Starbucks caught in Crossfire between Anti/Pro-Gun sides

[melensdad]

Just a sign of the times I suppose but as more and more people across the country are carrying guns legally, and as more of those legal carriers are carrying openly instead of concealed, there will be controversy over the issue. Honestly I feel sorry for any company that gets stuck in the middle of this sort of debate, but I have to blame the Brady Campaign for beating this drum and stirring up controversy. I will admit that some of the pro-gun people are nuts and hurting their own cause by parading around with rifles, but the Brady Campaign is simply lying about the risks when studies show that people who carry guns are actually more law abiding than the general public.

While I would have expected otherwise, the Wall Street Journal did a poll on this and only 17.7% of the respondents (at the time I viewed the poll) suggested that stores/shops should prohibit guns, while 75.6% said that following the local laws was reasonable and 6.7% suggested that there should be chain wide policies on either allowing or prohibiting guns as the store wishes. POLL is located at the link on the left side of the page: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...toWhatsNewsTop

MARCH 4, 2010
Stores Land in Gun-Control Crossfire
By VANESSA O'CONNELL And JULIE JARGON
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...toWhatsNewsTop

Starbucks Corp. and some other chain stores in the U.S. are finding themselves caught in the middle of a firearms debate, as gun-control advocates go up against a burgeoning campaign by gun owners to carry holstered pistols in public places.

The "open carry" movement, in which gun owners carry unconcealed handguns as they go about their everyday business, is loosely organized around the country but has been gaining traction in recent months. Gun-control advocates have been pushing to quash the movement, including by petitioning the Starbucks coffee chain to ban guns on its premises.

Businesses have the final say on their property. But the ones that don't opt to ban guns—such as Starbucks—have become parade grounds of sorts for open-carry advocates.

Starbucks on Wednesday, while bemoaning being thrust into the debate, defended its long-standing policy of complying with state open-carry weapons laws, in part by stating that its baristas, or "partners," could be harmed if the stores were to ban guns. The chain said that in the 43 states where open carry is legal, it has about 4,970 company-operated stores.

The company added: "The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores."

In 29 states, it's legal to openly carry a loaded handgun, without any form of government permission. Another 13 allow an unconcealed loaded handgun with a carry permit, according to opencarry.org, which is a loosely organized Web forum for the movement.

In California, where it's legal to carry a gun openly without a license in most places as long as it's unloaded, growing numbers of armed people have been turning up at Starbucks, restaurants, and retailers, with handguns holstered to their belts to protest what they contend are unfair limits on permits to carry a concealed weapon.

The open-carry movement began spreading in 2004 after some pro-gun advocates in Virginia began researching state laws and discovered that many states don't have laws to prevent unconcealed carry of handguns.

"The concealed carry movement has been successful but open carry is coming up," in popularity, said Mike Stollenwerk, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and co-founder of the opencarry.org site.

"I feel other people have the right to carry firearms into a business if it's okay with the business," said William Moore, a carpenter from Lynwood, Wash., and an open-carry advocate who says he doesn't carry firearms into Starbucks coffee shops.

A group called Protest Easy Guns plans on Saturday to protest Starbucks's policy of allowing customers in open carry weapons states to carry guns inside the coffee shops. The group of women said on Thursday that it plans to demonstrate outside an Alexandria, Va., Starbucks.

Supporters are spreading in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and other areas. Some are making lists of "OC-friendly" locales, and encouraging boycotts of businesses with no-weapons signs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Home Depot Inc., Best Buy Co. and Barnes & Noble Inc., are designated as "open-carry" friendly in some online forums or say they abide by existing laws. "Our practice is to comply with local and state laws," said Best Buy spokeswoman Sue Busch Nehring.

Open-carry proponents are also taking advantage of some momentum in state legislatures to expand gun rights, although most new and pending measures don't specifically address unconcealed handguns.

Should people be allowed to carry guns into places like Starbucks? The company says it'll abide by local laws, but customers in San Francisco tell Rex Crum they really don't relish handguns with their lattes. Open carry hasn't been part of the official focus of the pro-gun lobbying group, the National Rifle Association, which has 4 million members.

In the past 20 years, the NRA has focused on expanding the ability of U.S. gun owners to carry a handgun in a concealed manner.

Today, 38 states have a "shall issue" permit process. Two states don't require a license to conceal carry. Eight states have "may issue" concealed carry laws, meaning permits will be given with the discretion of a local politician or police officer.

"We support the self-defense rights of law-abiding Americans in accordance with local, state and federal laws," says Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman, who declined further comment on open-carry activity.

Some chains have banned guns from their restaurants, even in open-carry states, because of the impact it could have on non-gun-carrying customers. "We are concerned that the open display of firearms would be particularly disturbing to children and their parents," said a spokesperson for the California Pizza Kitchen restaurant chain.

A Peet's Coffee & Tea spokesperson said that while the firm "respects and values all individuals' rights...our policy is not to allow customers carrying firearms in our stores or on our outdoor seating premises unless they are uniformed or identified law enforcement officers."

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which partnered with Credo Action, an activist group that uses mobile phones to effect social change, says it has collected more than 28,000 signatures on a petition to get Starbucks to change its policy.

Pro-gun advocates have taken to openly carrying guns to Starbucks as a way of testing corporations' stances on state weapons laws, William Spain reports.

“Carrying a gun is an extreme response to a problem that, for the vast majority of Americans, doesn't exist and never will. ”
—Scott McIntyre

Allowing customers who are armed with unconcealed guns on the premises "can't be good for business—it galvanizes people, and some of them won't patronize Starbucks after this," said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, a gun-control organization in Washington, D.C.

Indeed, not all baristas agree that the Starbucks policy protects them. "I think the policy shows complete disregard for the safety and sentiments of their workers. The only thing worse than a yuppie upset with how their frappuccino turned out is a yuppie with a gun who's unhappy with how their frappuccino turned out," says Erik Forman, a Starbucks barista and union member in Minneapolis.

The IWW Starbucks Workers Union on Wednesday issued a statement, saying "We appreciate the vigorous debate taking place by principled individuals on both sides of this issue. However, to date we are not aware of any efforts by Starbucks to widely engage its workers who are directly affected by open-carry gun laws. We believe an appropriate solution cannot be reached without doing so."

—Nick Wingfield and Jess Bravin contributed to this article

[EldRick]

While I seriously dislike Starbucks coffee, I'm reconsidering my preference for Peet's, due to their stance opposing open carry.

[JackOfHearts]

Pfft! I always go for the independent, hole in the wall type coffee shops. Less fuss about carrying weapons and better pastries.

Although I do admit, Starbucks does have a penchant for hiring very lovely girls.

Truthfully, I don't mind open carry. It helps to know who to look out for, though if I'm going to carry, it's going to be concealed. Not that I have a gun or anything. <_< But if they ever change the law to permit full tang knives...

[Inquartata]

"Some chains have banned guns from their restaurants, even in open-carry states, because of the impact it could have on non-gun-carrying customers.

'We are concerned that the open display of firearms would be particularly disturbing to children and their parents,' said a spokesperson for the California Pizza Kitchen restaurant chain."

You know, businesses have used versions of that argument before in our history---not wanting want certain people in their stores because it might "disturb" other customers...

[PretAllez]

Curiouser and curiouser
Just wondering if any non-Americans out there find the situation discussed in this thread to be as Kafkaesque as I do....

[jeff]

A local variation:

TORCHES MUST REMAIN UNLIGHTED

"They're in open and notorious violation of state law," says Charles Heller, secretary of the Arizona Citizens Defense League. He is complaining about a policy in Mohave County which he says requires citizens to register handguns if they bring them to the county building; gun registration is against state law. The policy went into effect when a group of citizens carried holstered handguns into a Board of Supervisors meeting. Since "open carry" is legal in Arizona, they were allowed in, and there were no incidents. But Mervin G. Fried, 45, who didn't have a gun, but rather a holstered pitchfork, was arrested. "Government does not want the symbolism of people standing outside of their office with a pitchfork," Heller said. (Lake Havasu News-Herald)

[I_luv_saber]

I'm not sure why there's an inherent right to carry arms into an establishment that has banned them by policy. If a store can tell me I can't being in my bike why is that different from telling me "no gun"?

IMHO, if it's private property it's at the owner's discretion to allow or not allow handguns.

EDIT: I'd also note that we protect freedom of speech as well, but it doesn't mean a store can't kick you out for causing a ruckus, even if it's only with words.

[melensdad]

I'm not sure why there's an inherent right to carry arms into an establishment that has banned them by policy. If a store can tell me I can't being in my bike why is that different from telling me "no gun"?

IMHO, if it's private property it's at the owner's discretion to allow or not allow handguns.

EDIT: I'd also note that we protect freedom of speech as well, but it doesn't mean a store can't kick you out for causing a ruckus, even if it's only with words.

Your question seems to fall into the category of states rights issues, at least at this point in the way the laws are interpreted. Some states allows stores to post signs barring weapons (not just guns) and those signs carry the force of law; New Mexico and Ohio are two states that allow this type of activity. In other states, for example Indiana, a sign posted by the store carries no legal authority and a person may carry past that sign legally. HOWEVER, in states like Indiana, IF the store CHOOSES to enforce the sign by summoning the police, the person carrying the gun has the right to leave the establishment or face a charge of trespass.

Further complicating the issue are various state legislatures that have passed the so-called "parking lot" laws. These are laws that protect legal gun carriers while they are at work and allow them to carry a gun and lock it in their vehicle while they are at work. This means that even if the employer has a "no guns" policy, the policy does not extend to the lock box in the employees trunk. I have found no federal legal cases on these types of rights.

Now as for you question specifically about "No Bikes" versus "No Guns" policies at stores, I'd refer you back to the various states and I'd also guess that there is no law regarding "No Bikes" and that if you did carry a bike into a store it might pose an interesting legal case? Certainly not a constitutional case because a bike is not a protected right, but probably an interesting trespass case.

[AndrewH]

I think this applies:



Good for Starbucks. When a robbery is prevented by an armed customer, I think other stores will start seeing the value in allowing open carry.

[erik_blank]

I think this applies:
Good for Starbucks. When a robbery is prevented by an armed customer, I think other stores will start seeing the value in allowing open carry.

The problem comes when a robbery actually is in progress and five to ten customers all start pulling guns out and start shooting in random directions not knowing who the real bad guys are. Now we have the lawyers all sharpening their pencils and starting class action suits agains the 'evil' company that failed to prevent people from carrying firearms into their business...

You just can't win on something like this.

[melensdad]

Good for Starbucks. When a robbery is prevented by an armed customer, I think other stores will start seeing the value in allowing open carry.

Sort of like this story:

Open carry deters armed robbery in Kennesaw
Two customers displaying holstered pistols deterred an armed robbery in a Kennesaw Wafflehouse recently.

There is some debate raging in Georgia about whether people should conceal their holstered handguns while in public. Some believe that wearing handguns openly will result in a loss of the element of surprise during a criminal attack, such as an armed robbery, while others believe that wearing handguns openly deters criminal attack. For Matt Brannan and J.P. Mitchell, who carry openly as a routine, the issue is no longer academic.

Lynn, Matt and J.P.'s regular waitress at the Wafflehouse, proudly displays a Guns Save Lives button

Matt Brannan and J.P. Mitchell were dining in the Wafflehouse on Barrett Parkway at I-575 in Kennesaw at 4:45 in the morning recently when a scout for an armed robbery crew entered the restaurant to case it. At the time, Matt and J.P. thought he looked a little suspicious, as he was wandering around the small restaurant like he was looking for someone. Unknown to Matt and J.P., two cars full of armed robbers were parked behind the restaurant waiting for the scout's report.

The scout saw that two of the customers were wearing holstered 1911 Springfield Mil-Spec .45 pistols, and he immediately turned and left the store.

Meanwhile, conscientious Cobb County Police Officer D. Lowe had noticed suspicious cars sitting behind the restaurant in the dark and decided to investigate. He caught men with masks and rifles who had been preparing to rob the Wafflehouse. The criminals informed the police that they had changed their mind upon discovering armed customers and were waiting for Matt and J.P. to leave. Ironically, the police car was pulling in to the parking lot just as Matt and J.P. were driving away. In other words, had Matt and J.P. not been armed, the robbery probably would have occurred before the police intervened.

Captain Jerry Quan, the Commander for Precinct One, where the Wafflehouse is located, confirmed Matt Brannan's story as one in which the open display of a pistol deterred a well armed robbery crew.

The problem comes when a robbery actually is in progress and five to ten customers all start pulling guns out and start shooting in random directions not knowing who the real bad guys are...

Several questions pop to my mind right off the bat. Why would it make any difference if customers are openly carrying their guns? Wouldn't your statement apply to concealed carry as well? Is there any evidence that what you say might happen?

Here in Indiana we have over 10% of the population with a license to carry a gun, so its likely that in a crowded establishment there are several people with guns on their hips, in purses or tucked in their waistband. I can't recall a single shootout like you describe. Would not a state which already allows both concealed and open carry have had such an event (we've had liberal carry laws in Indiana for roughly 70+ years)?

Can you cite an example of that to which you refer?

[jeff]

Or the police show up on the 911 call for an armed robbery in progress, see guys with drawn firearms and blow them away, whether a Good Guy or a Bad Guy. I'm not saying that the scenario of "civilian saves the day" can't happen, but it could get pretty messy.

[AndrewH]

The problem comes when a robbery actually is in progress and five to ten customers all start pulling guns out and start shooting in random directions not knowing who the real bad guys are. Now we have the lawyers all sharpening their pencils and starting class action suits agains the 'evil' company that failed to prevent people from carrying firearms into their business...

You just can't win on something like this.

Why is it that this scenario is always brought up in response to concealed/open carry, and yet never seems to actually materialize? People have been carrying weapons in public for decades, and yet I can't recall any wild west shootouts involving permit carrying gun owners. Can you find some examples?

[melensdad]

Or the police show up on the 911 call for an armed robbery in progress, see guys with drawn firearms and blow them away, whether a Good Guy or a Bad Guy. I'm not saying that the scenario of "civilian saves the day" can't happen, but it could get pretty messy.

And I have to ask for examples of this type of event. I'm not saying it hasn't happened where a police officer shot an armed civilian who stopped a robbery but I've never seen such an example.

Please cite some so we can see that this could be a real concern.

In the mean time here are just a handful of examples where armed citizens have stopped crimes:

Police: Armed Men Stop Carjacking, Attempted Robber Shot Multiple Times

Customer foils bank robbery attempt in Canton Township with his own handgun

Shopper pulls gun, stops robbery cold, Held suspect at grocery store until police officers arrived

Now I only gave 3 examples, but a simple google search turned up literally thousands of hits with similar examples. I didn't search through all of them but I didn't find a single case where a police officer shot the armed citizen.

[Superscribe]

There won't be any examples for AndrewH and melensdad in the context they are talking about because it's an untenable argument built around a stupid fear from people who have never carried a gun around, or been around people who have carried guns around.

Extremely dangerous neighborhoods aside.

[Hauptman]

"Some chains have banned guns from their restaurants, even in open-carry states, because of the impact it could have on non-gun-carrying customers.

'We are concerned that the open display of firearms would be particularly disturbing to children and their parents,' said a spokesperson for the California Pizza Kitchen restaurant chain."

You know, businesses have used versions of that argument before in our history---not wanting want certain people in their stores because it might "disturb" other customers...

What's your point, Inq? I think we all agree that there is a difference between a person and a person's behavior, right?

You can't get into certain restaurants if you don't meet a certain standard of dress either. No shorts, no tank tops, no bathing suits, etc...... is "no guns" significantly different?

I think we should let the market forces determine this issue.

[melensdad]

There won't be any examples for AndrewH and melensdad in the context they are talking about because it's an untenable argument built around a stupid fear from people who have never carried a gun around, or been around people who have carried guns around.

Well I'm not sure it is a stupid fear. Perhaps a fear based on ignorance of fact.

But I suspect that many people subscribe to fears about guns and don't realize that they are often within arms length of legal gun owners in their daily travels. It is always interesting to find out how many people actually legally carry guns and do so on a daily basis. Moms picking up their kids at school with a gun tucked in the purse. Dads dropping off their children at soccer (or fencing) matches with a gun in their waistband. Preachers wearing a gun under their vestments while standing at the pulpit. Nurses carrying guns while on their hospital rounds. Guns in the grocery store, at the dry cleaner, in the glove box of the car or strapped in an ankle holster of the man behind you in line at the ATM.

Every day there are literally MILLIONS of people walking around legally armed in this nation and many people are simply unaware of it. But the fact that it occurs daily, and that it is not a problem, and in fact that these gun toters actually stop crimes, is testament to the fact that it is not only safe but we are safer than if they did not carry guns.

[Hauptman]

I think this applies:

Good for Starbucks. When a robbery is prevented by an armed customer, I think other stores will start seeing the value in allowing open carry.

Here's my problem with this line of reasoning:

I will agree that there is some value realized by stopping and preventing some robberies.

But we also know that more guns in circulation leads to more accidental shootings, and more guns being used in confrontations that might otherwise have been violent but not nearly as lethal. The statistics seem to show that when there are more guns in households there are more accidental shootings, suicide attempts by shooting, and more domestic violence ending in a shooting; all of which are more lethal because a gun was involved.

Anecdotal accounts of gun owners thwarting robberies are great for promoting one side of the argument, but don't really provide any evidence for the overall benefit to society. For every life saved, how many are lost?

[AndrewH]

But we also know that more guns in circulation leads to more accidental shootings, and more guns being used in confrontations that might otherwise have been violent but not nearly as lethal. The statistics seem to show that when there are more guns in households there are more accidental shootings, suicide attempts by shooting, and more domestic violence ending in a shooting; all of which are more lethal because a gun was involved.

These aren't issues of gun control; they're issues of gun responsibility. I read a news report this morning of a 3 year old who accidently shot herself with her dad's handgun. The article made a big deal over the fact that the gun resembled the kid's Wii controller- and buried the fact that the father had left the gun, loaded and presumably with the safety off, on a table within easy reach of his 3 year old.

People like that shouldn't own guns. Unfortunately, there's no way to guarantee responsibility, education is the best we can do. We all know that the gun isn't what's dangerous- it's the person holding the gun who is. A dad that irresponsible could just have easily left a container of pills open, or a hair dryer plugged in near the bathtub, or any number of household hazards that could be fatal to a curious 3 year old.

Irresponsible people are dangerous. Violent people are dangerous. Mentally ill people are dangerous. Adding guns to the mix really doesn't change anything, because it was the person who posed the threat to begin with.

[davesaint]

Well I'm not sure it is a stupid fear. Perhaps a fear based on ignorance of fact.

But I suspect that many people subscribe to fears about guns and don't realize that they are often within arms length of legal gun owners in their daily travels. It is always interesting to find out how many people actually legally carry guns and do so on a daily basis. Moms picking up their kids at school with a gun tucked in the purse. Dads dropping off their children at soccer (or fencing) matches with a gun in their waistband. Preachers wearing a gun under their vestments while standing at the pulpit. Nurses carrying guns while on their hospital rounds. Guns in the grocery store, at the dry cleaner, in the glove box of the car or strapped in an ankle holster of the man behind you in line at the ATM.

Every day there are literally MILLIONS of people walking around legally armed in this nation and many people are simply unaware of it. But the fact that it occurs daily, and that it is not a problem, and in fact that these gun toters actually stop crimes, is testament to the fact that it is not only safe but we are safer than if they did not carry guns.

I want to preface this that I am a supporter of peoples rights to own firearms, but really why do you need to carry your gun on your hip like this is the old west? Why do you feel the need to bring your gun with you into stores? I used to own a rifle, and have shot pistols at firing ranges, but I never felt the need to have a gun at my side on the street.

I guess the question I have is that do people really feel that on any given day it is likely that they will be victims of a crime? Are we all traveling in high crime neighborhoods in which we will likely be shot or robbed? I mean, I have hung out in some of the really bad areas of Chicago in the past, but I never had any problems. No one tried to rob me or shoot me. I guess that I look at the threat of violence against me in the average suburban McDonalds or Starbucks and think, why on earth do I need a weapon here?

Besides, if I was some cold blooded killer, I would shoot the guy with the gun on his hip before I robbed the Waffle House. Honoring the threat his poses to me. I would likely then grab his gun and sell it on the street to earn more drug money.

Dave