By Dave Workman | Senior Editor
Howard Schultz, CEO of the Seattle-based Starbucks coffee chain, ignited a nationwide furor when he published an open letter appealing to gun owners to not bring their guns into his stores.
Reaction from the firearms community was quick but divided, with some gun rights advocates pointing fingers of blame at open carry activists who have staged events at Starbucks shops around the country, including some people who showed up carrying semiautomatic rifles. A few of them later posted images on the internet in such places as Facebook.
Open carry seemed to be the focus of Schultz’ message. He noted that the company’s long-standing policy has been to comply with state or local laws. This philosophy was designed to prevent situations in which store operators had to require customers to disarm or leave.
For more than three years of sporadic but high-profile attempts by gun prohibitionists to get Starbucks to ban guns outright, the company has remained neutral in the gun rights battle. Starbucks has catered to everyone unless they become unruly, and that policy appears to not be changing. An employee memorandum surfaced via the internet that outlined what steps should be taken in the event of problems, but otherwise, according to Schultz’ open letter, no other action will be taken if armed citizens do visit a Starbucks coffee shop.
Anti-gunners quickly took credit for what they called a “good first step.” Ralph Fascitelli, president of the Washington Ceasefire board, told the Seattle Times that he would have preferred an outright ban.
Schultz noted in his letter that there have been some situations Starbucks wishes to avoid.
“Recently, however,” he wrote, “we’ve seen the ‘open carry’ debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called ‘Starbucks Appreciation Days’ that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of ‘open carry.’ To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.”
There have been occasions when gun prohibitionists have appeared at various locations.
Some activists have advised TGM that they will continue going armed until asked to leave, and then they will never again patronize Starbucks. One Washington state open carry advocate said he has never had a problem visiting a Starbucks store as an individual or with a friend.
The problem appears to be with organized open carry events that are staged to make political statements. That brought some blistering comments from various gun rights bloggers who criticized the open carry people who attended such events carrying rifles or shotguns.
Blogger Grant Cunningham noted, “This happened because our side doesn’t take the ‘responsible’ part of “responsible gun ownership” very seriously. As a community we don’t police our own very well, and we don’t consider the consequences of our/their actions. The rabid open carriers who organized the ill-considered Starbucks Appreciation Days weren’t being responsible by forcing a conflict on an innocent (and surprisingly tolerant, given what they’ve had to endure) third party; neither were the open carriers who participated in them, nor the rest of us who didn’t step up and remind the others what responsibility actually means.”
The Bang Switch noted, “We have no one to blame but ourselves for their new policy. Starbucks tried to remain neutral but we, as a community, acted irresponsibly and disregarded their wishes by dragging their business into the middle of our fight — a fight they wanted nothing to do with.”
“Many of us feel entitled and as a result we become militant in our behavior and begin to alienate potential allies,” the commentary added. “The fact we forced Starbucks into taking this action through our own irresponsible behavior is a black eye to our cause. We should be ashamed of ourselves and we most certainly shouldn’t blame Starbucks.”
There was a divided reaction on the Open Carry.org forum, where several people said they would stop patronizing Starbucks, while others will continue, and were also critical of people in their own ranks for an “in-your-face” approach.
Gun Talk host Tom Gresham noted in an e-mail to TGM that this is not an outright ban, but a request.
“That is an important distinction,” he observed. “If it was really anti-gun, they would put up ‘No Guns’ signs. They are not doing that.”
