Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Leave Starbucks Aloooone!

Okay, I'm not about to climb under a sheet with a webcam to moan and cry (besides, I don't wear as much makeup as Christopher Crocker) but neverthestill:

It hit the papers today and there's one one logical reaction: Brady's, leave Starbuck's alone! Why are you trying to force -- one of your fave words when it comes to permitting citizens to exercise a civil right, innit? -- force Starbucks to pick a side, when the best-case outcome is that it will tick off half their customers?

Why lean on a chain of coffee joints to sign up on a side? Starbucks doesn't vote. Most of their stores are small; in states (49 of them, Paul Helmke, are y'skeeered?) with some provision for the carrying of loaded handguns by law-abiding citizens, it makes no sense for a store smaller than most living rooms to tell the guy or gal who is perfectly okay keeping and bearing arms on the sidewalk outside the store that they can't come in and pay high prices for a decent cuppa Joe; what's twenty feet closer to the cappunchino machine gonna do?

It's funny this just popped up today; after all, the dialogue has gone on for weeks. (Bradys: Waaah! Guns baaaad. Starbucks: Shaddup, you! We Sell Coffee. If a customer's not breakin' the law, we will sell 'em some.) Y'know why they are pushing it now? One word -- no, two: Otis McDonald.

See, it's lookin' pretty good for him and not so hot for Chicago's gun-banning ways. So they've got to raise a stink; and how better than by riding on the coattails (not to mention the rump) of a widespread and very popular coffee seller? Starbucks has beaucoup name-recognition, after all.

So far, the Brady ploy is backfiring. I fully support Starbucks desire and right to sit this mess out. It's not their fight; they're here to sell coffee to anyone who'll buy -- and why not?

14 comments:

Joat said...

Which of the 50 doesn't allow any form of carry?

Roberta X said...

Which one is Chicago in?

Joat said...

Illinois, it is possible to carry in Illinois, you need a FOID card, the gun must be unloaded, and it must be totally enclosed in a case made to carry a firearm. Less useful than CA's unloaded open carry but possible. I believe that it even applies to Chicago but if you live there you can't own a handgun.

Roberta X said...

An unloaded gun is just an awkwardly-shaped club. An unloaded handgun isn't even that useful.

Nathan said...

Joat, what you're calling "carry" isn't "carry". It's "storage".

Tam said...

Joat,

CA is "May Issue". Sure, people in LA and San Fran are S.O.L., but outside of those urban centers, plenty of people have CCW permits.

"Less useful than CA's unloaded open carry but possible."

CA's 'unloaded open carry' is useless, because you cannot have ammunition for the firearm anywhere on your person. It is done purely as a political statement, like an empty holster display.

Still, CA has "May Issue", which trumps IL's "Tough Luck, Peasant" policy.

Anonymous said...

wv: oargat

Perhaps an answer to "What gun for killer whale?" threads. It'd likely be pretty good as a club when unloaded...

DirtCrashr said...

Correction dear Tam, CA Open Carry is political AND not entirely useless, you CAN carry ammunition, it's not just an empty-holster protest.
In People v. Clark (1996) the CA Appellate Court held even though ammunition was in close proximity to the firearm, the firearm was not considered "loaded" since it was not yet placed in a firing position. As a result, citizens may lawfully carry ammunition on their person when they are carrying an unloaded firearm in a belt holster and the firearm is not concealed.
"It even went so far as to point out as an example of what is not loaded to include shells attached to a shotgun inside a buttstock shell carrier."

Anyhow Starbucks don't sell as much coffee as they sell milk!

Geodkyt said...

Wisconsin also has no provision for lawful concealed carry by citizens.

So it's 48 states where CCW is banned.

Roberta X said...

WI does, however, allow open carry. Some municipalities do not recognize this but I'm told there is high-level support of it. YMMV, INAL.

Roberta X said...

H'mm, can't read the CalGuns forum without login; what's the informed word on carryin' an empty handgun plus a loaded magazine on your person in CA?

...That would be the same as IL's just-barely-possible way to transport a defanged handgun. In an emergency, do you say, "One moment, Mister Rapist, so I may load and then shoot you?" and then proceed to attempt to do so? Seems...um. Well, I suppose it's better than nothing but I'd almost rather have a sharp stick to poke hm in the eye with.

Joat said...

Tam, from what I've seen about CA you can have ammo, it just can't be in the gun. And for a lot of the residents of CA may issue does equal "Tough Luck, Peasant". I agree that CA is better than IL but the point was it is possible that people who are not law enforcement are carrying into Starbucks legally in IL as well.

In WI open carry is legal but there are some big traps, you can't knowingly carry within 1000' of a school. In a motor vehicle the firearm must be unloaded and encased, that includes any time the firearm is on or touching the car. And to go armed with a concealed weapon only requires there to be a firearm that is within reach and obscured from view, ie an unloaded cased handgun that you are placing in the car could get you a concealed weapons charge. Also it seems that a good percentage of the police in WI don't know that open carry is legal.

DirtCrashr said...

The .pdf and quotes I linked to was posted by the Dept. of the Interior, National Parks Service, San Francisco office, from the Commander of the GOGA to the United States Park Police.

DirtCrashr said...

I'm sorry I wish I could post it to Photobucket for everyone's perusal, but it won't.st