customers carrying firearms, they have plenty of attorneys to explain to them how to post their locations appropriately and they can add how to call 911 to have the cops make someone leave who is violating a no firearms sign to their training videos. But, they are not doing that are they?

Click to expand...

You might want to read it again.

The one were it said 'Guns are not welcome".

They are trying to keep both customers by saying they don't want guns in the store hoping people will be like ok and leave them in the car or at home. They won't confront but they are discouraging. If you do carry in SB now you will be made to feel like a outcast and law breaker even though in theory you are not.

DocWalker said:

You might want to read it again.

The one were it said 'Guns are not welcome".

They are trying to keep both customers by saying they don't want guns in the store hoping people will be like ok and leave them in the car or at home. They won't confront but they are discouraging. If you do carry in SB now you will be made to feel like a outcast and law breaker even though in theory you are not.

Click to expand...

This 100%, I am more then happy to take my money elsewhere, yet they just announced to every nut job looking to make his name known, now has a new target. Well God forbid if some nut job does, it will certainly show, you kick gun owners away you invite the crazy along.

coorsleftfield said:

They are still neutral.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

Click to expand...

Your funny....lol

What don't you get about "GUNS ARE NOT WELCOME IN OUR STORES".

Not saying the word ban gives them an out. If I have a party at my house and ask that people not bring their dogs but someone does I could ask them to leave or I could let then stay. If they stay it will be an uncomfortable sitution as I already asked you not to bring your dog. I as the host wouldn't say anything but I would resent you for not adhearing to my wishes and not invite you back.

This is how we got here in the first place, by a certain number of people from both sides pushing an agenda with Starbucks in the middle.

I personally won't spend another dime at SB for how they are trying to be all PC with this. It is all about marketing and keeping as many customers. I would rather be safe than drink coffee unarmed, and I wouldn't want to disrespect their wishes either.

The cheesy new policy that will evolve into a full blown ban, it currently tells other customers they are free to call the cops because they are unsettled and upset at the presences of a gun. They also said they are giving us a chance, when responsible gun owners fail to take their chance of leaving them at home, and Starbucks is tired of the cops charging in daily, the ban will be the policy. Chance into change.
Take this chance to avoid..., before the upcoming change, is the message.

DocWalker said:

You might want to read it again.

The one were it said 'Guns are not welcome".

They are trying to keep both customers by saying they don't want guns in the store hoping people will be like ok and leave them in the car or at home. They won't confront but they are discouraging. If you do carry in SB now you will be made to feel like a outcast and law breaker even though in theory you are not.

Click to expand...

I read it. I disagree with your interpretation of what they intend. I think they are being subtle and shooing away the flies with a large but harmless newspaper, most others interpret that they are swinging a sledgehammer.

Either way, I think this is a great lesson to the activists who kept on with the Starbucks rallies, appreciation day and such even after Starbucks repeatedly asked them to stop it and leave them out of the entire conversation. This particular activism did not normalize anything, but just irritated a previous neutral party into at least ostensibly, stepping from neutral to anti.

jbone said:

The cheesy new policy that will evolve into a full blown ban, it currently tells other customers they are free to call the cops because they are unsettled and upset at the presences of a gun. They also said they are giving us a chance, when responsible gun owners fail to take their chance of leaving them at home, and Starbucks is tired of the cops charging in daily, the ban will be the policy. Chance into change.
Take this chance to avoid..., before the upcoming change, is the message.

Click to expand...

I find the boldest portions to be assertions or predictions without merit.

DocWalker said:

It is all about marketing and keeping as many customers. I would rather be safe than drink coffee unarmed, and I wouldn't want to disrespect their wishes either.

Click to expand...

Yes it is. They are a FOR PROFIT BUSINESS! They asked 2A activists several times in several different ways to stop interfering with their ability to do business, but OC and 2A activists kept dragging them into the middle of it causing them problems with their customers who are not of those groups. They did not care if you carried OC, CC or not at all as long as you bought coffee until the pro activists started causing them business hassles and refused to stop after being asked several times in several different ways. This deal today is what is known in the real world as a consequence.

We keep saying we want OC normalized and to not be a big deal. Starbucks did that. WE made it a big deal. WE caused them business problems. So they told the activists to pound sand.

Now, despite all this saying it is not a ban is really a ban talk, I will say with 90% confidence about a Fortune 500 company that started in one of the most OC friendly and OC common states in the Union, that when Bob, who regularly OCs, lives down the block, never holds rallies or causes disruption at the store and comes into the Starbucks daily walks into Starbucks tomorrow OC, nobody is calling cops, nobody is getting upset and nobody gives a crap, and Bob gets his latte, reads his paper and goes on with his day.

They want to stop the activists! They are sick of the hassle. We on the pro-2A, pro-OC side did not listen to them. I expect that this is very obvious to most of us who were here on OCDO and other OC forums 3-4 years ago when the Starbucks nexus stuff started and who saw this as the likely end result of the pro-Starbucks agitating.