Starbucks folds to antis

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

Locked
User avatar

Topic author
AndyC
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 10330
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:34 pm
Location: Garland, TX

Starbucks folds to antis

#1

Post by AndyC » Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:54 pm

...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.
http://www.starbucks.com/blog/an-open-l ... hultz/1268" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Remember Kitty Genovese

Image

Amateurs skip safety-checks - pros don't.
Preferred Travel Agent - 72 Virgins Dating Club
There's nothing quite like the offer of 230 grains to a man's chest to remind him of his manners

User avatar

carlson1
Moderator
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 9941
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:11 am

Re: Starbucks folds to antis

#2

Post by carlson1 » Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:00 am

This may be a perfect example of people Open Carrying their rifles in the stores to make a statement causes 30.06 signs in Texas.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening.
:banghead:
Image

User avatar

Topic author
AndyC
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 10330
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:34 pm
Location: Garland, TX

Re: Starbucks folds to antis

#3

Post by AndyC » Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:21 am

That was my thought, too.
Remember Kitty Genovese

Image

Amateurs skip safety-checks - pros don't.
Preferred Travel Agent - 72 Virgins Dating Club
There's nothing quite like the offer of 230 grains to a man's chest to remind him of his manners


cb1000rider
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 2505
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:27 pm

Re: Starbucks folds to antis

#4

Post by cb1000rider » Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:37 am

Wow, very eloquent.. I'm impressed with the open letter.

Starbucks was just the location for the demonstration. I continue to have mixed feelings on it. It's pretty clear to me that we've lost the right in Texas to openly carry long guns - or any type of firearm for that matter. I know that some of you are OK with this. I guess what bugs me about it is that we can't call the kettle black.. We go on saying that we've still got those rights when we don't.

I'd like one of two things to happen:
1) Texas drafts legislation prohibiting openly carrying all firearms. This seems to be the defacto situation in most areas, so let's at least call it what it is. Yep, I know that such legislation probably won't pass and is probably a constitutional overstep, but at least we'd have alignment with law. If that's what the majority of people want and makes the sheep feel "safe" - lets give it to them.

2) Texas drafts legislation indicating that the charge of "disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace" cannot apply to peaceful display of long guns. Other states have legislation protecting citizens from the most common forms of arrest - and essentially a functional prohibition on the open carry of long guns in this state. I can provide cites if necessary. Draft this legislation and I'd feel a lot less sympathetic to the guys going out attempting to exercise a right that we really don't have in Texas.


cprems
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:07 am

Re: Starbucks folds to antis

#5

Post by cprems » Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:38 am

This effectively serves as a 30.06 notice to all Texas CHL holders.
Last edited by cprems on Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
04/01/2013 - Online application
06/22/2013 - Plastic in hand
75 days - mailbox to mailbox
03/17 - renewal - 42 days plastic in hand

User avatar

G26ster
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2648
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:28 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Starbucks folds to antis

#6

Post by G26ster » Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:42 am

There's a huge problem with the wording he is using. He is classifying "open carry" as simply carrying a handgun whether concealed or not. He uses "open carry" as the definition of carrying "in public." This is incorrect, so I'm not sure if he is requesting no "open carry" or requesting "no guns - period." He also said it was "a request" not an outright "ban." How does that square with PC30.06? Very confusing info.


cprems
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:07 am

Re: Starbucks folds to antis

#7

Post by cprems » Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:47 am

To me it's a written request to not carry. Period!

Good enough for me to not go there again.
04/01/2013 - Online application
06/22/2013 - Plastic in hand
75 days - mailbox to mailbox
03/17 - renewal - 42 days plastic in hand

User avatar

Wes
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 885
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Ft Worth
Contact:

Re: Starbucks folds to antis

#8

Post by Wes » Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:49 am

ummmm....no it doesnt

(A) a card or other document on which is written language
identical to the following: “Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code
(trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person
licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code
(concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed
handgun”;

i am still torn on how i feel about this
Alliance Arsenal - Firearms and transfers in north Ft. Worth


cb1000rider
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 2505
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:27 pm

Re: Starbucks folds to antis

#9

Post by cb1000rider » Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:55 am

The verbiage is inclusive of all firearms without distinguishing and that is unfortunate. It's not a legal 30.06, obviously.
I guess allowing concealed firearms isn't something that he can stand on a public forum and do, especially if he's going to deny open carry in areas where it is legal.


Dave2
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3139
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:39 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Starbucks folds to antis

#10

Post by Dave2 » Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:06 am

cprems wrote:This effectively serves as a 30.06 notice to all Texas CHL holders.
How so? It's not 30.06 language, and perhaps more to the point he says it's not a ban. Also, he says he's talking about openly carrying.
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.

User avatar

Wes
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 885
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Ft Worth
Contact:

Re: Starbucks folds to antis

#11

Post by Wes » Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:16 am

And Starbucks owns the next closest shop to me, settles best...awesome
Alliance Arsenal - Firearms and transfers in north Ft. Worth


cprems
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:07 am

Re: Starbucks folds to antis

#12

Post by cprems » Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:17 am

The CEO just said NO GUNS. Which part of that are you failing to understand?

Regardless of the what the law states, he has said NO GUNS. That is effective warning and its enough for me. I'll spend my money elsewhere!
04/01/2013 - Online application
06/22/2013 - Plastic in hand
75 days - mailbox to mailbox
03/17 - renewal - 42 days plastic in hand

User avatar

Wes
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 885
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Ft Worth
Contact:

Re: Starbucks folds to antis

#13

Post by Wes » Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:20 am

Hmmmm
Last edited by Wes on Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Alliance Arsenal - Firearms and transfers in north Ft. Worth


cb1000rider
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 2505
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:27 pm

Re: Starbucks folds to antis

#14

Post by cb1000rider » Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:27 am

Picking nits.. I think he means that it's an effective warning (to him). An effective warning in the legal sense isn't really what is being debated, if I understand correctly.

And I agree.. If a private business doesn't want to do business citizens that are legally carrying firearms, then that is their right as a private business. I'd no more expect you to come over to my home and refuse to take off your shoes, if that's what I wanted. Legally, we can ignore the notice. Effectively many of us will respect the notice and not carry or choose not to patronize that business... Some of us may choose to ignore the will of that private business management as there is no requirement to do so under Texas law the way it's been posted today.

User avatar

TexasGal
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:37 am
Location: Fort Worth, TX

Re: Starbucks folds to antis

#15

Post by TexasGal » Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:50 am

If I see a valid 30.06 sign at the store, I will obey it and not enter. If a manager verbally tells me he/she does not want any guns in the store, I will leave. Otherwise, I see no problem carrying concealed. Even if Texas ever allowed open carry, I would still go concealed except when in rural areas, camping, etc. Places where most would not be alarmed.

The verbiage of the letter is an earnest plea to please stop making Starbucks any public part of the gun argument--and especially pertaining to visible guns. Some in the open carry crowd just will not stop pushing all of their fellow citizens to become completely accepting of strangers to stand next to them and their children with a visible gun. As a gun enthusiast, I totally understand how gun owners feel, but before I was who I am now, I was for many years a woman who would have thrown a fit over some guy openly carrying a gun near me or my kids. I would have had no idea why or if he was some nut that was a threat or just simply negligent. These days with mass shootings being played up endlessly by the anti's we are simply not going to win this by being insensitive to those who are truly fearful and ignorant of guns. It WILL backfire.
The Only Bodyguard I Can Afford is Me
Texas LTC Instructor Cert
NRA Life Member

Locked

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”