Starbucks, via the NSSF:

Starbucks Position on Open Carry Gun Laws
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.

Starbucks Corporation
Stacey Krum, 206-318-7100
press@starbucks.com

As has been mentioned numerous times, this isn’t some big pro-gun policy on the part of Starbucks like some critics are claiming. It is simply a decision not to place further restrictions on open carry than already exist. Good on Starbucks.

Here’s a curious argument against private weapon ownership in the comments section of a news item about open carry in Michigan:

bewise wrote:
I think only police, FBI, CIA, and whoever has to deal with secret documents or big amount of money, should be armed, and no body else. The reason I say that is based on a personal experience in Europe. I could have killed someone who kept half of the money from my job that he liked a lot, but saying that he was very short in money. We had not made a written contract, so he was taking advantage of that. He owned me 8,500 Euros. Over the hot debate I could have sent him to meet with Saint Peter, and I would have spent the rest of my life in jail. I know that you will bring me thousands of counter arguments, but still, I will not be convinced.

Very clearly, if this guy thinks that he would have killed a man over a money dispute (in a situation where he apparently didn’t take responsibility to bother with a written contract) he should not carry a gun.

But just because you think you’d exercise very bad judgment and commit murder doesn’t mean anything about anyone else. You think you are incapable of carrying a gun? If you really think so, I agree with you. You ARE probably incapable of carrying a gun.

That doesn’t say anything about me or anyone else, though.

It would be interesting to know if this individual grew up in Europe or in the US.

Gun Owners Wear Weapons, Politics In Plain View

Story on OC in KTVU in California. The news report is, predictably, not quite balanced.

Advocates of “open carry” meet in public places such as this Cupertino Starbucks. When KTVU was there with a group, no one seemed to notice or care.

Even a police officer driving by failed to see the group drinking coffee outside with their weapons in plain sight.

They don’t seem to grasp that because the cops didn’t do anything doesn’t mean that they didn’t notice.

In California, police can check an OC gun to see if it’s loaded. OC must be unloaded in the state.

Here’s another bit from the story:

At an appearance by President Obama in Phoenix this past summer, open carry advocates showed up with automatic weapons.

Whoops! As far as I know, it was one weapon. And it wasn’t automatic.

What’s a little bit of a lie in a news story if it helps, though?

A good news story about open carry in Michigan: Group aims to spread word on gun rights

Melvindale resident Andrew Szerdi V, who had a .45-caliber handgun holstered on his right thigh, had finished shopping for socks at Fairlane Mall in Dearborn when a police officer stopped him and two friends from leaving the parking lot.

“It was the first time an officer had drawn a weapon on me, but not the first time I’d been harassed by police,” said Szerdi, who has a concealed pistol license and has openly carried it for about a year. “He ordered the passenger, me, to open the door, step out and keep my hands in view. … He told me to walk backward to him. He had me get on my knees, place my hands behind my back, and he handcuffed me.”

Szerdi said the officer then removed his gun and searched his pockets, finding his pamphlet explaining the open-carry right. He said for the next 40 minutes or so, he and his friends, who were not carrying weapons, were berated and lectured while officers ran the serial number on his gun, his driver’s license and his concealed pistol’s license.

Szerdi was eventually released, he said, after the officers could not find a reason to arrest him.

They drew a gun on him and detained him, but all their attempts to “find a reason to arrest him” came up empty. It’s unclear from this story whether the cops stopped him because of a call from someone or on their own.

Though not what you’d call a “big fan” of open carry, I do believe that it’s important for people to know the rights of citizens and I certainly don’t mind seeing people exercise those rights. Though I will always caution open carriers to “use good judgment,” that’s the also case with concealed carriers and anyone else handling firearms. Duh.

Here’s something interesting from the article:

[Livingston County Undersheriff Michael] Murphy said as an officer he has no problem with individuals exercising their right to openly carry a gun. However, he believes doing so should be a concern for everyone in the community.

Wait. He’s got no problem with people exercising their right and the community should be “concerned” when they do? What does that even mean?

People should be “concerned” about the open carrying of a gun the same way they should be “concerned” when encountering someone carrying a baseball bat.

See also: http://www.miopencarry.org

Of course, noting a story like this isn’t complete without pointing out a couple of nutjob remarks by commenters:
(more…)

This is brilliant.

One thing I wonder about, though, is the amount of exposure with the general population this will get. Sure, it’s showing up on lots of gun blogs and lots of Conservative blogs, but that’s mostly preaching to the choir.

Legacy Media has lost its monopoly but it still retains a lot of its power. While we laugh about this and rightly congratulate those who put it together and spread the word, we need to remember that the biggies are still biggies. Things are changing (mostly for the better) but they’ve got a long ways to go.

I still maintain that gun owners should proceed with caution when it comes to open carrying to political events like this, but it sure is nice to see some liars de-fanged so effectively.

Via Sebastian.

UPDATE: Americans for Limited Government is calling for heads.

After reading some of the comments on today’s earlier post and musings at other places, here are a couple more thoughts:

For the record, I don’t disapprove of the tool. As usual with guns and other tools, it’s the person who I’m not entirely certain about.

Here’s how I see it:

Best Case Scenario: A few people get a little educated about a few gun laws and a few voters (and maybe even a couple of politicians) realize that many Americans in general and some gun owners in particular are very serious about today’s issues.

Worst Case Scenario: Some nut job or agent provocateur does something very very bad. It could even be some sort of honest mistake. Very very bad shift in public opinion in the wake of the tragedy is followed by very very bad legislation. You know that a lot of gun grabbers are wild with anticipation over exactly this sort of thing.

The actual result is likely to be somewhere in between, which means that the upside will be barely noticeable.

Sure, points will have been made. Those points will be remembered for about three minutes, unless it’s a point good for the anti-gun crowd, in which case the point will be remembered forever and ever as a basic truth about guns. Like the basic truth about how guns are twice as likely to kill a family member as an intruder in a home defense situation and the basic truth about how no one needs a semi-automatic assault weapon for anything except killing people.

The media will decide how the story is told. For those that think the media is dead and a wonderful new age is here, look at who’s in the White House today and look at how he got there. It wasn’t Kos who put him there.

For what it’s worth, I also think it probably wouldn’t be constructive to carry swords, pitchforks, axes, spiked clubs, or baseball bats at these events.

UPDATE: Sebastian has a very good round-up of links on this issue and some good commentary. I weighed in in the comments section and don’t have time to rail on at length here, so go read.

Here’s one snippet:

As often happens in debates of important issues, arguing against one extreme position gives the impression that the arguer holds the other extreme position. That is not the case. If I don’t think it’s GREAT that people are doing this, it doesn’t mean I (or Sebastian, for that matter) think it’s TERRIBLE.

Over the years Murdoc’s been in countless debates like this. For the record, because those who disagree with my opinion on this seem to be insisting otherwise, Murdoc fully supports Open Carry.

I’ve not chimed in about the recent news coverage of folks in crowds at political events who are open carrying, in part because I’m not exactly sure what I think of the issue.

On the one hand, what these folks are doing is legal and I think it’s important that others realize that fact. I also like the idea that a point can be made and the message that gun owners think gun issues matter can be sent.

On the other hand, the message received by 90% of the population will be “these guys are whackos” and will probably do more harm than good to the cause of protecting the right to keep and bear arms. The fact that the message will be that because of the media is not really relevant.

Sighted at Phonix VFW Event (Scott Wong/The Arizona Republic)

And, don’t you know, the militias are gearing up again and everything. Again, this is the media at work, but don’t let hopes for fairness or expectations of accuracy cloud your thinking when it comes to the media.

Here’s the most recent story:

A man, who decided not to give his name, was walking around the pro-health care reform rally at Third and Washington streets, with a pistol on his hip and an AR-15 (a semi-automatic assault weapon) on a strap over his shoulder.

“Because I can do it,” he said when asked why he was armed. “In Arizona, I still have some freedoms.”

Sure, you can. That’s not the same as sure, you should.

I guess I’m giving these folks the benefit of the doubt and taking them at face value. I don’t necessarily agree that what they’re doing is going to help gun owners, but I also don’t think that shutting them down (even if that were possible) is a good idea.

One thing I expect, though, is that this story is going to continue to grow legs. There will be more and more sightings and more and more news reports. Soon, if they haven’t already, activists in the anti-gun camp are going to start showing up with guns for their own purposes.

At some point, there’s going to be a situation of some sort or other.

I just think there’s so little to be gained and so much to be potentially lost here that open carrying at these sorts of things is just probably a bad idea.

I realize that not everyone, and maybe not even most people, will agree with Murdoc on this.

UPDATE: Confederate Yankee brings up a few good points:

I must say that I was impressed with how these open carry advocates conducted themselves. They coordinated their display with the Phoenix Police Department, who provided them with a liaison officer. They were also courteous to those around them, remaining calm and well-behaved (with the exception of the mysterious “other” rifle-carrying man that only one CNN employee seems to have seen)…

The armed protesters at events in Arizona and New Hampshire were never “at” Obama’s meetings. They were never inside of the security perimeter that the Secret Service establishes for Presidential appearances. They weren’t ever close.

The protester in New Hampshire who had a gun in a tactical drop-leg rig was on private property well away from the Obama appearance (I’ve heard estimates of ½ to ¾ mile away) and was never in direct line of sight of either the venue or the motorcade. He never remotely a threat to the President, nor did he intend to be.

Likewise, those open carry advocates at yesterday’s event in Arizona arranged for a police liaison the day before the event, and were constantly afforded security by the Phoenix Police Department and had at least one known Secret Service agent shadowing them to assure they were following the law. These citizens were never anywhere near the President, nor did they attempt to go anywhere near the Secret Service’s security perimeter that cordoned off the event and the building in which it was held.

Go read the whole thing.

Via Instapundit, who has more.

They Carry Guns

I’ve never met Nate before, but I know it’s him (a) because I’ve seen his picture and (b) due to the handgun that sits on a holster against his hip.

A decent write up.

First, I am given instructions on what to do if approached by the police. I brace myself as Nate explains.

“What’s going to happen is, they’re going to want to do a 12031(e) unloaded check,” he begins. “They’ll say they want to check your weapon. You say, ‘Are you requesting or demanding?’ If they say, ‘Demanding,’ you say, ‘I don’t consent to any warrantless searches. But I’m not going to resist.’ And then you stick your hands out, they check your weapon, and it’s done.”

As always, know the firearms laws in your area.