Anyone else seen any corroboration on this? http://gunssavelives.net/news/breaking-starbucks-issues-statement-guns-not-welcome-in-our-stores/#
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
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
Agreed. No reason to boycott.gskip33 said:I like this press release. Makes sense to me.
I see no reason to boycott. That's just silly in my opinion.
thisD-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.
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.UnderratedF00l said:The gun community shot themselves in the foot on this one.
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.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.
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.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).
Casually Concealed Carry.gskip33 said:CCC?
The cat one is better lets go with that one. Now, can you train him to identify and dispatch intruders?bagpiper said:Casually Concealed Carry.gskip33 said:CCC?
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
My thoughts exactly.Hawk87 said:Wait, negative blow back from people open carrying?
Inconceivable!
:roll:
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.MichaelD said:My thoughts exactly.Hawk87 said:Wait, negative blow back from people open carrying?
Inconceivable!