Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: USA Today quotes OpenCarry.org's Mike Stollenwerk on Starbucks non-policy

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    USA Today quotes OpenCarry.org's Mike Stollenwerk on Starbucks non-policy

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...-food/2839129/

    SNIP

    Gun groups so far unfazed by Starbucks' new policy

    . . .

    The nation's largest gun rights groups have this early response to Starbucks no longer "welcoming" guns in its stores: Yawn.

    . . .

    But even with CEO Howard Schultz asking gun owners to leave their guns at home, several key groups contacted on Thursday that represent gun owners have not called for any actions against the world's largest coffee chain.

    No boycotts. No mass protests planned. (The largest such group, the National Rifle Association, did not respond to several phone calls and e-mails on Thursday.) Starbucks says it heard nothing from any pro-gun groups as of late Thursday afternoon.

    "It's business as usual," says Starbucks spokesman Zack Hutson. "We don't expect to satisfy any of the extremes," he adds.

    But, for the most part, gun advocacy groups had little negative to say on Thursday.

    . . .

    Some gun advocates may be disappointed in Starbucks, says Mike Stollenwerk, co-founder of OpenCarry.org, an advocacy group, "but I'm not," he says, in an e-mail. "I would hope the gun carriers react to Starbucks' new non-policy by continuing to patronize Starbucks — while armed."

    ---
    NOTE: USA Today left off the other part of Stollenwerk's comment. Here is the full written statement Mike Stollenwerk gave USA Today:


    "The anti-gun rights community attacked Starbucks when it openly refused to ban gun carry, targeting the store with negative publicity and demonstrations.

    My understanding is that Starbucks has now issued a statement "requesting" that patrons do not carry guns, but also stating that their employees will take no action against patrons who do carry guns at Starbucks.

    Starbucks is simply repositioning its policy to be the same as most every store and restaurant in America - to have no policy on guns at all.

    Some open carriers are disappointed in Starbucks, but I'm not.

    I would hope that gun carriers react to Starbucks new non-policy by continuing to patronize Starbucks while armed.

    However gun carriers should avoid the appearance of using Starbucks as a publicity venue and just buy their coffee - and Carry On!"
    Last edited by Mike; 09-20-2013 at 04:01 AM.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    ...statement Mike Stollenwerk gave USA Today: "...I would hope that gun carriers react to Starbucks new non-policy by continuing to patronize Starbucks while armed. ..."
    In other words: 'disrespect them and their now widely known official "not welcome" policy, and disrespect us by continuing to do business with a company that just officially said gun carriers are not welcome.'

    I don't mean to disrespect you, but that's how I see that; just so you know.
    Last edited by MAC702; 09-20-2013 at 04:05 AM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  3. #3
    Regular Member Logan 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    690
    I hope Mr. Schultz got a copy of the full statement Mike. I think that considering the circumstances Starbucks is far more accepting of OC & CC than 95% of the businesses out there that banned firearms.
    Lifetime member, Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/)
    Lifetime member, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)
    Member, Fraternal Order of Eagles since 8/02 (http://www.foe.com/)

    Registering gun owners to prevent crime, is like registering Jews to prevent a HOLOCAUST.

    I am not a lawyer in real life, or in play life. So anything I say is for debate and discussion only.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Which part of "not welcome" do folks not get???

    They are contradictorily saying, "You are not banned, but we don't want you here."

    No problem. I simply won't go there. If others want to find out what Starbucks really means with their waffling, they should go for it. Not me. I hope their business suffers.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    The anti's "Let's not support Starbucks neutral stance"

    Starbucks "We don't want to be put in the middle of the debate we remain neutral"

    The gun guys "Yay let's support their stance to remain neutral" (some go overboard)

    Anti's step up protests "Starbucks we hate guns ban them from your establishment ban them or we'll boycott you"

    Gun guys " let's show support to Starbucks for not discriminating against us, and following state law by allowing our guns in the stores"

    Starbucks " Well we are no longer neutral and guns aren't allowed, and it was the gun guys fault for supporting us too much"

    Anti's "Yay we win lets move to the next establishment that doesn't cater to our hoplophobia"
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 09-21-2013 at 04:53 PM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Which part of "not welcome" do folks not get???

    They are contradictorily saying, "You are not banned, but we don't want you here."

    No problem. I simply won't go there.
    Agreed. Though not an "outright ban", it is akin to them saying:

    Gay-ness is not welcome in our establishment, and we prefer you leave your gay-ness at home or in your car. But if you do come in, we will still accept your money.

    Black-ness is not welcome in our establishment, and we prefer you leave your black-ness at home or in your car. But if you do come in, we will still accept your money.

    I realize the analogy begins to break down, but my point is, they are essentially saying: "We don't want you here, but we still want your money, so we'll grudgingly tolerate you to get it."

    If my firearm isn't welcome, my money isn't welcome, and I am not welcome. Both my firearm and my money are an extension of my person as they pertain to my individual God-given (or Natural) rights.

    Personally, I don't even drink coffee (been a few years since I gave it up), but even if I were to drink it, I would drink COFFEE, maybe adding some cream or milk (great with certain sweet breads), not some "string-of-words"-chino with with eight different add-ons I can't pronounce without going tongue-tied. So Starbucks won't be getting any money from me, just like they never have.
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 09-29-2013 at 07:23 PM. Reason: Grammar

  7. #7
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    SNIP...Some gun advocates may be disappointed in Starbucks, says Mike Stollenwerk, co-founder of OpenCarry.org, an advocacy group, "but I'm not," he says, in an e-mail. "I would hope the gun carriers react to Starbucks' new non-policy by continuing to patronize Starbucks — while armed."

    ---
    NOTE: USA Today left off the other part of Stollenwerk's comment. Here is the full written statement Mike Stollenwerk gave USA Today:


    "The anti-gun rights community attacked Starbucks when it openly refused to ban gun carry, targeting the store with negative publicity and demonstrations.

    My understanding is that Starbucks has now issued a statement "requesting" that patrons do not carry guns, but also stating that their employees will take no action against patrons who do carry guns at Starbucks.

    Starbucks is simply repositioning its policy to be the same as most every store and restaurant in America - to have no policy on guns at all.

    Some open carriers are disappointed in Starbucks, but I'm not.

    I would hope that gun carriers react to Starbucks new non-policy by continuing to patronize Starbucks while armed.

    However gun carriers should avoid the appearance of using Starbucks as a publicity venue and just buy their coffee - and Carry On!"
    Sorry Mike, but I'm in complete agreement with MAC and Eye on this one. If they were repositioning "to have no policy on guns at all", they would not have said our guns weren't welcome.

    If we keep patronizing them while armed (which I assume should be the case of everyone on this forum who is not prohibited by local ordinances and state laws) after they said our firearms are not welcome, we are disrespecting their wishes, and are still giving our money to someone who only grudgingly tolerates us to get it.
    There is no mutual respect, only courteous exchange, so maybe it's time to rediscover home-brewed coffee and other establishments that do welcome us, in our entirety (see my previous post).

  8. #8
    Regular Member rast1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    MANSFIELD
    Posts
    22
    No gun for me, No money for you. simple as that.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    ...I would hope that gun carriers react to Starbucks new non-policy by continuing to patronize Starbucks while armed...
    You and John deserve a great deal of respect for everything you have and continue to do, but why on God's green earth would I want to patronize a business that has made it clear that they don't want me or others of "my kind" in their stores??

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    ...Starbucks " Well we are no longer neutral and guns aren't allowed...
    Incorrect. Guns not wanted but not "Not allowed".

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Folks were asked not to bring them in. That is clear. We have been officially informed not to bring them in. That they plan not to beat us with a stick if we do does not mean that will will not be violating their stated intent.

    Oh, and it does not matter if they promise not to call the cops. They still can.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  12. #12
    Regular Member bbMurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Springfield, VA
    Posts
    61
    Not to mention the fact that if we do continue to patronize SBX while OC or CC then we will be made out to be the bad guy because we don't respect the wishes of SBX.

    My gun and therefore myself and my money are NOT welcome at SBX as my gun, self and money are a package deal.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Incorrect. Guns not wanted but not "Not allowed".
    Satire to make a point.....also see below....

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Folks were asked not to bring them in. That is clear. We have been officially informed not to bring them in. That they plan not to beat us with a stick if we do does not mean that will will not be violating their stated intent.

    Oh, and it does not matter if they promise not to call the cops. They still can.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member wrearick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Posts
    635
    There has to be a line drawn somewhere that we check/investigate before we OC into a place, whether it is the first time there or the 50th. If someone asks me where SBX stands, I would characterize thier position as "they don't want guns in the establishments" so I won't go.

    If you don't draw the line there, where do you draw it?

    What if the next policy change is: "We understand your right under the second amendment and __ state law recognizes your right to carry. For those that continue to visit our establishments while armed we ask that you minimize your time in the establishment for the comfort of the other patrons and get your products to go..."

    would that request be over your line and finally decide that you really were not welcome?

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    My line is any indication whatsoever of their desire for my gun not to be in their store. They have made it amply clear that they do not want it (amply enough, IMO, that they can ask the cops to remove you if you do carry) by very specifically asking me not to carry.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Spokane Washington
    Posts
    285
    Meh, I never enjoyed Starbucks overpriced mediocre coffee, plenty of local stands to patronize with a better attitude to right to carry with equal or better coffEe for cheaper.
    Last edited by MattinWA; 10-06-2013 at 09:31 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Findlay, Ohio, United States
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by MattinWA View Post
    Meh, I never enjoyed Starbucks overpriced mediocre coffee, plenty of local stands to patronize with a better attitude to right to carry with equal or better coffEe for cheaper.
    ^This +1

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    LEOs now know the store policy.

    LEOs drink coffee and citizens sometimes call 911 for MWAG.

    Any guesses as to how this plays out if you keep going to Starbuck's?

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by CT Barfly View Post
    ...Any guesses as to how this plays out if you keep going to Starbuck's?
    LEOs acting as agents of the business without authority to do so?
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    LEOs acting as agents of the business without authority to do so?
    Maybe, but more likely, we will be seen as not respecting the wishes of SB. We will be seen as the bad guys.

    It really is simple folks: SB has asked us not to carry. We should not carry. I will accomplish this by not going to SB.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    It could be cops who helped push for this non policy too. Notice their exemption? We had the cops try to bad mouth us to the Starbucks we had our meets at, luckily for us the employees there loved us and told us what the cops had done.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662
    To me this whole issue is a question of integrity - on my part individually and on the part of the 2A movement as a whole. They said directly that they do not want us carrying in their establishments; the fact that they will still serve us as normal and not kick us out for carrying is beside the point. Since I rarely go out in public unarmed and because of my integrity, it is in my/our best interest to honor their request and not patronize their establishments. I am not boycotting them, I am simply honoring their request. The consequence of honoring their request is no money from me.

    Besides, I found a couple of coffee shops that have waaaaay better Java anyway.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Emmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Butte, Montana, USA
    Posts
    17
    SB has every right to ask customers not to carry, despite the legality of OC.

    I have every right to never step foot in there again and that is exactly how I will proceed.

    Nothing else matters.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    wilmington nc
    Posts
    26
    i was in starbucks yesterday carrying and didn't have an issue. after reading this i will no longer be going there. a business has the right to say not to carry but they also take a risk at losing business. the owner of the shop i work at dosent allow employees to carry.. oc or cc. he says it will deter customers. but customers who walk in carrying aren't asked to leave

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    11
    I will wait patiently to hear the comment of the CEO when a Starbucks is robbed and employees and patrons shot when there are no police anywhere to be found and who show up 30 minutes after the fact wielding their firearms with authority when there is no criminal to be found.

    The bottom line is simply this. One does not need fear the patron with a gun strapped on for all to see, but one does need to fear the criminal with no regard for human life who walks in with gun in pocket that no one can see.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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