Posted on 02/06/2010 8:15:28 PM PST by Still Thinking
Recently David Codrea wrote an article in which the Brady Campaign is petitioning Starbucks to ban firearms. Is it possible that Starbucks is experimenting here in Wyoming before making sweeping changes to policy in all their stores?
Recently a member of Wyoming Gun Owners stated “after I purchased my beverage I was asked to remove my firearm from the premises”. Has Starbucks already caved to the Brady Campaign?
It appears that Starbucks is taking a clear path to ban firearms in Wyoming locations. I can only say this because of conversations with the store manager Matthew at the Casper location, he stated that unless you are Law Enforcement no firearms are allowed in the store, he said he was reading this from an internal company web-site. He also said that he has confirmed with his Regional Manager that Starbucks has a “no firearm policy”.
Another interesting statement by the Manager he stated “I own guns but why would anyone want to carry them around women and children”. The Manager also stated that Starbucks corporate office called him but only to verify his conversation with me, not to assert policy, we can assume by the corporate office actions that they indeed have intentions of banning firearms.
Lastly, I received a call from Officer Cook of the Casper Police obviously directed at me by the Starbucks store, he gave me the usual private property speech to which I told him I understand, he also asked me “why is this such a big deal”. To which I said I'm just trying to get to the truth. The question of the day is, has the Casper PD become an agent of Starbucks?
With Wyoming being a state with the highest gun ownership per citizen and given the slow economy, actions against lawful gun owners is probably not one of the best business decisions Starbucks could make.
If you are appalled by the actions of this Wyoming Starbucks location please call them and politely explain that you can choose not to patronize their store.
Starbucks
4003 Cy Avenue, Casper - (307) 234-6550
Starbucks Corporate (800) 235-2883
Just thinking about all those coffee drinkers getting hopped up on Jamaican juju bean mix and pulling guns on each other.
I think the Brady people read about gun owners gathering regularly at Starbuck’s with open, unconcealed guns - just to demonstrate their right to do so. This freaked them out, and caused them to call Starbucks and pound their fists.
But what about legal, concealed carry customers. Nobody would really know.
Also, plenty of other businesses to go to with unconcealed guns just to demonstrate rights.
Because my woman and children are so precious to me that I will take any measures required to keep them alive, a la Luby's Cafeteria.
Sounds to me like an excellent opportunity for a new business startup!
Who needs Starbucks when I pass two of these new Cowgirl Stands on the way home from work.
Some coffee stands get steamier
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003535398_coffeegirls22e.html
This sounds like an opportunity -— 2nd Amendment Coffee shop.
If it is legal to carry a gun in this state, can a private business forbid you from carrying a gun into their store, if such store is open for business to the public? I would think not?
If the government has the right to force businesses to do business with all customers, regardless of sex, race, etc., then it has the right to force businesses to follow the US Constitution. Company rules don’t override the constitution.
Since Starbucks is engaged in public commerce, not a private club or organization, then they have no right to tell someone not to bear arms. This is no different than telling a landlord they must rent to someone of a different race or religion.
Shot o' coffee.
Double Shot o' Espresso.
Full Load.
Leaded.
Yeah, I'd say so...
** two of these new Cowgirl Stands on the way home from work.**
Well, Starbucks... been nice knowing you..
The Second Amendment only pertains to the government (maybe -- I guess teh Supreme Court will decide that issue soon). IT doe snot pertain to businesses or individuals.
If the Starbucks near me did this, I would hand out flyers outside saying that they are unsafe because the only people armed inside are lawbreakers.
It’s their private property. But Wyoming? Marketing plan for an epic fail, but what do you expect from modern liberals. This makes as much sense as a liberal posting a sign outside the house saying it’s a gun free zone (yeah, come and rob me, and shoot me and everyone else here dead so there are no witnesses).
I still remember what a police chief said about the Luby’s Massacre at a gun rights rally in Houston 16 years ago. If there was just one armed law abiding citizen allowed to carry......
Starbucks needs to understand that there are alternatives for the coffee drinker who carries.
I’m starting tomorrow.
BECAUSE, Einstein, it would be mighty handy to shoot anyone who dares to lay a violent hand upon said women or children. Or more likely, frighten them off.
Also featuring gunpowder tea.
with a “shot” of 44mag espresso
It may have that right, but it has not chosen to exercise it.
Company rules don’t override the constitution.
The Constitution does not specifically limit private citizens or businesses. It only limits what the federal government may do, and by incorporation of the 14th and 15th amendments, the state governments as well.
Since Starbucks is engaged in public commerce, not a private club or organization, then they have no right to tell someone not to bear arms.
Yes, they do. They may also limit your right to free speech, to peacably assemble, to pass out literature, and to do a whole bunch of other things on their property.
This is no different than telling a landlord they must rent to someone of a different race or religion.
The only reason the government can do this is because they have passed laws permitting them to do so. The Constitution, by itself, does not grant the government the power to do this. In fact, it was perfectly legal to refuse to rent property to someone because of their race, religion, or ethnicity at one time. That changed because of laws passed in the 1960s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.