Guns 'N Coffee
Hand Over The Mocha And No One Gets HurtStarbucks is getting put in an awkward position by handgun enthusiasts, even though the nation's biggest coffee chain is trying its hardest to remain neutral. In late February, the "Open Carry Movement" began encouraging people in so-called "open carry" states to wear their handguns everywhere - including Starbucks.
In an "open carry" state, you can carry a handgun, as long as it is prominently displayed. In some states, the gun must be unloaded (although you can carry the ammunition in your pocket, ready to load). The "Open Carry Movement" has been encouraging people to use their right to bear arms to the fullest, and has been encouraging people to wear handguns anywhere they can.
The connection between the Open Carry Movement and Starbucks is a bit confusing for me. One of the first Open Carry Movement groups was in the San Francisco Bay Area, where proponents gathered at Starbucks coffee shops. It's hard to say if they were just taking advantage of Starbucks as a meeting place, or needling the company's perceived liberal bias, or both.
Starbucks for its part has wisely refused to react. Spokespeople for the company have stated that it will abide by the laws of the state that each store is in - so stores in California, for example, will follow that state's Open Carry laws. Even though businesses are allowed to ban guns if they like, the same way they can declare "no shirt, no shoes, no service," Starbucks is sticking to neutral ground on this one.
The Open Carry Movement is meant to bring gun ownership out of the closet, so to speak. But I don't think the movement's members realize that it has quite the opposite effect on the undecided public. Standing in line for a latte behind some random guy packing a handgun on his belt is an unsettling experience, to say the least. I don't doubt that the gun wearer feels more safe - why wouldn't he? He's the one least likely to be accidentally shot through his own mishap.
But of course, Open Carry isn't trying to sway people to its side. It is the right wing Glenn Beck fan's version of a Gay Pride parade. "We're here, we're armed, get used to it!" may as well be their chant. Fine, fine, that's great, enjoy your cinnamon dolce latte sir, next please?
Of course, one can't help but be somewhat disquieted by an aggressive political movement which revolves around wearing guns everywhere. But coffee shops have been part of political movements since coffee was first brewed from that bitter little bean, so is it really any surprise?
I find this unfolding story fascinating, because it represents the first time (to my knowledge) that corporations have been openly used as a political battleground. I guess their imaginations go no farther than "Um… Starbucks?"
People, Starbucks is not a lifestyle. It is not a cultural movement. It is a business, plain and simple, just like Kinko's or 7-11 or Pizza Hut. The sooner we stop identifying ourselves (and our opposition) with corporate entities and marketing campaigns, the better.
Creative Commons-licensed image courtesy of Flickr user A Moon Man




















Comments
http://gunscoffee.blogspot.com/
The issue was, well, a non-issue until the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence decided they didn't like the fact that Starbucks didn't care. They started a petition (http://www.bradycampaign.org/), presented Starbucks with a list of "over 25,000 names" of unverified signers (seriously, there is no control over who or how many times a single person can "sign" the petition), and Starbucks said "that's great, it's our business and we will do as we see fit."
Being a relative defeat for the Brady Campaign, gun owners across the country decided to say "thank you for supporting our rights" by going to Starbucks and buying coffee, and the message was well circulated throughout the gun blogoshpere. (http://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/02/14/StarbucksAppreciationDay.aspx)
The reason that it then blew up to be such a big deal after that is that the Brady Campaign would not admit defeat, and decided to continue to pressure Starbucks into changing their policy. Starbucks said to back off (nicely), we don't want to be the center of the fight (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6894699.html) and yet the Brady bunch continued to pressure them and protest at various locations, including their headquarters in Seattle.
Gun owners meanwhile continued to go buy coffee at Starbucks, which I'm sure Starbucks appreciates (I doubt one of the Brady protesters bought any while they were there), but also word was circulated throughout the gun community that Starbucks doesn't want to be the battleground, and we said "fair enough."
The Brady Campaign however continued to press things, resorting, IMO, to borderline slander (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/08/opinion/la-oew-helmke9-2010mar09) and grade school argumentation (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/if-customers-can-have-them-why-can-t-starbucks-employees-carry-guns), regardless of numerous press statements from Starbucks politely asking them to knock it off.
Long story short, you are correct, it is silly to target Starbucks in any political issue (aside from maybe Fair Trade products and policies, as those do directly effect their business). Unfortunately the Brady Campaign tends to act like a rather dumb terrier and grabs on to whatever scrap they can and not let go until they get their way, regardless of how stupid and pointless it is. (I know what it's like, I have a terrier mix that you can pick up off the ground playing tug of war and he won't let go)
The answer is both
It just happened to be Starbucks but it has been known within the concealed carry community for more than ten years that Starbucks official policy for customers with guns is to follow the laws of the state the shop is in. In California the open carry group in question was actually in a Peet's (supporting a local California based version of Starbucks) and were asked to leave. They did so and went across the street to Starbucks.
I am offended.
I am not a Glenn Beck fan and I am not a "rightwing" or a "leftwing" individual per se, Beck is already annoying as it is already, and I own guns and have my own carry permit. Saying that gun ownership is purely a rightwing issue is an insult to your and my intelligence. The right to bear arms cuts across all CITIZENS regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, or political belief. Stop perpetuating the culture war that is dividing this very nation, much like we have perpetuated our problems in the Middle East by practically pissing off everyone there when it really wasn't any of our business. The reason why peaceable gun owners are getting riled at people like you is that either you don't take firearms ownership very seriously (when it REALLY is a big deal that it took a Constitutional Amendment to say so to LIMIT the US government from doing anything to suppress a natural right) or you are pissing them off by enacting unconstitutional restrictions - akin to prodding a hornet's nest repeatedly.
You need to read my article
You need to read my article more carefully. I do not address the issue of gun ownership or the second amendment. That's your own baggage that you brought to the table. All of your criticisms are irrelevant.
The only point where your comment matches up with the article is pointing out that you're not a Glenn Beck fan. Duly noted.
hand over the mocha?
You should begin by changing the title "Hand over the mocha and no one gets hurt" to something less asinine, because robbery isn't funny and never will be.
The caption was not meant to
The caption was not meant to be funny. If you found it disturbing - as it seems that you did - then I accomplished my goal, there.