TexasCHLforum.com

Jaguar wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:

jmra wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:Starbucks and Guns. Private Property their choice.

I believe Mr Schultz missed the entire US Constitution in his letter. Perhaps he's not read it.

Actually I think he understands it better than most. He was forced to make a business decision that he didn't want to make because of a few stupid people. Don't blame him, blame the stupid people.

The Beauty Of True Liberty given to us all from our Founders. One cannot infringe on a free mans god given right to be armed because one does not like arms just as one cannot silence a free mans speech because one doesn't like the topic. My natural right "to be" outweighs Mr. Schultz "perceived right" to feel good about some "frivolous gun debate" that shouldn't be. I will not force my will on any man to "be armed" and no man will force their will on me to be "unarmed". This is Liberty and the U.S Constitution, written by better men, guarantees my natural right to bear arms will not be infringed. "Come and Take Them" has true meaning in the history of man throughout the ages. Our forefathers understood this and have handed us all a beautiful Constitution to preserve our Freedom...

If one becomes alarmed by the sight of a Law Abiding American bearing Arms one should move to a Country that has abolished this Natural Right of Free men. Politicians and Judges Included...

So if Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church folks showed up at a Starbucks holding signs and shouting at people, Mr. Schultz would just have to let them protest in his stores?

There is also a very strong private property right in this country and Texas codifies it in PC 30.06 when it comes to firearms. A private business or private person no more has to allow Westboro than firearms, their property, their rules. On public property you have a point, but to use a business that makes it money from people wanting coffee - all kinds of people, not just those that agree with Westboro, means that they have a right to exclude demonstrations by Westboro in their stores. I bet if Fred Phelps showed up at a Starbucks without signs or yelling his hate, they would serve him a cup of coffee.

Go open carry at the Capitol, it is public property and they cannot force you to disarm (well they can, but I would agree that is a violation of your liberties.) Write to your representatives, that is free speech. Protest on the grounds of the Capitol, I drove 250 miles to do so last spring. But don't tell me that every business must support your view and allow you to carry on their property, that is an infringement on the business owner's natural rights.

Mr. Schultz is not forcing you to go unarmed, he is forcing you to choose a different place to purchase coffee if you are. And even that is not exactly true, Starbucks hasn't put up 30.06 signs yet so carry concealed if you really need a cup of Starbucks.

suthdj wrote:

Keith B wrote:

suthdj wrote:I don't know why everyone is jumping on the OC thing here this very well may have been because of the pressure the anti's brought on SB or did I miss something.

The CEO stated flat out it was because of all of the unsponsored Starbucks Appreciation Days where OC'ers took it upon themselves to gather at Starbucks with their handguns displayed. I am sure it was due to customer complaints, but may have been employee's as well.

And why did they show support for SB, because the anti's were out up in arms, because SB did not forbid firearms. This may have not worked out in favor of the OC people but it was not because they showed support, that is just the excuse. SB should of came out an just said stop dragging us into social issues instead they took a side. That is Sb's choice, mine is not to use SB's anymore.

bdickens wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

bdickens wrote:Thank you, all you in-your-face open-carry activists. Happy now?

Provide an alternative to inaction, please... Or detail that you accept the fact that we can't openly carry long guns in Texas.
I don't like it either, but due to inaction our "rights" are eroded away to the point that, in my opinion, we're more likely to get arrested over being left alone if walking around with an unloaded long gun...

How about writing Starbucks a letter expressing your appreciation of their policy of allowing law-abiding citizens to carry their lawfully carried sidearms in accordance with State law and indicating that because of that you will continue patronizing their business and encourage others to do so. Wrap it up with a brief reiteration of the non-problem that lawful gun carriers are.

That would be a lot more productive that a bunch of people showing up and pushing guns in everyone's face.

Starbucks said they didn't want to take sides on the issue and that they didn't want to be a battleground for it. But that wasn't good enough: y'all just had to turn it into a battlefield and ended up making them take sides.

When you demand all or nothing, what you most often end up with is nothing.

cprems wrote:

C-dub wrote:

cprems wrote:The CEO just said NO GUNS. Which part of that are you failing to understand?

Regardless of the what the law states, he has said NO GUNS. That is effective warning and its enough for me. I'll spend my money elsewhere!

Cprems, do you have your CHL or have you actually read 30.06? This is a written request, not an oral request. You may certainly choose to do business elsewhere, as will many others, but this is in no way effective notice according to Texas law.

Yes and yes. As I stated in my previous posts, it may not be effective notice but its good enough for me.

What I don't get is the division between open carry and CC. This is the Second Amendment we're talking about here. If we fail to come together and support BOTH, then we are no better than those who wish to take away BOTH!

We need to get it together and do it quick.

You (generalized) either support the Second Amendment or you don't, we cannot have it both ways. This is an all or nothing issue. We don't get to choose bits that we like.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Texsquatch wrote:Glad I gave up on Starbucks years ago. Their weak coffee drinks have become nothing more than a fashion accessory for junior high girls.

You're obviously ordering the wrong stuff.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:If the sheeple are freaked out when they see the open carry of a rifle, we either need to change the law so that it's not allowed . . .

This is the second time you're suggested this as one alternative. Just contact your Senator or Representative and ask him/her to file and work hard to pass such a bill. If you don't really view this is an alternative, then please stop suggesting it.

There is no one more pro-gun than am I, but if I'm in a store and someone walks in with a rifle slung over their shoulder, or in a tactical sling as I've seen some people do, then you can bet I'm going to keep an eye on this potential threat. Forty or fifty years ago that may not have been the case, but in the age of mass murders seeking plentiful media coverage, I'm going to be on high alert. If a stranger were to walk up to my front door with a rifle, they'd probably be looking down the barrel of one of mine while waiting for the police.

Open-carry of rifles and shotguns in urban areas isn't about exercising constitutional rights. It's a feeble and counterproductive attempt to pass open-carry of handguns through intimidation. In-your-face tactics don't work and I can't help but believe that people engaging in these antics care more about their personal notoriety than promoting gun rights. Calm, respectful, statesmanlike legislative efforts have proven successful for many years. Results don't came as quickly as most of us would like, but it does work. If fact, it's the only thing that works.

Chas.

Provide an alternative to inaction, please... Or detail that you accept the fact that we can't openly carry long guns in Texas.
I don't like it either, but due to inaction our "rights" are eroded away to the point that, in my opinion, we're more likely to get arrested over being left alone if walking around with an unloaded long gun...

anygunanywhere wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote: Yep..... I was afraid of this happening. I have never been successful at achieving anything positive with "in your face" tactics.

These tactics seem to work for some, mostly lefties and anarchist types who seldom suffer the wrath of the legal system. Their inherent immunity protects them whereas we would be thrown under the jail. Literally.

Anygunanywhere

Not seeing what that has to do with it. Plenty of protesters get arrested all the time.
This is not about the police, its about having your protest in a place of business thats totally not involved in the issue of the protest.

My comment was not about the police.

In your face tactics sway people's (especially politician's) opinions all the time when used by certain groups. That is a fact and you cannot ignore it. Yes, lots of those groups are arrested, but are never charged. If us gun guys did the same thing we would be arrested, charged, and prosecuted.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote: Yep..... I was afraid of this happening. I have never been successful at achieving anything positive with "in your face" tactics.

These tactics seem to work for some, mostly lefties and anarchist types who seldom suffer the wrath of the legal system. Their inherent immunity protects them whereas we would be thrown under the jail. Literally.

Anygunanywhere

Keith B wrote:Wasn't based on the rifle incident, but the 'Appreciation Days' that were not sponsored by Starbucks.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-New ... eluctantly" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In an interview, CEO Howard Schultz said the decision to ask customers to stop bringing guns into stores came as a result of the growing frequency of "Starbucks Appreciation Days" in recent months, in which gun rights advocates turn up at Starbucks cafés with firearms.

Last month, for example, the company closed down a store in Newtown, Conn., for the day after learning that gun rights advocates planned to hold a "Starbucks Appreciation Day" at the location. The store was near the school where a gunman killed 20 children and six women.

Schultz said the events mis-characterized the company's stance on the issue and the demonstrations "have made our customers uncomfortable."

So, this is a perfect example of people staging their own open carry days and showing up at a store and creating a scene without it being sponsored by the store.

So, do these ad-hoc open carry protests help? I think not.

TexasGal wrote:If I see a valid 30.06 sign at the store, I will obey it and not enter. If a manager verbally tells me he/she does not want any guns in the store, I will leave. Otherwise, I see no problem carrying concealed. Even if Texas ever allowed open carry, I would still go concealed except when in rural areas, camping, etc. Places where most would not be alarmed.

The verbiage of the letter is an earnest plea to please stop making Starbucks any public part of the gun argument--and especially pertaining to visible guns. Some in the open carry crowd just will not stop pushing all of their fellow citizens to become completely accepting of strangers to stand next to them and their children with a visible gun. As a gun enthusiast, I totally understand how gun owners feel, but before I was who I am now, I was for many years a woman who would have thrown a fit over some guy openly carrying a gun near me or my kids. I would have had no idea why or if he was some nut that was a threat or just simply negligent. These days with mass shootings being played up endlessly by the anti's we are simply not going to win this by being insensitive to those who are truly fearful and ignorant of guns. It WILL backfire.

carlson1 wrote:This may be a perfect example of people Open Carrying their rifles in the stores to make a statement causes 30.06 signs in Texas.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening.