Starbucks Says Guns Unwelcome, Though Not Banned

[tt11758]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/starbucks-guns-unwelcome-banned-20288279

Starbucks says guns are no longer welcome in its cafes, though it is stopping short of an outright ban on firearms.

The fine line that the retailer is walking to address the concerns of both gun rights and gun control advocates reflects how heated the issue has become, particularly in light of recent mass shootings.

Most states allow people to openly carry licensed guns in some way and many companies do not have policies banning firearms in their stores. But Starbucks has become a target for gun control advocates, in part because of its liberal-leaning corporate image. In turn, gun rights advocates have been galvanized by the company's decision to defer to local laws.

In an interview, CEO Howard Schultz said the decision to ask customers to stop bringing guns into stores came as a result of the growing frequency of "Starbucks Appreciation Days" in recent months, in which gun rights advocates turn up at Starbucks cafes with firearms.

Last month, for example, the company closed down a store in Newtown, Conn., for the day after learning that gun rights advocates planned to hold a "Starbucks Appreciation Day" at the location. The store was near the school where a gunman killed 20 children and six women.

Schultz said the events mischaracterized the company's stance on the issue and the demonstrations "have made our customers uncomfortable."

Schultz hopes people will honor the request not to bring in guns but says the company will nevertheless serve those who do.

"We will not ask you to leave," he said.

The Seattle-based company plans to buy ad space in major national newspapers including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and USA Today on Thursday to run an open letter from Schultz explaining the decision. The letter points to recent activities by both gun rights and gun control advocates at its stores, saying that it has been "thrust unwillingly" into the middle of the national debate over firearms.

As for the "Starbucks Appreciation Days" being staged by gun rights advocates, it stresses: "To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores."

But the letter notes that Starbucks is standing by its position that the matter should ultimately be left to lawmakers. Schultz also said he doesn't want to put workers in the position of having to confront armed customers by banning guns.

The AP was provided a picture of a memo to Starbucks employees on Tuesday. Partners are instructed not to confront customers or ask them to leave solely for carrying a weapon.

Several companies do not allow firearms in their stores, however, apparently with little trouble. Representatives for Peet's Coffee & Tea and Whole Foods, for example, said there haven't been any problems with enforcing their gun bans.

Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which was formed the day after the Newtown, Conn., school shooting, has been organizing "Skip Starbucks Saturdays" to urge the coffee company to ban guns at its stores. Participants take photos of themselves at competitors such as Peet's that do not allow guns and post them online.

Shannon Watts, founder of the gun reform group, noted that Starbucks has taken strong stances on other issues. Earlier this year, for example, the company banned smoking within 25 feet of its stores, wherever its leases allowed. The idea was to extend its no-smoking policy to the outdoor seating areas.

"There's a big difference in the connotation of someone holding a gun and someone holding a cigarette," Schultz said.

In the meantime, Starbucks has become a symbol for advocates of gun rights. A website now even sells products bearing an altered version of the Starbucks logo, with the siren holding up a gun in each hand with the words "I Love Guns & Coffee."

[Solus]

Have to agree with the guy.

Open carry in the stores will only drive away that portion of the business that is uncomfortable around guns.

They still stand by their policy of not banning firearms so why make them suffer business loss by open carrying in their store...especially if you specifically open carry that day to go there.

Carry concealed, wear an NRA hat or shirt, and spend your money.  That will support them with out also harming them.

[PegLeg45]

More on the topic, and along the lines of what Solus is getting at, I tend to agree: "We" have collectively done it to our selves ...... Like my grandpappy used to say, "Go to the well more than you need to, and soon it'll run dry."

Doing something just because you can, doesn't always help your case.

This Is Why We Cant Have Nice Things – Starbucks

Well. We have done it.

I say we, as in the collective gun-owners and 2nd Amendment supporters/enthusiasts of this nation. We win together, and we lose together.

Last week, we shared a major victory in Colorado with the recall of two anti-gun politicians. Thats our Win.

This week, we have finally forced Starbucks to choose a side in the great gun debate. All the sabre rattling, and “starbucks appreciation days” and open carry foolishness we could throw at them. They finally made a decision.

Good Job. Well done. We have “educated” them and their “liberal” customers who don’t particularly share our views and affinity for all things that go bang.

The decision is in, and it is not in our favor. Starbucks has said that they do not wish to see “guns as a part of the Starbucks experience.” We have educated them to the point that they would prefer we just go away…or at least leave them out of it. They have said that they will not ask anyone open-carrying to leave, nor will they post signs regarding the policy. Frankly, I wish they would. I hope the “activists” have the intestinal fortitude to respect their wishes…but I’m not holding my breath based on how they have acted in the past. Calling for a boycott is weak-sauce, too.

We have essentially forced neutral Switzerland into the hands of the Nazis. A company that was not restrictive in their corporate policy. A company who followed local law. We forced them onto the national stage– without consulting them about it, I might add– and into the center of a rather divisive debate. Replete with “I Love Guns and Coffee” patches and t-shirts and mugs and all sorts of other cute little trinkets.

--------------------------------------------
More at link:

http://practicaltacticalpodcast.com/starbucks/

[Solus]

Exactly.

I had gotten the impression that the aggressive Open Carry crowd was professing to be supporting Starbucks I feel they were, instead, thumbing their noses at the Antis...and leaving Starbucks to pay the tab for their strutting.

Sorry indeed. 

If every person or organization who is not pro-firearms took Starbucks approach, we would have no Gun Control Crisis.

And Starbucks stood firm again....they continued to stay neutral even though they needed to make a public statement that they did not want or encourage Open Carry demonstrations at their stores....just as they had to make a public statement when the Antis applied the pressure to have firearms banned.

[alfack]

Howard Shultz is a wishy washy douchebag!

Way to be a good steward with the Sonics, after everything the city of Seattle did for you!

Just another dumb-luck having billionaire.

[Sponsor]

[TAB]

THats pretty much, a few ass holes were going around acting like jerks and hurt the rest of us, it has happen time and time again.  There is a huge diffrence between people expressing thier rights and those going around acting like a jerk.

[PegLeg45]

Another good article by Dave Workman over at GRE showing glimpses of the general gun blogger view:

http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-blogger-reaction-to-starbucks-blisters-some-activists


FTA:

Blogger Grant Cunningham noted, “This happened because our side doesn't take the ‘responsible’ part of 'responsible gun ownership' very seriously. As a community we don't police our own very well, and we don't consider the consequences of our/their actions. The rabid open carriers who organized the ill-considered Starbucks Appreciation Days weren't being responsible by forcing a conflict on an innocent (and surprisingly tolerant, given what they've had to endure) third party; neither were the open carriers who participated in them, nor the rest of us who didn't step up and remind the others what responsibility actually means.”

--------------------

Rob Allen weighed in at Sharp as a Marble, observing, “So I do not say this because I hate OC but holy s--- we are our own worst enemies at times. When you shove your gun in someone’s face, you’re being a dick. If you are going out of your way to ensure everyone knows you’re armed in an attempt to show them 'Haha! I can carry a gun and make you uncomfortable!!!' you’re being a dick. When you carry a rifle, something you would not normally do, with the intent to do a victory lap in the end zone, you’re being a dick.”

-------------------------------

Geoff Beneze, founder of the 1911 Tech Talk chat group had this to say: “Recall though, as you said, (Starbucks) never wanted to be involved in the controversy. Didn't want to be a symbol. They wanted to sell coffee to whoever wanted it, and they did that by following local law. The anti's whined and stomped their footies. But WE had to make a show of it, just as the lefties had done.

“If we'd bought the coffee, kept our mouths shut at the time and talked about it later, do you think the result would be the same,” he questioned.

[GeorgeCook]

I can understand some of the previous posts here about pushing the limits on carry in public places. But I want to caution against allowing this line of thinking going too far. I respect Starbucks right to establish its policy on carrying guns in its stores. But lets not place ourselves at the "back of the bus" to go along to get along. They will NEVER RESPECT, nor ACCEPT us for doing that.

I will make a parallel to the way business owners justified discriminating against blacks in the '60s - white customers were uncomfortable so they preferred blacks enter through another door and sit in the back out of sight or just not come in at all. We would never accept that today. In a sense we are making ourselves second class citizens by going along with this stuff.

So is the answer sit-ins at the lunch counter? Demonstrations outside the store? I don't have the answer on that one.
But I think we start thinking like the gay rights movement in that we need to engage the culture to CHANGE it to our way of thinking. This is a long process that will take decades to reverse, but we have start somewhere.

[MikeBjerum]

I read the actual letter yesterday or this morning, I can't remember which, and it is not as strong or bad as the media makes it sound.  Starbucks has NOT changed their position at all.  What they have done is point out that they are neutral on the situation, and wish to remain neutral.  Quit making it sound like they are promoting or pushing any position.  That is all it says - No more, and no less.

[philw]

think they will be in damage control

you should check out there FB page   

http://www.news.com.au/business/companies/starbucks-customers-flood-facebook-with-angry-comments-after-company-asks-them-not-to-bring-guns-to-stores/story-fnda1bsz-1226722840931

Starbucks customers flood Facebook with angry comments after company asks them not to bring guns to stores

IT'S a relatively straightforward request.

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has respectfully asked customers not to bring guns into their stores, following another mass shooting in the US this week which left 13 people dead.

The company plans to take out full page ads in national newspapers telling customers guns are no longer welcome, although it has stopped short of an outright ban.

But they clearly didn't bank on the reaction, which has led huge numbers of angry gun activists to flood the company's Facebook page, saying they don't want a serve of politics along with their pecan pie.

"Oh how I did love my Caramel Macchiato. However, as a result of Starbucks decision to no longer recognise my 2nd Amendment rights as a legal Handgun Carry Permit holder, I think I've drank my last cup of delicious Starbucks coffee! Thanks," Brandon Jarnigan wrote.

Val Simone said: "I VOW to never step into your stinking stores ever again. And I'm going to ask all my conceal carry friends to do the same," while William Ingram urged a company-wide boycott.

"DONT BUY ANY PRODUCTS FROM THIS COMPANY UNTIL THEY STOP INFRINGING UPON OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS !!! BOYCOTT EVERYTHING STARBUCKS!!!!!!"

Reaction from customers on the Starbucks Facebook page.
Reaction from customers on the Starbucks Facebook page.

The move comes as Starbucks finds itself at the centre of a national gun debate, with activists on both sides choosing to hold demonstrations at its stores.

Gun rights advocates have turned up with firearms to hold "Starbucks Appreciation Days" while the company has been criticised by groups such as Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America who want them to ban guns completely.

It's a tricky line to navigate for Mr Schulz, who is responsible for more than $13 billion in annual revenue in 7000 stores across the country.

The letter, which will appear in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post will outline Mr Schultz's position on the issue.

He said the company is neither pro- or anti-gun and the issue is up to policy makers to decide. Customers will still be served if they carry a weapon, but he wants the Starbucks Appreciation Days to stop and staff safety to be a priority.

The bold move has also gained them some support, with others taking to Facebook in support of the request.

Darrell Day posted "finally, you just gained a customer" while Kate Gomperts said: "Thanks for the new rules for no guns in stores, makes me feel much more welcome in your shops!"

What do you think about the move? Continue the conversation on Twitter @NewscomauHQ | @Victoria Craw