Peet's Coffee & Tea & CPK tell Open Carry Advocates you're not welcome

Open Carry gun advocates in the Bay Area are easy to spot. With unloaded firearms strapped to their sides, they meet at coffee shops and other places to protest their right to bear arms, drawing plenty of attention from the media, cops and bystanders along the way. A group of proponents converged at a local Starbucks in November. Earlier this month, members of Bay Area Open Carry gathered at a Peet's Coffee & Tea in Livermore, triggering a 911 call. Cops responded and frisked one man during his interview with ABC7 (see video below). And last week's meeting at the Peet's in San Ramon caused quite a stir among customers who both disapproved and praised the heat-packing patrons, according to The Oakland Tribune.

Days after the San Ramon confab, a TV station in Sacramento discovered that a local Peet's posted a policy banning customers from openly carrying guns. A company spokesperson confirmed the rule in an email to The Scavenger:

While Peet's Coffee & Tea respects and values all individuals' rights under local, state and federal laws, our policy is not to allow customers carrying firearms in our stores or on our outdoor seating premises unless they are uniformed or identified law enforcement officers. Like most other private businesses, particularly retail establishments, we believe this policy is in the best interests of all of our customers, regardless of their personal beliefs. In no way does this policy conflict with or discriminate under the law, and it does not take a position on the law.

Meanwhile, a planned Feb. 6 meeting at the California Pizza Kitchen in Walnut Creek was nipped in the bud by CPK's crackdown. Sarah Grover, Chief Communications Officer of the LA-based company, sent us this statement:



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/scavenger/detail?entry_id=56281#ixzz0e2wsUbkh

You're more compulsive about it than anyone I've ever seen.

Minnesotans are allowed to carry guns. BUT every place you go, there is a sign that says Guns are banned in this establishment. So they aren't allowed to carry guns there.

And push for a specific-signage law.

"In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they're less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can't handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone.”—Dr. Sarah Thompson, MD"

Thanks to the Internet, unattributed quotes are no longer "authoritative".

Tesha

...if you somehow believe that believing and actively supporting firearm rights somehow invalidates somebodies opinion in it's entirely. But since most people aren't that jaw-droppingly ignorant anymore, your point is an epic fail.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they're less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can't handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone.”—Dr. Sarah Thompson, MD"

"Dr. Thompson is Executive Director of Utah Gun Owners Alliance, www.utgoa.org..."

Try again.

Rather than attacking the argument, you attack the person making it; so you're making "an argument at the man." In Latin that would be argumentum ad hominem, wouldn't it? Or in this case, ad mulierem, but the principle's no different.

Would you be as supportive if Peets had a no breastfeeding in their establishments policy?

Aren't you embarrassed posting stupid shit like that?

With the ignorant, stupid shit you posted.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

:eyes:

Just sayin'... :evilgrin:

You may the right to carry, they have the right to say not in our stores.

I don't know why anyone would want to carry openly anyway. Especially an unloaded gun. You are an easy target for an armed assailant.

Also, in Cali, it's the only legal way to carry for a large portion of the population.

It still doesn't seem wise to openly carry a firearm that everyone else knows is unloaded.

and practice a little, it beats all heck out of a kind word and trust in the intentions of a criminal.

You can have loaded mags/speed loaders/etc, but they must be seperate from the firearm. I'll add a link to the law later, getting prepped for work right now.

I appreciate them making their ignorant viewpoints so public! Makes it easier for people to avoid their shops. ;)

What's more dangerous... concealed loaded handguns or unconcealed unleaded handguns.

are statistically far less likely to misuse their weapons than any other group of gun owners.

I'm for concealed carry. Open carry is like pulling your pants down and mooning someone. Many people get severely upset when they see someone opening packing heat.

I can easily conceal a large firearm if I chose. I can go anywhere and no one notices or cares. I'm just some polite older gentleman who is overweight and has a bad limp.

Why upset the sheeple.

It is in no way equivalent to "mooning someone", unless you consider such to be Constitutionally protected as well. (Come to think of it, I do...)



"Why upset the sheeple.'

Same argument used against any form of protest, and just as invalid here as for anything else. All those silly Civil Rights Activists, doing sit-ins, marches, mingling in public, writing and speaking... voting... riding busses...

Why would they want to upset the sheeple.....

We usually have a big crowd of 12 to 15 people and we always make sure to buy lots of stuff and tip well.


In places where people do open carry on a regular basis, people don't get all hystericaland pee themselves when they see a handgun.

Nobody starts bawling and shrieking when they see a person with a can of gasoline either, just as dangerous though.

...keep your guns off of their private property.

Emasculating, I know, but you can always take your business elsewhere.

Tesha

Tim lives in Virginia.

They certainly don't bring their guns on private property.

For the record I have no problem with open carry advocates. Though personally I find it kind of stupid - like a shoot me first sign. I'd rather carry concealed. But I live in PA where its a whole lot easier to get a LCTF than California.

But since we are shall issue, and it is no hassle at all to get the LTCF, most folks choose to conceal. With the exception of allegheny county. I saw a lot of open carry the last time I went through there.

But here in the south eastern side of the state there is very little open carry.

I do see it at my gun club as well at their functions. I know there is a big contingent in my area pushing it so I expect to see more of it. And yes I have heard of them being kicked out of malls & other retail establishments.

As I said, I'd rather not advertise I have a gun. That's a shoot me first sign IMHO. And I also recognize that it makes some people very nervous. I can respect that.

I wonder what you would say to the female open carriers (there's a few out there)?

It seems to be a much bigger deal with boys.

Tesha

why do you think they do this? To enhance their "masculinity?"

We can both agree, I think, that making assumptions about masculinity -- or any other phenomenon -- based on personal experience ("I've yet to meet one...") is a risky argument.

It has been estimated that women constitute nearly 30% of the gun-owning population, and also constitute a portion of the concealed-carry/open-carry population.

at least they are not purchasing firearms to gain masculinity, as this "result" is certainly not one I need (I've got plenty, thanks).

Otherwise, I would be interested in learning what these "fraudulent arguments" are. You can make a list, if you please.

One is the equipment rental place, they have a sign on the front of the bldg saying legal guns are welcome.

And this coffee shop http://www.dcculpeper.com/index.html , the owner has told me he would be eager to have open carry guys if it would bring in business. I don't think there are really that many people who want to sit around and drink coffee just because it is OK to open carry in his place, but I appreciate the thought.

When I was in the pharmacy the other day there was an old guy with a cane, a glock, and a big sheathed hunting knife stuck in his back pocket. Nobody fucking cares.

You want to act like there is some big scary problem where there is none. Being emotional and irrational is nothing to be proud of. Try to get somebody ELSE interested in your hysteria. We see guns all the time around here. It is no fucking big deal.

Some people are scared of hard boiled eggs, that doesn't actually make hard boiled eggs bad.

I'm quite calm; I think you folks are the ones who are "projecting".

Tesha

Property rights are very high on my list, along with firearms rights. That's why I believe in RKBA in the first place, to protect our other rights.

Now if I were in the area, being an open carry supporter, I'd just get the word out that Peet's isn't the kind of place where people should be spending their money, find a place that IS on board with self-defense and flood them with business and positive PR.

Here's a question for the legal beagles around here, being that I'm a little ignorant on the subject: Say a private business(for the purpose of this scenario, let's say it's a shopping mall) had a policy specifically allowing open carry. Could the police put a stop to that, so long as patrons conformed to state and local laws before leaving the property?

People here overwhelmingly mind their own durn business.

The nosiest anyone seems to get is "Hey, how do you like that (brand X firearm) there?", which generally sparks off a good conversation ranging from guns to books to the economy to solar power to.....

Whodathunkit?

But currently reside in Az (Thanks USAF!) and have family in Utah and New Hampshire. (I've also lived in Texas, Florida and N. Carolina) But yes, Arizona is pretty fantastic. If I had my way, the AF would move my base up near Flagstaff, but I'll win the Lottery 4 or 5 times in a row before that happens.

Now, if only I could get a relative to buy a house on the coast of California (after the state unfornicates itself) life would be damned near perfect.

Yeah, I'm greedy. And I sleep VERY well at night. :evilgrin:

Edit: The parts of Va I saw while I was in N.C., or on trips passing through were great! I have fond memories of the Norfolk area and the Blue Ridge corridor.

Unless it's because somebody gets uncomfortable at the mere sight of unloaded handgun?

In your answer, please cite studies which indicate masculinity is enhanced with a firearm, and how such a connection is expressed by females bearing arms.

SteveM

Thanks for confirming that I chose wisely when I went to Peets... Coincidentally then I was just wondering when I went there of which place to go would be more in line with my values...

It's a just a legal way of denying customers their 2nd Amendment rights.

And the above poster approves of that so they're in favor of denying people their rights when it suits them.

There are no rights to be denied.

Tesha

Would they be violating a right or exercising their private property rights?

Not that I am starting anything, I agree with the coffee shop, it is thier property, their rules and they have a right to hang a sign in a window.

Now if I have a gun, and see their sign I will respect it and take my business elsewhere.

If you don't think that's the case, try handing out NRA literature in a
shopping mall some time.

Tesha

protection from the government, not private people and places. So, as a supporter of the 1st Amendment You'd be against any establishment that bans the wearing of hooded sheets and racist tee shirts? You may not wish to wear those or be near people that do. Any one that disagrees with what a private place does has the right to disagree, and that is about it. I agree with that.

Or, at least, Nadine Strossen, the previous president doesn't. In an interview with Reason magazine in 1994 (http://reason.com/archives/1994/10/01/life-liberty-and-the-aclu), she stated:

Now, I hasten to make it clear that there is a distinction between a workplace or a a dwelling on the one hand, and a commercial establishment in which you are a customer on the other; you can choose not to frequent a commercial establishment like a coffee shop or a store, but, in practical terms, you can't choose not to go to work or to not have a home. The underlying point, however, is that in the case of privately owned property, the argument "it's my property, so I get to set the rules" cannot be accepted as the final word on the matter, and certainly not when the property is owned by a non-natural legal person like a corporation.

I think some Secret Service people might not like you asking for that either...

Personally, I'd like an atmosphere free of potential "messes" happening near me.

If he's in Virginia, and I walk past his house on the sidewalk, there's not a damn thing he could, should or likely would do about it.

"Personally, I'd like an atmosphere free of potential "messes" happening near me."

I sure hope you don't drive a motor vehicle, else you are in for a life of disappointment.

"Well, what happened was I slipped, then the empty gun went off bludgeoned him for five solid minutes."

If they're unloaded, they're just an ugly club.

"In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they're less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can't handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone.”—Dr. Sarah Thompson, MD"

Maybe you need a less-biased source? Personally, I think she's
"projecting" her own anger onto us.

Tesha

Is your temperament so frail you might have a conniption at the mere sight of an unloaded handgun?

:)

some establishments posted "no guns" signs.

I would call the management and tell them that I would comply with their rules. That meant that I would no longer purchase anything from their company.

After six months most of those signs disappeared.

Open carry is a different situation. A good percentage of the population fears firearms. Openly packing heat in many urban areas is obviously going to attract some negative attention.

I can easily conceal a large revolver or pistol. Why scare the anti-gun crowd. It serves no real purpose.

here in Kalifornia. Nobody issues CCW and you can't carry open and loaded.

Not "can be changed", you would be MUCH more accurate, if you used "is being changed". ;-)

Your map, and all the upcoming legislation around the US proves this...

It is not a "can be" anymore....It "is"...

Thanks to the Brady Campaign, and the VPC for making it so. By helping keep gun owners engaged, and angry over the years.

"While Peet's Coffee & Tea respects and values all individuals' rights under local, state and federal laws"

No, you don't.

And if I'm ever in the Bay Area, I won't be buying any tea or coffee from them.

If, as a company, you want to say "while this activity is perfectly legal, we don't want it in our store, and since it's our property, either stop doing it or leave," well, you're within your rights to do that. But don't give me this bullshit about respecting, let alone, valuing "all individuals' rights." At least have the gumption to be honest about it.

Be sure and advertise it widely.

Much hilarity will ensue...

in a slow economy. (Peets, that is.)

They'd have to ask you to leave first.
Of course, since the guns are *concealed* what are they going to do to find out who has one so they can be told to leave? Strip searches? Order everyone out of the building on a regular basis? Metal detectors?

I suspect that's the hilarity that was being referred to. The full blown freakout over who might have a gun hidden on them.

...where concealed carriers will be meeting at Peet's locations that do not have legally valid "No Guns" signs posted-we want to keep this legal, BTW.

Were this proposed action organized, I intend to go to the Peet's in Wellesley, Massachusetts and watch the fun.

Anything besides asking you to leave would be illegal on the part of Peets' management and leave them open to a lawsuit

Both situations could create hilarity, though.
I thought you meant to openly promote a meeting time for concealed carry at one of the places that has the sign posted and just not have anyone show up with a gun.
Then they'd probably channel McCarthy trying to figure out who was a "Gun Sympathizer." ("Have you ever owned a gun or known anyone that owned one? Ever seen a gun? Ever thought about firing a gun? Do you play violent video games?")
They'd either have to just shut down for the day, run everyone out, or get over it.

After a few times they'd probably end up just saying "Fuck it. Bring your ugly clubs and make sure they're unloaded or you're going to jail."

Edited to add: Either way, neither of us are advocating breaking the law. You're suggesting peaceful protest and I'm suggesting making a nuisance of yourselves for comedy purposes in a way that's sort of cruel, but not illegal. Even my suggestion further downthread of protesting outside with openly carried unloaded guns isn't illegal, as long as you don't actually enter the building.

With the caveat, naturally, that whatever Peet's they show up to *lacks* the legally required signage.
I mentioned the Wellesley Peet's as it has no such signage. Probably never even occured to them that CCW holders
are in there daily

(Note to non-Massholes: There are actually a couple of hundred thousand CCW licensees
in MA, most outside the larger cities. Wellesley is in the 'burbs)

1. If it has such signage, don't enter with a gun.

2. If it does not, go in, get some coffee whilst acting in a civilized manner and go home. Blog about it later.

I would like to see Peet's policy on guns made posted publicly in all their stores, if they choose not to change it.

...on your side of the argument.

Tesha

Most of your posts in this thread, including the first one, have contained gratuitous aspersions on the pro-RKBA crowd's masculinity, mental and emotional stability, etc. And then you get all huffy when other people give you the same treatment? I suggest you find a stepladder, because you need to get the fuck over yourself.

It's perfectly possible to get a frank but civilized discussion in here, but coming in throwing insults is not the way to get it.

and ad hominem attacks on a poster here. But I realize you're
used to people cowering away from your withering argumentation
so perhaps the distinction escapes you.

Tesha

When you paint with sufficiently broad brush to smear an entire "class" of people rather than a specific individual, you don't get to use an excuse like "well, I wasn't aiming for anyone specifically." The fact that you're too gutless to insult specific individuals doesn't make your behavior excusable; if anything, it makes it worse. The only difference is quantitative, not qualitative.

Please point out where in this thread you had a single fucking argument or point? Go ahead, I will wait.....

After a thousand+ posts, I'm sure you're familiar with it.

Tesha

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's their business, they can let whoever they want come in. (Within reason. Eg: Banning races, handicapped people, etc is out of the question.). They're under no obligation to protect my rights. Their obligation is to do what they think is best for their customers and/or to turn a profit. If they think banning open carry in their store is a good idea, that's fine with me. If they think the majority of their customers would be uncomfortable around a gun and want to prevent that, that's fine with me too. If someone was standing on a table railing on about how the holocaust was a lie, I'd expect them to kick their loud ass out too. The man (or woman) would have been well within their rights as far as the 1st goes, but the company is under no obligation to tolerate it if they don't want to.

I'm not sure how I feel about openly carrying unloaded guns. That seems like a pretty big invitation to get your ass whipped and your gun stolen.

If you *really* want to freak them out, just stage a polite and friendly protest on the public space outside their building. The sight of that many armed people (even if the guns aren't loaded) would probably empty the place in record time. And you'd be well within your rights as a citizen. No one's rights would be infringed at all.

I don't know how many tens of thousands of gun owners are on the list, I think it's about 30,000. Notify the business that since they are against gun rights we are making their position known to all of those 30,000 pro gun rights people, and that those people won't be customers ever again.

Occasionally the business owners get kind of freaked out at the idea of losing so many customers, but I don't recall any of them changing their position as a result, but it's probably happened

We have had a situation where we have a whole shitload of open carry guys go to a restaurant on a regular basis, right across the parking lot from where they were told they were not welcomed. It's funny watching us fill up a parking lot and cause a waiting list at a restaurant. The wait staff loves us.

you could do it unarmed and maybe even make more of an impact. A gun on your hip symbolizes coercion for a lot of people. Mostly people the protesters would be trying to convince they are not dangerous.

A sign held four feet up in the air sends a much more potent message than a gun on your hip, while the presence of the gun would undermine the meaning of a peaceful protest.

Have you watched the ABC7 video at the link? I tried to count the number of times he sweeps himself with the pistol, but he hardly ever points it away from himself. He's an accident waiting to happen, IMO. I cringed through the whole video. This is the kind of trained armed professionals that the antigunners trust with their guns, while they advocate banning ours?

I hadn't bothered watching any of the linked videos until you pointed it out, but yeah, that muzzle was all over the damn place. My drill instructors in basic training would have had a thing or two to say to that cop, the first being that when handling a weapon, you find a safe direction in which to point it (ideally at a solid backstop), and you keep it pointed in that direction. If you need to examine the weapon from a different angle, you move yourself, not the weapon.

Commonwealth vs Holland, Court of Appeals of Kentucky. October 5, 1956

"In our state the legislature is empowered only to deny to citizens the right to carry concealed weapons. The constitutional provision is an affirmation of the faith that all men have the inherent right to arm themselves for the defense of themselves and of the state. The only limitation concerns the mode of carrying such instruments. We observe, via obiter dicta, that although a person is granted the right to carry a weapon, a severe penalty is imposed for carrying it concealed. If the gun is worn outside the jacket or shirt in full view, no one may question the wearer’s right so to do; but if it is carried under the jacket or shirt, the violator is subject to imprisonment for not less than two nor more than five years."

Some folks, in some places, might get all wrapped around the axle and call the law, but most often it is a non-event. Cops rarely ask even the most cursory of questions of a person going about their business while openly armed.

Shopkeepers are within their rights to ask you to leave their establishment. You have the right patronize others. However, if the only intent is to stir up trouble, you'd get more reaction if you lit up cigarette.

They are a private business and can demand that no open carry will be allowed on their property.

If they were banning people who came in with signs that said: "God hates fags." I doubt anyone here would be objecting. This is no different.

If you don't like it, don't patronize them. If you want, protest peacefully outside the premises and you may convince them to change policy (G/L with that in SF)!

Absent discrimination of an inherent trait (race, gender, orientation) or specifically protected class (religion) they can do what they want.

I like open-carry protests. But asking the government to come in and force a private business to cater to your BEHAVIOR is the same tactic as asking the government to make it illegal to carry guns.

It's wrong, either way.

But that doesn't mean we can't mock their claim that "Peet's Coffee & Tea respects and values all individuals' rights under local, state and federal laws." Because clearly they don't. Which is fine, but at least have the common decency to be honest about it.

I can totally respect and value your right under the law and under basic assumptions of human rights to wear a t-shirt that says: "God hates FAGS," or similarly offensive stuff. I will defend your right to wear that t-shirt on public property or sympathetic private property to the bitter end.

But I'll throw your ass out of my shop if I see it. You have the right to say it, but not on MY property.

That doesn't mean I DON'T support your rights. I do. Emphatically. I just have a right to what I'll allow in my shop. Especially if it frightens away my other paying customers.

There is no difference whatever between wearing that shirt and openly carrying a gun that scares away my other customers and/or disrupts my business.

targeting them specifically. They caved, so now the BC is after Starbucks. If they cave, the BC will go after the next chain, and the next, and the next.

This is similar to the playbook the BC ran with when they encouraged employers to start randomly searching employees' cars without cause and firing those who refuse. The BC hates gun ownership and lawful gun use, and if they can't end it via legislation, they will circumscribe it as tightly as possible via corporate authority.

but that's the way it is. there's no solution to it but to fight it with more, better free speech and to shine the light on the Brady Bunch.

Remember, every time Sarah Brady cries, an Angel gets its wings.

the property under your feet, like the property under your car, always belongs to somebody else if it's not yours. When we allow property rights to trump civil rights out of hand, the biggest winners will be "people" who are defined by property. Corporations. It seems to me that the Bradys are a bunch of fascist dupes.

Okay, maybe some clarification of terms is in order before I proceed. First, let me make it clear that "not support" is not synonymous with "oppose," and that I read a bit more into the phrase "respect and value" than merely "tolerate somewhere else."


I'm not sure how to put this diplomatically, so I'll just try to say it as clearly as I can manage; my apologies if I come off as rather blunt.

If, as the owner of a business that is open to the public, you tell me that you support my rights as long as I don't exercise them on your property, that pledge of support is hollow, worthless. After all, your property is the one place that you have control over, and where you have the power to tell me I can exercise that right; you can't guarantee that I will be able to exercise my rights anywhere that isn't your property. It's an abject refusal to put your money where your mouth is.

And I'll acknowledge that that's fair enough; as a business owner, you can't jeopardize your income, or you're not going to stay a business owner for very long. So you place your customers' desire not to be offended (as you've said yourself elsewhere, nobody has a right to not be offended) above my right to freedom of expression. I'm okay with that, but don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.