TexasCHLforum.com

Pecos wrote:I think conceal carry with a CHL was always ok with them in the past. But walking around with weapons exposed drew all the attention. Just to prove a point.
I dont think this kind of behavour is helping the the 2nd amandment & gun right.

Thing is, there's a very large visual distinction between people walking around with holstered pistols in open view, and walking around with slung rifles and/or shotguns. I don't think open carry -in general- hurts gun rights. In fact, I'm very much in favor of open carry whenever and wherever it is possible and practical.

However, packing as much hardware as one can, for the sole purpose of going somewhere favored by the opposition and sticking your right in their face, while neither illegal nor immoral, IS unwise, especially when conducted on a third-party's turf. If you're going to pull a stunt like this, do it in a park in a city that has illegal/unenforceable/pre-empted ordinance against carry. If you're going to make a political statement, make it on political, not commercial, turf.

By involving Starbucks in this fashion (and yes, I know, the antis raised the hue and cry first, that their beloved yuppie joint did not BAN guns!), both pro- and anti-gun forces dragged the company right into the middle of this, and sort of forced their hand. Either way, they were going to lose business; I suspect they made the decision they did because the hippies, yuppies, and lefties spend more money than conservatives and libertarians (who understand that coffee is best when it's fresh, hot, black, and unburnt, opposed to the froo-froo burnt coffees Starbucks is known for).

I won't do business with them now because of the stance they took. I do feel kinda sorry for them, though. Had they gone the other way, they'd lose the lefties' business, or at least a portion of it; this was practically a no-win situation for them, so they took the road they calculated would probably cost them less money.

Next open-carry rallying point needs to be someplace we can argue we have a stake in the ownership and a right to be - public property - as opposed to merely publicly accessible private property.

Starbucks did not attempt to ban guns in their stores, but requested in a polite (albeit somewhat tone-deaf) manner that people not bring them in. While I disagree with the logic behind their request, I respect the manner in which they made it, and I respect their right to make it. I will respect it in that I will not do any business with them whatsoever, nor will I try shoving "my rights" and "improper signage" in their faces. To encourage such behavior in the face of the request Starbucks is perfectly in their rights to make, is to encourage them to completely shut down any and all legal carry in their stores as a matter of corporate policy, instead of corporate request. Guess what? It's their store, their purview, their right.

Pushing for further flamboyant behavior in Starbucks is akin to the local gay pride parade filing a parade route that takes it right down the street with the biggest Baptist church in town and timing it to pass by right when everyone is filing out after service. Strike that; it's like the parade stopping, and all the "costumed" people on the floats going inside to taunt the pastor.

Don't do this. It was a bad idea when people openly carried ARs and AKs into Starbucks. It's still a bad idea. We may be within our rights, but we have the right to act foolish in other things too, and a responsibility to bear the consequences when we're called on it.