Utah Guns Forum banner

Time to add Starbucks

13K views 37 replies 17 participants last post by  Ruminus 
#1 ·
#2 ·
Here's the full press release. I always thought it unwise to use Starbucks as an pawn in the ongoing debate.

An Open Letter from Howard Schultz, ceo of Starbucks Coffee Company

Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Posted by Howard Schultz, Starbucks chairman, president and chief executive officer

Dear Fellow Americans,

Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That's why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.

From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a "third place" between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life.

We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America's gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the "open carry" laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, "open carry" is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.

Our company's longstanding approach to "open carry" has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don't exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement-not by Starbucks and our store partners.

Recently, however, we've seen the "open carry" debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called "Starbucks Appreciation Days" that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of "open carry." To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas-even in states where "open carry" is permitted-unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request-and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose "open carry," we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion "open carry," please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.

I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today's request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors.

Sincerely,

Howard Schultz
 
#4 ·
Not worth a boycott. Their position is the same they did not want be part of the debate and their hand was forced to dissuade further media spectacles depicting them as pro gun when they only gun tolerant. As they said in the letter they are not banning they are requesting no open carry. Gun rights groups never should have tried to use them as if hey were a supporter and antis never should have blamed them for following local laws. I see no blame here for Starbucks.
 
#5 ·
We did not choose Starbucks. The anti-rights side did. We chose to still give them money to offset what the ********** were doing (and then some).
 
#8 ·
gskip33 said:
I like this press release. Makes sense to me.
I see no reason to boycott. That's just silly in my opinion.
Agreed. No reason to boycott.

Just honor their request not to do any additional "appreciation" days. If the antis want to boycott, Starbucks is fine if we don't make any special effort to support the store.

What Starbucks has learned, and the rest of us see again, is the great tolerance of the left. Starbucks wanted no part of the gun debate and was happy to just follow local laws. That wasn't good enough for the gun grabbers who demanded that Starbucks join them whole-heartedly in stigmatizing and ostracizing gun owners/carriers. So they called for a boycott.

Gun owners have never called for a boycott--so far as I know--just because a store doesn't put out an explicitly pro-gun policy. Short of taking overt action to kick us out, we are quite happy to quietly, peacefully go about our business not dragging anyone or any business into this political/social debate. I don't need Walmart or Wendy's to validate my decision to own or OC a gun. As long as they kick me out for peacefully doing so, I'm happy to take my business to them. Only when they do kick me out for having a gun do I tell my fellow gun owners about it and frankly, that is as much or more to help them avoid hassles and to respect the desires of private business as it is to enforce any kind of a "boycott."

Live and let live and peacefully take your business to those who don't attack your rights.

Charles
 
#9 ·
D-FIN said:
Not worth a boycott. Their position is the same they did not want be part of the debate and their hand was forced to dissuade further media spectacles depicting them as pro gun when they only gun tolerant. As they said in the letter they are not banning they are requesting no open carry. Gun rights groups never should have tried to use them as if hey were a supporter and antis never should have blamed them for following local laws. I see no blame here for Starbucks.
this

i read the CEO said no signs would be added like a no smoking signs
 
#11 ·
UnderratedF00l said:
The gun community shot themselves in the foot on this one.
Disagree. I don't disagree with not really needing to call for a boycott, more an end to the buycotts countering the Anti's boycotts. But I disagree that we shot ourselves in the foot. This was what the anti-s where trying to achieve with their boycott. And it's their pressure that caused this. Sure a couple notable Youtube video's from those who went overboard in their buycott OC, again the risk of carrying long rifles in this current atmosphere. But we didn't cause this. We were trying to support Starbucks in their support of the laws of the land.

No a boycott isn't needed, I put this here because it seemed like the best location. I would love to find out that their sales in Utah and many other parts of the country drop substantially but they won't. I know the Orem and Am Fork Starbucks definitely noticed the $2 bill day. Perhaps we need another one, one last show of how much money supporters of the 2A really can and do put into their pockets.
 
#12 ·
DaKnife said:
Sure a couple notable Youtube video's from those who went overboard in their buycott OC, again the risk of carrying long rifles in this current atmosphere. But we didn't cause this. We were trying to support Starbucks in their support of the laws of the land.
Maybe you're right. It's not just a couple of notable Youtube vids that were the cause of this -- they probably contributed -- but there's a lot more than that out there.

I think that many -- dare I say most? -- in the pro-gun crowd completely misinterpreted Starbucks' "law of the land" stance as them being pro-gun, which they are not (and never have been).
 
#13 ·
UnderratedF00l said:
Maybe you're right. It's not just a couple of notable Youtube vids that were the cause of this -- they probably contributed -- but there's a lot more than that out there.

I think that many -- dare I say most? -- in the pro-gun crowd completely misinterpreted Starbucks' "law of the land" stance as them being pro-gun, which they are not (and never have been).
Anybody even vaguely familiar with Starbucks' general political views should not have thought they were "pro-gun". Nor did they need to be. I don't really need the guy who sells me beverages, gasoline, milk, pants, etc, etc, etc, to be overtly pro-gun. As long as he doesn't kick me out for being in legal possession of my gun, and isn't too overt or vocal or significant in using his profits to attack my RKBA, I don't really care what or even whether he thinks about guns.

I also agree that the OCing of long guns in most cases is going a bit overboard these days. I'm trying to implement my own version of the liberals' "no enemies to the left" so I don't care to criticize other gun owners or carriers publicly. While this list is not very private, it isn't an interview with the media either. So here I will again voice my view that OCing of long guns--and especially in combat slings on handled in public--is to risk various backlash. They are also generally inappropriate as a self-defense item in an urban or suburban environment, though there may be significant deterrent effect.

For self-defense around town, put a handgun into a proper holster and either OC, CC, or CCC as may suit your purposes, mood, and attire.

For a political or social statement around town at the present time, put a handgun into a proper holster and OC with due diligence paid to demeanor, comportment, and generally how you are representing yourself and your political views.

Push the social mores a little bit, but don't go crashing through all boundaries without thought as to how the larger public will perceive and potentially react.

If I have to, in public, I'll defend a person's right to OC a rifle. I just really wish I didn't have to do so for the next few years.

Charles
 
#15 ·
gskip33 said:
Casually Concealed Carry.

Covered enough that a cop could probably cite you for carrying a concealed firearm if you didn't have a permit. But no serious effort made to keep the gun out of sight.

As "deep concealed" is to "concealed carry" in one direction, "casually concealed" is in the other direction.

An OWB retention holster as might be used for OC, but with a winter jacket or coat worn will result in CCC when you walk inside and unzip the jacket. Or if the jacket is short enough that the bottom half of the holster/barrel poke out below the waistline.

Charles
 
#17 ·
bagpiper said:
gskip33 said:
Casually Concealed Carry.

Covered enough that a cop could probably cite you for carrying a concealed firearm if you didn't have a permit. But no serious effort made to keep the gun out of sight.

As "deep concealed" is to "concealed carry" in one direction, "casually concealed" is in the other direction.

An OWB retention holster as might be used for OC, but with a winter jacket or coat worn will result in CCC when you walk inside and unzip the jacket. Or if the jacket is short enough that the bottom half of the holster/barrel poke out below the waistline.

Charles
The cat one is better lets go with that one. Now, can you train him to identify and dispatch intruders?
 
#21 ·
MichaelD said:
Hawk87 said:
Wait, negative blow back from people open carrying?

Inconceivable!
My thoughts exactly.
To be fair, it is rare to find any credible evidence of negative blow back from open carry of a properly holstered handgun. All personal experience and best evidence we see among this group is that the vast majority of the public never even notices an OCd handgun. When someone does notice, negative reactions are fairly rare.

I really hate to even put the carrying a long gun into the same category as OCing a handgun. It is just so different in terms of how many people are likely to notice, typical reactions, and the ability of the carrier to credibly claim any reason for the possession other than just making some point.

Charles
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top