Brady Campaign attacking Starbucks

[MudCamper]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legisla.../opencarryguns

For those not in the know on goings-ons in California, the Open Carry community has been getting more active. Groups have been meeting in various public establishments. As a result of a Brady Campaign bullying, the Peet's coffee chain publicly announced that it does not allow firearms in it's establishments. However, when the Brady campaign contacted Starbucks, they replied that they respect whatever the laws were in the given state. As a result of this, the Brady Campaign is stepping up it's pressure against Starbucks nationwide.

We all need to let Starbucks know that we appreciate that they respect our rights and our state laws, and to not let the Brady bullies pressure them into changing their position.

http://www.starbucks.com/customer/co...rms.asp?nav=3f

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Starbucks here posted no gun signs until the 30.06 law made them gigantic. Tnen they were gone in TX.

[MTT TL]

Starbucks here posted no gun signs until the 30.06 law made them gigantic. Tnen they were gone in TX.

Yes but open carry is illegal in Texas anyway. What they can't see they can't cry about... mostly.

Over the past few months, more and more gun owners have been gathering at restaurants and coffee shops like Starbucks with guns strapped to their hips, intimidating fellow patrons.

So far, Peet's Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen have heeded customer concerns and barred the open carrying of guns. But Starbucks is refusing to prohibit the open carrying of firearms in its stores.

It's everyone's right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns, either concealed or openly carried.

Under the law, Starbucks has the right to adopt a gun-free policy, with an exception for uniformed police officers. Such a policy can easily be implemented in most cases by putting up signs at store entrances.

The practice of packing heat in places like Starbucks is intimidating and could be potentially dangerous to our families and communities – and it must be stopped.

I can't figure how people are being intimidated by people with guns on their hips.

[SigP6Carry]

Over the past few months, more and more gun owners have been gathering at restaurants and coffee shops like Starbucks with guns strapped to their hips, intimidating fellow patrons.

So far, Peet's Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen have heeded customer concerns and barred the open carrying of guns. But Starbucks is refusing to prohibit the open carrying of firearms in its stores.

It's everyone's right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns, either concealed or openly carried.

Under the law, Starbucks has the right to adopt a gun-free policy, with an exception for uniformed police officers. Such a policy can easily be implemented in most cases by putting up signs at store entrances.

The practice of packing heat in places like Starbucks is intimidating and could be potentially dangerous to our families and communities – and it must be stopped.

I don't know what they're thinking... I'm not a supporter of open carry, and wow do I think they're wrong. I'm also liberal and... most of what's written on their site is dumb! It seems that their whole platform is based on the "ostrich syndrome."

[Kreyzhorse]

I'm also liberal and... most of what's written on their site is dumb! It seems that their whole platform is based on the "ostrich syndrome."

At first take, they appear to have their head buried in the sand, but if you look deeper into their site, their real mode of operation is installing fear in the population while trying to create a slow erosion of rights until no private gun ownership exists.

Check out their articles on "military style assault weapons" or the dangers of allowing civilains to get their hands on a ".50 bmg rifle that can shoot a jet airplane out of the sky."

I check out their site about once a month. Gotta keep up with the crazies over there.

[SigP6Carry]

I read one article on "open carry" and how it's dangerous because people will know you have a gun and it could cause panic. Then I read an article about concealed carry and how it's dangerous because people won't know that you have a gun and the police wouldn't be able to tell. Then I read an article about a woman who shot another woman and was a CCW permit holder. And they said at the end "Utah granted a murderer permission to carry a weapon, way to go!" or something like that... and I couldn't figure out why it was utah's fault.

[MauiDoc]

....and here's my reply!

LiAnna Davis, Campaign Manager
[email protected]

Aloha, LiAnna,:

I will not sign your petition requesting that Starbuck's prohibit open or concealed carry in areas where it is legal. I have no objection to responsible individuals carrying handguns, concealed or otherwise--again, wherever it is legal. I would rather be an un-armed citizen surrounded by armed citizens than an disarmed citizen surrounded by armed outlaws. We have a right in this country, GUARANTEED BY (not given by) the United States Constitution to keep and bear arms. Laws that attempt to prevent or discourage this only encourage criminal elements to concentrate their efforts in areas that don't allow guns. Laws do not deter outlaws--they only deter the law-abiding citizen. If citizens are frightened by the sight of another citizen carrying a gun, that's fine: it does not give them the right to curtail my rights. Broadly punitive gun-control laws are equivalent to sanctioning all drivers because some drive while intoxicated.

Furthermore, your statement that gun owners are 'intimidating' the other patrons of these stores, your use of the term 'packing heat' and the illogical statement that a group of gunowners with sidearms has 'all the firepower of a SWAT team', is hyperbole at best and inflammatory at worst.

I like Working Assets/Credo Mobile's stance on human rights, environmental issues, free ice cream, etc,; but when you back an action that curtails my (or anyone's) ability to exercise my rights under the Constitution, that's when you'll run up against my stiff neck. There is any number of newspapers, websites, churches, blogs, hate-groups, etc. that espouse ideas with which I do not agree. I do not, however, believe that we should trample on their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech/press/religion. In fact, I enjoy perusing the output of such institutions, in the spirit of 'know thine enemy.'

May I direct your attention to www.thefiringline.com , a virtual community dedicated to the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership. This is a website devoted to furthering the firearms knowledge, the sport of shooting, law and civil rights as related to firearms, and just about any other subject having to do with shooting or guns. I have been a member for more than a year now, posting under the name MauiDoc, and invite you to become more informed about the fascinating history of firearms in this country, and how deeply the Founding Fathers felt about the necessity of having an armed citizenry. Incidentally, the site is owned by S.W.A.T. Magazine, so I suppose they would know a little about the 'firepower of a SWAT team.'

Please forward this to your CEO Laura Scher-and keep up the good work protecting rights, not limiting them!

And the free ice cream.


Daniel B.Vicars, DC
Maui HI
PS-Sending a copy of this to Starbuck's, which I have never patronized, and will now begin doing.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(end of reply)

"I would rather be an unarmed citizen surrounded by armed citizens than an disarmed citizen surrounded by armed outlaws." I made that up just now!

[JohnKSa]

...in California, the Open Carry community has been getting more active. Groups have been meeting in various public establishments. As a result ... the Peet's coffee chain publicly announced that it does not allow firearms in it's establishments.

I realize this is thread drift, but I can't let it pass.

Basically, the result of the CA open carry community's "getting more active" is to add to the number of places that open carry is not allowed. To echo the sentiment of T-Rex in Meet the Robinsons, "I'm just not sure how well this plan was thought through..."

[Guy B. Meredith]

The open carry is a sort of "coming out of the closet" protest. In places like in Contra Costa County here we have sheriffs who have an "issue my a@@" attitude, but open carry is legal and the sheriff has no say in the matter.

The open carry meetings are very low key, pamplets are handed out and citizens made aware that guns are neither illegal nor inherently violent.

Actually, despite the rhetoric the reactions are pretty mild. Note that CPK and Peets have banned OPEN CARRY, but said nothing about CCW. They state they don't want customers to feel intimidated.

So far I have seen no postings at various Peets locations, but I've not been to the San Ramon site where the meeting was held.

[MudCamper]

The Brady bunch aren't just after open carry. If you read their petition to Starbucks, you will see that they are pressuring them for a no-firearms policy, including CCW. And regardless, IMO all pro-2A groups should stick together and fight the likes of the Bradys, and support a business that is at least neutral, and not anti.

[maestro pistolero]

Leave your comment here: http://www.starbucks.com/customer/co...rms.asp?nav=3f

Dear Starbucks,
I just want to congratulate and thank Starbucks for staying above the fray with regard to the anti-second amendment zealots who have taken it upon themselves to tell everyone, including your fine company, how to conduct business.

A formerly loyal Peet's fan, I will not be patronizing Peet's any longer due to their disregard for constitutional rights and failure to respect local firearms law.

As you may know, popular respect and acquiescence to second amendment is growing in leaps and bounds in recent years, and the Supreme Court is widely expected to apply '2A' protection to local governments in the current term. In some states, even the ACLU is now falling on the side of '2A' protection. Thanks again for showing such backbone. Your judgment and discretion are entirely too rare in the business community. And, you make a helluva cup. Thanks again.

Sincerely,
**********
phone******
address*********

[johnwilliamson062]

Sent them a note. Don't stop in their stores much, but I burn through a bag of Espresso beans every week and a half or so. Love their beans.

[BGutzman]

I could not but help send these people a email either. Below is what I sent...

To LiAnna Davis, Campaign Manager

I will not sign your petition requesting that Starbuck's prohibit open or concealed carry in areas where it is legal. I have no objection to responsible individuals carrying handguns, concealed or otherwise--again, wherever it is legal. Further, I would like to bring some facts to your attention that you may find interesting.

1. According to the Center for Disease Control (latest year available was 2006) you are significantly more likely to be injured in a vehicle wreck than harmed with a firearm accidentally or otherwise.
Firearms 30,896 total reported deaths in 2006.
Vehicles 45,509 total reported deaths in 2006.
Poisoning 37,286 total reported deaths in 2006.
Falling 21,647 total reported deaths in 2006.

I am providing you with the link so that you can confirm my information independently.
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html
I picked using information from 1999 on and then select the check marks you want.


2. Not only are you more likely to be injured or killed in a vehicle wreck but you are also more likely to die from or suffer from household poisoning than be harmed by a firearm. (CDC 2006)

3. It seems if you are looking to save more lives, your time according to the information above might be better spent making people aware of house hold poisoning or driving safety.

I would suggest to you that most people (and I am willing to bet this includes you) that are against firearms have never been to a range and have never fired a firearm under the careful instruction of a knowledgeable person. I would also suggest to you that this is the reason why no one ever seems to want to apply the "gun control" logic to cars and tries to ban cars.

Let me explain: Before you take Drivers Ed and before you ever get to drive a motorized car, a vehicle may seem every bit as intimidating as a firearm. But since you took Drivers Ed under a instructor and you became familiar with driving you lost your fear of cars.
If you took this same type of time with a firearms instructor I believe you would no longer be for firearms control as your fear would fade away as you learn the truth for yourself.

Now for the one question I would like you to ask yourself...
How many people are out there knowingly speeding in cars and doing all sorts of illegal activities? Why are you not for banning cars? As I have stated above your familiar with cars so its just not going to happen. Yet a 2000 pound or more car has a whole lot more potential to be deadly due to its sheer weight and speed and proximity to others.

We don't live in a perfect world but when you take someone right to own or carry a firearm away you can be taking there right to live or feel safe away. How many bad guys stop just because the victim ask them too? Foul language and pleading has proven ineffective against felons. I really wish that every person that was for gun control would put a sign out on there lawn stating that they are unarmed.

Predators go for the weak and who do you think a felon is going to choose? A American that is or might be armed or you?

Thank you for your time and if I can bring any further helpful thoughs or information up please let me know.

BGutzman
SSG, United States Army Retired
Disabled Vet & Father
NRA Life Member and Certified Small Bore Distinguished Expert

[Greg_M]

That Starbucks link no longer works

[BGutzman]

I got a reply back today stating that they were considering my information for there position on this issue.

I know what I said will change nothing with them, but we must all take a stand at times... Right is still right no matter what the mass media says or tells you to think...

If it wasn't for publications like SWAT magazine and a few others there wouldn't be much positive gun media period... Thanks SWAT.

[Chaz88]

I got a reply back today stating that they were considering my information for there position on this issue.

At least you got an answer. Unfortunately it sounds like the same caned answer I get almost every time I write one of our political leaders. Except for the one that thanked me for supporting there position on an issue. When in fact what I wrote to them was 180 out from the congressman's stance. Makes me glad to know I was listened to.

[CobraCommander]

It's everyone's right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns, either concealed or openly carried.

If the person next to you was carrying a pistol, and it was concealed, how would you know to be intimidated? Should we just adopt a default attitude of "intimidated" anywhere concealed pistols are allowed?

with an exception for uniformed police officers

Those poor plain-clothes cops are out of luck, I suppose.

"Utah granted a murderer permission to carry a weapon, way to go!"

The person in question wasn't a murderer when she acquired the permit. If she had been, she wouldn't have been issued the permit. If state agencies could predict individual's future criminal tendencies a la Minority Report, it would make the local Sheriff's job a lot easier. Additionally, the person in question here is a septuagenarian woman; how many grandmothers are going to kill anyone this year?

For what it's worth, Utah in general has a high rate of gun ownership and one of the lowest homicide rates in the nation (1.9/100,000 in 2007, compared to a 5.5 national average.) I don't think the high rate of gun ownership causes the low homicide rate; I think that homicide and violent crime are influenced much more by factors other than legal gun ownership.

Not to go too far off topic, but this seems to be the case in other states as well; restrictive gun laws have little bearing on crime rate. Some states have less restrictive laws and low crime rates (Midwest, most of New England, Pacific Northwest); some states have less restrictive laws and a higher crime rate (much of the South); some states have more restrictive laws and low crime (MA, HI), some states have more restrictive laws and high crime (CA, MD, IL). There is not much of a correlation.

As far as the Bradys go, they might be taken more seriously if they didn't jump on every anti-gun rights initiative that came along, no matter how asinine. The flap over allowing travelers on Amtrak to take firearms in checked baggage (like, the same way they can on airplanes) is a good example.