Response to the Brady appeals has been positive in some cases. Starbucks however had this to say.Welcome to the open carry movement, an effort by “gun rights” extremists to foist their interpretation of the Second Amendment on the rest of us by openly carrying handguns in public places. While virtually all states have at least some minimal restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons, few states do anything to regulate the “open carry” of firearms.
Particularly in the Bay Area in Northern California, “open carry” adherents have been gathering in Starbucks and other coffee shops and restaurants – their semi-automatic pistols and revolvers in plain view – apparently to make an ideological statement.
“Starbucks does not have a corporate policy regarding customers and weapons; we defer to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding this issue.”
The article likens this response to a full endorsement of gun owners doing what they like. I wondered if it could have been an attempt on the part of the famous coffee and refreshment chain to straddle the fence, to avoid taking sides. Whatever their public statement meant, it's about to get clearer.
So, Starbucks, what will it be? Like Peets Tea & Coffee, will you do the socially responsible thing and stand up for the rights of families and children to be free from guns when they visit your coffee shops?
Or will you take the chance that there will be more than just shots of espresso being served up in your stores?
If you think Starbucks is wrong here, sign our petition today:
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/starbucks_guns/?rc=brady
What do you think Starbucks will do? Do you think this will pressure Starbucks to either strengthen their statement or "do the right thing" as they say?
Please leave a comment.
Not to put too fine a point on things, but they've already done "the right thing".
ReplyDeleteThey're being asked not do do "the right thing", but "the wrong thing".
Sign our online petition? That reeks of desperation.
ReplyDelete"What do you think Starbucks will do? "
ReplyDeleteI think they'll sue the Brady Bunch for using their logo without permission. Several people, including myself have contacted Starbuck's corporate office and an investigation is underway.
The BC's heart is in the right place but it's going about this all wrong. A petition won't accomplish much of anything; I suspect this is just to build the BC's mailing list.
ReplyDeleteThe BC actually has a great opportunity here--if it seizes it. They can make this into another Whole Foods PR nightmare. Here's how:
Starbucks invests a lot of resources in promoting the fact they help many third world countries by promoting their Fair Trade and organic coffees. They promote the fact that many of their coffees come from countries in South and Central America as well as Africa. Many of these same countries suffer tremendously because of arms trafficking actively encouraged by the very same groups who wish to carry firearms into US Starbucks.
That's the angle that ought to be played up. Like Kathi Lee Gifford and sweatshop labor, the right course of action is to play up the fact Starbucks seeks to brand itself a company whose enlightened policies benefit many Third world countries when its actions, here at home, actually contribute to the strife in those nations.
--JadeGold
Whatever their public statement meant, it's about to get clearer.
ReplyDeleteClearer?! Starbuck's statement meant exactly what it said. It's not ambiguous. As long as we're following the law we may carry in their stores. Seems pretty simple to me.
stand up for the rights of families and children to be free from guns when they visit your coffee shops
They have no right to be "free from guns." Never have, never will.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteI wondered if it could have been an attempt on the part of the famous coffee and refreshment chain to straddle the fence, to avoid taking sides.
Of course that's what they're doing--that's the sensible thing to do. I saw it somewhere described as an unwillingness on Starbucks' part to be conscripted into the culture war--always good corporate policy.
I notice they chose a similarly wise path with regard to the debate over marijuana law reform.
Brady: Starbucks, you shouldn't let customers carry guns in your stores.
ReplyDeleteStarbucks: We don't discriminate, we like all paying customers.
Brady: You had better start discriminating or else. Or else! Or else we'll say you better do it or else again.
Starbucks won't lose any gun-toting customers because don't they all drink moonshine from backyard stills in the hills of Kentucky?
ReplyDeleteJade is right. Why just the other day, Bubba and I were down at the local Starbuck's, drinking some Kenyan Dawn, and wondering out loud just how we could get some more guns delivered to some third world cesspool somewhere.
ReplyDeleteJade, you are really getting out there with your nonsense now.
Muddie, ironically the closest Starbucks to me is actually in Ashland, Kentucky.
mud_rake: "Starbucks won't lose any gun-toting customers because don't they all drink moonshine from backyard stills in the hills of Kentucky?"
ReplyDeleteExcept for when they are burning crosses and chasing their sisters.
Hey -- it's easy being mud_rake and JadeGold!
"Starbucks won't lose any gun-toting customers because don't they all drink moonshine from backyard stills in the hills of Kentucky?"
ReplyDeleteNot all of us live in Kentucky, you silly goose!
Starbucks is a private entity who can do what they like on their own property so long as it's legal. Other than their shitty coffee and overpriced desserts I hadn't seen any reason not to to go there. I still don't, the shitty coffee and overpriced desserts is enough to deter me from being one of their customers.
ReplyDeleteOf course, IF the Brady folks decide to ask people to boycott Starbucks, I'm sure that won't affect the company's image or bottom line--oh, wait, you mean they might do something nationally, not just in the Bay Area?--I'm sure that that it won't cause anyone in accounting to lose any sleep.
"I think they'll sue the Brady Bunch for using their logo without permission."
ReplyDeleteWe could only hope. At best, the Brady Bunch will get a C&D order.
kaveman said, "Not all of us live in Kentucky, you silly goose!"
ReplyDeleteKentucky, Oregon, what's the difference?
"Of course, IF the Brady folks decide to ask people to boycott Starbucks, I'm sure that won't affect the company's image or bottom line--oh, wait, you mean they might do something nationally, not just in the Bay Area?--I'm sure that that it won't cause anyone in accounting to lose any sleep."
ReplyDeleteAll nine of them? The truth is, there are very view Brady members. Far more "no guns" signs have been brought down by gun owner boycotts in Ohio alone.
Brady will not organize a boycott because it will show that they have no teeth.
Apparently my gin still comment caused mike w. to put some inane comment on my blog- a comment not unlike I get from those dopey fundamentalist christians.
ReplyDeleteMike W. cried, much like these xtians, PERSECUTION!
Thanks for adding some humor to my day, Mike W.
Great news! Starbucks has done the right thing. As much fun as we all have laughing at the utter fecklessness of the Brady Campaign, I had some concerns after reading that Starbucks operations in Wyoming did seem to be listening to Helmke's silly rants (excerpt):
ReplyDeleteIt would appear that Starbucks is taking a clear path to ban firearms in Wyoming locations. I can say this because of my own conversation with the store manager "Matthew" at the Casper location, he stated that "unless you are Law Enforcement no firearms are allowed in the store", he said he read this from an internal company web-site. He also said that he has confirmed with his Regional Manager that Starbucks has a “no firearm policy”.
Another interesting statement by the Manager is he stated - “I own guns but why would anyone want to carry them around women and children”. The Manager also stated that Starbucks corporate office called him but only to verify his conversation with he had with me not to assert policy, we can assume by the corporate office actions that they have intentions of banning firearms.
Now, though, it seems that it was all a misunderstanding, and freedom and security loving individuals who wish to openly carry their firearms in Wyoming Starbucks are welcome to do so.
Starbucks has indeed done the right thing. Kudos to them.
Well we'll never know if I left a comment or not now will we Muddy?
ReplyDeleteYou're not exactly someone I expect honesty from.
mud rake:
ReplyDeleteMikey has a habit of being a troll on blogs where he is only interested in broadcasting his dislike of all laws that might restrict him in his pursuit of freedom and safety. He has nothing to say about any issue that isn't about saving him tax dollars or his precious gunz.
Fat White Man:
I know that you and your gunpals are smarter than the rest of us--and never tell a lie--but I suspect that there are a few more than "9" people that support the Brady Campaign. Hey, maybe you're right and a boycott would be unsuccesful. We'll have to wait and see if one's pushed and how it works out.
"I know that you and your gunpals are smarter than the rest of us--and never tell a lie--but I suspect that there are a few more than "9" people that support the Brady Campaign."
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone really believes I wasn't exaggerating for fun and sport. Everyone knows they have like one or hundred members. :)
Thanks Mike. Without reading this, I wouldn't have known to avoid Petes for any other reason than their coffee tasting like peat.
ReplyDeleteI know that you and your gunpals are smarter than the rest of us--and never tell a lie--but I suspect that there are a few more than "9" people that support the Brady Campaign.
ReplyDeleteI certainly don't claim to be smarter than everyone, but intellectually superior to you? Absolutely.
As for the Brady's, they have very little grassroots support and couldn't dream of having the kind of support the NRA has. Hell, they don't even have the kind of support smaller pro-gun organizations like the SAF and JPFO enjoy.
I think part of that is that they've cried wolf so many times over the decades that people now realize how consistently wrong those dire warnings have been.
By the way, I tend to fairly relentlessly heckle the Brady Campaign for its irrelevance, but I need to apologize. As it turns out, there is an aspirant for political office who would dearly love to have the Brady Campaign's "endorsement" ;-).
ReplyDeleteI believe that guy will get his "F" rating.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link.