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

[Mike]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...cks-gun-groups-gun-control-fast-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!"

 

[MAC702]

...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.

 

[Logan 5]

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.

 

[eye95]

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.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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"

 

[Rusty Young Man]

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.

 

[Rusty Young Man]

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).

 

[rast1971]

No gun for me, No money for you. simple as that.

 

[BB62]

...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??

 

[BB62]

...Starbucks " Well we are no longer neutral and guns aren't allowed...

Incorrect. Guns not wanted but not "Not allowed".

 

[eye95]

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>

 

[bbMurphy]

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.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Incorrect. Guns not wanted but not "Not allowed".

Satire to make a point.....also see below....

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>

 

[wrearick]

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?

 

[eye95]

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>

 

[MattinWA]

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.

 

[JustJack]

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

 

[CT Barfly]

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?

 

[MAC702]

...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?

 

[eye95]

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.