The inappropriately named "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" has taken the Starbucks coffee company to task for a dreadful transgression. They are outraged that Starbucks is following state and local laws regarding the lawful carry of firearms in their stores. The Brady Campaign, more aptly referred to herein as "the Braying Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership", has been staging demonstrations against Starbucks locations in California and is encouraging more such demonstrations at other locations. Starbucks has responded by asking both sides of the issue to simply leave them out of the political debate but to the dismay of the Braying Bunch have not changed their policy. This prompted the Braying Campaign's chief Equus asinus, Paul Helmke, to bray louder in a article he wrote for the Huffington post as he rejected Starbucks request. What follows is most of his article (in italics) and my response.
The Starbucks Coffee Company has become the subject of national media attention because some gun activists have decided to wear their guns openly, with loaded ammunition magazines close by, in Starbucks stores in California.
Uh, no. They have become the subject of national media attention because of your crusade to intimidate them into bowing to your demands. The gun “activists” go there to legally to buy coffee because they aren’t discriminated against.
By choosing to appease these gun rights demonstrators - demonstrators whose antics make many gun owners in our country blush - they have put the concerns of the rest of their customers aside. By allowing guns in its stores, the company is jeopardizing the safety of its customers and employees.
First, they aren’t “appeasing gun rights demonstrators.” They simply refuse to discriminate against law abiding, PAYING customers. The only ones demanding appeasement is are you folks at the Braying Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership. Second, allowing guns in their stores doesn’t jeopardize anyone’s safety. If that were the case people would die in gun stores and at shooting ranges regularly.
That's why we have asked concerned citizens to sign a petition urging Starbucks to change its policy. That's why we've posted on our website a sample letter people can sign and give to the manager of their own local Starbucks, asking them to tell the company to change the policy. And we're just getting started spreading the word about this issue. Sorry, Starbucks.
Oh I see. In other words you want Starbucks to appease you.
Starbucks says it is simply complying with the law. But it would also be complying with the law if it barred guns from its stores. The law allows Starbucks to set the basic rules for its property. The issue is not the law. The issue is Starbucks' choice to allow guns in its stores.
No, the issue is that you want to dictate to Starbucks how it chooses to comply with the law. You really don’t care about the law otherwise you would respect their choice just as you expect them to respect your choice.
Starbucks says it does not want to have to bar customers who are abiding by the law. But when Starbucks bars someone who is not wearing a shirt or shoes from its stores, or ejects someone who is loud and offensive, it is barring a customer who is abiding by the law. It is not against the law to dress differently or to exercise free speech rights, but it may be against company policy.
Now we get to the heart of the matter. You want to dictate company policy by political and media pressure. The law really means nothing to you.
Retail businesses have the right to set policies that go beyond the minimum requirements of the law in running their businesses. Starbucks has a policy that endangers its customers and employees, particularly since there are virtually no restrictions on who can openly carry guns - no permits, no training, no proficiency requirements and no knowledge of the laws is required. And since law-abiding gun owners can drop, lose or unintentionally misuse guns, allowing openly carried guns in Starbucks is bad policy. (Indeed, just this past September a gun activist at an "open carry" picnic was charged with reckless use of a firearm after his gun went off in a parking lot.) As long as it maintains that policy, we will be critical of that policy.
So much to say here, but I’ll be brief. Don't they also have the right to NOT go beyond those so called "minimum requirements"? You care nothing of Starbucks rights as a business. If you did you would simply take your business elsewhere and recommend to your members that they do the same. But, but, what if someone violates the law with negligent handling of firearm? If Starbucks is willing to accept that liability how is that any of the Braying Campaign's business?
The gun extremist want an America where there are guns everywhere: not just in coffeehouses, but also in bars, churches, parks, banks and classrooms.
Guns in the hands of decent, law abiding citizens anywhere are always preferable to guns in the hands of criminals. We have seen firsthand the effect of guns in the hands of criminals in all these places. Pictures that were made more grievous by the fact that the law abiding victims were prohibited by law from possessing an effective means of self defense. Over 64 million gun owners shot nobody on those fateful days. But no, we don’t want guns everywhere. We want decent law abiding people to be able to defend themselves everywhere. Unlike you we are concerned about people and their civil rights and aren’t paranoid about inanimate objects.
By capitulating to the gun extremists because they want this issue to "go away," Starbucks has made a hazardous mistake. Having seen what the gun pushers demand when they are given an inch, I again urge the company to reconsider its policy.
One cannot “capitulate” to someone they are not engaged in a battle with Mr. Helmke. The only one fighting against Starbucks is your organization. The only only demands being issued are by your organization. You’re just miffed because they haven’t capitulated to you. The gun owners aren’t “pushing” they are buying. Specifically they are buying coffee at Starbucks because they aren’t discriminated against there.
No comments:
Post a Comment