Hurray For Starbucks! Guns with Coffee

One that all those opposed to gun carry laws, both open and concealed, could carry or put on their jacket, shirt, wherever. That way those who do leave home armed, ready for self defense, could know who would object to being saved by them if they were being mugged, shot at, or otherwise victimized by a criminal. There are so many ribbon colors taken already, so I'm not sure what's available, but perhaps something in a blood red color?

As you yourself wrote on 27-1-2010 4:25 in this forum:

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms (...) The rights of the person who "owns" a place trump all other rights. If my personal rule is that you can't carry a gun into my house, that rule stands.

Surely Starbucks or the barista own their shops. So - even if it is discrimination - they would have the full right to do so. That right trumps all other rights.

Or did you change your mind the last month?

Kees

Ed could decide NOT to let you into his house if he choose to.

Starbucks would have a problem with not letting law abiding citizens into their establishment.

It would be a bad business decision.

I think a lawsuit based on discrimination would be inevitable.

One of the bad (IMO) effects of the Civil Rights legislation of the sixties was that it downgraded the status of private property. So the store owner no longer has the property rights he once had.

Wickard v. Filburn 1941
A lot of blame can go on the "60's", but not everything

It WOULD be discrimination if they changed their policy, but "discrimination" isn't necessarily wrong. The anti-gun people are pushing doscrimination, pure and simple. That was my point.

If they DID change their policy it's possible they could be sued on the basis of discrimintaion.

A fully owned business should have ALL rights in regard to the business, unlike corporations which are truly public. However certain laws were passed that has infringed upon those owner's rights in how they can or not discriminate concerning potential clientele. While putting signs that forbid someone from entering based on race might have been offensive to those of that particular racial group, the rights of the owner should still have been legally supreme. Even the laws that interfered with fully owned business by private individuals were based on interstate commerce laws, which of course would not apply to local business at all. New interpretations of "rights" have become rampant in the legal arena since then.

So, now we face the situation on those who believe their particular skin shouldn't keep them out of owner establishments of business, yet those who wish to keep their skin alive are being told they should be discriminated against. Which is worse? Discrimination based on skin color, or discrimination based on protecting that skin, no matter what color?

I happened to be in Starbucks in Amsterdam today. All I saw was coffee. No guns, no marihuana even.

Just for the statistics: how many people have been murdered in a Starbucks in the USA last year? If it's a large number, that would surely justify having a gun at hand to deter the potential killer and keep your skin alive. If it's zero, the argument loses some strength.

Kees

Principles are principles.

What's their rational argument for banning LEGAL guns in Starbucks? Does that argument have any strength?

...hammers hanging from work belt for workmen entering next.

If the number of customers that stay away from the shop because they feel unsafe seeing armed fellow-customers in a coffeeshop is greater than the number of customers that stay away because they aren't allowed to carry their gun into the shop, it's a simple economic and very rational decision.

With the 4 millon NRA-members being a clear minority (let's say 1.5%) of the American popupulation it might well be that having the other 98.5% as a happy customer is more valuable for a business than losing 1.5% of revenue from NRA-members boycotting it.

It's exactly like having a smokeless restaurant or pub. Smoking isn't illegal. But if more customers visit your pub because they prefer clean air than there are smokers visiting it if it's allowed to smoke, it's a good idea to go smokeless.

Kees

You may not know it, but you don't have to be a NRA member to carry in a carry state.
Just a little help for you.

you'll probably won't boycott Starbucks for this.

Kees

you'll probably won't boycott Starbucks for this.

I doubt that it would go that way. And there might still be discrimination lawsuits.

The difference between that and a no-smoking establishment is that no one can prove any harm from someone else merely carrying a firearm. Many might feel safer.

Might be tempted to light one?

in many states and cities, on basis of health claims.

And when I did barhop quite a bit, I never knew anyone, even nonsmokers, who campaigned against smoking. It was an accepted fact that a nightclub/bar would be smoky.

Heck, many cities and a few states have banned smoking outdoors even in public places. This basically came about because of all the smokers standing outside (in all sorts of weather) to have a puff before going back inside.

It's not politically correct to smoke anymore, so it's far game. Now insurance is allowed to charge more if you smoke. Fair? maybe so, I'll concede smoking won't improve your health. My state has already announced that it's next target next year is to punish obese people by hiking their insurance and out of pocket costs.

As far as guns, even though I don't own one, I have little problem with most people that do. I'll grant the right to carry conceal is almost gutted when you consider that every place of business or personal property can post no concealed weapons. That can even apply to leaving them in your vehicle out of sight while you go inside in some instances, if they own the parking lot.

I don't have problems with much of the gun registration etc. laws, but I understand while some do. Government almost never eases restrictions, just keeps adding them. So the fear that registering them today will restrict your use tomorrow isn't totally paranoid.

I would say that business do have the right to restrict gun carrying, concealed or open on their property, but that is my personal view, not a legal expert opinion.

It's part of getting dressed in some areas and for some jobs. Should you be required to take off your work shoes before entering and then have to put them back on later in the parking area, for no good reason? Same thing.

Should you be required to put on shoes before entering and then have to put them back off later in the parking area, for no good reason? Same thing.

then have to take them off later in the parking area, for no good reason? Same thing.

That's what happens when I Cut and Paste, then Edit, then Preview, then Edit, then Correct

Gun on for same thing. No difference I see.

so you don't slip and fall?

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Gun, (, in case you see a crime being committed, and you want to protect yourself or someone else, perps are allowed to pack) , No Bulletproof Vest (in case you happen to be in the line of fire, perps are not allowed to wear bulletproof vests), No Service

What if you're there having a donut and coffee and someone shoots you because Starbucks allows customer to have a weapon in the store?

I smell coffee and a lawsuit.

Kees, you overlook something with the question "how many people have been murdered in a Starbucks in the USA last year?". You forget the possibility of trouble on the streets going from your residence to the Starbucks and on the trip back home.
Limiting the statistics to murder, and specifically murder committed in the Starbucks distorts the argument.

were shot by persons with CW permits?

of how many violent handgun crimes are commited by trained/licensed citizens vs the untrained/not licensed.

telling students in a high school about gun safety as he shot himself in the leg?

I think his exact words were...

I'm the only one in this room qualified to handle this weapon.

it was hilarious.