I am 100% pro Second Amendment, the total Amendment.
Having said that, I must add that I detest activists, on both sides of any issue that distort reality just to be able to whine.
That is a grossly distorted, childish, neurotic headline having no relationship to the rest of the article.
As far as I can tell, reading the policy posted on this thread, Starbucks has NOT caved; they are just so confused that they printed a schizophrenic manual that no one can possibly understand.
I believe that anyone can carry in any Starbucks store and, so long as he does not become belligerent and abusive, he may not be harassed or asked to leave.
My favorite part of the "policy":
What if a customer asks, 'Am I no longer welcome in your store?'
Answer, "Everyone is welcome in our stores, but weapons are not."
A classic example of doublespeak, almost meaningless psychobabble.
I am waiting for the first report of a personless weapon being thrown out of a Starbucks.
Can we have some fun with this?
Let's list all the possible inanimate objects that are unwelcome at Starbucks, but may be asked to leave only if not attached to a living human being...
Nonsense. Starbucks caved to the CT dems and the million (2 dozen) squeeling moms:
Connecticut Democrats are throwing their weight behind the campaign pressing Starbucks to prohibit firearms in their coffee shops nationwide.
Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy and Rep. Elizabeth Esty endorsed a recent letter, spearheaded by family members of victims of December’s shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, asking Starbucks Chief Executive Howard Schultz to help “foster a culture of peace and ban guns from your stores.”
The Starbucks gun policy, which allows customers to carry firearms, including concealed weapons, in accordance with local laws, “undermines the safety and well-being of our citizens,” the signers say.
“[T]o prevent another Sandy Hook, we as a society must prioritize the sanctity of human life over the individual’s ‘right to carry,’” the letter reads.
Starbucks spokeswoman Jamie Riley confirmed that the company had responded to the letter, although details were not provided. Schultz also spoke over the phone with the father of a Newtown victim, but a meeting was not set up as the gun control advocates had hoped.
This is the most sensible comment I have seen on this thread. Like many companies, Starbucks is trying to walk down the middle of the road with doublespeak and apparently, it does not satisfy either side.
They would have come out much better if they simply said “we comply with local laws and respect every communities right to determine what those laws should be regarding firearms” which basically, was their policy. Instead, it appears they got some weasel word lawyer involved rather than stand for their own rights as a property owner. They could have been heroes defending self-determination instead of cowards defending nothing.
Anyway, thanks for the sanity of what you wrote. There were other sane comments, but yours was most direct.