Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Sorry, Starbucks: You Are In This Debate

  1. #1
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    http://blog.bradycampaign.org/?p=1972
    Sorry, Starbucks: You Are In This Debate

    by Paul Helmke on March 5th, 2010 Permalink

    The Starbucks Coffee Company has become the subject of national media attention because some gun activists have decided to wear their guns openly, with loaded ammunition magazines close by, in Starbucks stores in California.

    Starbucks says it doesn’t want to be embroiled in the gun laws debate. I don’t blame them for wanting to avoid controversy – but they can’t be left out of it. By choosing to appease these gun rights demonstrators – demonstrators whose antics make many gun owners in our country blush – they have put the concerns of the rest of their customers aside. By allowing guns in its stores, the company is jeopardizing the safety of its customers and employees.

    That’s why we have asked concerned citizens to sign a petition urging Starbucks to change its policy. That’s why we’ve posted on our website a sample letter people can sign and give to the manager of their own local Starbucks, asking them to tell the company to change the policy. And we’re just getting started spreading the word about this issue. Sorry, Starbucks.

    Starbucks says it is simply complying with the law. But it would also be complying with the law if it barred guns from its stores. Peet’s Coffee and Tea and California Pizza Kitchen, both of which banned guns after these demonstrations began, also are complying with the law. The law allows Starbucks to set the basic rules for its property. The issue is not the law. The issue is Starbucks’ choice to allow guns in its stores.

    Starbucks says it does not want to have to bar customers who are abiding by the law. But when Starbucks bars someone who is not wearing a shirt or shoes from its stores, or ejects someone who is loud and offensive, it is barring a customer who is abiding by the law. It is not against the law to dress differently or to exercise free speech rights, but it may be against company policy.

    Retail businesses have the right to set policies that go beyond the minimum requirements of the law in running their businesses. Starbucks has a policy that endangers its customers and employees, particularly since there are virtually no restrictions on who can openly carry guns – no permits, no training, no proficiency requirements and no knowledge of the laws is required. And since law-abiding gun owners can drop, lose or unintentionally misuse guns, allowing openly carried guns in Starbucks is bad policy. (Indeed, just this past September a gun activist at an “open carry” picnic was charged with reckless use of a firearm after his gun went off in a parking lot.) As long as it maintains that policy, we will be critical of that policy.
    The gun extremist want an America where there are guns everywhere: not just in coffeehouses, but also in bars, churches, parks, banks and classrooms.

    By capitulating to the gun extremists because they want this issue to “go away,” Starbucks has made a hazardous mistake. Having seen what the gun pushers demand when they are given an inch, I again urge the company to reconsider its policy.
    Helmke keeps asserting that Starbucks is capitulating to gun owners, that Starbucks is appeasing the gun lobby. The reality is that Starbucks has not capitulated to the Brady Campaign with their loud and whiny complaints, their petitions that only a vocal minorty have decided to sign. Helmke is on this rant, not because gun owners are welcome atthe corporate coffee franchise, but because he wasnt able to change Starbucks pre-existing 'non'-policy with his bullying and scare tactics.

    Helmke is making it clearer that he does not respect rights of any kind... gun rights or property rights. Facsism cannot condone such independence as to allow what private businesses choose to do and whom they will serve. By persuing this with a reiteration of his objection to Starbucks 'non' policy, he is making his organization look like the child in the supermarket stamping his feet, having not gotten his way...

    And if justice prevails, Helmke will be in the backseat of the family car pouting as our liberties are restored not just in Starbucks, but in every venue it is our natural right to be. Like restaurants, bars, churches, parks, banks and classrooms.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Modesto, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    By what "authority" are the Brady Bunch claiming that other customers are placed in danger??? What danger? Seriously?

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    Fear, lies and intimidation don't seem to be working for the B bunch. But, I guess thats all they have.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs.

  4. #4
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    http://blog.bradycampaign.org/?p=1972
    And we’re just getting started spreading the word about this issue. Sorry, Starbucks.

    Starbucks says it does not want to have to bar customers who are abiding by the law. But when Starbucks bars someone who is not wearing a shirt or shoes from its stores, or ejects someone who is loud and offensive, it is barring a customer who is abiding by the law. It is not against the law to dress differently or to exercise free speech rights, but it may be against company policy.
    Clearly they are setting the stage for more attacks on Starbucks and other establishments with the first statement I highlighted.

    These people are complete idiots. They are trying to compare law abiding activities with protected civil liberties. Really?! Wearing / not wearing shirt and shoes is clearly more of a cleanliness/grossed out issue, and does not even begin to compare with the 2nd Amendment or other protected rights. Their arguments are so stupid - its amazing anyone even listens to these people.

    You see this is the problem with NANNY-STATERS, STATISTS, and POLICE-STATERS, they simply CANNOT take their business elsewhere. They CANNOT CONTROL their own urges to CONTROL YOU OR OTHERS who don't fall in line with their BIG GOVERNMENT CONTROL positions.

    What did we do? We simply told PEET's and CPK, fine we'll take our business elsewhere. What did they do? They threatened more attacks, more lies, more propaganda.


    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    60

    Post imported post

    The Brady bunch is really starting to act like big babies. They're not only arrogant, but they're acting downright rude. If I was Starbucks, even if I didn't want to get involved in the debate, I'd give these guys a great big "-you, don't tell us how to do business, and please don't lie to us."



    PS, I can't wait to hear Starbucks' reply to this one.

  6. #6
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    If I was the Starbucks CEO, I wouldn't say another word about it.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    i dont understand the Brady Campaign to Preven Gun Violence... they have good core idea, but they have nothing to do with that idea. they dont care about preventing gun violence, they only care to prevent guns. i kind of want to start a group to prevent gun violence that tries to prevent gun violence.

    im sure brady would be happy if the US adopted similar laws to england...




    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  8. #8
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    I like the idea on starting an organization that truly works to prevent gun violence. Maybe you can start on providing expert analysis on how to change biz policies to respect peoples' rights but only negatively impact criminals.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  9. #9
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    That's because gun control isn't about guns...its about CONTROL.

    I know we've heard it hundreds of times, but now some here are seeing it first hand, so it bears repeating.

    A Pro-2A gun group that is interested in reducing gun violence isn't a bad idea. Positioning uncomprimising gun rights against the sensless violence cause by guns would be a worthy effort. The question I have is this, unlike the CONTROL groups out there, how do you achieve your goal? Most here I suspect believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, and are against the concept of the thought police. So the question that must be answered is how do you prevent senseless violence caused by the whack-job before he causes it? Good luck with that. When you have a plausible solution I'll donate to your cause. In the meantime, I'll stick to what we know works, mitigating (not eliminating) violence through the lawful RKBA.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    dirtykoala wrote:


    Please post a link to the source, or at least cite the source of the data presented here. It would be very helpful to the rest of us to be able to cite it to others.
    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.

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    ...(Indeed, just this past September a gun activist at an “open carry” picnic was charged with reckless use of a firearm after his gun went off in a parking lot.)...
    Anybody have details on this? This is the first I've heard of this...
    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.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    Walked in to Starbucks Coffee National Citylast weekand together with my bill, handed the cashier with a business card that says: "Thank you Starbucks Coffee for choosing to allow law-abiding citizens like me freedom to exercise my 2nd amendment right in your store."

    I was not even carrying a firearm at the time (business meeting).

    The cashier looked at the card, looked at me and smiled. I asked if she would hand it to the manager, and she gladly said yes.



  13. #13
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    ConditionThree wrote:
    ...(Indeed, just this past September a gun activist at an “open carry” picnic was charged with reckless use of a firearm after his gun went off in a parking lot.)...
    Anybody have details on this? This is the first I've heard of this...

    That would be this story from 5 months ago;

    http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/...rights_pi.html



    Kalamazoo man at gun-rights picnic at South Haven beach charged after inadvertently firing weapon
    By Kalamazoo Gazette staff
    September 24, 2009, 11:25AM
    By Rex Hall Jr. | Kalamazoo Gazette

    SOUTH HAVEN — A Kalamazoo man attending a gun-rights picnic at South Haven’s South Beach has been charged with reckless use of a firearm after his weapon discharged, police said Thursday.

    Jonathan Wayne Sager, 28, was unloading his semiautomatic handgun and preparing it for transport after the Sept. 13 picnic when it discharged at 5:44 p.m., said Chief Rod A. Somerlott of the South Haven Police Department.

    A warrant authorized Wednesday by the Van Buren County Prosecutor’s Office charged Sager with reckless use of a firearm, which is a misdemeanor, police said.

    No one was struck by the bullet.

    Somerlott said officers found remnants of the bullet in the parking lot, leading police to conclude the gun was pointed in a downward direction when it was fired.

    “Was his intention to fire the gun? No,” Somerlott said. “At least, I don’t believe so.”

    However, police said they believe about 150 beachgoers left the area voluntarily after the shot was fired.

    Police responded to the area after receiving calls about the gunshot being fired.

    They later stopped Sager, who was riding in a friend’s pickup truck, and three friends in the 800 block of LaGrange Street.

    At the time of the stop, Somerlott said Sager and his friends told police they were looking for the local police station so they could report the incident.

    At the scene of the stop, Sager’s weapon was checked and returned to him and he was allowed to leave, police said.

    Sager voluntarily turned himself in Wednesday at Van Buren County District Court following the issuance of a misdemeanor warrant and was later released pending a formal court arraignment, a news release said.

    Sager and his friends had attended a picnic on the afternoon of Sept. 13 that was organized by Michigan Open Carry, which promotes awareness of the state law that allows citizens to openly carry a firearm in most places
    I would point out that this would be less likely to occur if he wasn't handling the firearm to prepare it for 'transport'- Here in California both PC626.9 and 12031 are creating the unnecessary hazardous conditions where armed individuals arehandling their weapons to abide by restrictions in state law. Im not defending the negligent discharge, but we are suceptable to similar conditions at our events as well.

    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  14. #14
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    Stay off the boom switch till it's time to speak.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Harrah, Oklahoma
    Posts
    769

    Post imported post

    Out of respect for Starbucks I wont be setting up or attending any more organized meetups at Starbucks but I will continue to UOC alone there and buy all the coffee I can afford.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
    Stolen from ConditionThree because it can't be stressed enough.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    SomeGuyInCali wrote:
    By what "authority" are the Brady Bunch claiming that other customers are placed in danger??? What danger? Seriously?
    The only people the Brady Bunch cares about being in danger are CRIMINALS. Law-abiding gun owners put CRIMINALS in danger, and we must be disarmed so we can be completely submissive to CRIMINALS.

    Brady Campaign For Criminal Safety is their actual overriding principle.

  17. #17
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    This is from a powerpoint presentation I gave in college speech class. Sources were scholarly and dependable though I don't have them close at hand like I do the chart.

    EDIT ADD SOURCE (page 7): http://www.freewebs.com/imperialpolk...5.1-screen.pdf

    DATA FROM PREVIOUS FILES (individual countries added page by page)

    Australia, gun control - 4.1% of population is violently victimized each year

    Britain, gun ban - 3.6% of population is violently victimized each year

    Canada, full firearms registration - 3.4% of population is violently victimized each year

    Switzerland, 740,000 military "assault rifles" in private homes, many fully automatic - 2.1% of population is violently victimized each year

    United States,more guns than any othercountry - 1.9% of population is violently victimized each year

    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    That's because gun control isn't about guns...its about CONTROL.

    I know we've heard it hundreds of times, but now some here are seeing it first hand, so it bears repeating.

    A Pro-2A gun group that is interested in reducing gun violence isn't a bad idea. Positioning uncomprimising gun rights against the sensless violence cause by guns would be a worthy effort. The question I have is this, unlike the CONTROL groups out there, how do you achieve your goal? Most here I suspect believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, and are against the concept of the thought police. So the question that must be answered is how do you prevent senseless violence caused by the whack-job before he causes it? Good luck with that. When you have a plausible solution I'll donate to your cause. In the meantime, I'll stick to what we know works, mitigating (not eliminating) violence through the lawful RKBA.
    You can't really stop the whack-job from doing something, but what you can solve or attempt to prevent are the other causes of the more common forms of gun violence, criminal activity.

    Believe it or not, I have argued for some time to start a gun range and club dedicated to introducing the inner city youth to the shooting and marksman sports and discipline.

Posting Permissions

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