Starbucks: Upholding the 2nd Amendment or just recognizing the law of the land

I've seen plenty of threads on Starbucks around here, mostly negative. After all, who can support a company that charges $7.00 for a cup of coffee.

This article makes me wonder though. It seems right to carry groups have been using Starbucks as meeting places for their movement and Starbucks, despite pressure to ban weapons on their property, is refusing to bow to political correctness saying they will recognize the "law of the land" in their stores.

Starbucks Sticks With Second Amendment

As reported previously, Starbucks has found itself enmeshed in the struggle between activists who are attempting to deprive Americans of their Second Amendment liberties, and those who are trying to uphold those constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The controversy erupted when “open carry” advocates began using Starbucks franchises as the location for meetings. As the Wall Street Journal reported over a month ago,

The "open carry" movement, in which gun owners carry unconcealed handguns as they go about their everyday business, is loosely organized around the country but has been gaining traction in recent months. Gun-control advocates have been pushing to quash the movement, including by petitioning the Starbucks coffee chain to ban guns on its premises.

Businesses have the final say on their property. But the ones that don't opt to ban guns — such as Starbucks — have become parade grounds of sorts for open-carry advocates.

Starbucks on Wednesday, while bemoaning being thrust into the debate, defended its long-standing policy of complying with state open-carry weapons laws, in part by stating that its baristas, or "partners," could be harmed if the stores were to ban guns. The chain said that in the 43 states where open carry is legal, it has about 4,970 company-operated stores.

The company added: "The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores."

In other words, the corporation simply adopted the position that what is recognized as the “law of the land” ought to apply inside their stores, as well: It was not the policy of Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz and his board of directors to jump into the middle of one of the more contentious civil liberty struggles going on in America today.

Read more: The New American

It doesn't seem to me that they're really protecting the right to bear arms. It seems they are declining to get involved in a political issue by just not taking any action.

I'm sure they don't mind having a bunch of armed activists meeting inside their stores, so long as they keep buying those $7.00 cups of coffee. Now if those activists were to stop buying their product, I'm sure they would throw them out on their fat behinds, no matter what their political agenda.

Do you think Starbucks is behind the 2nd Amendment groups or do you think they are just trying to stay out of the political debate and enjoying the money these meetings bring in?


Related thread: Guns at Starbucks? Pushing the Right to Bear Arms in Public




[edit on 4/6/10 by FortAnthem]

reply to post by FortAnthem


In business, the primary goal is to be profitable. To maximize your income and minimize your outgo. Beyond that, I think Starbucks made a wise move by first insisting they would not get in the middle of this debate, and secondly that they are intent on honoring the Law of the Land. This is a strong message to those anti-gun nuts, who think they can bully anyone they want with their phony morality. It is a poor strategy for the anti-gun nuts to pick a fight with gun owners, and then show up to that fight without even a knife, not even sticks and stones, just loud and obnoxious words. While being polite and when asking someone to do something, the word please can be effective, but being polite and using please, is far more effective, when you're armed.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You're right, it's always best to avoid offending the guy you KNOW has a gun.

The anti-gun establishment definitely won't shoot back if they don't get their way. I just wonder if Starbucks will continue to stick "to their guns" (bad pun intended ) if the anti-gun crowd tries to boycott the stores or something.

reply to post by FortAnthem


It has long been suspected and even claimed that liberals or left wingers are far less charitible than conservatives, or right wingers, however, that disparity might exist because conservatives on a whole tend to be more religious than their counterparts. Beyond charity, it appears that conservatives will out spend liberals in many ways. More recently a study came out that suggested that those who wear "green halo of consumerism", are meaner than their counterparts and more likely to steal, as they feel they have license to do so, in some sort of "compensatory ethics", which would make sense since most of them are irreligious and don't think God is watching them.

On a more anecdotal level, when I was a bartender, I ran a night club where I began booking bands to attract the local college crowd more. I was in college myself and a Theater major, which meant I was the sole conservative in the department and literally the only one among my friends who voted for Ronald Regan. My girlfriend wouldn't speak to me for three days, after that election! Anyway, being in the Theater, I had many of those bohemian hippie type friends, and while my politics are conservative, I am somewhat of a bohemian myself, and many friends kept pushing me to book more alternative music scenes at the club I was working at.

So, I took my Thursday nights and I dedicated it to promoting more alternative and original bands. In a bar, cover bands are preferable because people dance to the songs they know and like and when they are dancing they get thirsty and drink more. For this reason I wasn't willing to risk booking a band who played original music only, but was willing to do so on Thursday's, and for the most part, it was working out. My friends, however, felt I wasn't taking enough risks and kept urging me to book certain groups that had a more folksy flavor to them and more "hippie" Berkenstock sensibility, for a lack of better term, and kept introducing me to solo acts and bands they thought would be cool.

Finally, I booked one of these guys, as his music was undeniably great. However, the first night I booked him, he brought with him a following he had promised to bring, which was good for him since he collected the cover at the door to defer my costs, but not so good for the bar as more than 2/3rds of the crowd came to the bar and ordered water! The bar was filled with openly liberal souls that night, and my register only rang up around $300 for the night, (back in the early '90's). It was a disaster, but my friends thought it was a huge success. It was a disaster! These jerks thought it was perfectly fine to pay a cover at the door and then sit at one of the bars table drinking water all night long, and couldn't understand why I refused to ever cater that again.

What I am suggesting is that if such a thing could actually be quantified, I suspect that conservatives will spend their money more freely and generously than a liberal would, hence the term "limousine liberal", and will drink liberals under the table, whether it be booze or coffee. I suspect that those who wear their guns openly spend good money at Starbucks, and if they didn't I don't think Starbucks would be so willing to stay out of the issue, and if the gun owning customers spent less money than their anti-gun nut counterparts, then it would probably be a different story. I suspect that liberals on a whole are far more stingier than their counterparts, and their idea of charity is to advocate higher taxes, of which they think they won't be targeted by. I suspect liberals are very generous with your money and not so generous with their own, and as such, probably not that great of a threat to Starbucks.






[edit on 6-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Yeah, what good is a boycott if the people doing the boycotting are too stingy to spend their money in the 1st place.

I'm still not sure if this makes Starbucks a defender of freedom or just another big corporation following the bottom line.

Well, I don't buy from Starbucks due to their other policies and the ridiculous prices, but, having CC'd arms for years in an out of bars, coffee shops and every manner of retail and commercial organization, the proprietor of the organization is smart to allow CC or UC arms in their establishment. I mean really... if you know there is a high probability of one to a dozen people carrying arms at any given time in a store, are you going to rob the store? I don't think so. It's kind of like a "subliminal" form of protection for the owner. But, when you CC or UC, you also tend to not get into any conflicts with people who also CC or UC (or people who don't), simply because it's easier to be polite in the first place, but you never know who is faster, more accurate or who has a bigger gun. I carried for a number of years overseas and I never shot anyone in anger or frustration. Sounds to me like Starbucks is trying to stay neutral but also taking advantage of the "protection" aspect.

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 4/6.2010 by bobs_uruncle]

If you are a pro-conceal advocate, I think that Starbucks is an unusual place for you to congregate anyways.
Pro-gunners tend to be conservative. Starbucks is a liberal company.

Starbucks answered correctly. They are not involved in anything politically, it is up to the states. People need not get them involved.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
If you are a pro-conceal advocate, I think that Starbucks is an unusual place for you to congregate anyways.
Pro-gunners tend to be conservative. Starbucks is a liberal company.

Starbucks answered correctly. They are not involved in anything politically, it is up to the states. People need not get them involved.

I always thought they were a liberal company. I guess the open carry meeting bucks are too tempting for them to turn down.

Yeah, they made the right decision but, I don't think it was made on ideological grounds.

reply to post by FortAnthem


All sorts of groups meet there for all sorts of reason. No reason to start caring now or get involved.

Well, the corporation could very well have been doing it for another totally different reason. They may have had robberies in the past and thought this movement could be a boondoggle in disguise.

Free security. Who the hell is going to rob a Starbucks now that the news has gone mainstream.