Starbucks changing their mind on guns...

[gman1868]

[shooter115]

Agreed 1000%

[Countryfried Frank]

I hate to admit it but I agree with the tactical blowhard on this one.

[xd ED]

I hate to admit it but I agree with the tactical blowhard on this one.

Yup.

[Thunder71]

He's still around?

[Grizz]

My read on what Starbucks CEO said in his letter, if taken literally, is that everyone, including concealed carry, should "no longer bring guns into their stores or outdoor seating areas". In Minnesota, even if it is not posted, a business or a homeowner can request that you don't carry on their premises. If you do not comply then you are susceptible to a petty misdemeanor charge. By writing..."For these reasons, today 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."
Seems to me that we are beholden to Minnesota law not to carry on their premises. Even though their intent may have meant just open carry, that's not what was actually said. Any other thoughts on this?

[xd ED]

Just one:
Don't over-think it

They just want to sell coffee.

[Thunder71]

Just one:
Don't over-think it

They just want to sell coffee.

Yep.

They're just tired of being in the middle of everyone's boycott/anti-boycott BS.

If you carry there they'll serve you your coffee, just save the shotgun for the range and use their facilities to discuss your next AR build with your buddies.

[Hmac]

My read on what Starbucks CEO said in his letter, if taken literally, is that everyone, including concealed carry, should "no longer bring guns into their stores or outdoor seating areas". In Minnesota, even if it is not posted, a business or a homeowner can request that you don't carry on their premises. If you do not comply then you are susceptible to a petty misdemeanor charge. By writing..."For these reasons, today 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."
Seems to me that we are beholden to Minnesota law not to carry on their premises. Even though their intent may have meant just open carry, that's not what was actually said. Any other thoughts on this?

I don't think you fully understand Minnestota trespass law as it relates to handgun carry. They have to specifically order you to leave the premises and you have to refuse before you can be guilty of trespass (MCPPA).

Subd. 17. Posting; trespass. (a) A person carrying a firearm on or about his or her person or clothes under a permit or otherwise who remains at a private establishment knowing that the operator of the establishment or its agent has made a reasonable request that firearms not be brought into the establishment may be ordered to leave the premises. A person who fails to leave when so requested is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. The fine for a first offense must not exceed $25. Notwithstanding section 609.531, a firearm carried in violation of this subdivision is not subject to forfeiture.

[fabb600]

I hate to admit it but I agree with the tactical blowhard on this one.

Yep. Starbucks isn't anti-gun. They're anti-dumbass.

[ericinmn1970]

They got tired of being used as a pawn in the political debate. Open carry and two-dollar bills. I don't blame 'em

http://www.starbucks.com/blog/an-open-l ... hultz/1268

This.

Thanks OC folks! Hearts and minds, y'all.

This is a classic example of some gun owners/activists playing checkers rather than chess.

Showing at Starbucks with an AR-15 isn't going to win you any friends. Holding an open carry event specifically to agonize opponents isn't going to help you win the PR battle.

http://practicaltacticalpodcast.com/starbucks/

More photos of pure awesomeness...

At least the good old days...

Thanks for this guys and everyone else commenting on the thread. You actually helped me gain some perspective regarding this issue.

I was upset about this letter. Not so much about the request to stop carrying inside Starbucks, I can respect the owner/operators of a business making the decisions they feel are best for their business. I was instead upset and offended over certain parts of Mr. Schultz's open letter, "because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on."

What's that mean? I figured he just assumed that someone carrying a gun would just go off and shoot up the place if asked to leave. I felt he's corroborating anti-gun sentiments that liken gun owners to violent criminals who use guns in commission of crimes. I never even thought of the spectacle made by the OC protestors and how those on "our side" of the debate ruined it for everyone. So again, thanks for this.