If you have received communication from specific stores, malls, towns and cities regarding their firearms policies, good or bad, post them here.
 #91036  by Taurus247
 
Mr.Skellington wrote:The Starbuck appreciation days were not so numerous or newsworthy as to have caused this reaction. Additionally those displays amounted to a miniscule showing of well behaved citizens both celebrating their rights and showing their appreciation to Starbucks for recognizing them. The TX video, yes, three people were OCing long guns but there's more to that. The fact is in TX that is the only way one can legally OC thereby making their reasons for the visit known to others. So what was the big hairy deal?

In our state we still enjoy the choice to OC pistols. I 100% agree with others who have stated that its best to OC in a manner which your sidearm doesn't overshadow yourself or make you unapproachable. However berating people, as some 'CC only' advocates often do, because they choose to exercise their rights is not the proper target of outrage nor something I'll be a party to. The cause for the Starbuck decision lies squarely on those who crap on the 2A everyday and wish to undo it entirely. They kept up with their BS and Starbucks finally caved to the pressure. No problem I'll keep my principals and my money. I will however write a, what I hope to be one out of many, letter to Starbucks letting them know my principals will not allow me to patron any place in which my sidearm is discouraged.
I will be as well. I wrote a letter a month or so ago thanking them for allowing people to carry their weapons and received a very nice response I will right a new letter and reference the last letter and see what I get.
 #91041  by mdak06
 
Before I start, I'd like to say that I agree with pretty much everything MrCoolDale wrote above. Well said.

I've been trying to condense my thoughts ... but I couldn't. So here it goes anyway ...

I think that the gun community must learn that there is a difference between "open carry" and "political open carry activism," and that a business that proclaims neutrality on a political issue does not want political activism re: that issue in its stores.

If all of those who were open carrying had simply been going about our normal daily business and carrying a firearm, we might have had a different outcome. In an ideal world, open carry is boring. You perform your normal daily activities like anyone else. The only difference is that you have a pistol strapped to your hip for the purposes of self defense and/or criminal deterrence.

If we're going to normalize open carry, we need to "be normal" when we do it (which is how most of us in DE do it, AFAIK). Can we choose to patronize or not patronize a business based on their firearms stance? Sure. Can we let them know about that part of our decision? Sure. But that's basically the same as patronizing or not patronizing a business because of its organic farming (or lack thereof) practices and telling them about it. It's simply choosing to make a business' stance on firearms one of the factors in whether or not that business receives our $$.

IMO, a big part of the problem occurred in states where open carry of a handgun is illegal but carrying an unloaded long gun is legal (notably Texas). Given the options, some of them decided to carry unloaded long guns - which is, IMO, not really open carry but instead is political activism. An unloaded long gun isn't a weapon unless it's used as a club. A video recording transforms it into a political stunt.

Is there a place for political open carry activism? Of course. Normally it's in front of the legislative building when they are attempting to pass an idiotic bill into law, or online / on the phone to politely inform your legislator/political executive that they should/should not pass a certain bill. It's not at a business that has proclaimed neutrality and allows everyone to exercise their Constitutionally-secured RKBA.

Imagine if a business took a neutral stance (no stance) on abortion. One side decided this was unacceptable, and so they wore shirts with pictures & slogans about how rape victims need to be able to choose. The other side also thought it was unacceptable, and wore shirts with pictures of aborted fetuses. Both sides videotaped their actions and put 'em up online. It wouldn't be surprising if the business simply said "no political activism in this store re: abortion - take it elsewhere."

That's what Starbucks should have done, IMO. They should have said "no more demonstrations, pro or anti gun, at our stores." But unfortunately, they decided to essentially endorse the anti-OC side with their policy against carrying weapons (despite the policy of non-enforcement). In many ways, this is the pro-gun side's fault, because we, the pro-gun community, destroyed the line between "normal open carry" and "political OC activism."

Imagine for a moment that pro-gun folks did not go walking around with unloaded long guns videotaping themselves, and that during the "Starbucks appreciation days" (and other days) pro-gun folks did not arrive armed and in groups. Imagine if instead, we simply purchased coffee from Starbucks (whether carrying openly, concealed, or not at all), brought a business card that said "thanks Starbucks for not infringing on the RKBA" and handed it to the cashier every time we made a purchase. That would have gotten the message across to Starbucks without alienating everyone else. As the cards piled up, they'd know that they have our support, but they'd also know we're not being obnoxious about it.

It would have shown that not only do we appreciate their stance, but that we're "normal people" doing normal things. We just happen to be armed. To me, that makes more sense as far as efforts go to normalize open carry and to support businesses who either support or at least do not oppose us.

IMO - open carrying of a long gun really only makes sense if you're in an area where there is a higher-than-average probability that you're going to run into a large wild animal (generally a rural area). I'd say that a pistol is generally easier to deploy and use quickly if needed for self-defense in close quarters against another person. It's also better in that if you miss your target, the bullet from a handgun won't go nearly as far as one from a long gun.

Not only has the activism backfired re: Starbucks, but it also works against the cause of the normalization of open carry. We're showing that no, people who open carry are not "normal people" but are political activists that want to draw attention to ourselves.

The first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, but it certainly doesn't mean that any business or individual has to provide a person with a platform at which to speak. Starbucks has no obligation to provide any political activist a platform at which to promote their cause. The problem wasn't really "open carry" ... the problem was political activism that involved displaying a weapon, including/especially those who not only carried long guns but carried them either on their side or front, often with a hand on the gun.

Hopefully some of the more "aggressive" folks in the pro-gun movement will learn some lessons from this.
 #91042  by Dr. Eastwood
 
Honestly, I don't know why Starbucks even got their panties in a wad. The Pro's and Anti's could both boycott Starbucks, and they'd still be rolling in dough. :roll:



But on a more serious note, I'm in agreement with those who have stated that carrying for any reason other than to protect your personal life and family harms our cause. That's the qualifier for our whole movement, and it factors into how I present myself as an open carrier. We still have a political battle to win, and appearances are everything. If you need a long gun, then carry it. If a handgun is sufficient, carry that. I support your right to carry both, but I hope you understand the damage you do when you carry a weapon simply to bring attention to yourself.
 #91048  by Amy Blackthorn
 
myopicvisionary wrote:I can't speak for MCD, but I OPEN CARRY EVERYDAY! I do NOT OC a rifle or shotgun.
The vast majority of the time people don't even notice my pistol because I do not project myself in their face. I do not OC just because I can. I do not OC to make a political statement. I OC for the very reason stated on my CCDW application... "For the protection of myself and my family in the absence of police".

+1,000,000,000
 #91049  by Bullpup
 
With this "win" under their belts, the anti-gun movement will try to pressure other businesses to adopt no-firearm policies. They could target any national chain; Barnes & Noble, Bed Bath & Beyond, Pep Boys, etc. We should learn from the Starbucks fiasco, and be prepared with a better way to deal with the next of these battles.
 #91056  by WVisHome
 
mdak06 wrote:Before I start, I'd like to say that I agree with pretty much everything MrCoolDale wrote above. Well said.

I've been trying to condense my thoughts ... but I couldn't. So here it goes anyway ...

I think that the gun community must learn that there is a difference between "open carry" and "political open carry activism," and that a business that proclaims neutrality on a political issue does not want political activism re: that issue in its stores.

If all of those who were open carrying had simply been going about our normal daily business and carrying a firearm, we might have had a different outcome. In an ideal world, open carry is boring. You perform your normal daily activities like anyone else. The only difference is that you have a pistol strapped to your hip for the purposes of self defense and/or criminal deterrence.

If we're going to normalize open carry, we need to "be normal" when we do it (which is how most of us in DE do it, AFAIK). Can we choose to patronize or not patronize a business based on their firearms stance? Sure. Can we let them know about that part of our decision? Sure. But that's basically the same as patronizing or not patronizing a business because of its organic farming (or lack thereof) practices and telling them about it. It's simply choosing to make a business' stance on firearms one of the factors in whether or not that business receives our $$.

IMO, a big part of the problem occurred in states where open carry of a handgun is illegal but carrying an unloaded long gun is legal (notably Texas). Given the options, some of them decided to carry unloaded long guns - which is, IMO, not really open carry but instead is political activism. An unloaded long gun isn't a weapon unless it's used as a club. A video recording transforms it into a political stunt.

Is there a place for political open carry activism? Of course. Normally it's in front of the legislative building when they are attempting to pass an idiotic bill into law, or online / on the phone to politely inform your legislator/political executive that they should/should not pass a certain bill. It's not at a business that has proclaimed neutrality and allows everyone to exercise their Constitutionally-secured RKBA.

Imagine if a business took a neutral stance (no stance) on abortion. One side decided this was unacceptable, and so they wore shirts with pictures & slogans about how rape victims need to be able to choose. The other side also thought it was unacceptable, and wore shirts with pictures of aborted fetuses. Both sides videotaped their actions and put 'em up online. It wouldn't be surprising if the business simply said "no political activism in this store re: abortion - take it elsewhere."

That's what Starbucks should have done, IMO. They should have said "no more demonstrations, pro or anti gun, at our stores." But unfortunately, they decided to essentially endorse the anti-OC side with their policy against carrying weapons (despite the policy of non-enforcement). In many ways, this is the pro-gun side's fault, because we, the pro-gun community, destroyed the line between "normal open carry" and "political OC activism."

Imagine for a moment that pro-gun folks did not go walking around with unloaded long guns videotaping themselves, and that during the "Starbucks appreciation days" (and other days) pro-gun folks did not arrive armed and in groups. Imagine if instead, we simply purchased coffee from Starbucks (whether carrying openly, concealed, or not at all), brought a business card that said "thanks Starbucks for not infringing on the RKBA" and handed it to the cashier every time we made a purchase. That would have gotten the message across to Starbucks without alienating everyone else. As the cards piled up, they'd know that they have our support, but they'd also know we're not being obnoxious about it.

It would have shown that not only do we appreciate their stance, but that we're "normal people" doing normal things. We just happen to be armed. To me, that makes more sense as far as efforts go to normalize open carry and to support businesses who either support or at least do not oppose us.

IMO - open carrying of a long gun really only makes sense if you're in an area where there is a higher-than-average probability that you're going to run into a large wild animal (generally a rural area). I'd say that a pistol is generally easier to deploy and use quickly if needed for self-defense in close quarters against another person. It's also better in that if you miss your target, the bullet from a handgun won't go nearly as far as one from a long gun.

Not only has the activism backfired re: Starbucks, but it also works against the cause of the normalization of open carry. We're showing that no, people who open carry are not "normal people" but are political activists that want to draw attention to ourselves.

The first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, but it certainly doesn't mean that any business or individual has to provide a person with a platform at which to speak. Starbucks has no obligation to provide any political activist a platform at which to promote their cause. The problem wasn't really "open carry" ... the problem was political activism that involved displaying a weapon, including/especially those who not only carried long guns but carried them either on their side or front, often with a hand on the gun.

Hopefully some of the more "aggressive" folks in the pro-gun movement will learn some lessons from this.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
 #91057  by Boots
 
Personally, I'm pissed.

I am really pissed to see pictures of guys that carried long guns into Starbucks and posed with them. That was news to me. They took unfair and in-your-face advantage of Starbuck's attempt to stay out of the fray and follow local gun laws.

IMHO, Ordinary every-day carrying for personal protection in a civilian environment involves handguns, not long guns. To me that's intuitive, and no doubt intuitive to a lot of anti-gun people too. I understand that TX does not allow OC with handguns. But, if they thought that OCing a long gun in a TX Starbucks would promote their cause, they might soon regret the unintended consequences of their actions. It would not surprise me in the least if there are now laws being proposed to further restrict the carry rights of TX citizens.

One step forward and two steps back?

Or, just two steps back?!
 #91060  by brich2929
 
scampbell3 wrote:Bearingarms.com did an article on this subject.

Here is the link to the article

http://bearingarms.com/gun-bloggers-bla ... -response/

However, the photo attached to the article I think sums up this whole damn mess very well.

Image




Chip
Easy, Tiger.

The photo is of a serviceman off duty in Kuwait from 2005 if you read the Practical Tactical post.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7