Statement on Starbucks CEO Comments Regarding Guns

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 18, 2013, Temple, Texas – Open Carry Texas is disappointed by the statements made by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz earlier today reference guns in his stores.  Without banning guns outright, Schultz has effectively told his employees and customers that citizens are not welcome in his business if they choose to arm themselves for self defense or the defense of others.  He has instead created a situation that will only lead to confusion by his employees and customers.

We believe that an armed society is a polite society.  By basically banning guns in his stores, Mr. Schultz has effectively made his employees and customers victims to thugs and criminals who prefer soft (unarmed) targets.  By announcing that the chain does not welcome gun owners, he has in essence laid out the welcome mat for the less desirable criminal element.

dumpBecause members of OCT are law-abiding, patriotic citizens that prefer to serve as the sheepdogs of society, we do not recommend that our members patronize the Starbucks chain.  We will not be victims in course of our daily lives.

With that said, we also recognize that there are franchise owners in the great State of Texas that do NOT agree with Mr. Schultz’s views on guns and encourage members to first contact their local store to find what policy they will be adopting.  Perhaps if franchisees that allow the peaceful display of firearms in their stores are seen bringing in more business than those that prohibit guns, Mr. Schultz will see the error of his ways.  We leave this decision to each individual member to decide for themselves and will not initiate any formal boycotts of the chain.

Needless to say, there has never been a Starbucks coffee shop robbed while OCT members were exercising their 2nd Amendment-protected, God-given rights to keep and bear arms.  We would prefer that Mr. Schultz man up and either ban guns or allow them.  Take a stance and live with that decision; he can’t have it both ways.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “Statement on Starbucks CEO Comments Regarding Guns

  1. Rob

    There is a larger issue at play here, one that concerns us directly. Schultz’s open letter made no bones, his request did not come as a result of the action of the Commie-mommies, but in response to the heavy-handedness of our opposition. Frankly, gun rights advocates did this to themselves. What bothers me is the possibility we were manipulated like a bunch of fools. While I have a hard time attributing that level of sophistication to the head Commie-mommy, she IS a PR expert, and explains why she took up a previously failed boycott, an explanation that up until now had evaded me. Nobody knows better than gun-grabbers how powerful an enemy to their own agenda a group can be. We have to contemplate the possibility that we were played, strummed like a finely tuned instrument, to belt out perfectly the desired song. We must learn from this, or it will happen again.

    Reply
    1. timothymbutterworth

      Here is what I have to say regarding their failed boycott attempt to oppress our 2nd Amendment Civil Rights!

      Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
      Conspiracy Against Rights

      This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

      It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

      Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

      Thank you FBI! It is time to stop being nice any simply just educate and start utilizing the law on our side!

      Reply
  2. Jake Midkiff

    The sight of a liberal Progressive, in a corduroy jacket, soaking up the WiFi with his Apple laptop while pretending to be on the verge of the next literary masterpiece offends me a lot more than the sight of a gun…….When are you going to do about them, Starbucks?

    Reply
  3. Karen

    Actually, the people I saw carry guns into Starbucks look like a bunch of thugs. We own guns and support 2nd Amendment rights but there is a place for rifles and Starbucks isn’t it. And I am no gun grabber.

    Reply
    1. William H

      You may not be a gun grabber but you certainly sound like a ‘butter’ (not my word but very applicable). “I support the 2nd amendment, BUT…”. The rights of the people, not just the 2nd amendment, are being trampled on daily. Your statement, in itself, advocates the restriction of rights… “people can do (or say for that matter) this but only when and where you think it’s appropriate”. I’m very glad your opinion has no bearing on my constitutional rights.

      Reply
    2. timothymbutterworth

      Well thankfully the law protects all citizens who openly engage in their civil rights and it does not matter if you approve of the look of them or not! In each and every area that lawfully allows the open carry of a riffle under the color of law it is unlawful to organize to attempt to deprive or oppress their rights!

      Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
      Conspiracy Against Rights

      This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

      It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

      Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

      Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
      Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

      This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

      This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

      Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

      Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

      Reply
  4. Buddy Alton

    The statement that Texas Franchisees might welcome those who display handguns is somewhat erroneous. Those franchisees who choose not to ban guns will not welcome open display because it’s against Texas law to open carry. I will continue to frequent Starbucks until they post a legal sign banning permit holders from bearing arms in their store. Then I’ll present the manager with a card explaining why he has lost the money I spend in his store 4 days per week while explaining how I will also encourage my friends to do likewise.

    Reply
    1. Michael Gilden

      You realize Mr Alton that this isn’t about the display of “handguns”. It’s about the legal open carrying of long guns which is legal in this state and many others. The biggest goal here is to get open carry of handguns legalized and since it’s not that’s the legal option. Starbucks had been a stronghold of sorts for openly carrying long guns which seems to have changed by their recent directive.

      Reply
  5. William

    I would say I could care less about Starbucks since I’m not much of a coffee drinker anymore but I do for a few reasons, first on the list is that I am all for the Second Amendment and the fact that it should not be infringed, this is a basic right and no person, including any government, should in anyway hinder that right. Rights are those given to us by our God, not by mankind. Secondly, I believe in personal property and Starbucks either owns or rents their property so I give them every right to decide who comes and goes from their place of business, too many cities trample on the rights of others property as if they owned the property instead of the owner. While Starbucks has every right to say what they said I have the right to disagree and so I can choose where I wish to go to purchase those items that I may require. Starbucks is that strange outfit that Liberals love but liberals hate other forms of enjoyment which I find strange. Liberals say yes to marijuana and caffeine but no to tobacco, why is that? They carry weapons concealed everyday but demand that you not do the same because your weapon looks more scarier then theirs. I’m not a Democrat or Republican but I do dislike greatly those who wish to reduce or remove our God given rights. Isn’t it strange that I can carry a weapon openly in Oklahoma, since I am a concealed carry license holder in Texas, but I can’t Openly Carry in my home state where my license was issued? Our Great State needs to wake up and give back our rights that were taken from us, they are not God so what right do they have to do this against our United States Constitution? It’s time, my friends, to start looking for people who will defend and reinstate our rights and if it means removing the person who may have been in our State Congress for years it’s time to tell them to move along. We have too many concerns that our Federal Government fails to resolve, such as their open borders program they seem to be promoting as well as making them citizens of our nation in the process. We now have large criminal groups within our borders from other nations and they are willing to kill to remain here and violate our laws. We must be able to protect ourselves and those we love but it’s too hot to conceal in Texas during the summer time, we need Open Carry.

    Reply
  6. Tri

    With the still unsolved murder of 3 Starbucks employees in the Georgetown, DC store years ago…I’m not surprised. The policy has always been to give in to armed aggression by employees. With the expected results.
    As law will have it, stores here in Texas MUST post a very specific sign both in size and wording in order to blanket ban CHL holders.

    Reply
  7. Kerry Fleenor

    Open Carry is a right that most States and Municipalities recognize however common sense dictates. When you choose to flaunt your gun in the face of the Liberal crowd and then trumpet about your rights being violated all you do is bring unnecessary attention to an issue that has been a sore spot for generations. If you look back through history you will find many instances where the public outcry against guns caused restrictions on our possession of the same weapons you claim to have the right to brandish and those restrictions became enforceable laws.

    Many towns throughout the United States posted ordinances preventing the Open Carry of weapons within the confines of their Municipality and they were enforced by tossing the offender in jail and forcibly removing his or her weapon. Is that what any of us want?

    I have a permit to carry in the state of Kentucky but I currently live in the very restrictive State of Hawaii. When I came here on Military orders I made a conscious decision not to bring the majority of my guns with me because I didn’t feel I should have to allow the government to record my serial numbers. In Hawaii you must register your guns with the police department where you live and it takes about eight pages of onerous paperwork to record your weapons including having your picture taken and your fingerprints recorded. They then issue you a permit to possess your weapon and you may take it home where you are supposed to secure it in such a fashion that it is useless for self protection.

    This country is not a Democracy, but a Republic and as such we don’t actually vote for the people who end up representing our interests and creating the rules and regulations we all live with. I am a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment and defense of it is the one criteria I will not compromise when voting for an elected official. If your record is indicative of a desire to restrict my gun rights I will do everything I can to restrict your right to serve in elected office.

    I do not think everyone should be allowed to carry guns because some people don’t have any idea how to be a responsible gun owner. There are plenty of people who go buy a gun because they can but never take the time or put forth the effort to become proficient with that weapon. I believe those people should be prevented from carrying either concealed or openly because they are dangerous to the rest of us. I don’t want my child to die because some moron doesn’t know how to use a gun responsibly. I believe we should go back to teaching responsibility in our schools and that includes responsibility for our actions as well as responsible use of a weapon.

    When I was growing up I had plenty of opportunity to do stupid things with a gun and the thing that prevented me from doing so was that my father acknowledged that the guns he owned would be a hazard unless the children who lived under his roof were educated in safe handling techniques. All five of us grew up to respect guns and only my sister never really developed a use for guns but she freely acknowledges that the rest of us have a right to possess them. In my younger years concealed carry was illegal and open carry was the only option so I could frequently be found with a Colt 1911A1 Government Model .45 Series 70 on my hip.

    On one of those occasions I was in a McDonalds in Charlotte North Carolina when a Police Officer approached me and asked me to identify myself. When I presented my Military ID he informed me that I should take my pistol out to my car and secure it. He told me that he was not allowed under law to restrict my right to wear the pistol but if any patron of the McDonalds were to make a complaint that they feared for their safety then I would be subject to arrest and disarmament under a provision of the law called “going armed to the terror of the public”. This is an archaic law and seldom enforced in rural areas but it is still on the books and can be used at the discretion of local authorities to ban the open carry of weapons in their jurisdiction.

    Since I am in the Military I work on an installation where my gun is not welcome and if I choose to disobey the rules I am subject to losing my security clearance which is the equivalent of losing my job because one is required in order to have the other. Why bait the Bear when there are much smarter ways to get your way? jmtc

    Reply
    1. OCTexas Post author

      I’m not sure where to begin in addressing the ignorance of this comment, but I’ll make an attempt anyway.

      When you choose to flaunt your gun in the face of the Liberal crowd and then trumpet about your rights being violated all you do is bring unnecessary attention to an issue that has been a sore spot for generations.” This is the language of the gun grubbing left. You define the free exercise of a right as “flaunting” that right. Does that mean that by commenting on this blog you’re just “flaunting” your 1st Amebndment rights? When you enjoy the fact that police aren’t randomly searching your home without warrant “flaunting” your 4th Amendment right? Are you “flaunting” your 3rd Amendment right by not having troops quartered in your home? You see how ridiculous this statement is on its face? We whole-heartedly reject this notion that by exercising the right to open carry we are “flaunting” anything. The fact that you suggest as much means you are NO gun rights proponent.

      Many towns throughout the United States posted ordinances preventing the Open Carry of weapons within the confines of their Municipality and they were enforced by tossing the offender in jail and forcibly removing his or her weapon. Is that what any of us want?” In Texas, municipalities may not pass such laws. Patriots will stand up to any laws that DO infringe upon the state’s pre-emption of gun laws as we will be doing in San Antonio on October 19.

      I am a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment and defense of it is the one criteria I will not compromise when voting for an elected official. If your record is indicative of a desire to restrict my gun rights I will do everything I can to restrict your right to serve in elected office.” And yet, you sit here trying to restrict OUR gun rights to open carry. Quite the hyprocrite. No, you’re no “staunch defender” of the 2nd Amendment. You’re a “Butter.” “I support the 2nd Amendment, but…”

      I do not think everyone should be allowed to carry guns because some people don’t have any idea how to be a responsible gun owner.” Wait a minute. Didn’t you such call yourself a “staunch defender” of the 2nd Amendment? We are confused.

      Why bait the Bear when there are much smarter ways to get your way?” And to you, a supposed “staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment,” that means that we NOT exercise our rights because people might quiver in fear and wet their pants.

      We do not need “staunch defenders of the 2nd Amendment” of your ilk. We need staunch defenders of the 2nd Amendment – all of it. – CJ

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s