Starbucks is now asking customers to leave their guns at home

"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."

Starbucks, which previously allowed open carry of guns in its stores where open carry is permitted, is now asking customers to leave their weapons at home.

"The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers," says CEO Howard Schultz.

Starbucks won't issue an outright ban on guns, says Schultz, because enforcing that "would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers. ....We're hoping that most people will honor the request."

Even if gun-carrying customers refuse the request, says Schultz, "we'll serve them with a smile and not confront them."

* Starbucks CEO says guns not welcome in stores

* Watch Wall Street Journal's Starbucks reporter discuss the gun issue [VIDEO]

Comments

[mike]

Howard,

Haven't all these shooting taken place at locations were private carry was banned!?!?!

[Mickey Blue Eyes]

Add Starbucks to the list of places with lots of disarmed victims perfect for a criminal to go on a rampage without fear of being stopped.

I guess Howard Schultz wants the kind of publicity that the Navy Shipyard got.

[ImChiquita]

Aaaaand now I don't feel as safe anymore.

[T]

I am so happy to live in Canada right now.

[chicagoshift]

IT'S NOT A BAN you morons. It's the same as asking politely. If you still want to bring your guns in, feel free to do so. It's your right, and Starbucks thankfully acknowledges that.

[FormerPDXBarista]

@chicagoshift - really you want to start off with name calling? Come on!

[FormerPDXBarista]

Are we really surprised by this turn of position by Starbucks? When you are the best in the game and no other coffee company can compete, they know that they can cave to the vocal minority to keep them as customers. This is b/c the majority will do nothing about it. They will shrug their shoulders, put comments on Facebook, maybe go elsewhere for a while, then be right back in line for there double tall vanilla non-fat no foam extra hot latt-mocha-cino.

This is very disappointing that they have taken this position. Thank you Howard and SBUX for furthering deteriorating our rights.

If you are for your customers not having guns in your stores then make a decision. Quit pussy-footing around it. You want it both ways and you cannot!

Another reason to try and find a new coffee shop to go to.

[Vic]

The Navy Yard has a significant presence of individuals who are not only carrying arms, but have been well trained in their use.

Sort of demonstrates how "criminal to go on a rampage" doesn't have much to do with whether or not there are armed persons on the premises.

[SnowWhite]

The only people permitted to carry at the Navy Yard were the armed security and the armed guard is the first person Alexis took out.

[Mark H.]

Folks: how would YOU deal with this? Are businesses suddenly more dangerous places? Is asking a poor first step? Describe what you would do if you were the CEO of Starbucks, or other retail outlet?

Remember, we very time you open you mouth, you have the opportunity to unite or divide. Your choice, your legacy....

[I only bring my gun to DD]

Oh boy. Let the crazy rants commence.

[Sean]

How are anti gun people the vocal minority? I think MOST people would be uncomfortable with guns in a coffee shop. I would be.

[Al I.]

I agree with Sean, I don't want guns in Starbucks. I really appreciate Howard's stance here.

[Angel]

Could somebody please help me "wean" from starbuck french roast beans, to another brand, with the same beans, in term of flavor , body, etc.
many thanks for helping out.
coffee-addict-2

[sarah b]

Not sure what it says about a society when whether or not to bring guns to a coffee shops becomes a huge moral dilemma.

[turtleturtle]

Law says I can bring em, so ill keep doing that. It hasn't caused a problem for me in the last 2 years, why stop now.

[Marcus]

@turtleturtle, I don't mean this in an accusatory way, but I'm curious based on what you said if you realize Starbucks could legally ban customers from bringing guns into their stores? This really has very little to do with the law as much as a store policy. Starbucks has the right to allow people with guns or not into its stores the same way I have the right to let whom I want into my house or not.

The relevant law in this case has to do with private property, which Starbucks locations are.

[Mr Barnes]

Marcus - Starbucks are public accommodations. Your house is not.

There are volumes and volumes of laws about what the owners of private property can or can not do with their public accommodation.

[pdxhouseblend]

turtleturtle & Mr Barnes - public accommodations means that Starbucks cannot refuse service to protected classes of people on the basis of the aforementioned class. Public accommodations does NOT mean that Starbucks cannot have rules or must allow people to do whatever the hell they want while they are there. It is still private property, and there is no law that says you can bring your gun anywhere you want, even in states where open carry is allowed. Open carry allows you to have your gun on the sidewalk with you, yes, but not in any building you decide to walk into regardless of who owns that building.

[Drug Test Friend]

I can't believe that customers would actually bring guns into an establishment such as Starbuck. This type of behavior is what serves as a catalyst for extreme gun control.

[allenfromva]

I bring my gun to Starbucks, soccer practice, grocery store, the mall etc. Been doing it for at least 10 years, def not stopping now! No silly request or blog is gonna stop that

[pHluid13]

If a parent was to ask another parent to not bring a gun to their house for the sake or safety of their child or whatever reason that is, we would be talking a different story here. Starbucks is a safe haven and also privately owned. Why does the same standard not apply? A pro open carry individual wouldn't disrespect a fellow parent that they admire, trust or respect. They would probably honor the request openly because they have respectable morals. Do they not have the same morals when those same parents or non parents even are making the same request in a Starbucks location? Howard just happens to be the catalyst for that request. Do as you will since it is a request and not a requirement. But what is the lesser of two evils: people asking others to leave their guns at home? Or people choosing to ignore a request by bringing something meant to do harm into a location where others have access (either by touch or visual) to it?