Starbucks caught up in a controversy because it can't say "no guns in our stores, please"

Starbucks thought it was playing safe with its we-just-follow-the-local-laws stance with the guns issue. It didn't want to anger gun owners by prohibiting weapons in stores, and now it's caught up in a brouhaha and putting out this gibberish instead of saying: For the safety of our partners and customers, we don't want guns in our stores. || Read "Starbucks asks not to be put in the middle of open-carry gun issue"

Comments

[Krull]

Good for Starbucks for not letting activists push them into taking sides. Its an issue for voters, not some PC thinking management to decide

[buckaroo]

I'm not quite sure what makes it certified gibberish, except perhaps in the opinion of the webmaster? And isn't this supposed to be sort of an open-discussion site? (honest question there. perhaps I just assumed that.) I personally don't see how putting up some sign saying "we don't allow guns" is going to do one speck of good to promote anybody's safety. If someone wants to harm someone, they are not going to rethink their plans just because there's a sign by the front door saying "no guns, please." And I'm with those who don't understand why Starbucks needs to be caught up in this anyway. What's next? The grocery store? Movie theater? Hair salon? Dog park? That seems like an awful lot of little signs by the front door at the end of the day. I'd get annoyed trying to keep up with it all.

[Dallas CHL]

He lefty...it isn't that simple. Take Texas for example. Texas doesn't have open carry but does allow concealed with a license. To disallow a concealed license holder from entering with a gun, a sign with very specific language (in English and Spanish in 1 inch block letters) is required. A press release won't cut it.

If a Texas license holder sees that sign, he takes his business elsewhere.

[MC323]

I think that is the opposite of gibberish. I agree with every point in the article and think they took the law, their customers and their partners into genuine consideration in their decision. And I'm glad they called both sides out on using them as a pawn. I hate guns, and think their prevalence is a huge issue in our society, but as the article says, that's not our battle to fight. Not in this way at least.

[Karl Dahlquist]

I wonder if I can clean my arsenal with Starbucks VIA? Or is it too abrasive?

[buckaroo]

Dallas, are you talking to me? What exactly in my post are you disagreeing with?

I'm aware of how things generally go down in the lone star state seeing as that's where I live. Thanks a lot.

My whole point was why should starbucks get caught up in this and decide they will make their own policy instead of defaulting to local laws?

And yes, they take their business elsewhere if that sign is up. Unless of course their business was to walk in there and cause harm in the first place.

[voretaq7]

There's nothing wrong with the Starbucks press release, they're saying exactly what they have consistently said every time this issue has come up: If your weapon is legal and you are carrying in compliance with federal, state and local laws you may bring it into our establishment.

I have no problem with someone bringing a gun into Starbucks, but I do have a problem with gun nuts organizing a "lets all strap on our sidearms and march into the local Starbucks" event. As a gun owner I find that behavior to be provactive and irresponsible, and consider it on a par with waving firearms on a crowded street: You're trying to provoke an incident, and that is irresponsible behavior which takes you from being a responsible gun owner to a gun nut in my book.

[me myself and I]

We are trained on this? Things you learn when you read starbucksgossip.com. We don't even have the non emergency number of our local police department posted next to the phone. My Sm keeps it on his phone list which is filed god knows where.

[formerpartner]

I think the real story is why the other organizations thought it was a wise decision to participate in the divisive discussion. Gun Control is one of those isses with very little gray- similar to abortion. I business willing to get caught up in this is lacking serious focus on what they're there to do- run a solid operation, watch costs, drive sales, etc.

I fully support Starbucks' stance here, as a former partner I commend them for actually thinking critically and responding with an answer that took courage.

[Anon ymous]

"me myself and I"- why don't you just look up and post the non emergency number by the phone yourself?

Problem solved.

[waltie]

Guns in stores? Whatever. As long as I don't see them -- and especially if I don't *hear* them -- I don't really care either way. It' still illegal to shoot people, right?

Talk to me when people want to ban cell phones in Starbucks. Those do a lot more damage.

[pa bucks]

Better yet, if we did take a "no guns policy", which barista or shift is about to tell an armed person to get out? How uncomfortable is that conversation going to look?

[tall guy]

Starbucks doing something right (asking not to part of this debate)...I like it...let's hope it continues.

Also, the new pour-over method is awesome. So many happy customers AND partners now! WOOT!

[DB]

I won't be entering ANY starbucks as long as they stick to this policy. Even licensed carriers have accidents -- look at the NRA safety instructor who shot his student last week in Florida. The common-sense position is to prohibit guns inside their stores. It's a public safety issue as well as a means of contributing to the 'third place' idea that Sbux (used to be) all about. I'm NOT comfortable sitting next to an armed person who feels paranoid enough to need to pack a loaded weapon when they're at a coffee shop.

[Free Pastries Are Coming]

Hello everyone. This "guns in Starbucks" thing is merely a political stunt by the framers of the Brady Bill to get some free press and exposure by targeting a big bad corporation. Please do not feed this beast any more by discussing it here.

Why don't we talk about the return of free pastry day coming up later this month!!!

[ICU]

@DB, as someone who prefers the idea of gun control (to an extent), your post is just silly. Why do you even bother stepping out of the house? Anyone you walk by or drive by could be carrying a gun, and people with guns could have accidents! Seriously, just stay in your house. And hope that no one with a gun outside accidentally shoots through your wall.

[Georgia Latte]

Wow, this country really needs to get a life... seriously....

[Jim currie]

You can all do and say as you want, this is the USA. But I for one will no longer go into starbucks. As long as they allow guns in their stores.

[mdh]

Starbucks is a Seattle company. Law-abiding citizens in the Northwest are often armed. This is normal, acceptable, and a peaceful practice that leads to lower crime rates.

Don't try to project your personal bedwetting fears of all loud objects on everyone, please.

[Barista G]

I haven't been making a list as we go along, but I think the list of businesses that don't allowed firearms in accordance with state law is kinda short. We know there is Peet's Coffee, California Pizza Kitchen... I know there was something else. I'm sure that there is a list of corporations that has clear, well posted, anti-firearm rules. However, you could spend all day listing businesses that just quietly abide by the law and barely touch the tip of the iceberg. Since you won't be going to Starbucks, you should avoid those others too. Fortunately, you'll make the lines in Wal-Mart, Target, Best-Buy, Wal-Greens, Costco, Barnes and Nobles, Books-A-Million, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera... slightly shorter.

[MC]

DB.. How about the police, sheriff,hwy. patrol, security people,etc. that carry while on and off duty?? Are we supposed to 'just stay out' to them?? You would be surprised with the amount of conceled carry permit holders that are at SBUX, the theaters, restaruants,the mall, etc. I for one, have no problem with responsible customers carrying a gun.

[.]

Ironically, one year ago today.....

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Starbucks-Barista-Pops-a-Cap-in-His-Own-Leg-.html

[Cafe Nervosa]

So? This is a non-issue. Business continues the way it has for the last 30+ years. People who don't carry don't realize that other people might until they read about it in the paper... What does this change?

[jtom]

DB, please take some time to consider your position. Starbucks is behaving in a legally and lawful manner that is NOT depriving anyone of their given rights. Starbucks is NOT responsible for the actions of people who are abiding by local laws. You seem to be so ready and free to impinge others' rights. Please, for the sake of us all, stay out of Starbucks and in the little hole you dwell in. Your inconsideration is not appreciated or wanted. And oh yeah. I do conceal carry, and I also go to grocery stores, department stores, malls, movie theatres, reastaurants. Please enjoy your sad solitary life since you will need to boycot all of those places as well.

[Dallas CHL]

Buckaroo....my issue was with the webmaster's op-ed. You're right on target.

[AmazonV]

I stand by Starbucks deferring to local laws and heartily support it.

Guns save lives, see my name URL link: stories of civil rights fighters and using guns to keep themselves form getting lynched.

[waltie]

While I question the sanity, intelligence, and logic behind taking a gun to a coffee shop, movie theater, grocery store, etc, as long as it's legal, I can't question somebody's right to do it.

[James]

You're a bit backwards Waltie, the legality of bringing weapons around is contingent on it being a right. And good sense too: Who has a duty to defend you and yours from criminals? You and no one else.

Starbucks chose wisely in deferring to local legal authorities in this matter.

[jim]

Starbucks had better start focusing on tea, because the Tea Partiers will be pouring in.

If we now have to have separate red and blue coffee shops, that's unfortunate, but the choice would be an easy one for me. I'm not going to enjoy coffee while sitting next to some angry doofus displaying a pistol.

[susan bremkamp]

It's not the gun that is dangerous - it's some of the gun OWNER'S!

[SBUX Alum Bill]

Off topic, but it looks like Starbucks is finally doing its VIA rollout to grocery stores. This is a smart move, but I don't understand why they waited this long to do it.

[ChicagoAl2]

Starbucks has finally found something to get me to part with $4.00(?) for a cup of coffee. I can't carry in Illinois but I have permits for Minnesota, Florida and a handfull of other states. Since Starbucks is trying to be a standup company I'm compelled to do two things. Coffee for my wife and myself at least once a week and adding some Starbuck shares to my portfolio. I hope that these small gestures let management know that doing the right thing can get people's attention in a positive way.

[LEGENDARY OR BUST]

jim, speaking of tea parties -- coffee parties are being formed, don't you know, to undermine to tide of the tea parties. It all was started on Facebook. Heard on Laura Ingraham last week. She was reading an article from the New York Times magazine or something.

By the way, guns in stores is an issue? I didn't know until I read the press release.

Was this due to exactly what incident? Someone called Seattle and complained about such and such a store?

[jim]

LEGENDARY, it would definitely be an issue for me. I'd never go back to a shop that became a hangout for gun nuts. And the Tea Partiers would love to claim some hanguouts - until the economy picks up and they get jobs again.

[Phila SM]

Did we run out of legit complaints to hurl at our favorite coffee company? This is just boring.

Kudos to Sbux for their stance of no stance.

[jim]

Phila, it's not that simple. Here in Minnesota, a poorly worded gun law was passed a few years ago, which had the unintended effect of making it legal to carry guns into any establishment that didn't post a sign forbidding them. Every store, church, restaurant and coffee shop had to post an inane "no guns" sign. So if Starbucks doesn't do the same, they set themselves apart and may suddently find a lot of strange, unfriendly people carrying pistols coming in their doors. And a lot of former customers leaving.

[Matt]

jim, laws have been this way for a long time and it has never been a problem before.

[CABarista]

no cup of coffee is $4...

[BR]

By its silence and its refusal to turn away customers carrying pistols in its stores means Starbucks has taken a position. Its position is clearly in line with the NRA and its nut-wing segment that sees the need to strut down the road tottin' pistols. Just as Starbucks has taken its position, if I see a nut with a pistol sipping a latte in Starbucks, I'll tote myself somewhere more civil.

[Judy Benito]

Peet's boycott in the news

Boycott Watch, the experts in these matters, posted an article explaining why Peet's screwed up badly.

See: http://www.boycottwatch.org/misc/peets01.htm

[Amy Storey]

I can say that as a current Starbucks shift supervisor, I fully support their decision on the gun laws. I honestly feel that they thought of both employee and customer safety. Imagine a man coming in with a gun, and us saying he can't, even though state law says otherwise. Suddenly there is a very angry man with an armed weapon in our store. Do YOU want to tell someone they can't carry a weapon that the state tells them is OK?

[ex-partner]

In an open carry state, once you walk in to a business you are on private property. They have every right to not have guns there. If you don't like it, don't spend money there. I'm all for gun rights, but I am all for business owners rights as well. The owners should decide if they want fire arms, smoking, shirts, shoes, or funny hats and the people that like the rules will spend money. If they don't have customers because of their policy, they have the right to go out of business too. Their decision not the customers. Folks on both sides of the argument forget that they are on private property and may be refused service for any reasons not dealing with a protected class (race, sex, ethnicity).

[Steve Larson]

I find it not only ironic, but stupidly illogical, that those who wish to ban guns by placing a sign on the door rely solely on the goodwill and altruism of someone willing to commit murder to obey it.

If Starbucks decides to ban law abiding gun owners, wouldn't this only disarm folks who willingly comply? How does disarming law abiding folks make you safer? Isn't it already against the law to shoot people? Yet, you want to ban folks who willingly comply with your requests? For what? Being peacefully compliant? How does this stop willful murderers?

We see how well this brilliant logic is working at universities across the country. Let me know when those bloodthirsty murderers start obeying your "no guns" policies like the law abiding citizens do.

[Jon Kelley]

One thing that strikes me as very strange, is that Starbuck's stance, is that changing it's policy on open carry advocates being allowed to bear arms in it's stores would require it's partners to have to ask legal gun carriers to leave their stores. Why not just put a sign up as other businesses do? And, if someone chooses to ignore a sign, then just call law enforcement agencies to handle the removal? The other thing that is really strange is that Starbucks says it could possibly endanger it's partners or even it's customers. Why would Starbucks have this policy if they are afraid of potential violence? It sounds like Starbucks is taking too much responsibility for removal processes of people that enter it's establishments, who ignore store policies. Just call the police, that is their job, not yours. Believe me, word will circulate very quickly, that they (the gun bearing customers) are no longer allowed in your establishments. Remember, you are the ones saying that the reason you have this policy is because these are legal people. So what is Starbucks being afraid of the ramifications they or their customers might face, if they change their policy??? Remember, your advocating this small population, saying they are legal people. You say they are entering your stores with unloaded weapons. But how do you know the weapons are unloaded? Do you check? I'm so happy that so many people are boycotting your stores. I regret that I have not been able to sign the petitions that are circulatiing. Be responsible Starbucks! because i'm predicting that you'll be going out of business in the next few years if you don't. think this is the stupidest decision a company of your size could possible make. Sounds like someone making decisions for the chain is a big WUSSY and just afraid to tell someone carrying a gun, they can't come in your stores.

[mrso]

As an 8 year Starbucks employee, and a responsible gun owner I think this whole debate is silly. While I don't advocate the unnecessary brandishing of weapons, I believe licensed gun-owners have the right to arm themselves as law allows.
I know partners who have been robbed at gunpoint in the freaking suburbs! I hope to god that should I ever be unfortunate enough to find myself in that situation that one of my customers has a weapon that they don't mind using to defend myself and my employees; let's face it, by the time the police arrive to help you, you're generally past the point of that help doing any good.

[hearbutloud]

Guys- you are all missing the point. Do you want to tell an armed man to go somewhere else? Starbucks is doing this for OUR safety. Everyone knows how difficult it is to kick a homeless person out of the 'Bucks. If you notice someone is carrying a concealed weapon, they are either carrying it legally (in which case, to point it out would only incite panic), or they are carrying it illegally (in which case, there is nothing you can do anyway). Let this be a law enforcement issue, not a barista's!

[chicagoshift23]

This has been the stance of sbux for some time now, and NONE of you even noticed it. In Chicago, there is a city wide ban on handguns, so no barista here has ever dealt with it, but many of you in states that allow concealed carrying, have been serving up latte's to "armed" customers nearly every day. i bet you didn't even know about it. major kudos to the 'bux for letting the law and public decide.

[Shawn]

I think they made the right choice here. I first found out about this after reading Bryant Simon's blog post on the issue (http://everythingbutthecoffee.net/discussions.asp?id=73) and have been following it for the last week or so.

It's pretty interesting to watch these two big hitters (the Bailey Campaign and Starbucks) go back and forth. I don't usually side with Starbucks on the issues that surround them, but I would have to agree with them on this one. They're sticking to their guns (no pun intended) and not giving into the pressures of the Bailey Campaign.

If you are interested in Starbucks and our society, be sure to look at Bryant's website (the blog I mentioned above--http://everythingbutthecoffee.net/). He usually has a pretty good idea on the background of the emerging issues and gives some good input as well.

[Shawn]

Just noticed it's the Brady Campaign, not the Bailey Campaign. Oops!

[2nd amendment suzie]

for all of those referring to customers with *armed* weapons, in CA, where some of this debacle was initiated, the open carry law says that the gun must NOT be loaded. so, in CA at least, one would not be telling an armed customer to leave. seriously though--this is not a company policy issue. these are local, state and federal laws being discussed here. it is not up to starbucks, or any other business, to decide where and when a citizen can legally carry a gun. don't like the law? tell your rep!