Previous Post
Next Post

Robert Farago blogging at Starbucks (courtesy The Truth About Guns)

Yes, I’m blogging this post from Starbucks. And yes, that’s a cream cheese pumpkin muffin in front of an old fat white guy—who’s packing heat. I realize that more than a few members of our Armed Intelligentsia have vowed never to darken the door of a Starbucks until and unless the Seattle coffee chain rescinds its “request” that customers refrain from bringing guns to their stores. But I’m not amongst them . . .

I have a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. I exercise that right wherever I am legally allowed to do so, for two reasons.

First, a firearm gives me the ability to defend myself and my loved ones. Second, exercising that right protects it. If Americans don’t bear arms, the right to carry would degrade and (I’m convinced) disappear. I value my right, so I carry. In Starbucks. ‘Cause I can.

Yes we can! At this point in Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’ evolution from apolitical coffee purveyor to chattering class hero, it’s still legal to carry a firearm in a Starbucks store—provided it’s not legally prohibited by local or state law. The open letter posted on Starbucks’ website made it quite clear that the CEO’s gun ban was a “request” not a legal edict.

Starbucks Austin (courtesy The Truth About Guns)

To legally ban guns from its premises here in the Lone Star State, Starbucks must post a written notification that firearms are not allowed. According to the relevant statute the sign must take the form of . . .

a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: “Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”; or

(B)  a sign posted on the property that:

(i)  includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

(ii)  appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and

(iii)  is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

As you can see from the photo above, no such sign is in place. Until such time as it is, well, here I am. Now, what about the politics of the thing? How can a pro-gun guy justify putting money into the pocket of a company whose CEO has a newfound love for anti-gun agitprop?

In terms of defending or extending gun rights, boycotting Starbucks achieves nothing. Politically active People of the Gun constitute a small portion of Starbucks’ customer base; withholding their custom won’t “force” the company to reconsider its anti-gun “recommendation.” And if the POTG withdraw their cash from Starbucks they lose their ability to influence both Starbucks (by our example) and a wider audience.

‘Starbucks ban? Oh that’s not legal. I carry there anyway.’ That simple statement carries weight with someone considering concealed carry. ‘Starbucks? Fvck ’em!’ does not. And if we’re talking politics rather than mutual masturbation, the fence sitters are more important than our armed compatriots.

I’m an absolutist when it comes to gun rights. But I’m with Todd Vandermyde: you gotta play real politik baby.

Should open carry advocates take this as a blank check to stage another “Starbucks’ Appreciation Day”? It remains legal. Nope. That would be, as it has been, counter-productive. (Schultz specifically derides these demos in his open letter.) Anyway, there’s another potential benefit to carrying concealed at a Starbucks: a defensive gun use.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not like the antis, wishing for a violent attack to exploit and further my agenda. But as I wrote in an editorial for USA Today yesterday (click here to read), armed robbers know that a Starbucks store is a cash-laden enterprise. And so they bring their weapons inside—no matter what Mr Schultz has to say about it. (Click here for a story on the Washington-area Starbucks triple homicide.)

If a legally armed American’s defensive gun use protects Starbucks’ customers that event would have a lot more impact on their recently anti-gun CEO than a hundred thousand gun owner no-shows. Or at least it should.

I reckon concealed carry or why not individual open carry (of a handgun please) at Starbucks makes sense on both a personal defense and a defense of gun rights level. Still.

That’s my story and I’m sticking with it. The fact that the opposite view from the picture at the top of this post is often stunning has nothing to do with it. And the pumpkin cream cheese muffin sucked. Every last bite.

Previous Post
Next Post


      • Do you think they haven’t realized that nothing was “banned”, or that agents from at least two of the three sources he mentioned don’t read this website anyway?

        • You’re probably right. But still. Why go out of your way to sabotage your own brothers?

          I find that unconscionable.

        • Leonard, your comments on this blog paint you as a sad figure of a man. A caricature, even. I’m wondering if the gun prohibition complex didn’t dream you up and point you in this direction just so they could say we’re angry and unstable.

          Please, for the love of Gary, just calm down a little.

        • HA, Robert’s normalizing gun ownership and carry by the millions per month without even being a dick. You managed to get negative attention and lose your rights in one day.

        • “Starbucks requested no firearms in their stores. Yet, Farago is being a FLAME DELETED by continuing to carry.”

          If you do not agree with RF’s position, why do you keep coming here, or alternatively why do you not debate it openly and rationally?

          His point was that Starbucks REQUESTED no firearms, they did not DEMAND not firearms, nor have they posted signs to legally prevent firearms nor instructed their “partners” to report armed patrons to the police. As such Starbucks is, for now at least, still officially neutral, no matter what MDA wants to believe.

          If you look carefully at the picture of RF at the top of this post there would be no way for you, or anyone in that Starbucks, to tell if he was or was not actually carrying a pistol. Even if he writes here that he was, where’s the proof? And that’s the point and probably what Schultz hopes is the outcome. People of the Gun will still carry concealed in their stores. People with their panties in a bunch over guns won’t ever realize that a cocked and locked 1911 (or Caracel) is located mere inches from their red-diaper baby in his/her stroller. Everybody’s happy. (Until you taste the coffee or the pumpkin crème muffin.)

    • You’d probably think it was effective activism to demonstrate for free speech by marching in front of synagogues with a swastika banner.

  1. I think the issue that I’ve noticed in general is that both sides have loud extremists that ruin it for everybody. I walked into Starbucks with my gun on my hip today, same as I’ve done every other day this week.. This past month, over the last 7 months since they’ved opened, and never once has anybody had an issue with it except for this one tourist guy from New York, who was promptly asked to leave because he got rediculous.

    Ultimately, getting rediculous is where the issue is. One side doesn’t want the other side wants. We can’t ever meet in the middle because one side always wants more and more and more and more. One day, I hope people can wake up to this and actually make a worthwhile compromise that finally ends the debate. One that gives the Leftist idiots some slight piece of mind and gives the OFWG’s their AR15’s and national CCW.

      • Well, extremist is more towards the left of things really. All they do is scream ban-ban-ban-ban. On the flipside to that you have guys that think we should all carry full-auto belt-feds around and buy them freely no questions asked. While I absolutely love the belt-fed that I have (DSA RPD), I’m not going to be running around with it in public screaming at the top of my lungs because I needed to do a NICS check to buy it. I’d say the Right side extremists are a little.. weird. Not so extreme as the left.

    • You highlight Starbucks or any national chains dilemma on controversial issues. You obviously live where open carry is usual and customary so nobody gets bent out of shape when they see a holstered gun. If Starbucks were to flat out ban firearms in their stores they would be folding up shop in your neck of the woods. That’s why Schultz made a big mistake in effectively telling you he doesn’t want your business if “don’t leave your gun at home.” No one is going to visit Starbucks if its gun free while they will lose gun owners business. It was terrible decision from a customer relations perspective..

      • HA-HA.

        “It was terrible decision from a customer relations perspective..”

        No, it wasn’t. If less than 1% of your customers loved to carry rifles into your candy shop, and it scared away the other 99% of your paying customers, who would kick to the curb first?

        Why do The People of the Gun (TM) seem to be lacking in The Brains of Business (TM)?

        • If that’s your assumption then I guess your are correct. However, I have spent a lot of time in Starbucks out West and open carried and nobody got up and ran away. The usual reaction was to chat about guns. Even in a place like Northern Virginia where I generally carry concealed people don’t even notice me carry on the rare occasions where my piece has shown. They just assume that I am LEO. So the 3-5 percent of customers carrying concealed have no impact on business. But a large percentage of the 40-50% of the population that owns guns will take umbrage about Starbucks policy and go elsewhere even if they don’t carry a gun on a regular basis. When you only deal in stereotypes you end up making some pretty stupid assumptions.

      • As a customer relations issue Starbucks had to look at only one factor: In the controversy over open carry in their stores, which side was MOST LIKELY to get the most positive coverage in the Brown Stream Media and which side was likely to get little or no positive coverage. Since the obvious answer was that the gun grabbers and anti-gun protesters would get massive coverage to the detriment of Starbucks if Schiltz continued to seem to support guns in their stores the only rational decision from a business standpoint was to minimize their negative PR by pretending to ban guns while not actually banning guns.

        It may look in the press like a PR win for civilian disarmament, but the press would have spun it that way no matter what happened or they would have mounted a massive negative PR campaign against Starbucks. MDA didn’t actually win anything and we didn’t actually lose, so long as Starbucks does not actually post their stores as Gun Free.

        • Cliff:

          Starbucks is a national chain so they can’t have a blanket policy. When I walk into a Starbucks with my son in Loveland or Fort Collins open carrying no one has ever taken issue, got up and left or changed where they sat. If I were to do the same at my local Starbucks in Arlington many people would become uncomfortable. Starbucks cannot have a simple policy on guns that works in both Arlington and Fort Collins. There old policy was the best solution. Schultz should have said that he prefer that customers keep their guns hidden and left it at that.

  2. +1 RF. I share the same sentiments. Starbucks hasn’t really taken a side…and they really, REALLY, don’t want to either. I don’t think they wanna open that can of worms. They need look no further than Chik-fil-a and their statement on gay rights.

    • Except Chik-fil-A didn’t state anything. The owner did in a non-business related interview, not speaking as a corporate spokesman. There is a difference.

      • He’s the CEO of a company. When he does an interview, it’s an interview of a company president (or whatever his title is). A company head always has his head-of-company hat on. Not a “private citizen” hat; that’s BS.

      • And his statements about the degenerates were correct, the lefty loons had a stroke, Chik made a fortune and received limitless goodwill from their target market, then the corp rolled over and sucked up to the queers. So which lesson? Grow a pair.

      • you’re comparing toMAYto with toMAHto. if he didnt want that statement public or to be taken as it was, why did he even bother??? just like Abercrombie’s CEO. his statement wasnt made at a conference, but people are pretty much taking his intolerance as the new company statement.

  3. Starbucks is trying to straddle the fence and not take position. That was their previous policy of following the laws of the state was about. However, like all fence sitters there will be pressure from both sides to get off the fence. The problem Mr. Schultz faces is that, as wrote to the company yesterday, what works in a gun hostile state like Connecticut will not work in gun friendly Larimer County Colorado. I fully understand that he didn’t really change policy but he gives the appearance of caving in to a vocal minority financed by the Dictator of New York City. it can only cost his company business. A better business decision would have been to tell both MDA and the gun owning community that he despite any personal feelings on the issue the law is the law and all law abiding citizens are welcome at Starbucks.

    • Yes, that would have been the much better way to go. Something along the lines of “we’re neither anti or pro gun, so we ask that both sides please cease their use of our stores as a soapbox for their political statements. We will continue to follow the relevant laws in this matter.”

  4. Farago, you look like one of my old coworkers. I know, however, you arent, as we were both working at a company for which you wer erunning a deathwatch. Still an uncanny resemblance. Can’t say I disagree with this line:

    “I’m an absolutist when it comes to gun rights. But I’m with Todd Vandermyde: you gotta play real politik baby.”

    I’m the same. I want open gun ownership normalized, nationally recognized concealed carry and open carry, a repeal of teh NFA and GCA and all the other laws, and all that good stuff. I just dont understand how running around with an AR15 in public screaming “WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND!?!?!?!” is supposed to move us more in that direction.

  5. “…… masturbation, the fence sitters are more important than our armed compatriots.”

    Now there’s an approach I hadn’t considered. Might be more effective than take a fence sitter to the range.

  6. Thats greeeaaaat…
    under GA Title 16, Section 16-7-21

    (2) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner, rightful occupant…that such entry is forbidden…

    (3) Remains upon the land or premises of another person or within the vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant to depart.

    So yeah… legally cannot go with a weapon without facing immediate time by the letter of the law.

    your local legislation may differ

    • re-read the letter – guns were not forbidden. . . . unless there is a sign or the letter clearly states guns are not permitted. . . .

    • Nothing in the letter forbade people with guns from going to Starbucks. It merely announced a corporate preference that you not. If they wanted to forbid you entrance, they could do that.

    • In Georgia signs do not carry the weight of law. You have to be given verbal notice, aka asked to leave before you can be charged with trespassing for failing to comply.

    • I was stumped in my research of this the other day, but I apparently did not have the proper URL for

      In Washington State:

      Question: In Washington state, do “No Gun Signs” have the force of law?
      Answer: “NO”
      Context: “ highly recommends that you not enter a place that is posted “No Firearms” no matter what the state laws read/mean on signage. We recommend you print out the No Guns = No Money Cards and give one to the owner of the establishment that has the signage. “As responsible gun owners and upholders of the 2nd Amendment we should also honor the rights of property owners to control their own property even if we disagree with them.”

      “No Firearm” signs in Washington have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged [with trespass]. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you even if you are within the law.

  7. Nailed it.

    For my part, I’m more likely to avoid Starbucks stores now that I know I’m (at least by implication) not welcome there, but for the rare times when I do go there, I’ll carry concealed as usual.

    For one thing, concealed. What the coffee shop doesn’t know can’t disturb it…and if something really wrong starts to go down, might just save it. Especially the me part of it.

    For another thing, in the great state of Washington where I live — the birthplace of Mr. Shultz’s coffee empire — the state prohibits businesses from prohibiting firearms. They can do as Howard did and request that you not bring one in, they can even put up a sign to that effect, but a request is all it can be. Unless you do something else to break the law/disturb the peace, there isn’t thing one they can do about you carrying on their property…other than ask politely that you leave the weapon behind if they see you carrying it. You have a right to carry, they have a right to ask (not force) you not to.

    And I’m drinking exactly the same Starbucks coffee that I usually drink — brewed at home and in the office, by me. And I did send a letter to the company asking them to reconsider their stance, but I’m not going bonkers about the whole thing. It sucks, but Schultz has the right to make the request…as I have my right to ignore it.

    • “hey can do as Howard did and request that you not bring one in, they can even put up a sign to that effect, but a request is all it can be.”

      You do know that if they ask you to leave and you don’t, you’re trespassing, right?

      • Yes. Same as it would be anyplace else, whether in my house or a coffee shop. It’s only if someone chooses to ask you not to — you specifically, while you’re on their property or entering it — that it gains any legal standing. If they have a “no guns” sign up or write a letter to the public, then it would be common sense and common courtesy to abide by their request, but it has no legal force; it’s a request you can choose to ignore. That was what I meant when I said a request is all it can be.

  8. Too late … one of your loyal blog readers has escalated again.

    He’s just drowning in estrogen – can’t wait to meet the mommies in their yoga pants and push-up bras back on their battlefield.

    Dumb, just dumb. This will not end well.

  9. I was more upset with Starbucks caving to the Bored Housewives Brigade than the actual policy yesterday, which really changes nothing and was just a meaningless bone to get MDA off its back. That said, I would still carry concealed (big fan of the “gray man” policy myself) into Starbucks, and while on the subject of bones and housewives, I got something that oughta calm ’em down…

  10. I would feel the same as you but for ONE thing. More thana couple of years back some marines from Iraq were trying to get Starbucks to donate some good coffee to the troops defending their right to sell stuff in America, and the owner of Starbucks stated roughly that “WE DO NOT SUPPORT GEORGE W BUSH’S WAR IN IRAQ, and we will not support his Marines either” .. That was the LAST time I darkened the door of Starbucks, and I simply tell everyone I talk to about it. It is disgusting in my book for a capitalist company to not support the men and women that are putting their life on the line to defend our Constitutional Republic, that allows them to make millions daily while these Marines just die.

    • And yeah, Starbucks pastries aren’t that great; but on the positive side, if they don’t taste that good, you don’t eat as much.

  11. I’m not in favor of a boycott, either. However, there is a disconnect between saying you have a problem with open carry in your stores and “respectfully” asking your customers to leave their rights at home or in the car. A more reasonable approach would have been to just tell everyone to keep it covered. Given the company’s overreaction, and given the many other alternatives in the overpriced caffeinated beverage industry, I’ll likely just go elsewhere most of the time.

  12. Kinda like Jane Fonda, getting woman of the year award, after stabbing unknown numbers of Hanoi Prisoners in the back while making ads for the Viet Cong .. yeah Starbucks ..

  13. I was concerned about this as well, and was preparing to boycott Starbucks. As it is, I’m going to spend a little less at the bucks and check out Mcadonald’s coffees a bit more. I sincerely wish there were pro-gun coffee shops in Orange County / LA area. I’d make it a point to patronize them. As it is, spending my coffee dollars on an organization that is relatively neutral is not a bad way to go.

    • Please don’t patronize that clown! (Just kidding.) Actually, McDonald’s coffee, although it is cheaper, is not a huge improvement over Starbucks. When I want a good, straightforward cuppa Joe I go to Jack in the Box. Don’t know why, and you can’t get a lot of flavors or fancy lattes, etc., but their coffee almost always taste pretty darn good. Alternatively, if one is handy, I find truck stop (Large chain: Love’s, Pilot, Flying J, etc.) coffee is generally above average. YMMV.

      • I generally find Pilot coffee, whether at a full-blown truck stop or just a gas station, to be pretty damn good, especially the Dark/Bold roasts.

  14. Hmmm… I wonder what Starbucks’ CEO would do if pro gay marriage people organized a “Starbucks Appreciation Day” like pro gun activists did? Would he tell them they are no longer welcome in his stores?

    It’s funny, Americans have been gathering in “taverns” and drinking beverages while discussing politics since before the revolution. Another time honored tradition takes a hit.

    • If a bunch of gay people did so quietly by paying with three dollar bills and that was it? Nope. I’m willing to bet he would, however, if they showed up shirtless covered in oil and wearing assless leather chaps and swing phallic shapped marital aids around the place.

      • Exactly. I carry, concealed, for self-protection, not because I want to make a “statement.” Screamers, for whatever cause, are not pleasant to be around.

    • Really. If you keep it up with those megacalorie muffins, You won’t have to worry about being kicked out of Starbucks –they’ll be carrying you out on a stretcher when your ticker goes tock.

  15. Boycott cheaper than dirt and dicks sporting goods, but not Starbucks… Not very consistent. You have to let these companies know there’s a price to be paid for alienating a section of customers. You don’t need a picket line just don’t go there. From what I’ve seen through life, is the person who screams the loudest gets what they want. So if you don’t want bloomberg to get what he wants, you gotta scream louder than him.

  16. Bobby
    I have noted in some of your statements a seeming desire to carry water for those that are not exactly Friends of the US Bill Of Rights, it verges on the point of classic, pre-feminist chauvinism.
    I encourage you to throw away your shovel and accept my proffered ladder before the hole you are digging caves in on you

    • I hope you someday realize how fucking weird your statement is. Saying he isn’t boycotting a company for taking a non-stance is pre-feminism? (which–WTF is that anyway?)

  17. You have changed my mind on this,yes if a legal carrier happened to be in the store and stopped an armed robbery that would be news,maybe overlooked in the MSM,but word would get around.I also carry concealed,and in a lot of places that have the no weapons allowed,I carry anyway due to the fact that I have the enhanced carry ccw license,which in my state,Mississippi,the law states that we are exempt from this law,due to the enhancement.But you cannot tell I am even carrying a weapon,I’m a big guy,and can hide a lot of weapon,even though I carry a CA DAO Undercover as my weapon.As long as us gunowners are “an armed society is a polite society”,we must remember to be a polite society” that will help us to be seen as helpers and not hinderers.Don’t go overboard by carying a long gun into an establishment,a handgun on the hip is enough,you still have made a point!I might get burned on that statement but just use the the adage too much could hurt.Be prepared and ready.Keep your powder dry.

    • As I recall, the “armed and polite” society being referred to in Heinlein’s “Beyond This Horizon” more or less required Open Carry. And in fact further required that if you were not “healed” you should wear a shoulder brassard indicating your unarmed status. If you were so designated as unarmed it was considered very IMPOLITE to challenge you or shoot you and the challenger was very likely to be ventilated (burned) by any number of other citizens.

      I do not recall concealed carry being mentioned at all, as far as a legal option, but I think it’s time to re-read that book.

  18. My man, you are FOS. Man up and admit it: you ain’t boycotting Star*ucks because you actually like that muck they serve for five bucks a slice.

  19. I sent Starbucks a nasty e-mail yesterday telling them how I felt about their new policy. I was surprised to get any type of response from them, but here is what they had to say.

    Hi Joe,

    Thank you for your email regarding Starbucks’ policy on open carry laws.

    Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate by activist groups from different sides seeking to draw attention to their respective points of view. We recognize that there is significant and genuine passion on this topic but do not believe our stores are the appropriate staging ground for this debate.

    Effective Wednesday September 18, 2013, we are respectfully requesting that customers not bring weapons into our stores. This is a request and not a ban. You can read more about our request on our website or by clicking here. We are continuing to encourage groups from all sides of this debate to share their views in a more appropriate place, with the elected leaders and policymakers who make America’s gun laws.

    Thanks again for writing us. If you ever have any questions or concerns in the future, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.


    Vince D

    customer service

    • Starbucks have requested that people do not bring guns into their stores. Robert pissed all over them and has not respected their wishes. He is a FLAME DELETED, AND BESIDES EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS WHAT YOU’RE GOING TO SAY.

      • Actually, he adhered to local and state laws, and no laws were broken. Given the personal attack and insult, say hello to Bloomer, Shoomer, Gabby et al. for us.

      • From the email above:

        “Effective Wednesday September 18, 2013, we are respectfully requesting that customers not bring weapons into our stores. This is a request and not a ban.”

        They have not BANNED weapons from Starbucks. RF was not violating any policy or any law. He may or may not be a dickhead (the jury is apparently still out on that) 😉 , but he is at least standing up for his convictions and his rights. FLAME DELETED.

  20. Agree with this post 100%. Starbucks just wanted out of the middle of a controversy they have nothing to do with. By making it a ‘request’ the CEO lets us CCW and get our coffee, just like I would in any of the other 10,000,000 or so retail and food establishments in the USA.

    We are not having a shit-fit over the carry policy of say, Radio Shack or Applebee’s, so why unfairly put Starbucks in the middle of all of this for following the law? I think they understandably just want out of this debate, and frankly, they are a coffee shop, let them out.

    • Agree! The people of the gun thought they were having a real “Gun Guy” moment with Starbucks back when they could open carry where legal and now they feel betrayed. Get over it. Starbucks was never your friend. They’ve supported the political party that wants to take your guns all along. So just let this poor ole dead horse die.

    • I think the proper response to this whole thing would not be to boycott Starbucks, but for one of their competitors to post sings at their entrances: “Legally armed customers welcome. Please do not bring rifles or shotguns into our store.”

      Let the free market sort it out.

  21. TO: Robert Farago, et al.
    RE: Why Bother Boycotting Starbucks?

    I think I’ve only been in one of their shops in my entire life.


    • I’ve got better things to spend my money on.
    • I make better coffee than they do in the comfort of my own kitchen.
    • If I want to sit down in a public place and watch people, I’ll go to an interesting bar or bistro.

    Starbucks, win/lose/draw, is a money pit. Whether or not they allow firearms in a state that allows open-carry, e.g., Colorado, is beside the point.

    If you don’t have a concealed carry permit and your state allows open carry & your Starbucks doesn’t like it…..well….personally, if they snubbed me over my rights, I’d snub them right back.

    As for the wailing witches like Shannon. To paraphrase the Christ….

    The fools are always with you.

    And I’d recommend not supporting the fools who support such fools.


    [There is no known cure for ‘dumb’.]

    P.S. You are neither as ‘old’ nor as ‘fat’ as you’d like to think.

    But I do believe you’re not as ‘experienced’ as you’d like to think either.

    However, do keep up the good work…..we’re all excited…..

  22. Yes Starbucks wants OUT of this manufactured, Soros funded non-event so why does Bobby jump in the middle of it?
    He wants face time


    ….I do recall how the Starbucks near my garden clubs—yes, I never gave up digging in the dirt. Used to be for cover and camouflage. These days it’s for color and culinary purposes—delivered some sort of coffee-desert hybrid mixture as we were beginning to plant a civic garden project on a heavily trafficked boulevard. It WAS a treat as it was early July in semi-arid Southern Colorado.

    This year, some six years later, the project is the most lush and dense it has ever been. We need leather chaps to wade through the low-growing, vining miniature red roses that are trying to dominate the north end.

    Please pardon my pride in making part of this Ball-o-Dirt a REAL ‘garden’.

  24. Can we just let this die? I don’t go out of my way to drink their coffee, and I don’t think they care if I do or don’t.

    Why not talk about MDA getting all huffy about Rick Perry visiting Beretta today?

  25. doesn’t make sense to me. when Schultz said this:

    “For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.”

    it applied more than just open carry; as written, they request you don’t bring guns in in states where open carry is NOT permitted. so why would you want to put a dollar in the pocket of a company that’s explicitly telling you they don’t want you and your kind in their establishments?

  26. Starbucks said what they said and that is all anyone can go on right now… they said please don’t bring your guns, but we won’t throw you out for having a gun unless you cause a “disturbance.” I think what that means is that if someone calls you out for having a gun in Starbucks and raises a stink then from now on you, the man with the gun will be the one asked to leave.

    Think about what the actual instructions they sent out say. It provides a boilerpate sentence to ask someone with a gun to leave, but no such boilerplate for someone who is offended by a gun. It also asks very clearly that people not bring weapons at all. Starbucks has declared a prejudice and if you carry in Starbucks it is feasible that someone will attempt to use the system against you. The way I see it, they have implemented this policy to keep the MDA types from humiliating themselves and getting ejected from the local Starbucks, which would be quite traumatizing for a liberal.

    There is really nothing to like about this and no excuses to be made for it. It is like Black Americans making excuses for Jim Crow laws. Where I live, it is a pain in the ass to get a CCW, but open carry is legal… so why get a CCW? More power to you if you have one, but if you think I need one then you can kiss my hairy ass.

    Boycotting Starbucks is silly because they would have preferred to leave this alone, but when push comes to shove they are a bunch of liberals at the corporate level and everyone knows it. I used to get a lot of coffee there, but I noticed a sharp decline in service locally so I stopped.

    After that I realized it wasn’t very good and I didn’t miss the taste or the price. Redbull or Military-Energy-Gum works fine and coffee can be had much cheaper and better. I get Vietnamese iced coffee with condensed milk now, WAY better if you can get it.

    I would leave Starbucks alone unless I was dying of thirst, but that has only so much to do with their recent capitulation. It is a very overrated establishment.

    • “It provides a boilerpate sentence to ask someone with a gun to leave, but no such boilerplate for someone who is offended by a gun.”

      Yeah, it basically does, and the sentence is the same either way. If you cause a disturbance, they’ll ask you to leave. Gun or not. Don’t cause a disturbance, and they won’t say anything other than, “Venti Iced Caramel Macchiato for Matt!”

  27. Rob, the only reason it is a “request” instead of a legally binding ban is to try to get gun owners (like you) to still give them money despite their anti-gun position. If they simply “requested” that Jews, blacks, hispanics, muslims, etc didn’t go into their stores, would you still have warm feelings towards them? I doubt it – you’d be furious if they “requested” that Jews not enter but wouldn’t throw them out unless they caused a scene.

    Gun owners need to stop thinking of themselves as second class citizens and stop thinking that by being submissive they will get approval. This is just as sad as when a guy thinks that he’ll get a girl by showing her how submissive he is and how much he supports women having more rights than men.

  28. Starbucks matches employee donations to Planned Parenthood.

    Starbucks says that if you don’t support gay marriage sell your SBUX stock.

    They have every right to do this, but when guns became an issue they said “We don’t get involved in hot button political issues, we just want to sell coffee” which is an outright lie.

    • Liberals are liberals and will support liberal causes. Generally they do not see any downside to this position as everyone knows that liberal positions are from the heart and therefore correct positions.

      But when a liberal decides for whatever reason that he will not interfere with my constitutional rights on an important topic I tend to take that as a win because generally they are not that agreeable.

  29. If Starbucks doesn’t want to allow for their customers to carry then whoop-di-doo. That’s their right to do so and if you disagree then that’s your right as well. Beyond that, there’s two things to consider. One is that McDonalds has better brewed coffee than Starbucks not to mention cheaper and two that Starbucks doesn’t exactly pat you down when you order a whatchamacallit frap. Concealed carry and no one knows the difference.

    You don’t walk around with your debit card # and PIN tattooed across your forehead, why do they same with a gun?

  30. TO: Grumpy in Kali
    RE: Heh

    I brew better coffee myself. In the comfort of my own kitchen, while the distaff trounces around in bedcloths.

    Let’s see Starbucks top THAT!


    [Welcome to the world of Christianity…where Proverbs 31 meets the movie Lifeforce.]

    P.S. Eat your heart out…..

  31. Apropos of nothing whatsoever, I think the trend to “pumpkin-flavored everything” in the last few years is one of the signs of the impending apocalypse.

  32. This is one of those moments when I feel great about the fact that I do not do Starbucks. Not because of the corporate position on guns, but because years ago I was treated to a horrible cup of joe-in MY opinion-at a Starbucks by a friend. Best favor he ever did for me-My response was “You paid WHAT for this sh!t?……dumb@$$” Never been to one again……….

  33. good article Robt. If we could get Ccw permits in SoCal I’d do same. Now sadly that Sbux is a GFZ i’ll be applying the 3s rule: avoid stoopid places where stoopid people do stoopid things.

  34. I’m not going there anymore and we use to go all the time and our business use to recommend them for breaks and lunch.Not anymore ,no recommend ,no business until they request mom’s don’t bring their babies to Starbucks as it is distracting to other customers(oh wait a minute isn’t that what they said about guns?HMMM?)

  35. Why would anyone go anyplace they weren’t welcome by the owners, especially when there are plenty of other places to go? I switched from Starbucks to Dutch Brothers this morning without a second thought. As I have read, we are welcome there. It is easy to change. And, if you don’t like Dutch Brothers, there are many other places to go where you are welcome. See, Starbucks is a test case for the anti 2nd amendment people and progressive leaning CEOs. If Starbucks does not feel it on their bottom line, Starbucks and other companies will think it okay to go even further. The next step could be an absolute ban.

  36. I am 100% pro gun rights, but don’t see a reason to boycott Starbucks over this. If my friends and fellow 2A people want to, fine – I understand.

    Starbucks did the right thing originally by staying neutral on the gun issue. Fellow gun rights advocates, in my opinion, took that tacit ‘silence is approval’ stance and made Starbucks their rally point. Starbucks didn’t ask for that. It put Starbucks in an uncomfortable place; rather than neutral, it was making it seem as if they were in approval and supporting the cause, which alienated others of their customer base.

    Starbucks decided to right the misconception, but still chose to do so WITHOUT coming down on the anti-gun side. They politely asked that firearms be left outside, BUT deliberately left it as a legal option.

    Their move says to me “please don’t use this as a rally point to openly carry firearms and scare other customers off as well as put us in the middle of a fight. We are a coffee business, not a political game piece. Keep your rights, but please don’t create huge scenes here”.

    I’m fine with it. If they legally ban guns on their property, then I won’t go. Otherwise, I’ll carry wherever it is legal to do so – including at Starbucks.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here