WSJ Article, Poll

[zigziggityzoo]

imported post

Poll: http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/retail--economy/topics/should-retailers-open-carry-states-do

Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...048.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

Starbucks Corp. and some other chain stores in the U.S. are finding themselves caught in the middle of a firearms debate, as gun-control advocates go up against a burgeoning campaign by gun owners to carry holstered pistols in public places.

The "open carry" movement, in which gun owners carry unconcealed handguns as they go about their everyday business, is loosely organized around the country but has been gaining traction in recent months. Gun-control advocates have been pushing to quash the movement, including by petitioning the Starbucks coffee chain to ban guns on its premises.


Anti-gun activists gathered at the original Starbucks in Seattle to push retailers like the coffee chain to ban customers from openly carrying guns, WSJ's Nick Wingfield reports.

Journal Community


Businesses have the final say on their property. But the ones that don't opt to ban guns—such as Starbucks—have become parade grounds of sorts for open-carry advocates.

Starbucks on Wednesday, while bemoaning being thrust into the debate, defended its long-standing policy of complying with state open-carry weapons laws, in part by stating that its baristas, or "partners," could be harmed if the stores were to ban guns. The chain said that in the 43 states where open carry is legal, it has about 4,970 company-operated stores.

The company added: "The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores."

In 29 states, it's legal to openly carry a loaded handgun, without any form of government permission. Another 13 allow an unconcealed loaded handgun with a carry permit, according to opencarry.org, which is a loosely organized Web forum for the movement.

Continued on the website.

 

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

"...according to opencarry.org, which is a loosely organized Web forum...."

WTH is that supposed to mean?

 

[zigziggityzoo]

imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:

"...according to opencarry.org, which is a loosely organized Web forum...."

WTH is that supposed to mean?

I think the implication is that it's a grassroots organization. "A loosely organized community/organization" would have made more sense.

 

[DanM]

imported post

Voted in the poll.

Need help, folks! Good guys currently at only 63% versus bad guys (anti's) and sheep ("let company decide") at 27% and 9% respectively.

Yeah, I know 63% is still an overwhelming majority, but doesn't represent the absolute whippingus good guys usually give the anti's.

Go vote!

 

[autosurgeon]

imported post

Done!

 

[taxwhat]

imported post

Voted with my hand on Gun and Camera both !

 

[HankT]

imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:

"...according to opencarry.org, which is a loosely organized Web forum...."

WTH is that supposed to mean?

Not much formal organization, such as rules/regs/charter/hierarchy/membership standards/behavioral rules/dogma/performance standards-measurement/etc.

The term is fine. It's not necessarily bad.

"Loosely organized" is a perfectly good entity structure. Depends on the mission/goals/environment/etc.

 

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

HankT wrote:

SpringerXDacp wrote:

"...according to opencarry.org, which is a loosely organized Web forum...."

WTH is that supposed to mean?

Not much formal organization, such as rules/regs/charter/hierarchy/membership standards/behavioral rules/dogma/performance standards-measurement/etc.

The term is fine. It's not necessarily bad.

"Loosely organized" is a perfectly good entity structure. Depends on the mission/goals/environment/etc.

A thanks to you and Ziggy. I just never seen it put that way before.

 

[cabman1]

imported post

voted

 

[CoonDog]

imported post

I don't have a problem with the Starbucks setting it's own company-wide policy. That said, if they adopt a no-firearms policy, I won't shop there.

 

[Michigander]

imported post

I'm not much of a yuppie froo froo over priced coffee drinker, but I have been making it a point to go there every week or 2 because of their guns allowed if state law allows it stance, and I emailed them to tell them so.

 

[manicdevery]

imported post

CoonDog wrote:

I don't have a problem with the Starbucks setting it's own company-wide policy. That said, if they adopt a no-firearms policy, I won't shop there.

+1

and to add

"Indeed, not all baristas agree that the Starbucks policy protects them. "I think the policy shows complete disregard for the safety and sentiments of their workers. The only thing worse than a yuppie upset with how their frappuccino turned out is a yuppie with a gun who's unhappy with how their frappuccino turned out," says Erik Forman, a Starbucks barista and union member in Minneapolis."

this was a clip from one of those articles, they think we are not people of solid mind. to me, me phone is my only weapon to bad service.

If starbucks feels this way they are giving gun owners a bad frap. . . i mean rap.

 

[manicdevery]

imported post

Michigander wrote:

I'm not much of a yuppie froo froo over priced coffee drinker, but I have been making it a point to go there every week or 2 because of their guns allowed if state law allows it stance, and I emailed them to tell them so.

+1

 

[zigziggityzoo]

imported post

bump

 

[pmcqueen37]

imported post

69% for; 23% against

 

[American Boy With a Gun]

imported post

pmcqueen37 wrote:

69% for; 23% against

70 & 20....were gaining on em!