Starbucks, Guns, and Valentine’s Day – UPDATE

From Self-defense instructor, and law enforcement officer Massad Ayoob comes word of an upcoming boycott of Starbucks due to their policy of following state laws regarding the legal carrying of firearms on their premises. Per Ayoob,

We discussed here in February, 2010 how the Starbucks chain, when gun haters demanded that firearms be banned from their coffee shop premises, stood up and said no, they would follow the laws of the given state, and those legally carrying guns would be welcome…

It seems than an anti-gun group has called for a boycott of Starbucks on this coming Valentine’s Day, February 14. As Dave explains, many of us in the gun movement will be buying something at Starbucks on that day, just to make sure that Starbucks has a profitable holiday despite being boycotted by the antis.

The boycott they refer to is being promoted by the National Gun Victims Action Council. Per their website,

A nationwide boycott of Starbucks stores and its products will be launched on Valentine’s Day 2012. Its goal is to eliminate the risk of guns in public places and ultimately to bring sane gun laws to the U.S.

Ayoob states that thehighroad.org, a firearms related forum, is promoting its own anti-boycott of sorts, encouraging supporters of the 2nd Amendment to make a special trip to Starbucks on Valentine’s Day. Also, sending an e-mail of support along the lines of,

I’ve just heard that there’s a planned boycott on Feb. 14 by anti-Second Amendment groups attempting to punish Starbucks for their decision to follow state and local law instead of changing company policy on law abiding customers carrying firearms legally. While I’m an occasional customer I’ll make a point of doing my share to offset any business Starbucks may lose due to this proposed boycott. I’ll see to it that my family and I are in Starbucks at least once on Feb. 14.Thank you for not caving in to the radical beliefs of a small vocal group of marginalized extremists.

Now that’s a good idea.

If you get the chance, stop by Starbucks today as well as e-mailing them a note of support.

Update:

I received this reply, from Starbucks –

Dear Rusty,

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

At Starbucks, we deeply respect the views of our customers and recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws. We comply with local laws and statutes in the communities we serve. Our long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged and we abide by the laws that permit open carry in 43 U.S. states. Where these laws don’t exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited.

As the public debate around this issue continues, we encourage customers and advocacy groups from both sides to share their input with their public officials. We are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society and believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.

Sincerely,

Matthew

customer service

Starbucks

Rusty Nails (SCO v. 49 – Firearms edition)

It’s not like we haven’t warned you that New York City is rabidly anti-gun (especially its Mayor Bloomberg)

###

And you can’t even own a Flintlock in NYC

###

What if you’re a citizen from another state with a concealed carry weapon permit?
And, while visiting the 911 Memorial you see a “No Handguns” sign (which surely must mean the place is safe, right?) so you want to do the right thing and check in your legally owned handgun?

From the New York Post,

Really, you can’t bring guns into the 9/11 Memorial?

A tourist from Tennessee waltzed into one of the most secure sites in the city — and politely asked a cop if she could check her weapon.

Instead, she was dragged out in cuffs.

Now, Meredith Graves, 39, is facing at least three years in prison for thinking New York’s gun laws are anything like those in the Bible Belt.

Get it? A law-abiding citizen, albeit very wrong in her understanding of the anti-2nd amendment laws in New York City, was attemtping to follow the law and now faces prison time.

Also in the story,

Mayor Bloomberg, with the help of the five district attorneys, has crusaded against the flow of illegal guns, especially from the South.

###

But surely a former Marine can check in his legally owned handgun while visiting the Empire State Building?
From the WSJ,

Some veterans linked to the Leatherneck.com online community started sending letters to city officials Monday urging them to drop the prosecution of Ryan Jerome.

He’s accused of trying to check his gun, registered in his home state of Indiana, while visiting New York City in September. They say he was acting responsibly and got bad information about city rules.

###

Well how about the guy recently arrested in New York City, for possessing a firearm, who claimed to be a Navy SEAL?
The authorities, not believing him, threw him into a psych ward. Turns out… he was telling the truth!

From the New York Post,

His story about being a Navy SEAL wasn’t so fishy after all.

The Virginia man arrested for gun possession in Manhattan Thursday and thrown in a psych ward when he claimed to be a member of the elite military unit but couldn’t provide proof was telling the truth, The Post has learned.

Oops.

###

It looks like Tennessee lawmakers are not too thrilled with the treatment of Meredith Graves
From the New York Daily News,

A Tennessee lawmaker angry that a home state tourist was busted with a loaded gun at Ground Zero introduced is threatening to go after New Yorkers who speed in his state.

###

CNN report on Jerome and Graves

Rusty Nails (SCO v. 43)

He said what?
Richard Dawkins said “Jesus would have been an atheist had he known what we know today.” Wow. I know that Christian apologists have been clamoring for a debate between William Lane Craig and Dawkins, but if he makes such an ignorantly absurd statement like this, then…?

###

Only 1 in 4 want to ban handguns
An all-time low (26%) and this spells bad news for liberal democrats. From Gallup,

A record-low 26% of Americans favor a legal ban on the possession of handguns in the United States other than by police and other authorized people. When Gallup first asked Americans this question in 1959, 60% favored banning handguns. But since 1975, the majority of Americans have opposed such a measure, with opposition around 70% in recent years.

N9ggmdee1k60atawqdbprq
###

Evangelical Capitalism statement of the day:
“I’ve never seen an empty seat make a decision for Christ.” – Andy Stanley

While this notion is sincere, it usually degrades to nothing more than a “numbers game” approach, and the logical conclusion of this methodology is to do just about anything to entice people through the door (and onto a… seat) where they can then be swayed to “make a decision.” And I wonder just what priority is given, if any,, to that of making a disciple of Christ (what the Bible actually states).

“Christians Need To Stop Making Converts” – Read it again, for the first time.

###

Geek News # 1
Checking out footprints of the Apollo moonwalkers.

###

Geek News # 2
Searching for Snoopy… Apollo 10’s Snoopy (aka the Lunar Module)

###

A Homeschooling convert?
So in the middle of realizing that school is really just a babysitting service, I became militant. I realized that public school is like Social Security. There is no money to do what we are pretending we are aiming to do. We should just grow up and admit that we cannot have effective public schools for everyone. Just like we cannot have Social Security for everyone.

Banning Chicago’s guns, and kindergarten hysteria

The city of Chicago, in 1982, decided to forgo the Bill of Rights and banned law-abiding citizens from owning handguns. Otis McDonald, a 76 year-old resident of Chicago, appealed the law, claiming it left him vulnerable to criminals – criminals who, not surprisingly, ignore the gun ban. Currently, the Supreme Court is reviewing the appeal, with most analysts expecting a ruling on the side of the 2nd Amendment.

Starbucks will continue to allow law-abiding citizens to open-carry firearms while on their premises. Open-carry is the act of carrying a firearm on your person in a manner in which the firearm is not concealed. Were you aware that some states allow their law-abiding citizens to openly carry loaded firearms in certain public places?

On February 22nd, concealed carry of firearms, by law-abiding citizens, was reinstated in National Parks throughout the United States (subject to state laws concerning concealed carry). Concealed carry is the act of carrying a firearm on your person in a manner in which the firearm is hidden from view.

Are we seeing a trend?

Let’s assume that we all have the right to defend ourselves (the right to self-defense) if we, or our loved ones, are being attacked. Considering that the 2nd amendment gives law-abiding citizens the right to be armed, does it follow that such a condition (of having the right to self-defense) is permissible outside the confines of one’s own home?

Note that the stories I linked to, above, pertain to the actions of law-abiding citizens. Restricting the actions of the people, by law, only limits the actions of those who choose to follow said law (i.e., law-abiding citizens). Criminals, by their very nature, have always ignored the law – hence, that’s why they are criminals.

If you take a look at virtually all mass-shootings, you will note that they occur in “gun-free” zones (e.g., schools, military installations). You think there’s a reason for that? Doesn’t it make sense that, if Chicago bans guns, the criminal mind will think, “easy pickin’s”? Doesn’t it make sense that, if Starbucks allows open carry on its premises, the criminal mind will think, “um… not here, not now”? Doesn’t it make sense that, if concealed carry is allowed in National Parks, the criminal mind will think, “I wonder if that person is armed”?

As a gang-banger in Buffalo said, when asked what could be done to curtail the spike in homicides,

Buy a gun.

Yet gun hysteria remains.

New Mexico recently passed legislation regarding concealed carry in restaurants that served beer and wine. In a forum, at the New Mexico Independent, concerns were expressed over the fear of mixing alcohol and firearms. Yes, a good concern; and would restricting law-abiding citizens from carrying prevent law breakers from doing so? Forget the criminals, would we be safe from off-duty law enforcement officers in bars?

So, while al Qaeda praises the actions of the Fort Hood killer, we suspend a kindergartner for the dastardly crime of making a gun gesture with his hand. It’s time we take a rational look at gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.