Starbucks caved in to Gun Control!!!! ….well, not really.

Warning: No idea if the memo is true or a fake, but argument’s sake let’s say is the real thing:

sbucks_memoLets go by parts, shall we?

01sbucks_memo2Clear? You can still Open Carry (and for that matter Conceal Carry) and you will be served. Just don’t act like a jackass because you will be asked to leave as it is their right to do so.

02sbucks_memo2Don’t let yourself be baited by a Mom Demanding Lemonade. Behave, be polite and ask the manager to remove the taunting/offensive idiot. Let the other jackass make the scene and get the bad reputation.

03sbucks_memo2Subtext is important here. Being a firm from Hippie Town U.S.A. Starbucks is probably not very Pro-Gun. At the same time and during tough economic times, it would be idiotic to shoo away people with extra cash when you have investors that will expect a return. Since the first “buycott” Starbucks shares have risen almost double and they’d be fools to garner the ill will of Gun Owners since they are the majority. At the same time, no company wants bad publicity and the Antis do know how to be squeaky wheels. Also I think that the legal team examined the issue of enforcing a ban on all guns and found it somewhat complicated. You have states that have very few restrictions to carry a gun (concealed only) like Florida where you pretty much can ignore any No Guns Allowed sign since they carry no legal weight. Then you have states that allow business to ban guns but with specific signage and this is pretty much different from state to state. So it is a mess to have a corporate policy on gun banning that may not come back to bite them in the corporate ass or the local franchisee.

My very humble and non-legal opinion? This is a cover-yer-butt document that will be issued to the Media who will go and chant that the Gun Control Activist won a round against the NRA and everybody is happy: We still get to carry and the Anti Gun Squeaky Wheels get a dose of Slipstream Weapons Lubricant.

We still win. Go get your double shot espresso.

UPDATE: An open letter from Howard Schultz CEO of Starbucks.

I still stand on my analysis. They just don’t want the undue attention. And this next bit kinda reinforces what I said about the legal crap:
04sbucks_memo2“authorized law enforcement personnel.” Law Enforcement cannot authorize the carrying of a weapon, only the enforcement of the laws as written by the legislature and signed by the Governor. They either consulted the junior partner of the legal firm or this was driven by the PR people (most likely.)

So, don’t act like jackasses, let the other side be the jackasses. Leave the Mosin Nagant at home.

PS: Sorry Joe, I could not help myself. 🙂 Slipstream is a great lubricant!

31 Replies to “Starbucks caved in to Gun Control!!!! ….well, not really.”

  1. While they will not use force of law to coerce me they are plainly stating they do not want an armed patron (i.e. me) in their place of business. I intend to respect that choice by taking my patronage elsewhere, where it is wanted.




    0



    0
    1. As it is your gorramed right to do so. 😀

      My take is: You can “ban” but I’ll still get in if I want to and let the Lemonade Moms know so they can freak in their overstuffed Yoga pants.




      0



      0
  2. Go get your double shot espresso.

    No thanks. They politely asked me not to carry my gun into their store. Since I don’t want to leave it in my car, that prevents me from entering.

    I’m sorry, Starbucks. I appreciate your polite tone and wish you all the best… from customers other than me.




    0



    0
    1. In that sense you are right. They will make this “caving” sound like they passed the new AWB.
      But it won’t amount to a hill of beans because unless they post a sign, most people will still carry inside the shop as they were doing before the whole party began.




      0



      0
      1. Big story about it on the TODAY show this morning. Princess Lauer was in full fig, torn between gloating and hand-wringing about the reaction of “gun activists”.




        0



        0
      2. But it won’t amount to a hill of beans because unless they post a sign, most people will still carry inside the shop as they were doing before the whole party began.

        Yup. Gun owners will suffer any insult to get a s****y cup of coffee.

        I, for one, am somewhat relieved they’ve expressed their true feelings. Now I don’t feel bad going to the real bohemian coffee shop. *shakes fake Seattle dust from sandals*




        0



        0
        1. As a resident of Miami, I can get a better thimble of atomic Cuban coffee at any hole in the wall (literally) in most cafeterias. Whenever I go to a Starbucks is to make CSGV and MDA cry via pics.

          My point (which I seem not being able to make) is that no matter how much they trumpet a victory, those who drink Starbucks while packing will continue to do so as per their internal memo. About the only thing they can do is ask OCers to leave when Mommy Lemonade starts to freak out and wail, but CCWers will continue to go unless Starbucks starts posting No Guns signs & running people through the metal detector at every location….which does not look like a good corporate policy. Somehow the visual of TSA agents fondling customers going for a machiatto may not compute well with the shareholders.

          So we keep carrying and we can tell the Moms and the Cultists: “Hey! Guess what? We still be packing in your Starbucks!”

          And their coffees and pastries will taste like ash in their mouths 😉

          As I said before, I am done being polite with the morons. It is not like we are gonna be liked all of the sudden by then anyway.




          0



          0
          1. I think I understand that you are trying to communicate that the statement from Starbucks has no impact on what we can or cannot do.

            What I at least am trying to communicate is that the statement from Starbucks has an impact on what I WANT to do. I no longer want to go out of my way to give them money.

            You still want to, and I think have made a good case for your reasons for wanting to. More power to you.




            0



            0
            1. What I at least am trying to communicate is that the statement from Starbucks has an impact on what I WANT to do. I no longer want to go out of my way to give them money.

              And that is cool and I can thoroughly can live with that because we do not have a strict political activist line that we must follow other than the defense of the Second Amendment.

              I am just gonna keep poking them in the eye 😉




              0



              0
          2. What I at least am trying to communicate is that the statement from Starbucks has an impact on what I WANT to do. I no longer want to go out of my way to give them money.

            Bingo. This right here.




            0



            0
  3. I hear what you’re tryin to say, Miguel! I suffer from a bad case of “being able to see both sides of issues” (usually…sometimes I can’t get my head that far up my tailpipe, so only get one side of an issue). The way I read that letter (and the memo you posted) was that the guy who wrote it had his panties in a wad because Starbucks was becoming Gettysburg, with both sides of the issue using their franchises as “political battlegrounds”, and Starbucks wanted to remain neutral. They politely asked us gun owners to not carry, however, they only specifically mentioned open carry in the letter (although they did, later, refer to “weapons” in general). I interpret this as “please don’t waltz in here with your bazooka over your shoulder, as it causes Mommies With Lemonaid to wet their pants whether they are actually on the site or not, but since we still honor local laws at our franchises, feel free to stuff said bazooka down your pants, throw on a cover garment, and get your non-fat soy-free double-plus-good espresso macciato with grass-clippings (grande sized!) with our blessings.” This was a placebo tossed to the soggy-panty crowd. Basically they could have said “y’all take y’all’s fight to another playground, please”.

    Personally….there’s not a Starbucks on my direct drive to/from work, I don’t care all that much for coffee, and on the rare occasion I do stop for a caffeinated beverage, its usually by walking 100 yards to the gas station/convenience store on the corner and picking up a bottle of that Starbucks vanilla frappuccino. I’ve been to one Buy-cott, since I only recently got my CHL (thank you, Texas, for dropping the required class time and pricing AFTER my wife and I scraped up enough pennies to afford the previous classes), and probably won’t bother showing up for another one. Not because of any change in political heart, but simply due to the fact that I don’t care enough about coffee to care one way or the other. The anti’s get to claim a victory (that isn’t a victory, as no rules/regs were changed), gun owners can still carry in accordance with local regs, Starbucks gets more publicity, and my day trundles on the same as ever.




    0



    0
    1. “… Starbucks was becoming Gettysburg … and Starbucks wanted to remain neutral.

      That was my thought. Using a different conflict, Starbucks was trying its darnedest to be Switzerland. “Allies or Axis? Neither; we’re neutral.” So the antis boycotted and the “in your face” OC crowd descended upon Starbucks, claiming victory and thumbing their figurative noses at the antis.

      Problem is, if we’re using Switzerland as the template for this analogy, what role are the pro-gun folks seen to be taking?*

      A lot of us have seen Starbucks’ statements for what they are from the beginning: they don’t want to be involved. They sell coffee, and they want to sell it to anyone willing to buy it. Catering to either side alienates the other. They tried to fall back on a more-or-less neutral precedent – state laws – but that didn’t seem to help. So now they have to “respectfully request” that people not carry, but they’re also not changing their all-are-welcome policy.

      And I can see their other point, too. If we’re trying to change gun laws, rallies at a coffee shop are “out of sight, out of mind” to the people who count: politicians. Rallies should be out in the open, in front of the capitol building (where legal), and should be MUCH bigger than a single coffee house can hold. Ideally, too big for the politicians to brush off and ignore.

      * – Maybe it’s not totally fair comparing “in your face” OC’ers to Axis Germany – not to mention it runs afoul of Godwin’s Law – but dang it, that’s how I feel about the whole mess.




      0



      0
      1. Heh. Switzerland was not as “neutral” as most want to believe (or were taught in public schools). If they truly wish to remain neutral, they need to send out an open letter to the anti-gun crowd telling them to STFIU and sip their lattes, there are concealed carriers who are trying to enjoy a peaceful cup o java.




        0



        0
  4. I think we may be about to see the difference between a Liberal full-on boycott…

    and a Conservative half-hearted boycott.

    Ultimately, this has no effect on me. I have never been a Starbucks customer, and this isn’t going to change my mind. Miguel seems to be one of very, VERY few pro-gun individuals who is not incensed by this announcement, however, and if Starbucks DOES start posting signs, then their pro-gun patronage is just going to dry up.

    Based on the effect of the anti-gun boycotts, I suspect their bankroll will go with it.




    0



    0
  5. I don’t hear anyone saying what the real problem is , our self’s , ( gun owners ) we took a great public relations opportunity and turned it into a night mare . Did we accept all the press about CC in Star bucks and ” quietly” go about using it to our advantage NO we strapped on 2 six gun in quick draw holsters and slung our double barrel shotgun over our back and watched as our ego fell right through our ass. The other “good ” we did was make any state thinking about “open carry ” look at what happened and not want to have there name on that king of law.




    0



    0
    1. It wasn’t gun owners in general, just the disciples of Leonard Embody; The loons of the OC movement if you will.

      The issue isn’t people openly carried, nor is it that people tried to make a political statement; The problem is that a select group of persons don’t understand the difference between a discreet political statement involving guns/gun ownership and a full-on in-your-face political rally.

      Going into a store while discreetly carrying (read: not necessarily concealed) and paying with shedloads of $2 bills is one thing; going into a store looking like a bunch of SWAT officers on a drug raid is completely different.




      0



      0
  6. Anyone company who publicly says my gun isn’t welcome (open or concealed) is, to me, saying I am not welcome.

    I don’t care how many weasel words they supplement the message with.

    John




    0



    0
  7. They try to save face by saying. “We aren’t pro-gun or anti-gun,” but turn around and say that they don’t want people to carry in their stores. You can’t have it both ways. They have decided to not honor my constitutionally protected civil rights and therefore I will choose to no longer give them my business.

    It’s disappointing that they ignored their stocks doubling on days where pro-gunners organised their support. Actually, it’s more than disappointing, it’s a slap in the face. I spent extra money every single time there was a Starbucks gun-supporting day (while respectfully and discreetly CC’ing.)

    I for one, love their coffee and probably spend around $100 a month at my local store (it’s within close walking distance). They lost my annual $1,200. If you have stock in Starbucks, I’d suggest selling it because I know I’m not the only one in this position.




    0



    0
    1. They’re trying to say “Hey guys, can you maybe leave us out of this?”

      Unfortunately there is no good way to do that in this particular case.




      0



      0
      1. I think saying exactly that would have been the right way. I saw a golden opportunity for them to say “we aren’t pro or anti gun we are pro coffee!” That would have been a better way of not taking sides and trying to remove their name from the debate while being respectful to both sides. But hey I guess that’s why I don’t make the big bucks




        0



        0
        1. “I think saying exactly that would have been the right way.”

          Except that is exactly what they HAVE been saying for the past several years, and it clearly hasn’t worked.




          0



          0
          1. And each new sign signified the same thing – that the Princes of the
            Plains and the Tribesmen of the Cold Hillsides were about to beat the hell out
            of each other again.
            -The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: Life, the Universe, and Everything, by Douglas Adams




            0



            0
          2. Why change the strategy just because a minority of people on both sides have no reading comprehension or suffer from extreme cognitive dissonance? Its pandering which is sophistry which is IMO disgusting.




            0



            0
  8. HSR47: “Except that is exactly what they HAVE been saying for the past several years, and it clearly hasn’t worked.”

    Yup, and “the disciples of Leonard Embody” decided that STarbucks not actively practicing biogotry wasn’t good enough — they had to grab Starbucks by the throat for forced bukkake while shouting “Take it! You know you love it, b*tch! Who’s yo’ Daddy?!?”




    0



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.