fickman wrote:
2) I hope the big box and chain businesses will focus on 30.07 to avoid visible firearms in their establishment and choose to forego the 30.06 signs. They only have so much real estate at entrances and its a valuable marketing and branding location. How great would it be for them to turn it into an either/or decision instead of a both/and?
I expect that most big box stores will not be posting signage of any kind. Wal-mart has a company-wide policy of not banning guns at any of their stores - whatever local laws allow for, Wal-mart allows and does not add any additional restrictions. Keep in mind also that a few years ago, the Brady Campaign put alot of pressure on Starbucks to forbid open carry at their stores in Seattle. Starbucks stood firm and refused to give in. If a company based in a liberal town like Seattle stood up to the Bradys and refuse to outlaw open carry, I'm optimistic that other companies will be unlikely to prohibit open carry. And, of course, we haven't seen a rash of no-gun signs in other states (like Oklahoma), so I don't expect it to be an issue here.
Unless something has changed with Starbucks that I'm not aware of, I disagree with saying that they didn't give in. While they make it clear that they claim to not be anti gun or anti 2A, they have said that they do not want guns in any Starbucks: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... z/2829937/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"After months of wrangling over the highly emotional issue, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz on Wednesday announced that guns are no longer permitted in Starbucks stores — or in Starbucks outdoor seating areas."
They requested people not carry in their stores. They have not banned carry in their stores. This quote is from the same article.
"At this point we'll sit and monitor the situation," says Schultz. "We're hoping that most people will honor the request." But even if gun-carrying customers don't honor the request, says Schultz, "We'll serve them with a smile and not confront them."
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
fickman wrote:
2) I hope the big box and chain businesses will focus on 30.07 to avoid visible firearms in their establishment and choose to forego the 30.06 signs. They only have so much real estate at entrances and its a valuable marketing and branding location. How great would it be for them to turn it into an either/or decision instead of a both/and?
I expect that most big box stores will not be posting signage of any kind. Wal-mart has a company-wide policy of not banning guns at any of their stores - whatever local laws allow for, Wal-mart allows and does not add any additional restrictions. Keep in mind also that a few years ago, the Brady Campaign put alot of pressure on Starbucks to forbid open carry at their stores in Seattle. Starbucks stood firm and refused to give in. If a company based in a liberal town like Seattle stood up to the Bradys and refuse to outlaw open carry, I'm optimistic that other companies will be unlikely to prohibit open carry. And, of course, we haven't seen a rash of no-gun signs in other states (like Oklahoma), so I don't expect it to be an issue here.
Unless something has changed with Starbucks that I'm not aware of, I disagree with saying that they didn't give in. While they make it clear that they claim to not be anti gun or anti 2A, they have said that they do not want guns in any Starbucks: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... z/2829937/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"After months of wrangling over the highly emotional issue, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz on Wednesday announced that guns are no longer permitted in Starbucks stores — or in Starbucks outdoor seating areas."
They requested people not carry in their stores. They have not banned carry in their stores. This quote is from the same article.
"At this point we'll sit and monitor the situation," says Schultz. "We're hoping that most people will honor the request." But even if gun-carrying customers don't honor the request, says Schultz, "We'll serve them with a smile and not confront them."
Was this in response to handgun carry in other states or the long gun carry in Texas?
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
fickman wrote:
2) I hope the big box and chain businesses will focus on 30.07 to avoid visible firearms in their establishment and choose to forego the 30.06 signs. They only have so much real estate at entrances and its a valuable marketing and branding location. How great would it be for them to turn it into an either/or decision instead of a both/and?
I expect that most big box stores will not be posting signage of any kind. Wal-mart has a company-wide policy of not banning guns at any of their stores - whatever local laws allow for, Wal-mart allows and does not add any additional restrictions. Keep in mind also that a few years ago, the Brady Campaign put alot of pressure on Starbucks to forbid open carry at their stores in Seattle. Starbucks stood firm and refused to give in. If a company based in a liberal town like Seattle stood up to the Bradys and refuse to outlaw open carry, I'm optimistic that other companies will be unlikely to prohibit open carry. And, of course, we haven't seen a rash of no-gun signs in other states (like Oklahoma), so I don't expect it to be an issue here.
Unless something has changed with Starbucks that I'm not aware of, I disagree with saying that they didn't give in. While they make it clear that they claim to not be anti gun or anti 2A, they have said that they do not want guns in any Starbucks: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... z/2829937/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"After months of wrangling over the highly emotional issue, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz on Wednesday announced that guns are no longer permitted in Starbucks stores — or in Starbucks outdoor seating areas."
They requested people not carry in their stores. They have not banned carry in their stores. This quote is from the same article.
"At this point we'll sit and monitor the situation," says Schultz. "We're hoping that most people will honor the request." But even if gun-carrying customers don't honor the request, says Schultz, "We'll serve them with a smile and not confront them."
Was this in response to handgun carry in other states or the long gun carry in Texas?
I believe specifically to long gun carry.
Your best option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
When those fail, aim for center mass.
fickman wrote:
2) I hope the big box and chain businesses will focus on 30.07 to avoid visible firearms in their establishment and choose to forego the 30.06 signs. They only have so much real estate at entrances and its a valuable marketing and branding location. How great would it be for them to turn it into an either/or decision instead of a both/and?
I expect that most big box stores will not be posting signage of any kind. Wal-mart has a company-wide policy of not banning guns at any of their stores - whatever local laws allow for, Wal-mart allows and does not add any additional restrictions. Keep in mind also that a few years ago, the Brady Campaign put alot of pressure on Starbucks to forbid open carry at their stores in Seattle. Starbucks stood firm and refused to give in. If a company based in a liberal town like Seattle stood up to the Bradys and refuse to outlaw open carry, I'm optimistic that other companies will be unlikely to prohibit open carry. And, of course, we haven't seen a rash of no-gun signs in other states (like Oklahoma), so I don't expect it to be an issue here.
Unless something has changed with Starbucks that I'm not aware of, I disagree with saying that they didn't give in. While they make it clear that they claim to not be anti gun or anti 2A, they have said that they do not want guns in any Starbucks: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... z/2829937/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"After months of wrangling over the highly emotional issue, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz on Wednesday announced that guns are no longer permitted in Starbucks stores — or in Starbucks outdoor seating areas."
They requested people not carry in their stores. They have not banned carry in their stores. This quote is from the same article.
"At this point we'll sit and monitor the situation," says Schultz. "We're hoping that most people will honor the request." But even if gun-carrying customers don't honor the request, says Schultz, "We'll serve them with a smile and not confront them."
Was this in response to handgun carry in other states or the long gun carry in Texas?
I believe specifically to long gun carry.
In that case I wouldn't think handgun OC would be viewed the same way.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
fickman wrote:
2) I hope the big box and chain businesses will focus on 30.07 to avoid visible firearms in their establishment and choose to forego the 30.06 signs. They only have so much real estate at entrances and its a valuable marketing and branding location. How great would it be for them to turn it into an either/or decision instead of a both/and?
I expect that most big box stores will not be posting signage of any kind. Wal-mart has a company-wide policy of not banning guns at any of their stores - whatever local laws allow for, Wal-mart allows and does not add any additional restrictions. Keep in mind also that a few years ago, the Brady Campaign put alot of pressure on Starbucks to forbid open carry at their stores in Seattle. Starbucks stood firm and refused to give in. If a company based in a liberal town like Seattle stood up to the Bradys and refuse to outlaw open carry, I'm optimistic that other companies will be unlikely to prohibit open carry. And, of course, we haven't seen a rash of no-gun signs in other states (like Oklahoma), so I don't expect it to be an issue here.
Unless something has changed with Starbucks that I'm not aware of, I disagree with saying that they didn't give in. While they make it clear that they claim to not be anti gun or anti 2A, they have said that they do not want guns in any Starbucks: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... z/2829937/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"After months of wrangling over the highly emotional issue, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz on Wednesday announced that guns are no longer permitted in Starbucks stores — or in Starbucks outdoor seating areas."
They requested people not carry in their stores. They have not banned carry in their stores. This quote is from the same article.
"At this point we'll sit and monitor the situation," says Schultz. "We're hoping that most people will honor the request." But even if gun-carrying customers don't honor the request, says Schultz, "We'll serve them with a smile and not confront them."
Sorry, but to me saying that guns are "no longer permitted" is in fact exactly a ban. If I say that trans fat is "not permitted" from a food, that means it is in fact banned. If smoking is not permitted inside of a building, that is a ban. That Starbucks chose to make it sound "friendly" in the quote at the end of the statement doesn't mitigate that they no longer permit guns. The whole bit about not confronting it was explained in a longer article as part of a desire to not provoke an angry confrontation.
Last edited by Glockster on Sun May 31, 2015 7:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
NRA Life Member
My State Rep Hubert won't tell me his position on HB560. How about yours?
fickman wrote:
2) I hope the big box and chain businesses will focus on 30.07 to avoid visible firearms in their establishment and choose to forego the 30.06 signs. They only have so much real estate at entrances and its a valuable marketing and branding location. How great would it be for them to turn it into an either/or decision instead of a both/and?
I expect that most big box stores will not be posting signage of any kind. Wal-mart has a company-wide policy of not banning guns at any of their stores - whatever local laws allow for, Wal-mart allows and does not add any additional restrictions. Keep in mind also that a few years ago, the Brady Campaign put alot of pressure on Starbucks to forbid open carry at their stores in Seattle. Starbucks stood firm and refused to give in. If a company based in a liberal town like Seattle stood up to the Bradys and refuse to outlaw open carry, I'm optimistic that other companies will be unlikely to prohibit open carry. And, of course, we haven't seen a rash of no-gun signs in other states (like Oklahoma), so I don't expect it to be an issue here.
Unless something has changed with Starbucks that I'm not aware of, I disagree with saying that they didn't give in. While they make it clear that they claim to not be anti gun or anti 2A, they have said that they do not want guns in any Starbucks: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... z/2829937/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"After months of wrangling over the highly emotional issue, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz on Wednesday announced that guns are no longer permitted in Starbucks stores — or in Starbucks outdoor seating areas."
They requested people not carry in their stores. They have not banned carry in their stores. This quote is from the same article.
"At this point we'll sit and monitor the situation," says Schultz. "We're hoping that most people will honor the request." But even if gun-carrying customers don't honor the request, says Schultz, "We'll serve them with a smile and not confront them."
Was this in response to handgun carry in other states or the long gun carry in Texas?
I believe specifically to long gun carry.
Actually, as It recall it had nothing to do with either long guns or with Texas. The first reported incidents were in California having to do with the most recent handgun laws, and I recall reading a couple of articles about a guy open carrying an unloaded handgun into a Starbucks, and the MWAG a responses that followed. Starbucks USED to be an important part of exercising 2A rights, but this was a direct result of pressure from private groups ticked that Starbucks had to that point held out.
NRA Life Member
My State Rep Hubert won't tell me his position on HB560. How about yours?
fickman wrote:
2) I hope the big box and chain businesses will focus on 30.07 to avoid visible firearms in their establishment and choose to forego the 30.06 signs. They only have so much real estate at entrances and its a valuable marketing and branding location. How great would it be for them to turn it into an either/or decision instead of a both/and?
I expect that most big box stores will not be posting signage of any kind. Wal-mart has a company-wide policy of not banning guns at any of their stores - whatever local laws allow for, Wal-mart allows and does not add any additional restrictions. Keep in mind also that a few years ago, the Brady Campaign put alot of pressure on Starbucks to forbid open carry at their stores in Seattle. Starbucks stood firm and refused to give in. If a company based in a liberal town like Seattle stood up to the Bradys and refuse to outlaw open carry, I'm optimistic that other companies will be unlikely to prohibit open carry. And, of course, we haven't seen a rash of no-gun signs in other states (like Oklahoma), so I don't expect it to be an issue here.
Unless something has changed with Starbucks that I'm not aware of, I disagree with saying that they didn't give in. While they make it clear that they claim to not be anti gun or anti 2A, they have said that they do not want guns in any Starbucks: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... z/2829937/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"After months of wrangling over the highly emotional issue, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz on Wednesday announced that guns are no longer permitted in Starbucks stores — or in Starbucks outdoor seating areas."
Might I suggest that instead of reading MSM "summary" of what he said, you read what he actually said. There was no ban, and the statement that "guns are no longer permitted in Starbucks stores - or in Starbucks outdoor seating areas" was patently false; there was a request:
For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.
I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban.
When a company has an option to ban guns in their locations, a very specific option that makes it against the law even in areas where it otherwise would not be, and instead chooses to "request" people not carry guns, I don't accept that as a ban. It appears much more to me to be an appeasement to the ignorant.
