In case you missed it, last Saturday was “Starbucks Appreciation Day.” No, it was not a gesture of support from lovers of strong coffee (like me). The “appreciation” was on behalf of Americans who believe it is their sacred right to have a handgun with them wherever they go – even to carry it openly to make sure the rest of us know who are the real defenders of the Second Amendment.

The “open carry” movement has been convening groups of its followers to meet up at restaurants and coffee shops, with pistols, revolvers and ammo hanging from their hips. Two major retail chains who were “open carry” targets (so to speak) – California Pizza Kitchen and Peet’s Coffee & Tea – reacted quickly by announcing strict “no guns” policies. Starbucks, on the other hand, has earned the “appreciation” of the gun-toters by becoming the “safe house” for the “open carry” movement.

Starbucks’ official response has been to offer the assurance that it will “continue to adhere closely to local, state and federal laws” on this issue. This is an evasion, not an answer.

The fact is that Starbucks would also “adhere closely to local, state and federal laws” by prohibiting guns on its premises. The law allows Starbucks and other retail businesses to make their own policy on guns. Starbucks has made a choice to recognize the rights of a few gun extremists to show off their weaponry in its stores and ignore the rights of the vast majority of its customers to enjoy their coffee and muffins free of the fear, intimidation and risk of violence inherent in the “open carry” experience. Starbucks seeks to hide behind “local, state and federal law,” but in truth, there is no place for it to hide.

For a glimpse into its future as the corporate best friend of the gun-toters, Starbucks should consider the experience of a California restaurant chain, Buckhorn Grill. On February 6, a Buckhorn restaurant in Walnut Creek, California, was visited by about 100 men carrying their highly-visible guns. A recent New York Times editorial said this must have “looked like a casting call for a Sam Pekinpah shoot-’m-up.” Shortly thereafter, Buckhorn’s management made clear that the restaurant had always had a “no weapons” policy and apologized for the “misunderstanding” that had led to the “open carry” event. How many gun carriers need to show up at Starbucks for the company to realize what a nightmare it is creating for its customers and employees?

The issue here is much bigger than Starbucks and involves more than just “open carry.” Starbucks’ new gun-wielding friends envision an America in which guns permeate American society. A pitched battle is underway that will determine whether their vision is realized. It started with the gun lobby’s largely successful campaign to make it easier to obtain a license to carry concealed weapons in public. Now the “gun rights” extremists are trying to break down the barriers limiting where concealed weapons can be carried. As of this week, with the shameful acquiescence of the Obama Administration, loaded guns will be allowed in national parks for the first time since they were banned by the Reagan Administration. In over twenty states, the gun lobby has tried, and thankfully failed, to pass legislation to force colleges and universities to allow guns on campus. The battle continues.

It may be that “open carry” will turn out to be the “secondhand smoke” of the gun debate. On the tobacco issue, it was one thing for people to subject themselves to the unhealthy effects of cigarettes. It was quite another for the effects of smoking to be so visibly inflicted on non-smokers. Smoking in public became a new, and transforming, focus of the debate, leading to far-reaching restrictions on where people can smoke.

On the gun issue, although the carrying of concealed weapons in public subjects everyone to enormous risk, the risk is, by definition, concealed. Perhaps this is why my tobacco-growing home state of Virginia now no longer allows restaurant customers to smoke, but will allow them to carry concealed weapons (and may now be poised to allow them even to carry concealed in restaurants that serve alcohol!). “Open carry,” unlike concealed carry, confronts everyone with the risks of guns in public, in a very direct and highly-visible way. We can only hope that the “open carry” movement will backfire, bringing our country back from the brink of the “guns everywhere” vision of America now being foisted on us by the NRA and the most dedicated supporters of its extremist agenda.

Over 27,000 Americans so far have signed the “no guns” petition circulated by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and CREDO Action calling on Starbucks to keep guns out of its stores. Please join them by going to www.bradycampaign.org. Tell Starbucks that, in your America, parents ought to be able to take their families into coffee shops without facing the intimidation and danger of guns.

For more information, see Dennis Henigan’s new book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy.

Last Saturday about 100 “open carry” gun activists descended on Buckhorn Grill in Walnut Creek, one of a chain of California restaurants, to display their semi-automatic pistols and ammunition magazines.

As reported in the Contra Costa Times, customers responded to the display:

“I’m a little worried,” said Hayley King, of Walnut Creek, who stopped in for lunch. “I don’t feel safe in here. I wouldn’t have come if I had known.”

“If it’s (carrying guns) not for law enforcement, it’s completely wrong,” said Rumer Cantrell, a Walnut Creek resident who attends Carondelet High School in Concord. “Violence should never be promoted in any way. To be walking around saying, ‘You can see I have a gun,’ promotes violence.”

[more]

One week later, and after the hard work of our California Brady Campaign Chapters, comes news that the Buckhorn Grill restaurant chain has now made its “No Guns” policy clear.

Also in the Contra Costa Times:

A California restaurant chain, the Buckhorn Grill, has banned the display of guns in its establishments after a gathering of gun rights advocates Feb. 6 at its Walnut Creek restaurant that drew about 100 men carrying unloaded guns.

“Buckhorn Grill would like to apologize for some misunderstanding about our ‘no weapon policy’ in any of our restaurants,” John Pickerel, owner of Buckhorn chain, said in a statement. “We have not in the past nor shall in the future allow weapons in our restaurants.”

The ban applies to all seven of the chain’s restaurants.

The meeting of Open Carry advocates, who want to change California law to make it easier to carry loaded guns in public, was an exception Pickerel said he now regrets. Pickerel said the group “misled” Buckhorn about such things as the nature of the event and number of attendees.

[more]

Add Buckhorn Grill’s common sense decision to that of Peet’s Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen.

Although “open carry” activists have applied the same tactics against Starbucks and their customers, Starbucks hasn’t yet decided to follow suit and clearly state a “No Guns Except For Police” policy in their restaurants.

Join over 25,000 other Americans in asking Starbucks to keep guns out of their coffee shops and stores by signing our petition today.

Go to: http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/starbucks_guns/?rc=brady .

KING 5 in Seattle reported today on the Brady Campaign’s petition to ask Starbucks to keep guns out of its coffee shops — a petition with over 25,000 signatures and counting — and quoted John Pierce of OpenCarry.org as applauding Starbucks’ non-responsive answer thus far.

From the KING 5 story:

“It is refreshing to see yet one more company not requiring law abiding gun owners to go to the back of the bus,” says Pierce.  “Importantly, Starbucks joins most American corporations in deciding not to discriminate against lawful gun carriers.”

Notwithstanding that Peet’s Tea & Coffee and California Pizza Kitchen immediately made their “No Guns” policies clear after the Brady Campaign’s California chapters protested “open carry” gun activists at those establishments, you may have noticed Mr. Pierce’s bigger mistake.

While trying really hard to pose as a “victim of bigotry” with his best Rosa Parks impression (someone who faced genuine discrimination), Mr. Pierce forgot to blur the distinction between gun owners and gun carriers.  Whoops.

Come on guys, if your “bigotry” play is going to work you can’t make rookie mistakes like that.  Unsuspecting onlookers might run this thought experiment and see that you’re all full of beans:

Say you are a business owner, and you want to provide the safest and most comfortable environment for your staff and customers in order to grow your business and make money.

Which of the following hypothetical statements to prospective customers make sense, and which are to be rejected as wrong and discriminatory?

1.  “You can come in, but you have to leave your skin color outside.”
2.  “You can come in, but you have to leave your sexual orientation outside.”
3.  “You can come in, but you have to leave your religious affiliation outside.”
4.  “You can come in, but you have to leave your gender outside.”
5.  To the paraplegic: “You can come in, but you have to leave your wheelchair outside.”

Versus

6.  “You can come in, but you have to leave your gun outside unless you’re a police officer.”

Clearly, the first five statements are racist, homophobic, religiously discriminatory, sexist and discriminatory against the physically challenged and are unacceptable.

Why?  Among other reasons, they are all impossible to comply with.  All of those traits are immutable characteristics of individuals and cannot be separated from the person.  It is impossible to comply with those statements because if you exclude one, you exclude both.

The sixth and last statement, however, obviously does not fall into that category, because guns can be separated from people.  A gun is a thing outside human identity.

And by accidentally acknowledging this obvious fact, Mr. Pierce let his (Freudian) slip show.

The business owner who says, “You can come in, but you have to leave your gun outside unless you’re a police officer” says nothing about the gun owner but everything about carrying the gun on their property.

A business owner can decide to invite every gun owner in the zip code to take advantage of a store-wide sale and say that they can’t carry their guns in the store, and be entirely consistent.  There is no such thing as “discrimination against guns,” only against people. Let’s say it again: Guns don’t have rights because guns are things.

Believe it or not, even the NRA knows the difference.

When Senator and presidential candidate John McCain spoke to the NRA convention in Louisville in May 2008, the Secret Service barred all guns from the convention hall.  (NRA accepted that policy for a presidential candidate speaking to its own members, but apparently doesn’t think that’s such a good idea for a mom picking up her coffee at the local Starbucks with kids in tow.)

At the end of the day, “open carry” gun advocates understand as well as NRA strategists the silliness of their claims of “bigotry” and “discrimination” after business owners enforce “No Guns Except For Police” policies around their customers, and on their private property.

Some gun advocates are just better at hiding it than others.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rall11-2010feb11,0  ,4566727.photo

__

by Paul Helmke and Dennis Henigan

What would your reaction be if you and your kids walked into the local Starbucks and, while contemplating the choice between a latte and a mocha cappuccino, you noticed several fellow customers had semi-automatic pistols and ammunition magazines hanging from their hips?

This scenario has become more than a flight of imagination.  In several communities in California, and elsewhere, it has become reality.

Welcome to the “open carry” movement, an effort by “gun rights” extremists to foist their interpretation of the Second Amendment on the rest of us by openly carrying handguns in public places.  While virtually all states have at least some minimal restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons, few states do anything to regulate the “open carry” of firearms.

Particularly in the Bay Area in Northern California, “open carry” adherents have been gathering in Starbucks and other coffee shops and restaurants – their semi-automatic pistols and revolvers in plain view – apparently to make an ideological statement.

The sight of such gun-toters in Starbucks reminds us of the incidents last summer, when anti-Obama protestors appeared at political events and “town hall meetings” with handguns and assault rifles openly strapped to their bodies – including events attended by President Obama himself.

The “open carry” folks view this as “normalizing” their self-defined “right” to carry guns with them at all times wherever they please, regardless of its impact on public safety.  But what about the rights of everyone else who wishes to be free from lethal weapons in public places, except for trained law enforcement?

Surveys show that the presence of more guns in a community does not make people safer, or feel safer; indeed, it has the opposite effect.  Studies show that the more guns there are, the more gun violence there is in that location.  In addition, 80 percent of those who don’t own guns say they would feel less safe if more people in their community acquired guns; only eight percent would feel safer.  Even among gun owners, roughly equal proportions would feel less safe if more people had guns versus those who would feel more safe.

Take the reaction of one coffee shop customer in San Ramon, California when faced with a group of pistol packers:  “I’m scared.  I’m getting out of here.  They say they want to make a statement.  What’s wrong with a T-shirt?”

The “open carry” gatherings provoked an immediate reaction from Californians who were appalled that coffee shops and restaurants would allow guns on their premises.  At least two national chains have responded responsibly.

For example, Peet’s Tea & Coffee stated that its policy “is not to allow customers carrying firearms in our stores” unless they are uniformed law enforcement officers. It also indicated that it would post a notification of that policy in all its stores and would call the local police for assistance should a customer display a firearm in the future.

After being alerted by local chapters of the Brady Campaign about a scheduled “open carry” meeting at one its Northern California stores, California Pizza Kitchen issued a statement that it “does not allow guests other than uniformed officers to display firearms in our restaurants” because of its concern “that the open display of firearms would be particularly disturbing to children and their parents.”

But now we come to Starbucks. When asked about the company’s policy on the “open carry” of firearms in its stores, its Customer Relations Department responded to the Brady Campaign’s California chapters that “Starbucks does not have a corporate policy regarding customers and weapons; we defer to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding this issue.”

Here’s the problem with that answer: generally speaking – and certainly in California – businesses have the right to bar guns on their premises.  It is their property and, just as they can prohibit entry by people with bare feet, they can do the same for people with guns.

Despite its response, Starbucks clearly does have a policy and it is one that should be deeply disturbing to the vast majority of its customers. 

Starbucks has apparently chosen to allow civilians to carry semi-automatic pistols and possibly even assault weapons into its stores.

Such a policy is disturbing to law enforcement officials as well as Starbucks patrons.  As a San Mateo County Sheriff’s Lieutenant put it, “Open carry advocates create a potentially very dangerous situation,” because when police respond to a “man with a gun” call, they have no idea what the intentions of the gun carrier are and “the result could be deadly.”

If a mistake in judgment or perception results in a shooting at a Starbucks, will the company still have no “corporate policy regarding customers and weapons”?

This is no idle consideration.  Just this past September, at a picnic hosted by “open carry” activists at a Michigan state park, a gun activist was charged with reckless use of a firearm after he unintentionally fired his semi-automatic handgun in a parking lot.  Then there was the California “open carry” activist in December who was arrested for carrying his .357 magnum revolver near a school, complaining, “I just can’t see what I did wrong.”

Even more disturbing was the man – “of high interest to the FBI because of his alignment with violent demonstrators at abortion clinics” – who was arrested for possession of a semi-automatic handgun which he was carrying openly outside a North Carolina abortion clinic last October.

As these and other incidents show, the “open carry” movement clearly has implications beyond Starbucks. It is part of a broader campaign, led by the National Rifle Association, to force guns into every corner of American society by “normalizing” the carrying of guns in public places, openly and concealed.

The gun pushers want an America where there is nowhere that you and your family can go to be free from guns.

As just one example, the same lawyer who won the U.S. Supreme Court case two years ago which declared a Second Amendment right to have a gun in your home for self defense, has filed a new lawsuit seeking to force localities to allow civilians to carry guns on the streets.

The “open” carrying of guns is just the visible tip of the “guns everywhere” iceberg.  The gun lobby’s clout in state legislatures has forced consideration of dangerous proposals to allow people to legally carry concealed weapons into bars, churches, workplace parking lots, airports, parks, college campuses and elsewhere.

While most states do not require any permit, license or training of any kind to carry a semi-automatic pistol openly, the NRA assures us that those who have permits to carry concealed weapons are all “law-abiding citizens” whose gun-toting behavior protects the rest of us.  Since May, 2007, however, these “law-abiding citizens” have killed at least 117 people, including nine law enforcement officers.  During that same period, they have committed eleven mass shootings.

So, Starbucks, what will it be?  Like Peets Tea & Coffee, will you do the socially responsible thing and stand up for the rights of families and children to be free from guns when they visit your coffee shops?

Or will you take the chance that there will be more than just shots of espresso being served up in your stores?

If you think Starbucks is wrong here, sign our petition today:

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/starbucks_guns/?rc=brady