Here's how we can tell if Starbucks is sincere about what they say re guns:

[friendly_iconoclast]

Do Texas Starbucks have '30.06 signs' posted prohibiting guns?

For those unfamiliar, they would look like this:



In Texas, anything else is not a legal prohibition on the carriage of concealed weapons.
Unless a SB in Texas has one of these by the front door, concealed handguns are still allowed there.

Without one of those in every Lone Star Starbucks, you can be certain that Howard Schultz
merely offered up some fine words that have gulled the credulous
into thinking they've achieved something...

[krispos42]

1. And... how would they know, regardless of signs?

It's a "concealed" carry gun.

Barring a patdown or metal detectors, it's the honor system.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. You have a valid point, but I still think Schultz was snowing people.

Some DUer in Texas will have to let us know...

[Jenoch]

2. I wonder how often anyone carried

a .30-06 into a Starbucks anyway?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. haha ... glad I am not the only one to read it that way!

[petronius]

5. I felt like Schultz walked a pretty fine line without actually changing anything

It sounds to me that Starbucks plans to keep on respecting local law, while expressing a clear desire not to be a pawn in a political tussle. They certainly don't want any OC demonstrations in their stores (which shouldn't have happened anyway), but I'll be surprised if anyone who is OCing for a non-activist reason is ever asked to leave.

(That said, if I did OC, I'd take Schultz's request at face value and avoid SBs. Which I generally do anyway, since I prefer to shop in places that are - or at least trick me into thinking they are - locally owned...)

[Glaug-Eldare]

6. This is exactly it.

Starbucks is not interesting in this debate. The company does not give a quarter damn about gun laws or if you carry or if you carry in Starbucks or if you hate carry or any other thing -- they just want to divorce themselves from the public displays of affection that were hijacking and damaging the brand they were trying to build. This is a way of making unwelcome demonstrations feel unwelcome without actually prohibiting current customers from carrying on the normal, intended purpose of the shops: selling coffee.

[GreenStormCloud]

7. McDonald's, Dunkin Donuts has same guns policy that Starbucks still does.

In fact, I have not seen any fast food place or any other store with a 30.06 sign.

There is a bank with this sign:
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[NYC_SKP]

8. You mean "Moms Demand Action", et al, are celebrating for NOTHING?

But they and their supporters were feeling so celebratory!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12624733

I tried to explain that it would only be an empty gesture not making a whit of difference in saving lives.

But all that proved was that a DU jury thought such a statement should be hidden- the last hidden reply I've had this year.

[SoutherDem]

9. Much to do about nothing

Starbucks is simply attempting to appease the anti-gun groups while not totally alienating pro-gun customers.

"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," -Starbucks CEO

I contacted Starbuck with the following;

"It is with all due respect that I must say I will no longer visit any Starbucks location, including BN locations, purchase ground coffee or prepared drinks with the Starbucks name.While I fully respect your position on guns and you haven't actually band guns from your location you have requested that I not support your business."

Starbucks replied with the following:

"Thank you for your email. We recognize that there is significant passion surrounding open carry weapons laws from all sides of this debate. Rest assured your feedback has been documented and will be shared with our leadership team."

I didn't bring up open carry because the press release said "bring guns into our stores". But, the reply stated open carry. Do they know what they want? Other than profits, of course.

[NYC_SKP]

10. I think that their response was canned and designed to work for as a reply for most or all letters.

I doubt they read yours.

Indeed, it is much ado about nothing and after discussing this matter with their highly-paid marketing and legal team, found just the right solution that would piss off the least number of people.

They've made the moms happy thinking that they've won the battle, but also done so in a way that can be read by OC supporters as a snarky way to respond.

If I was a member of the Moms group, rather than try to shame the corporation, I'd have created teams to shame the OC fools.

Imagine all the embarrassing and live local news worthy things they could do, like follow them around dressed as babies carrying big fake weapons tipped with dildos, or something similarly foolish.

Moms mocking idiots, I would pay to see that!

[AtheistCrusader]

11. For the umpteenth motherfucking time.

STARBUCKS DID NOT PROHIBIT FIREARMS.
They ASKED people not to carry, and didn't specify concealed carry at all.

All they did was discourage it. No trespassing claims. No call the cops if you see someone. They politely asked people not to do it. That's all.

No stupid page of fucking legalese warning on the outside of the building required. It's a REQUEST.
A polite one at that, that does not target CPL holders.


Let it fucking rest before SB ends up tired of being a political football, and actually bans it.

[Glaug-Eldare]

12. I will not be even slightly surprised if the fanatics still press them until they ban it altogether.

They just can't help themselves -- they are on a holy quest to embarrass and alienate those who carry by abusing every cubic centimeter of space it's allowed in.