Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Starbucks=Cool with guns

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    I am going to buy a frappuchino tonight.

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=261384

    CARRY ON!

    -N8

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Livermore, California, USA
    Posts
    229

    Post imported post

    Rebuttal to the Brady Bunch in the works :-) more to come...

    Carry On,

    Livermoron

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    this is what i posted on calguns:



    Chris Vario at the Cherry Orchard Starbucks banned me for open carrying on 9/11/09. I followed up a lot with him, and corperate. Back in Sept. when I was speaking to corp, they informed me that guns were not allowed on any starbucks property, i asked them to send me a copy of that policy. after a few days of getting the run around, they told me that the policy they quoted applied only to employees and there is in fact no policy against guns, they defer to federal, state, and local laws.

    p.s. they "unbanned me" (there was never a ban i found out because the store manager must file paperwork to ban a person).
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    dirtykoala wrote:
    this is what i posted on calguns:

    *

    Chris Vario at the Cherry Orchard Starbucks banned me for open carrying on 9/11/09. I followed up a lot with him, and corperate. Back in Sept. when I was speaking to corp, they informed me that guns were not allowed on any starbucks property, i asked them to send me a copy of that policy. after a few days of getting the run around, they told me that the policy they quoted applied only to employees and there is in fact no policy against guns, they defer to federal, state, and local laws.

    p.s. they "unbanned me" (there was never a ban i found out because the store manager must file paperwork to ban a person).
    Ready to Rock with a cup of coffee. Bless you sir. Stay safe.

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    The Brady Bunch are truly jammed packed with misguided statists. I wouldn't be surprised if each and every one of them has read Utopia and thought it was a readily achievable goal for society. They have no appreciation for history. They'll sweep aside lessons from the past with phrases like, "in this day and age," which means that history won't repeat itself because somewhere we crossed some line where things are different now. It's great that they can voice their opinions, but it's revolting that they are so shortsighted.

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bad_ace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cupertino, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    How does one get on this Brady Campaign mailing list. Now that I'm on their radar (youtube video) I'd like to get these in my inbox

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Livermore, California, USA
    Posts
    229

    Post imported post

    Hi All,

    Please see below a response to the Brady Campaign. This will also be available at http://www.baoc.us soon.

    Carry On,

    Livermoron

    January 20th 2010
    Bay Area Open Carry

    The Brady Campaign, a nationally established Anti-Gun and apparent Anti-Constitution organization, having routinely been thwarted by many Americans practicing common sense and choosing to uphold the Constitution, have resorted once again to the common depraved tactics of complain, make noise, boycott, and complain more, until you cause your subject to buckle under perceived social or economic strain. The use of “think and act like us or else” pressuring against businesses and individuals is nothing less than shameful and has no place in a civilized society.

    Persons exercising their rights under the Constitution, and acting within the laws of the land in whatever manner, are not criminals by definition. Individuals that may choose to practice Catholicism, or build homes, or drive a car, or drink coffee, are all conducting lawful activities in just the same manner as a firearm owner who may choose to “Unloaded Open Carry” his or her firearm. It is clear that the Brady Campaign does not enjoy the basic common sense to understand these facts.

    Below is an unedited excerpt from an “Action Alert” memorandum as written January 20th
    2010 by Amanda Wilcox of the Brady Campaign, Sacramento Valley Brady Campaign Chapter. This Action Alert was sent to Miss Wilcox’s fellow members.

    1. ACTION ALERT: Please contact Starbucks and complain about Open Carry events taking place at their stores: There is a very aggressive push going on by the CA Open Carry Movement http://www.californiaopencarry.org/ to bring guns onto private property in workplaces and restaurants. The California Chapters believe that -- besides being bad for business -- the Open Carry events are dangerous for the community. When we learn of an upcoming event we are alerting the store managers and corporate offices so they can be proactive in establishing a gun-free policy and advising their employees on how they should respond. When we learn of an event that has taken place we are contacting the manager and corporate offices to complain:

    "As members of the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, we want to voice strong disapproval of allowing guns on the premises of your establishments. Whether legal or not, the practice is intimidating and attempts to normalize the carrying of deadly weapons in public *̶ an act potentially dangerous to the community. With the horrific problem of gun violence in California this type of threatening behavior is unacceptable. The excuse that it is legal to carry an unloaded gun in public does not make it a responsible act. We believe that as a manager you have the right to prohibit guns on the premises of your establishment. All states have private property rights and the rights of employers to adopt a gun-free policy. We strongly encourage you to adopt a gun-free policy for your company. We are advising people, for the safety of their families, NOT to frequent establishments that allow open carry of guns on their premises."
    An Open Carry Event was held recently at the: (see this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYWz7BEEg1k)
    Cherry Orchard Starbucks
    332 W. El Camino Real
    Sunnyvale, CA
    408-736-6859

    Call Manager "Chris" of the Cherry Orchard Starbucks to complain about this event.

    We contacted Starbucks Corporate Office to obtain their statement regarding this issue. Starbucks Corporate deftly passed the star "buck" with this response:

    "Thanks for contacting Starbucks Coffee Company. Starbucks does not have a corporate policy regarding customers and weapons; we defer to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding this issue. We appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns."

    Bill C.

    Customer Relations

    Starbucks Coffee Company

    Congratulations are in order to Starbucks. Three cheers. Our friends, our families, and we, will continue to frequent their many fine establishments. Starbucks had the fortitude and wisdom to not be pushed around by the unreasonable, narrow minded, and shortsighted will of the Brady Campaign. Unfortunately it appears that members of the Brady Campaign are still being trumpeted into further warrantless complaining.

    Members of the Brady Campaign, if you are “intimidated” by the mere sight of a firearm, you are cordially invited to not look in the direction of a person lawfully practicing Unloaded Open Carry. Your freedom to publicly assemble and enjoy a wonderful cup of coffee will stand. In the process, you will not be undermining the rights and lawful activities of, your fellow Americans.


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    San Jose, California, USA
    Posts
    108

    Post imported post

    I'm actually shocked that a group such as the Brady Campaign is bringing these businesses into the middle of this.

    I can see these poor owners(not Starbucks of course) wondering which group they are going to piss off by making a decision, when all they want to do is make a buck and enjoy the pursuit of happiness.

    I hope one day I'll get to experience the Utopia of law abiding citizens being left alone. It really is that easy.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    SouthBayr wrote:
    I'm actually shocked that a group such as the Brady Campaign is bringing these businesses into the middle of this.
    That's the Brady Campaign's MO. Anywhere litigation fails, they will try to create social and economic sanctions for everybody who "allows" rights to be exercised.

    You smell that? It's desperation.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    I am sure glad my friend and I sent in a commendation card on how the manager of downtown Starbucks handled a men with guns and a baby, call. She was very friendly and professional, let us know what was happening and had no problem with us.

    When the police came she told us "don't worry I didn't call them" went outside and told them she had no problem with us.

    The police told us they know we are legal but the way the caller had called they had to check.

    This post here makes me happy, I'll have to go get a Starbucks tomorrow. Since I have cut way back due to economics.
    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)

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    SouthBayr wrote:
    I hope one day I'll get to experience the Utopia of law abiding citizens being left alone. It really is that easy.
    It's not that hard to experience, you just can't experience it here in CA. Try Idaho, or Arizona, or a some other states, to get a taste of it. It's really quite nice to be treated like a normal person, as opposed to the type of response that seems to be the norm in CA.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    NightOwl wrote:
    SouthBayr wrote:
    I hope one day I'll get to experience the Utopia of law abiding citizens being left alone. It really is that easy.
    It's not that hard to experience, you just can't experience it here in CA. Try Idaho, or Arizona, or a some other states, to get a taste of it. It's really quite nice to be treated like a normal person, as opposed to the type of response that seems to be the norm in CA.
    When we were in AZ a couple of weeks ago, I LOCed and no one batted an eye. When my wife was in line to pay for jewelry supplies, a man behind me said he was from CA and wished he could carry like "you guys" in AZ. He almost fainted when I told him I was from CA too and OC every day.

    I didn't have any pamphlets with me but I gave him an OpenCarry.orgcard.


  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Post imported post

    NightOwl wrote:
    SouthBayr wrote:
    I hope one day I'll get to experience the Utopia of law abiding citizens being left alone. It really is that easy.
    It's not that hard to experience, you just can't experience it here in CA. Try Idaho, or Arizona, or a some other states, to get a taste of it. It's really quite nice to be treated like a normal person, as opposed to the type of response that seems to be the norm in CA.
    This is exactly why I am opposed to (e) checks. As evidenced by their absense in other states, they're clearly unnecessary. Furthermore, by increasing frequency of contact between LEOs and UACs, they simply result in an increase in the frequency of problems. Thus, I fully support leaving a MWAG alone unless there are other indications of unlawful intent. Carrying a firearm is a right, not intent to commit a crime.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  14. #14
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    The only way we are going to end e-checks is for someone to refuse one, get arrested, and argue the 4th (and the 2nd, if you decide to carry loaded that day) through the appellate courts. While we all agree that it is clearly unconstitutional, and violates the standards set forth in Terry, as well as Florida v J.L. and U.S. v Ubiles, it is currently unchallenged in the courts. If I had the time and the money to do it, I would gladly be the test case. I know we would win. But you gotta have the cash first.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Yep and they know this. And this is the very reason right after right has been infringed upon. Because the general public can't afford the fight.
    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)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    I wouldn't "attack" the Brady campaign, not that I agree with them, in literature, for one reason. Most people don't know that they use emotions to try to pass laws, instead of facts. That being said, when you attack the campaign specifically instead of the facts, people will respond with things like "Don't you want kids to be safe and stop shooting themselves with illegal guns?"

    The Brady Campaign uses these tactics, of what is called logical fallacy of a loaded question. The famous one is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If you say NO, this means that you haven't stopped beating your wife, if you say YES, it means that you beat your wife.

    Don't address the Brady campaign, ignore them -- it's a red herring to attack them and not the issue.

    Best,
    Pace
    my liberty blog: http://www.libertypace.com/journal/2...ights-pt1.html





  17. #17
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    Starbucks gets my biz. Never heard of Peet's.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

Posting Permissions

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