Posted by 
SEATTLE, March 03, 2010 – We recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws. Advocacy groups from both sides of this issue have chosen to use Starbucks as a way to draw attention to their positions.
While we deeply respect the views of all our customers, Starbucks long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged. We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. In this case, 43 of the 50 U.S. states have open carry weapon laws. Where these laws don’t exist, we comply with laws that prohibit the open carrying of weapons. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.
At the same time, we have a security protocol for any threatening situation that might occur in our stores. Partners are trained to call law enforcement as situations arise. We will continuously review our procedures to ensure the highest safety guidelines are in place and we will continue to work closely with law enforcement.
We have examined this issue through the lens of partner (employee) and customer safety. Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.
As the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue. As a company, we are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society. Our Starbucks family knows all too well the dangers that exist when guns are used irresponsibly and illegally. Without minimizing this unfortunate reality, we believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.
Related posts:
- DRTV Weekly: Open Carry in Florida or Constitutional Carry in Colorado?
- Best Defense: Open Carry
- Long Gun Registration and Open Carry Ban Pending Consideration in the Golden State
- McCain, Tester, Childers, and Souder Introduce Bills To Reform D.C.’s Gun Laws
- NRA’s Rebuttal to President Obama on Gun Control Laws
Mayor Daley sites horror stories of people who were hurt by guns in his town as a reason to ban guns. He fails to point out that these happened under his watch and his austere rules, witch failed to protect them. It seems the criminals were not too imprested with the Mayer’s rules as 410 out 412 murders used handguns. Perhaps some might have been spared if they were not perceived as unarmed and helpless. The shooters might have thought better of it if and held there fire. Wolves attack sheep not bears.
Criminals are immune to gun laws. The primary problem with all gun laws is the very people they are aimed at are those least likely to follow them. The penalties for gun possession pal in comparison to those for the much greater affiances they are committing. Many gun confiscations from criminals are as a result of unlawful searches and not prosecutable. Thus the deterrent is small compared to the perceived utility.
Criminals must have guns to stay in business or run the risk of losing their ill-gotten gains and their life to another criminal. Predators are themselves prayed upon by stronger meaner predators. Remember they are not going to call 911. They need to intimidate or kill witnesses, victims and competitors. No criminal wants a confrontation on equal terms. They strike from a position of advantage. No one knows how many crimes have been deterred by the perception (real or imagined) that the intended victim can return aggression in kind. With out the advantage of being the only one armed they might even be forced to work for a living. What a terrible thing.