New York Times says Starbucks shouldn't tolerate firearms in its stores

A Times editorial says: "Should customers be free to sip Skinny Cinnamon Dolce Lattes at their laptop screens while brandishing a gleaming Ruger .357? So far, Starbucks executives say yes, claiming they are quite safety-minded within a policy that "supports the federal, state and local laws in the communities in which we do business." The paper wants Starbucks to follow Peet's and say, No guns! || Read "Who can relax this way?"

Comments

[2ndAmendmentSupporter]

Yeah, because it's such a problem at Starbucks? If you're going to commit a crime you're NOT going to leave your gun outside. If i'm sipping a latte with my .45cal S&W Semi-Automatic in my pocket how does that bother you? I purchased and registered my firearm as well as possess a license to carry it. How is my responsible gun ownership a hinderance in ANY way to anyone? Criminals use guns to commit crimes. Criminals will not care about a "weapon free zone". All this does is make a bunch of 2nd Amendment haters feel better about themselves. I'm sorry, I support Starbucks statement of following the local, state, and government laws that are already in place. Placing a 'blanket ban' on carrying a firearm inside a store is just giving in to more Gun-Control supporters. For once if your history S-bux, have a backbone and say "NO!" to someone.

[spence]

A show of hands please:
Do you have armed customers?

[spence]

No guns in my store.

[Shrug]

The only customers we have with firearms are police officers. I support them having them. I do agree that placing a ban on them would do nothing to prevent something violent happening.

[AmazonV]

I wonder how many people are carrying firearms and you just don't realize it.

As Shrug said, telling criminals not to have guns isn't going to stop them from having one and using it to rob you.

[Oregon SBUX Customer]

Peet's has a no weapons policy?

Not going there anymore.

I am a gun owner, I follow all the rules and take a lot of training courses from different training centers we have here in Oregon (including the local Sheriff department).

So I am very glad that Starbucks is very open to this.

THAT SAID.... I also support private property rights. IF a company chooses to not all law abiding citizens to carry, they have that right. I don't have to agree with them, but I am glad they are able to exercise their right. Just as I would wish to be able to exercise my 2nd amendment right. I ALSO have the freedom to not visit their store - just like I will do with Peet's. If it came down to it, I'd rather legally carry my gun (concealed, don't like making a spectacle) then spend $2.25 on a grande black coffee... Last year I spent over $1500 at Starbucks, and that is only what Quicken shows. Who knows what I spent with cash... Sure $1500 doesn't make up for much of Starbuck's budget, but what if there are 10 other people per state just like me? $750,000 a year? That is fairly significant...

For now, I will remain a loyal Starbucks customer. If this changes.... I will have to hurry up and ask the cute barista out before I stop going to Starbucks ;-)

[Cindy]

The Open Carry folks proclaimed Sunday, Feb 21 as Starbucks Appreciation Day. Gun right activists from across the country visited their local Starbucks. I read this comment on a blog about it.

"i took my .50 Kentucky long rifle with me and had a cup of coffee and apple fritter. i told them i was there to show support for the company’s respect for the right of Americans to defend themselves. the coffee was ok too."

It cracked me up! Would you like an apple fritter with your .50 Kentucky long rifle?

[pete]

A licensed gun owner in the starbucks is much better than nobody in the store during an attempted armed robbery. Licensed gun owners don't do crimes, since they know they will never be able to carry legally gun again.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

Why am I not surprised that the New York Times doesn't support the 2nd Amendment.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

Maybe if Prada made a gun holster they would support it?

[Barista G]

This entire argument isn't even about whether it's right or wrong to carry the firearms. That's why we have legislation. The issue is whether or not Starbucks is going to make a stand. Personally, I don't think I would be alarmed if a customer was openly carrying a firearm in my store. If it was bothering other customers, I would ask them to refrain from doing so in the future, just as I would ask a patron to refrain from looking up porn with his laptop in clear view of the rest of the lobby. Customers have the privilege of exercising their rights within the limits of the law. However, I also have the right to refuse them service for any reason.
Furthermore, I don't want Starbucks becoming a political entity. Publicly owned companies lose business when they choose sides. Starbucks should continue to clearly state that it will adhere to local and federal laws and only address this issue at a store level.

[Enlightened Coffee Sage]

I won't lie - if a bunch of folks came in openly packing heat, I'd be nervous...but only because I'd be afraid that they're to rob us. But if it turned out that they were just there to get something to drink, I'd feel much more relaxed. If they handled their weapons responsibly, I'd probably actually feel safer.

Weapons in the hands of responsible citizens should inspire confidence and courage, not fear.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

At my Starbucks, we have off-duty law enforcement officers come in throughout the day with their weapons holstered. We feel very safe.

[Gilgamesh]

Even if they did enforce such a "rule," are we supposed to frisk every customer that comes into Starbucks? Pointless article. They are just looking for reasons to give Starbucks even more bad press.

[Zbrit]

America is so full of weird people. I mean really, do you live in the dark ages? Why do you need to carry a gun? You don't. I do not tolerate people arguing that it makes them safer (it doesn't unless you're at war in a true war zone), it is a way for men to compensate and women to feel like they can take on the world. Stop being so childish America, you have no need for your guns.

[Matt]

Guns being good or bad is beside the point; the issue is whether or not Starbucks should take a side on an issue that has NOTHING to do with a coffee shop. Should they join the anti-gun side, the pro-gun side, or just continue making coffee and say "no comment"? I think they should go with the latter otherwise they will alienate one customer base nomatter what.

And in reply to Zbrit - the fact that people have the right to carry a gun because they want to, without giving you a reason, is what we in America call "freedom". Look it up on wikipedia.

[Enlightened Coffee Sage]

Zbrit:

Have you ever handled a gun? I would wager that you have not. I, however, have. Despite what you may think, handling a gun does not make you feel invincible. It gives a feeling of gravity and responsibility.

I also like how you "do not tolerate people arguing that it makes them safer," despite statistics to the contrary.

So you make assumptions based on something with which you have no experience, flat-out ignore evidence, call other cultures weird and childish, and you accuse us of being in the dark ages?

Grow up.

[Iced latte]

Guns don't kill people...people kill people.

It is the right of Americans via the 2nd Amendment to carry guns. We aren't trying to ban free speech and many times a persons words are much more hurtful than someone carrying a gun.

You can bet that if Starbucks takes a stand against the 2nd Amendment not only will it be challenged but they will also have to cut labor again just to make up for the lost sales of those pro 2nd Amendment folks going elsewhere.

[Iced latte]

Why do people feel the need to carry a gun?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis&feature=related

[Kaw-Liga]

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

****

If banning guns reduced crime, Washington D.C. and Chicago would be crime free ...

Kaw-Liga

[(former) FLA SM]

I don't understand why everyone is so nervous about these people with guns. If they are believers in the second amendment, then they must be members of a well regulated militia. You should be able to easily spot them by their uniforms as they march in formation.

[ask a doctor]

No guns, No problem, it should be that way..

[buckaroo]

@Zbrit:

have you ever been a woman before?

(just curious. maybe you actually are one and I just can't tell from your post. but really, I doubt very many women carry so they can feel like they can "take on the world" Being a woman places one a notch down on the food chain and most women would tell you that that can be a very frightening/vulnerable feeling in certain situations. I think women who carry are trying to keep themselves from walking around at the mercy of those around them and reducing vulnerability, rather than as the result of some misguided desire for a power trip.)

[buckaroo]

also @spence and Shrug:

you are thinking you don't have armed customers other than law enforcement? really?? How on earth can you claim to know this? Do you frisk everyone who walks in your store before handing over the lattes?

It's called a CONCEALED weapon, people. Means they are not going to be flapping it around and announcing to you that they've got one on them.

[spence]

Hey Lil Buckaroo, I never claimed to see things that are concealed.

[Mark]

"an armed society is a polite society"
--Robert Heinlein

"more guns, less crime"
-- John Lott

[Brandon]

As far as I am aware, banks have a no gun policy, and yet many banks across the country get robbed at gunpoint every day.

Typical liberals trying to push their anti-2nd amendment agenda.

[buckaroo]

sorry spence musta misunderstood your post :)

[OverCaffeinated]

I'm always amazed at how many 2nd Amendment supporters ignore the "well-regulated" part.

[Enlightened Coffee Sage]

OverCaffinated makes a good point. I personally am very much in favor of responsible gun ownership: key word responsible. And that means insuring that irresponsible people don't wield them.

I personally think that guns should be allowed damn near anywhere, but only by people with permits. And a necessity for a permit should be somewhat extensive firearms training, including handling and safety measures.

I think if more people were properly educated about guns and how to handle them, not only would people be less generally afraid of them, but we'd be safer as a society - both in terms of criminality and firearms mishaps.

[hawaiiandy]

The ["well-regulated" part]
I have a permit to carry and I have been employed with Starbucks for 6 years.

The County Sheriff issues the permits, and he/she does not hand them out like Halloween candy.
Extensive background checks are standard procedure before one receives the right to carry a gun.

To blame a gun for shooting someone is like holding a pen responsible for mis-spelling words.

Bad people will always have knives and bullets.
If the good humans can outnumber the bad humans,
then we'll be golden.
Otherwise the alternative would be to disinvent guns, or stop producing ammo.

-cheers.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

The Boston Starbucks Rebel believes that Starbucks shouldn't tolerate the New York Times in its stores

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

@ZBrit,
Yes, we're in the back ages and you are so much more advanced. Thats why we kicked you out of our country, back in the day. I remember a little thing called the Boston Tea Party and subsequent events that occurred all because the citizens were able to be armed to fight tyranny of an repressive government.

[(former) FLA SM]

"I remember a little thing called the Boston Tea Party and subsequent events that occurred all because the citizens were able to be armed to fight tyranny of an repressive government."

Very true. That's why our founding fathers stated in the second amendment that "A well regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State." The citizens you refer to drilled and trained together as a well regulated militia in order to defeat the British. If you're a member of a well regulated militia, it should be obvious to everyone. But I've never seen anyone wearing a militia uniform which seems odd, given the number of gun owners in this country. (Of course, I don't live in Michigan.)

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

@(former) FLA SM, the right to bear arms is more clearly stated than a right to privacy and the right to abort unborn human beings

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The question is what the writers of the Bill of Rights meant in their logic. I think that first we should try to understand the context in which the right to bear arms was originally written and disregard the "Constitution as a living document."

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It seems much clearer than other so-called rights.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

The first part concerning a militia only explains that the militia is necessary for the protection of the State. But how many times in history has the military been used by the government to suppress the rights of the people? Maybe Tiananmen Square or the recent democratic demonstrations in Iran?
Now the question remains, are the militia and the People the same category of persons? The People should have a right to defend themselves against others who may endanger their lives.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

Also, all law enforcement officers who come into my Starbucks have their badges clearly displayed along with their firearms.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

Ann Coulter: ""If the courts interpreted the Second Amendment as they do the First Amendment, we could all own tactical nukes.”

[cafe noir]

it is impressive to see so many conservative opinions regarding firearms on this blog. I will not reiterate the opinions that have already been stated clearly, but kudos to those who are willing to stand up for the second amendment.

[spence]

@Buckaroo. I'm sorry I was peevish.

[Enlightened Coffee Sage]

"The first part concerning a militia only explains that the militia is necessary for the protection of the State. But how many times in history has the military been used by the government to suppress the rights of the people?"

This is one of the primary reasons behind the Second Amendment. While it's true that the role of the state militia has been supplanted by the National Guard and local law enforcement agencies, national defense was only part of the issue.

Many early Americans, including many of the Founding Fathers, were highly suspicious of national armies. National armies, in their minds, were things that kings used to start wars and enforce their tyrranical rule. (Plus they cost tax dollars to support, and if there was one thing that early Americans hated it was taxes.)

The right of private citizens to bear arms was partially intended to ensure that citizens would be capable of a second revolution should the need arise. It was meant as a check to the power of the President, who is Commander-In-Chief of the national armed forces.

I imagine many foreign jaws kinda drop at the idea that Americans feel the need to arm themselves for revolt against their elected leadership rather than doing something sensible like, you know, voting them out of office. In reality, that's exactly what we try to do. Few people purchase firearms so they can overthrow the government; mostly it's for hunting or self-defense.

However, that "self-defense" includes defense from our government. Americans tend to be kind of paranoid about our leaders; we're always a little worried that the guys in charge will decide that they like the taste of power just a little too much, start ignoring due process, and try to turn the country into a dictatorship by force. We've been that way since before the American Revolution; it's part of our national character. We like people to have guns just in case the country turns into a police state and the gestapo starts kicking in our doors.

[JoBarista]

BTW,
One is not required to be anti second amendment if one is a liberal. I am a dyed in the wool progressive liberal who has had a concealed carry permit for many more years than I have been employed by the BUX.

The key is "well regulated" and responsable gun ownership. There will always be people out there who use guns to commit crimes. Banning guns will no more prevent crimes than prohibition prevented drinking.

[Anon ymous]

@ hawaiiandy +1

Although I know I won't change any opinions, I feel compelled to add mine:

I also have had my CCW permit for many years, and am also employed by Starbucks. I have never carried at work because of employment polices, but I do carry outside of work, within the parameters of the law. I began carrying the day I received my permit. I don't think criminals follow the same procedures.

I can't help but believe, in some small way, that a percentage of the folks who don't see any valid reason to own/carry a firearm, are the same people who ask me if I have jumper cables, or are otherwise ill prepared for other emergency situations. Often I have stopped to help a stranded motorist, or given assistance to someone in need, and am amazed that many people don't see the need to carry tools, flashlights, spare fuses or headlight/tail light bulbs in their vehicles.
Much like the irony of "Why do you always carry a pocketknife?" coupled with, "Can I borrow your knife?".
I'd like to consider myself a sensible, prepared individual. Carrying my firearm (concealed, legally) is another way for me to be prepared for unusual situations. Paranoid? I'd like to think not. Unfortunately, bad stuff happens, all the time. When my wife and I broke down on my motorcycle at dusk in rural WV, thousands of miles from home, I know with certainty she was glad I had my firearm- and we were both glad I didn't need it.

To be more on topic, those that think that by prohibiting concealed carry in its locations, Starbucks (or any other business) is actually keeping guns out of it's stores- is just plain naive. Every person with a CCW permit must weigh the benefits of carrying (to them) against the penalties of being caught in a business that prohibits them doing so. I can tell you that in my state, that penalty is a $100 fine... for the SECOND offense.
And by definition concealed carry is just that- concealed. I have never been made (nobody has ever noticed I was carrying) to my knowledge in all the years I have carried.

What would more likely happen, is that Starbucks would lose revenue from those who elect to spend their money elsewhere. The firearm carrying community is large, and communicate extensively.

FWIW, I consider myself more a liberal on almost every other issue.

[Anon ymous]

And- I've been less a threat to other's safety with my CCW permit than any of the dozens of people I see every day texting or chatting on their cellphone on the road unintentionally trying to kill me on my motorcycle or in my car.

All of which are legal where I live.

[NC Shift]

I work in a fairly conservative area, and have never seen a customer openly displaying a firearm. I do however believe customer's showing that they are armed may serve as a great deterent to anyone thinking of committing a robbery.

[Anon ymous]

The only thing open carry does is tell would be bad guys who to attack first.

[SeattleViaColorado]

I think it's stupid that gun-rights activists are trying to use business in their politics war. Just because somebody took all the classes and passed the background check to get their license doesn't mean they know how to handle a dangerous situation like a hold up. If some criminal comes into my store and puts a gun to my head I don't want some damn cowboy reaching for his handgun with his sticky fingers and then end up getting my head blown off. You remember that scene at the end of Boogie Nights with Don Cheadle? Yeah thats what happens with a well armed populace. In saying that I support your right to own a gun. If I wasn't a poor barista I probably would own one too but I sure as hell wouldn't be taking it out with me to get my coffee.

[edw]

Guns don't kill people.... people with guns kill people.