Starbucks Becomes Battleground Over Gun Control

August 23, 2013

Support your local Starbucks... tomorrow, Saturday, August 24th, 2013, because they support your rights. Support them as you normally do, of course, but make a special effort for tomorrow.

Starbucks has been at the center of a raging 'war' between gun control and gun rights advocates. The gun control advocate group, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDA), has targeted Starbucks in a public relations campaign and now a boycott. Their efforts have been countered by the gun rights advocate group, 1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, INC (1MMAGC).

Starbucks' crime in the eyes of MDA is that they wish to remain neutral and allow local laws to prevail. They're not telling their customers how to live or what to value.

My awareness of this conflict began last month with this article: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/daniel-zimmerman/omg-starbucks-allows-guns-in-their-stores-still-omg/

This email that seems to have started it all is included in the article. I've also included it here.

"If you are like me, you enjoy your daily cup of coffee or tea. You may go to Starbucks several times a week, to grab a latte, meet friends or colleagues, or to take the kids for a treat after school. But did you know that at Starbucks you may be sipping your coffee next to someone carrying a loaded gun?

 It’s true. Starbucks allows people to carry guns into their stores where state and local laws permit them to do so. It’s a dangerous and ill-advised policy, especially in light of several recent accidental shootings that have happened inside Starbucks stores.

Starbucks has the right to change their policy on guns. It’s put the health and safety of its customers first before. Starbucks recently banned smoking outside its stores, where it would otherwise be legal to smoke. It also bans firearms at all of its corporate offices and prohibits its employees from carrying guns in the interest of “workplace health, safety and security.” Why, then, won’t it extend this ban to its stores?

Help us tell Starbucks: It’s time to get gun sense.

Here are three things you can do to let Starbucks know that YOU take gun sense with your coffee, and demand that they do so as well:

1) Click here to sign our petition, which we will hand-deliver to Starbucks; send an email or Tweet to Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz; or send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper letting other moms in your community know that Starbucks allows loaded guns in their stores. 

2) Take a picture of yourself with your coffee mug and a sign that says how you take your coffee  (“milk, sugar and gun sense”) and send it to photos@momsdemandaction.org.  See our example below.

 3) Join our Thunderclap! Click here to donate a post on your Facebook page or your Twitter feed on Monday, July 22.

We are not calling for a boycott of Starbucks. We’re simply asking you—and tens of thousands of moms like you—to pressure that Starbucks to ban guns from all of their stores, regardless of state laws on open carry.

Join moms around the country and me. Demand that Starbucks bring gun sense to their stores!

Shannon Watts

Founder, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense In America"

The article is written sarcastically and that makes some sense. Why?

1) That 'person next to you' who may be carrying a loaded firearm exists EVERYWHERE in our society! With the recent law that passed in Illinois, now ALL 50 STATES allow some form of lawful concealed carry of firearms, although Illinois is yet to implement its law. It has a few months to get the program up and running. There are restrictions on where firearms can be carried but they do not include coffee shops by law. And, oh, by the way, there are people carrying them illegally too who simply won't care what policies Starbucks or any other corporation put in place, or what laws are passed.

Any of you who may think MDA is right and Starbucks should change their policies, here's my challenge to your line of thought. How many McDonalds restaurants have you seen with 'no guns' signs? Think of all the other places you frequent regularly, with or without your children. Most don't have public policies prohibiting lawful carrying of firearms.

2) Shannon Watts' letter mentions "several recent accidental shootings that have happened inside Starbucks stores". My first reaction to this was, 'what the hell is she talking about?' I hadn't heard about ANY "recent accidental shootings" at Starbucks so I was very skeptical. I did, however, take some time to search Google. I found 2 incidents. One occurred in Cheyenne, Wyoming in 2011 and the other in the Tyrone Square Mall (Tampa Bay, Florida?) in May 2013. There was another coffee shop incident in Jacksonville, Florida in 2010 in a "cyber cafe" that was not a Starbucks.

Now I didn't exactly exhaust myself looking for more but I gave it an honest look. Two incidents? Even if I missed some, that's hardly enough to justify a call to action against a particular company. Typical of gun control pleas and rhetoric, Watts was short on details and sources for her statements.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-swenson/starbucks-and-the-more-gu_b_554583.html
http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2011/12/28/news/19local_12-28-11.txt
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/woman-injured-after-friends-gun-accidentally-goes-off-at-starbucks-inside/2120697

In the weeks since that letter and the July 9th article, there's been plenty more buzz about MDA and Starbucks.

1) While Watts' letter from earlier this year explicitly does not call for a boycott, it seems she and MDA has changed their minds and want a 1-day boycott for tomorrow.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=424244921026767&set=a.300767940041133.70846.300719666712627&type=1

This is likely a direct response to a show of support of Starbucks and its policy organized by 1MMAGC for August 3rd. Using MDA's tactic, 1MMAGC had gun supporters open carry their firearms at Starbucks, where it was legal to do so, and submit photographs of themselves. This event was executed across the country and participants were asked to acquire $2 bills and use them at Starbucks to make the movement more visible to the company and stores.

In response to MDA's 1-day boycott, 1MMAGC is asking gun rights supporters to support Starbucks through their patronage on Saturday, August 24th to help make up the potential revenue loss for the company.

Well before MDA's change in tactics, other gun control supporting groups were calling for a Starbuck boycott. This article from April 2013 predates Watts' letter. I don't know what started it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-rosenberg/starbucks-guns_b_2988849.html

That article also mentions that "Gunshot accidents have already been reported in Starbucks stores" but it links to the single incident in Wyoming in 2011: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-28/starbucks-gun-fires/52252886/1 The May 2013 incident hadn't yet occurred.

Here's another laughable quote from the Huffington Post article - "An estimated 100 million people want sane guns laws and only one million do not." I wonder what cherry-picking and illogical math was applied to come up with those numbers.

2) MDA is often portrayed as a "grass roots movement" that begin in the immediate aftermath of the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting last December. That's partially true. But it's hard to call something "grass roots" when it's founded by a professional media expert, as Shannon Watts has been shown to be here: http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/index.php/2013/06/05/moms-demand-action-shannon-watts-the-plastic-gardener/ As the article points out, Watts isn't exactly the stay at home mom / homemaker / cookie baker some people would like to believe she is.

This Forbes article discussed some of the Starbucks controversy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/08/12/latte-with-an-extra-shot-as-gun-lovers-hold-armed-rallies-at-starbucks-howard-schultz-faces-call-to-ban-weapons/

In it, Watts says this: " “good old grassroots activism,” “We’re moms — we make 80% of spending decisions,” “We don’t want to expose our kids to loaded assault weapons while we’re getting lattes.” "

She just couldn't avoid invoking the dreaded so-called "assault weapon," could she? In my opinion she also misrepresents Starbucks with her statement, "It’s gone too far now. They’re not just allowing guns in their stores. They’re becoming a meeting place for people with weapons to congregate" considering that Starbucks hasn't invited any of this. They've simply remained neutral and within their long-standing policy. What's truly caused Starbucks to become a meeting place for "people with weapons" openly carrying them is the attention drawn to the company by Watts and MDA.

3) Hypocrisy Alert: While Watts openly asked people to contact Starbucks' CEO, Howard Shultz, directly to express their dissatisfaction with the long-standing corporate policy, people on Facebook are being banned for 12 hours from the popular social media site for doing the same to Shannon Watts. The 1MMAGC website has several posts about this. It happened to them, among others.

I also wrote a recent blog about being banned altogether from posting on the MDA Facebook page simply for disagreeing with them. You can see the blog and the post that caused me to be banned here: http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/speech-and-debate-banned-by-gun-control.html


Finally, here's a good 2-part series of articles that provides counterpoints to MDA's arguments. If you've made it to this point then spend a few extra minutes and read these. They're relatively short and sweet.

http://www.thebrennerbrief.com/2013/08/13/guns-and-starbucks-5-ways-moms-demand-action-are-wrong-on-gun-control-pt-i/
http://www.thebrennerbrief.com/2013/08/14/guns-and-starbucks-5-ways-moms-demand-action-are-wrong-on-gun-control-pt-ii/


Have you noticed the Starbucks-esque logos that have been developed? They're basically the Starbucks logo with the words "Guns & Coffee" or "I (heart) Guns & Coffee". I believe they're rooted in this controversy.

===
September 6, 2013

Here's another story about a negligent gunshot in Starbucks. This one is from April 2012. It occurred in a restroom without any eyewitnesses. No one was hurt.

http://www.guns.com/2012/04/10/man-accidentally-shoots-bathroom-sink-in-starbucks/

More recently, Connecticut Democratic politicians and some parents of Sandy Hook Elementary victims are adding additional pressure on Starbucks' CEO, Howard Shultz. They've sent him a letter asking him to "foster a culture of peace and ban guns from your stores." He responded via phone but did not commit to their request.

You have to (grudgingly) admire the passion of gun control advocates but I have no respect for what they're doing. It doesn't matter how tragic the loss is of any individual or family or group. Their loss does not trump our constitutional rights!

The letter to Shultz contained "[T]o prevent another Sandy Hook, we as a society must prioritize the sanctity of human life over the individual’s 'right to carry' ". If they were truly concerned about the "sanctity of human life" they would consider the number of lives saved and assaults and other crimes prevented or reduced by the presence of firearms in society and that 'right to carry' that is responsible for it.

Thank you, Starbucks, for this - "it should be up to legislators — not Starbucks — to decide what restrictions, if any, are necessary on gun possession".

In typical fashion "Gun control advocates are quick to point out that Starbucks does not allow its employees to carry guns and wonder why there's a discrepancy between workers and customers.
"When it's their safety, they care a little bit more," one gun control advocate charged this week.
Riley said "safety is certainly a consideration" in the company's ban on employees carrying guns." That position can be argued when it comes to their corporate offices but I would argue that it holds no weight when arguing about their stores. Why? Because their employees, while not carrying themselves, are in the same environment as their customers - where there are firearms being openly carried and concealed every day. They are accepting at least the same risks as everyone else in the stores and arguably more since customers have the right to carry while store employees don't.

The outspoken, gun control advocating politicians have absolutely no credibility in these issues since they've proven time and again that we cannot trust anything that comes from their mouths about the pertinent issues. They've lied and manipulated in so many nonreputable ways that they're impossible to count! It's likewise with the Newtown victims' families. I'm sure their feelings are powerful and they may actually believe what they're saying and in what they're doing. But some day they're going to realize they've been used as pawns in a much larger chess game. It is so blatantly obvious when you listen to them and hear the exact same sound bites and phrases from them that are used by the gun control supporting organizations nationwide. They're not even speaking to us in their own words! Some of them are even identifying themselves as advocates now, not simply as victims or family members of victims and it's obvious they've taken a drink of the Flavor Aid.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/319713-dems-join-push-to-bar-guns-in-starbucks#ixzz2dpfkEmAQ

===
September 10, 2013

Another anti-gun blogger, Brian Ross of "truth-2-power", thinks he knows better how all people should be forced to live has put his 'common sense' words out there in "An Open Letter to Starbucks About Concealed Carry"; and proven, once again, that these outspoken gun control advocates don't know what they're talking about so they fill their propaganda with lies and misinformation.

Ross goes a step further though. From the results of his self-imposed survey and the following comments, he doesn't know who his audience is. Perhaps if he wants a better outcome to his ideas he should adopt the strategy in use by Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America (MDA) and prohibit comments altogether or delete the ones he finds disagreeable. At last glance, more than 95% of more than 3500 survey respondents disagree with him on his position attacking Starbucks for its policy of following local laws pertaining to carrying of firearms.

Unlike many forums, the commenters here mostly stay civil but have a field day pointing out the flaws in the article and position and poking holes in the author's position. The article itself is disturbing to read because of its embedded nonsense but when you couple that with the comments the whole becomes quite entertaining.

http://truth-2-power.com/2013/09/08/an-open-letter-to-starbucks-about-concealed-carry/

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/starbucks-becomes-battleground-over-gun.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDA)

Speech and Debate Banned by Gun Control Advocates

August 21, 2013

I’ve joined the ranks of others who have been banned from posting on the “Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America” Facebook page. My crime? I disagreed with their position and had the audacity to say so in a comment on August 19, 2013.

Not all my friends agree with my positions on the 2^nd Amendment / gun rights / gun control. Some have debated with me or asked me to clarify or consider alternative perspectives. Not one has told me they think I express myself abrasively, abusively or otherwise offensively. In fact, I’ve been complimented by friends that both agree and disagree with my positions for keeping the conversation civil and for backing up my thoughts and opinions with sources – articles and data. They appreciate the factual basis of my arguments. That’s not to say everything I write is factual. I’ve introduced a fair amount of opinion, sarcasm, etc., but not the insulting language very typical from both sides of the gun control debate.

But that approach isn’t good enough for gun control advocates like Moms Demand Action… and others. They don’t want to debate. They don’t want to hear the opposition. And they most certainly don’t want their audiences to read or hear it. They think it’s okay to attend political meetings and shout down candidates with opposing views but then won’t even let opponents comment on their Facebook pages.

This is the second time I’ve been banned from a Facebook page. The other? The other is on the page of an Illinois state politician. He’s a Democrat. He’s an outspoken advocate of gun control. I found out after I’d been banned from commenting on his page that before holding office he was actually employed in a gun control advocacy position. Oh, and I went to high school with him. We weren’t close friends or anything but I connected with him on Facebook and another social media site because of our past high school and football team associations. So even people with a shared past are not invited to participate in open debate when they disagree with the gun control agenda.

How can we ever trust the opposition when they don’t even want to have a fair, open and honest debate? What they’d rather infringe on 1^st Amendment rights in order to infringe on 2^nd Amendment rights? We can’t.

Below is a link to the Moms Demand Action… post that I commented on. My comment has been removed but I’ve included it here in its entirety following the link. In terms of chronology, my post would have been #95, I believe.

https://www.facebook.com/MomsDemandAction/posts/413373335447259

“How misleading can you be? "MINORS"? If you want to disagree or debate, at least be honest about it. People of age 18+ in our country are not legal minors. Yes, I know "minors" appears in the article headlines of the left-leaning Salon and Huffington Post, but it doesn't appear in other media headlines or even in the bodies of the Salon and HP articles.

From the comments above, several of you seem in favor of the drinking prohibition before age 21 but much of the world doesn't operate that way. You obviously want the handgun age limit maintained at 21 (or worse). How about voting rights? Shall we push back voting rights to age 21 too? If you want to make the argument that "minority" status should be pushed back to 21 across the board then have that argument. But know that if you push back the voting age of the so-called "minors" that you'll lose a large portion of the uninformed voters who support liberal or progressive politicians.

Current law already allows 18-20 year olds to own guns, at least in some states - rifles and shotguns - as well as to "possess" handguns. If these impulsive, emotional and not fully developed young men so many of you are worried about wanted to go on a killing rampage of a single person or a group, they can already do it with those tools, pressure cookers, or others.

There was a comment above by @Susie B Grande saying "19 year olds should not be able to access guns." "Access"? Really? There goes a huge portion of our military - the very people who provided you with the freedom to express your opinion. No one should be allowed to learn to hunt before 21? No one should be allowed to enjoy target shooting? Sorry, Boy Scouts of America. Too bad for those families whose teenage children have used guns to defend their families in their homes. I've read 2-3 of those stories just this year, including one today. Those are just the ones I've come across. I don't search them out. And no opportunity for parents to teach responsible gun ownership and use in a consistent and repetitive manner to children as they grow up?  If you mean "own guns" then say that. "Access" has an entirely different meaning and takes the argument to a different level. Are you aware of the teenagers in our age who literally hunt without parental supervision to put essential food on their tables? Susie, as easily as you tell someone that they're 'part of the problem' because they agree with the NRA's position on this issue, you are part of the problem of the erosion of our Constitutional and civil liberties.

How old do you think the soldiers and militiamen of our American Revolution and Civil War were? And those who fought in Vietnam? Iraq & Afghanistan?”

===
August 22, 2013

I found this article about the intolerance of Moms Demand Action interesting, particularly in light of my post yesterday.

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/08/who-knew-moms-were-so-intolerant-of-your-constitutional-rights/#axzz2ciWXlaUd

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/speech-and-debate-banned-by-gun-control.html
Firearms Blog Collections

Landlord Bans Firearms

August 20, 2013

Earlier this month, Castle Rock, Colorado resident, retired Marine and gun owner Art Dorsch was informed by his landlord, Ross Management Group, that "firearms and weapons are prohibited" and that "As of October 1, residents cannot display, use, or possess any firearms or weapons of any kind, anywhere on the property."

These articles say "courts have supported the rights of landlords to impose "reasonable regulations" on tenants. "The question is: is an outright ban of firearms reasonable in light of the US Constitution?" " This becomes an issue of an individual's 2nd Amendment rights vs. those of a private property owner. As we know, the rights of the property owner take precedence. Those owners can declare their homes and businesses 'gun free' although there's recent legislation that forces business owners to allow people to store firearms in their cars in their parking lots.

So, while this is unpalatable to most gun owners and 2nd Amendment / gun rights supporters, it's the situation we're sometimes faced with.

BUT...

In this case, Ross Management Group overstepped its authority. It seems the housing is actually publicly funded and RMG manages the property.

This case turned out right. The policy was rescinded before it was implemented and this Marine veteran and other residents will be allowed to keep both their firearms and their homes.

http://www.9news.com/news/article/348974/339/Apartment-tenants-told-they-must-get-rid-of-guns

http://bearingarms.com/colorado-marine-told-to-get-rid-of-his-firearms-or-find-another-home/

http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=349123

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/landlord-bans-firearms.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Colorado Firearms Blogs

So-Called "Gun Buy Back" Programs Illegal?

August 7, 2013

Late last month I wrote about how so-called "gun buy back" programs may be illegal as a consequence of Colorado's new gun control laws concerning background checks. Here's another instance of the same. This post is from "1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, INC" on their Facebook page.

What seems typical of gun control laws, this probably wasn't a foreseen or intended consequence of the mad rush for "universal background checks".

I am interested in that $5 background check fee though. The ones I've priced all cost between $25 and $50. In many, if not most, places, Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) are able to charge whatever they want for the mandatory service. Maybe the gun control crowd would be a little more successful if they'd reduce the very real costs of their initiatives for consumers. I wish I could find a $5 background check! Plus, they just might have found a few more supporters for more background checks if they'd made it easier, simpler, faster, more accurate, more effective, etc. You know - dealt with real issues instead of just "controlling" legal firearms.

But back to the topic of "gun buy back" programs - they're completely ineffective in reducing gun violence or crime involving guns, of course. They're just another feel-good measure used to distract people from the real issues.

"1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, INC

Oh Georgia!

Regarding the buyback this Saturday in Augusta...we will seek to stop this buyback and all other upcoming buybacks in the state of Georgia, or any other State, and we will ask for prosecution of those that continue with the buyback in Georgia based on THIS law.

A gun dealer shall not sell or deliver any handgun to another person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer or licensed collector, until an instant criminal history background check is conducted and approved by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. The information required to be provided includes one photo identification, name, birth date, gender, race, social security or other identification number of such potential buyer or transferee. A $5.00 fee to cover the costs of each check will be collected. Antiques and replicas, curio and relic firearms as defined by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and holders of a permit or license to carry a pistol are exempt from the instant check.

(Link to Firearm Sale Laws in Georgia)
http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/georgia.aspx"

===
August 8, 2013

Another lost soul. Not lost to death - just to a meaningless and ineffective use of time and money that may also be illegal in the name of 'greater good'. Past friends used a phrase jokingly - 'if only I could use my powers for good'. Here are a couple guys trying to use their powers for good but who are hopelessly misled and believe their own nonsense and that of outspoken gun control advocates.

So-called gun "buy back" programs do little or nothing to reduce crime; may be illegal under state law because they're not completing background checks with each "transfer" of the firearms and because they may be considered "straw purchases"; and do not get guns "off the street". The guns turned in come out of closets and bedrooms and basements and garages. They're unwanted guns, not the tools of criminal behavior. I hadn't considered before this article that these programs may also encourage criminal activity - the theft of firearms to turn in "no questions asked". It has been previously mentioned that this may also be a method of disposing of guns used in crimes "no questions asked".

The "crowdfunding" (crowdsourcing) element of this is new to me. Programs I've read about have so-far been funded with public funds or private donations. Public funds should never be used for several reasons that I won't go into here. I understand they've been successful in raising more than $10,000. I wonder how long their success will continue. Eventually, even the well meaning people donating have to do the math in their head, right? There are over 300 millions firearms in the United States and MOST of them will NEVER appear in one of these programs. It's an exercise in futility, among other things.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Crowdfunding-underwrites-gun-buyback-4715672.php

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/so-called-gun-buy-back-programs-illegal.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Real Consequences of Colorado Gun Control Laws

Los Angeles Police Hypocrisy on Gun Crime

August 7, 2013

I tend to agree with the gist of this article. The Los Angeles police officers should not be charged or prosecuted for these suspected gun crimes AS LONG AS no one else is! BUT, as long as they're arresting others for like crimes who are being charged, prosecuted or convicted of administrative, victimless crimes THEY SHOULD BE TOO!

The point is NOT to charge everyone with a gun crime. The point is that gun control laws are overburdensome, unnecessary, ineffectively applied and probably unconstitutional and should be repealed. Maybe if the enforcers are held to the same or a higher standard the enforcement will be more reasonable.

http://www.calgunlaws.com/lapds-hypocrisy-about-gun-prosecutions/

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/los-angeles-police-hypocrisy-on-gun.html
Firearms Blog Collections

Illinois Representative Monique Davis Lacks Responsibility and Leadership

August 7, 2013

Anyone can be elected to office. Anyone. Several convicted criminals have gained or re-gained office. There are plenty of village idiots in office. Several come to mind. Here's another idiot from Illinois - Illinois Representative Monique Davis, as shown in this 5:05 video interview with Bill O'Reilly.

"They're not sure that black people are shooting all these children. There's some suspicion, and I don't want to spread this but I'm just going to tell you what I've been hearing, they suspect maybe the police are killing some of these kids."

That's right, the Chicago Police Department is killing people. She doesn't want to spread it but she said it in a radio interview and then basically defended her actions and words in this television interview.

If she thinks that her role as an elected official is to "repeat" what her constituents are saying regardless of how ridiculous or irresponsible it is then she has no idea what leadership is and is not deserving of holding office or public trust.

http://clashdaily.com/2013/08/is-this-chick-nuts-are-chicago-cops-culpable-for-all-the-black-shootings/

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/illinois-representative-monique-davis.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Illinois Firearms Blogs