Peet's Coffee CEO Declares Ban on Open Carry

imported post

Just read a sign on a Peet's store door that effective today the CEO of Peet's (Patrick O'Dea) declared that following a recent Open Carry on Peet's property in San Ramon it is now their company policy to deny Open Carriers to be on their property with open carried weapons, including the outdoor seating areas of their stores. They said it dsistracts from a safe environment where their patrons can enjoy their coffee.

As a publicly licensed company Im not sure of the legality of this. What's next... are they going to revert to denying civil liberties and constitutional rights based on the color of someones skin? Or maybe based on age because the young people scare the elders who then cant enjoy their coffee? I was under the impression that if you are a company operating with a public business license that you have to abide by the law and respect the legal and civil rights of the people - which would include Constitutional rights and what Peet's has specifically recognised as a legal right to openly carry firearms.

Anybody have any more insight as to the legality of this and what affect this could have on someone openly carrying a firearm at Peet's going forward? If it is legal to deny service... the OpenCarry.org movement should support a boycott of Peet's coffee estalishments henceforth. If it is not legal... someone needs to take this back to Peet's and raise a stink.

imported post

I thinkwe'll have to wait until after 2A incoporated to argue the civil rights angle. In the meantime, take a bunch of pictures and video ofUOC'ers drinking the competitor's coffee in front of their store on public access sidewalks and post to youtube and video. Get the word out they don't respect our liberties.

imported post

Does this mean they will deny uniformed on duty officers as well?

Because if not, I believe that's a double standard.

imported post

The statement issued by the CEO reads that Peet's will only allow uniformed officers to openly carry weapons on their business property.

I also just read that California Pizza Kitchen has made similar statements. Looks like they wont be getting my business anymore either!

imported post

Support_and_Defend wrote:

They said it distracts from a safe environment where criminals can enjoy absolute control over their victims.

Click to expand...

Fixed.

imported post

And the sculpture made of fragile wine glasses comes crashing down...

imported post

Perhaps someone can forward Starbucks 'we abide with federal, state and local law" policy to Peet's... (not that it will sway them). Businesses can prohibit armed people if they like.

Im curious though... do they plan to prohibit concealed weapons too? How about knives? Pepper spray? Tazers? Who will be handling enforcement? Will there be security in lieu of responsibly armed people? Will they be screening people at the door? If they dont, how can they possibly know who is armed in defiance of their prohibition?

imported post

For the time I've lived in CA, both currently and back before I lived out of state, I was always torn between Peet's and Starbucks. Guess I'm not torn anymore. Thanks for helping me decide to go to your larger competitor, Peet.

imported post

Can anyone get a picture of this new sign?

imported post

Support_and_Defend wrote:

the OpenCarry.org movement should support a boycott of Peet's coffee estalishments henceforth. If it is not legal... someone needs to take this back to Peet's and raise a stink.

Click to expand...

Supported! Good-bye, Peets. Hello Starbucks! And I don't even like Starbucks.

imported post

I guess I won't be going to Peet's Coffee anymore. I'll add them to my boycott list.

imported post

Support_and_Defend wrote:

Just read a sign on a Peet's store door that effective today the CEO of Peet's (Patrick O'Dea) declared that following a recent Open Carry on Peet's property in San Ramon it is now their company policy to deny Open Carriers to be on their property with open carried weapons, including the outdoor seating areas of their stores. They said it dsistracts from a safe environment where their patrons can enjoy their coffee.

Click to expand...

Has anyone contect O'Dea to get his explanation of why he changed the policy "following a recent Open Carry" at the San Ramon store?

What exactly did the open carriers do at that event, from his perspective?

Maybe there's something that the OCers did that could be corrected. Or that could be better explained to O'Dea and company.




Support_and_Defend wrote:

What's next... are they going to revert to denying civil liberties and constitutional rights based on the color of someones skin? Or maybe based on age because the young people scare the elders who then cant enjoy their coffee?

Click to expand...

Slippery slope arguments. Weak ones. Flimsily constructed and irrelevant SS arguments ....not persuasive... quickly rebutted...easily refuted.... waste of time...

imported post

When I see things like this, I wonder.

First, it would not be a crime/illegal to buy coffee from Peet's while OC. Second, it takes about 4-6 minutes to order and receive your coffee. Third, the average response time for LEO is about 10-12 minutes?

Organize something like this. Find a woman or OCer of color. Take your children with you. Then simply go in order and see what happens. The very worst thing that can happen is that they ask you to leave. If they do then leave. If not then enjoy your coffee. Signs are for cowards.

Even better if you have someone that can video record the event either way.

Food for thought...

LIVE FREE OR DIE!

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

I thinkwe'll have to wait until after 2A incoporated to argue the civil rights angle. In the meantime, take a bunch of pictures and video ofUOC'ers drinking the competitor's coffee in front of their store on public access sidewalks and post to youtube and video. Get the word out they don't respect our liberties.

Click to expand...

I think we need to quit waiting around for the Supreme Court or anyone else for that matter to "tell" us what our rights are! Did the Blacks wait for someone to say it is OK to sit at the front of the bus? Or go to all white schools? To vote?H*&! NO!

Either this IS a civil right based on the Bill of Rights of this (once) Great Nation or it is not. Simple. It. is. or. it. is. not!

While I, like many others, cannot afford to get arrested and fight a good fight (heck, I'd probably get a Public Defender), we need to continue to push this for all it is worth to that end.

I don't think we should have armed marches, due to the unique difference this right has, but empty holster (or even Banana carry) large protests along with continued education and the other tools we have need to be pushed.

As a gun blogger (can't find the original quote to ref) once said: I am getting tired of being treated like a gun ni553r!

And that is almost exactly how we are being treated.

Yes I know, no one is out hanging, whipping or randomly killing gun owners as was done with black and the slights against us are not, generally, as bad.But when we are not allowed to go some where or do something or lose our job or get hassled by the police, then I think the comparison fits.

Or let'scompare to religious freedom or other 1st amendment rights. How long would Christians tolerate being asked to leave Costco because of the Cross Necklace they wear or getting stopped because you have a religious bumper sticker? Would just about any group stand for their meetings to be patrolled by. and their attendees harrassed by. the police or even the ability to have group events prevented or regulated in such a way as to make them unable to hold? I don't think so.

The 1st is the one we need to use most to fight this fight...the evolution of technology analogy fits. And when they want to shut down gun shows that is not only the 2nd that is being trampled, but the 1st and we need to fight those efforts as such.

Regards, Gary

imported post

HankT wrote:

Has anyone contect O'Dea to get his explanation of why he changed the policy "following a recent Open Carry" at the San Ramon store?

What exactly did the open carriers do at that event, from his perspective?

Maybe there's something that the OCers did that could be corrected. Or that could be better explained to O'Dea and company.

Click to expand...

Contact should be made in addition to a boycott. Nothing more powerful than getting the word out.Emails should be sent, their website lists this email address as webmail@peets.com

By the way...here's what their own website says about their founder (in part). Obviously he came to America in search of freedom and liberty. I wonder what he'd say about their new policy limiting freedom and liberty.

imported post

...

imported post

Regardless of the fact that we have the 2A right (and even when we "officially" do after incorporation), the fact of the matter is that property owners have rights to, and if they want you to leave then you have to obey, or you are violating trespass law.

imported post

:? BOC (Banana Open Carry) to Peet's anyone? Buy the cheapest item on the menu and hang around for a while...

Carry On,

Livermoron

imported post

Email sent to Peet's with the educational brochure attached. Get your messages in.

To: Patrick O'Dea

Your store has come to the national attention of the Open Carry community on the www.opencarry.org forums. A message was recently posted regarding your decision to ban lawful open carriers in your stores. This message addresses that decision. If for some reason, my information is not correct I would appreciate knowing that. The message posted can be seen at http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=37024&forum_id=12&jump_to=631746#p631746.

I have attached to this message an educational document regarding open carry and the second amendment. I would appreciate it if you would review this document as it explains the needsfor and why upstanding, law-abiding citizens open carry.

With regard to your recent decision to ban lawful open carry, or any other legal means of personal self defense for that matter,it is most unfortunate and a decision that I cannot and will not support. Until such time that your decision is reversed and clearly communicated I will no longer beshopping at any of your stores. Further, I will tell everyone in my family and circle of friendsto do the same.

Regards,
An Informed and Armed Citizen
Temecula, CA

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

Regardless of the fact that we have the 2A right (and even when we "officially" do after incorporation), the fact of the matter is that property owners have rights to, and if they want you to leave then you have to obey, or you are violating trespass law.

Click to expand...

Well the question then will be much the same as the other Bill of Rights. Places of 'public accomodation' can not bar your first ammendment right to wear a religious shirt, or to assemble, or to speak.....

They are not private property in the same manner as your home. As long as they allow the public on thier property and you are doing nothing illegal then you are protected. There are some limitations but generally it is difficult for a business to ban you when you are in a protected class. (i.e. race, religion)

You only violate tresspass after you have been told to leave and you don't. Or if you have been tresspassed for a period of time and return.