[Vikonbarius]

This is just so decadent... and it's another reason to hate Starbucks. Don't they deserve a boycott?

Gun fans cheer Starbucks’ stance on the armed
Other businesses refusing to serve customers who show off weapons

Feb. 28, 2010

Dale Welch recently walked into a Starbucks in Virginia, handgun strapped to his waist, and ordered a banana Frappuccino with a cinnamon bun. He says the firearm drew a double-take from at least one customer, but not a peep from the baristas.

Welch's foray into the coffeehouse was part of an effort by some gun owners to exercise and advertise their rights in states that allow people to openly carry firearms.

Even in some "open carry" states, businesses are allowed to ban guns in their stores. And some have, creating political confrontations with gun owners. But Starbucks, the largest chain targeted, has refused to take the bait, saying in a statement this month that it follows state and local laws and has its own safety measures in its stores.

"Starbucks is a special target because it's from the hippie West Coast, and a lot of dedicated consumers who pay $4 for coffee have expectations that Starbucks would ban guns. And here they aren't," said John Bruce, a political science professor at the University of Mississippi who is an expert in gun policy.

Welch, a 71-year-old retired property manager who lives in Richmond, Va., doesn't see any reason why he shouldn't bear arms while he gets caffeinated.

"I don't know of anybody who would provide me with defense other than myself, so I routinely as a way of life carry a weapon — and that extends to my coffee shops," he said.

The fight for retailers heated up in early January when gun enthusiasts in northern California began walking into Starbucks and other businesses to test state laws that allow gun owners to carry weapons openly in public places. As it spread to other states, gun control groups quickly complained about the parade of firearms in local stores.

Some were spontaneous, with just one or two gun owners walking into a store. Others were organized parades of dozens of gun owners walking into restaurants with their firearms proudly at their sides.

In one case, about 100 activists bearing arms had planned to go to a California Pizza Kitchen in Walnut Creek, Calif., but after it became clear they weren't welcome they went to another restaurant. That chain and Peet's Coffee & Tea are among the businesses that have banned customers with guns.

Just as shops can deny service to barefoot customers, restaurants and stores in some states can declare their premises gun-free zones.

The advocacy group OpenCarry.org, a leading group encouraging the demonstrations, applauded Starbucks in a statement for "deciding not to discriminate against lawful gun carriers."

"Starbucks is seen as a responsible corporation and they're seen as a very progressive corporation, and this policy is very much in keeping with that," said John Pierce, co-founder of OpenCarry.org. "If you're going to support individual rights, you have to support them all. I applaud them, and I've gone out of my way personally to let every manager of every Starbucks I pass know that."

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has responded by circulating a petition that soon attracted 26,000 signatures demanding that Starbucks "offer espresso shots, not gunshots" and declare its coffeehouses "gun-free zones."

Gun control advocates hope the coffeehouse firearms displays end up aggravating more people than they inspire.

"If you want to dress up and go out and make a little political theater by frightening children in the local Starbucks, if that's what you want to spend your energy on, go right ahead," said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady campaign. "But going out and wearing a gun on your belt to show the world you're allowed to is a little juvenile."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35632357...siness-retail/

[Alice_Medichi34]

A police officer can openly carry his gun into an establishment whats the difference between him and a properly licensed private citizen?

[pertikuss]

You honestly don't see the difference?

[jyhugikuhih]

UN, because there is MUCH less holding back a private citizen from pulling that gun on you for no reason....


This whole thing is stupid. For an establishment like StarPlucks, the chances of being shot over a frappachino is very small. This whole challange is male ego bubbling up trying to cause trouble.

I wonder how they would feel having a whole group of people coming in with semi automatic rifles and pistols drawn, not just one pen!s-bolstering revolver wearer wandering in trying to get thown out and being FORCED to pay for a $4 expresso.

[Boveosteors]

"If you're going to support individual rights, you have to support them all. I applaud them, and I've gone out of my way personally to let every manager of every Starbucks I pass know that." Bearing arms is as much of a natural protected American right as practicing one's religion.

Banning patrons with guns is just as questionable as banning patrons wearing hijab, a kippah, or a crucifix.

I support business being allowed to ban whatever they want -- free association and all -- but I wonder if the attitude would be the same if a group of militant atheists were demanding that a business discriminate against religious patrons rather than anti-gun fascists demanding it against lawful gun owners...

[zzquo0iR]

A police officer can openly carry his gun into an establishment whats the difference between him and a properly licensed private citizen?

Banning patrons with guns is just as questionable as banning patrons wearing hijab, a kippah, or a crucifix

Can't decide which of these is more ridiculous.

[Quigoxito]

What's ridiculous is all the people walking around with unrestrained fists!

[ansarigf]

Banning patrons with guns is just as questionable as banning patrons wearing hijab, a kippah, or a crucifix.

It might be wise to be wary of those who bear a crucifix.

[P9CCd35R]

Get used to it. Following up on the Heller decision of a couple of years ago, which affirmed that the 2nd Amendment confirred to individual citizens right to keep and bear arms, a case is going to be heard by the SCOTUS tomorrow that may force the states to respect that right. If the plaintiffs win this case, the door will be openned to challenging most of the state laws restricting, overship and carry of firearms.

[lionsiy]

the 2nd Amendment

We're stuck with it.

[lorrieholdridge]

How pretty.... a populace walking around displaying their guns. I wonder if it signifies something?

Personally, I don't like the idea of people being able to have guns with them in public, but it's none of my business... every country will do things their own way under their own laws: but can't we pleeeeease draw the line with people openly displaying them?

It is just so, so ugly.

[BDDkDvgZ]

^ I think it's OK as long as they also display their schlongs.



(Don't know what you'd do about women.)

[Heacechig]

Maybe the firearm will become the latest fashion accessory.

Keep your eye on the next Fashion Week.

I'm trying to figure out what to wear with this:

[scemHeish]

Think walking around with filled holsters are weird?

Not trying to make this political... but try walking around Israel. I still remember when I visited 20 years ago, and went into a supermarket full of uzi toting patrons.

I have never seen so many guns in my life. Or grenade launchers.

On the plus side, I didn't worry about being robbed at gun point.

[Gorlummm]

(Don't know what you'd do about women.)

B-52s.

I'm a product of the Cold War.

[beatrisio]

But Israel is a country under attack: so I guess a case can be made.

And the US has a tradition of personal gun ownership. It is part of it's history and culture, take it or leave it: but damn it... people walking around with guns strapped to themselves in coffeee shops or wherever, just to make a statement. It's gross.

[alecoplesosse]

The gun nuts would say the United States is a country under attack.

It's being attacked, they will tell you, by The President, by the Democrats in Congress and elsewhere, by the Liberal media, and by people like yourself.

[JacomoR]

It doesn't make sense, but few emotional topics do.

They feel threatened and insecure, even though they say they aren't. They say they can handle themselves in a fight, yet they still sport a gun to "discourage" anyone from trying.

All you have to do is look back to the "wild west" to see how effective simple bearing of arms kept everyone "safe". It was tenuous at best, with the ones bearing the most arms being the ones everyone listened to.

The thing that removed the need for that was our own civil investment into a (supposedly) independent third party for protection and enforcement.

And it comes right back to the reason that the amendment was put in inthe first place. To protect us against the government and try and prevent the US from becoming as controlled as Brittain (what a totalitarian regime that turned out to be!). While the sentiment at the time was warranted, carrying it and directly applying it to todays situations makes no sense.

There is no direct, or indirect way to adapt the INTENSION of the 2nd amendment to todays society and conditions.

As for carrying firearms into a coffe shop. I really do not care. But as many bar owners have said, as soon as they are forced to do the same they are taking their money and investing in Funeral Parlors. (I am not joking...)

[ladleliDypenue]

It's Starbucks for me. Adds new meaning to a coffee with a shot.
Lots of folks carry down here. Personally, I think it's kind of silly, but I fully support their right to do so.

[Sydrothcoathy]

195, the key question would be "why?".

So many people, when put to this, simply say "because it is my right" or "to protect myself" when both are not really applicable in todays society.

There were many things that were "rights" that were later amended. Simply pointing at the Constitution and saying "hey, it says so" is not 100% enough, especially without the reason it was originally written for.

I am not saying that guns should be banned. At least not in this argument, but I have never accepted "because" as a suitable answer for anything.