Guns at Starbucks? Californians and Concealed Weapons.

[arnisador]

Guns at Starbucks? Pushing the right to bear arms in p (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0227/Guns-at-Starbucks-Pushing-the-right-to-bear-arms-in-public)ublic (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0227/Guns-at-Starbucks-Pushing-the-right-to-bear-arms-in-public)

Gun owners in California have been wearing their handguns in coffee shops and restaurants. The guns are unloaded and legal, but some citizens and police departments are wary. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0227/Guns-at-Starbucks-Pushing-the-right-to-bear-arms-in-public)



Small groups of armed Californians have been turning up at cafes and coffee shops with handguns holstered to their belts to raise awareness about gun rights and what they call unfair limits on concealed weapon permits.
[...]
California allows its citizens to openly display and carry unloaded weapons without a permit, but many gun advocates complain that the state is too restrictive when it comes to issuing licenses to carry concealed weapons.
[...]
While they can’t legally carry loaded guns, they can have ammunition as long as it’s not attached to their weapons.
[...]
“You can have a functioning loaded weapon in two seconds,” says LaTour.892 (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0227/Guns-at-Starbucks-Pushing-the-right-to-bear-arms-in-public)

[Jason Jones]

I understand Califiornia is very restrictive with there concealed carry, but I wonder how Starbucks is reacting to this also. I was told that Starbucks was anti-gun and my brother in law (a detective for the University police) passes on a part time job with Starbucks because they refused to allow him to carry his service weapon. The way he explained it, this was a company policy rather than an owner preference.

[arnisador]

It seems if he's already a legitimate LEO then they'd want him to have his firearm. I could understand if it was regular security, but that doesn't make sense.

[Jason Jones]

I thought it was a little bizzare also. It may have been a managerial issue but he was told to leave the gun at home. Needless to say the part time job didn't work out and he still has to pay full price for his coffee

[arnisador]

Stores Land in Gun-Control Crossfire (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704541304575099433593489048.html)

'Open-Carry' Proponents Target High-Profile Chains to Test Public Acceptance, Triggering Backlash (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704541304575099433593489048.html)



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.

[PG Michael B]

Cal me a TEXAN..lol...but leave it to a Cali yokel to walk around with an unloaded pistol. I understand that many at STARCLUKS do in fact need a plucking (there coffee and service suck ass) ... .gees...where I come from thats akin to taking a shower with a rain coat on....IMHO the story dies right there....

UNLOADED pistol indeed.....I see a major SNAFU fixin to hit some one square between the blades!

[pguinto]

michael b,

in cali, the pistols have to be unloaded, however, (i believe) one is also allowed to carry full clips along with the gun.
ive seen photos of people in starbucks with pistols and clips on the same belt

okay so you have to fumble a lil bit before being live,
but hey, its better to have a pistol and readily available full clips nearby, than not to have them at all, correct?

also keep in mind that simply having a pistol exposed will in all likelihood keep predators at bay,
it is well known that predators go after weak or defenseless prey,
a guy with a gun pretty much means, you can try to frak with me, but im likely to fight back,
why go after a potentially dangerous mark when there is easy pickins all around

[PG Michael B]

in cali, the pistols have to be unloaded, however, (i believe) one is also allowed to carry full clips along with the gun.
ive seen photos of people in starbucks with pistols and clips on the same belt

By time you retrieve said magazine and get it placed into the clip, chamber a round, aquire target, and squeeze the trigger you may be dead.


okay so you have to fumble a lil bit before being live,
A bit?...That's more than a bit...that's a lifetime when under duress. How many people packing the empty roscoe do you truly think have good training where aquiring the clip and getting into rock n roll mode is second nature? If I were a betting man I'd say few if any. Most people who purchase a firearm do minimal training..outside of popping paper targets and taking a CCL course. The habits of mag aquisition..shooting and moving..loading on the move etc. are crucial skills to have but in a situation where you are under fire and still have to get to your ammo to save your ass is to me plane idiotic. Unless of course your planning on chucking that hunk of metalat the perp!



but hey, its better to have a pistol and readily available full clips nearby, than not to have them at all, correct?
On paper perhaps...but when rounds are singing down range at your butt and your still trying to aquire the mag will not be as easy as it souds..on paper. There are things called fear, adrenaline dump, panic, shock etc. that will come into play and could severely hamper your magazine retrieval not to mention hampering ones ability to draw breath.

also keep in mind that simply having a pistol exposed will in all likelihood keep predators at bay,
Here again..PERHAPS...but if the law states people can do this and bad peolehave access to this knowlwedge as well what then holds them back from taking the chance...criminals lives are geared on taking chances...criminals thrive on chances. So in my opinion the brandishing of an unloaded firearm is akin to flipping a coin in crunch time when your life may be on the line...50/50 are crap odds if ya ask me.


it is well known that predators go after weak or defenseless prey,
No argument there


a guy with a gun pretty much means, you can try to frak with me, but im likely to fight back,
NO, a guy with a loaded pistol and skills comprable to the task at hand lead to this presumption..a guy with an empty pistol in time of need will be hard pressed to do much else except fumble, holler, shite his chinos and possibly die.


why go after a potentially dangerous mark when there is easy pickins all around
I agree, why..but then again people have been asking that same question about bad guys foe years, why indeed? No one knows why these creatons do what they do or choose who they choose...it is plug gone zap in their maggoty brains that cause them to roll the way they do.

Like I said I am from Texas... I keep my rocoe loaded 24/7 and when I am packing her she is strapped down with 14 + 1 .45 CORBON 230 grn hollow points.....there will be no fumbling for mags etc...you wo't see my pistola but when she slides out smooth as butter she is coming for work..no other need to pull her..if she is coming out she is going to work...here in lies the PROPER TACTICAL HANDGUN, SHOTGUN, AND RIFLE TRAINING....not just popping at paper targets.....

my .02 Cents

[pguinto]

All reasonable points, MB, but i must ask:
Should an incident occur, which would be preferable?
A) to have a weapon nearby which you might have to fumble with (eg folder), or
B) not to have a weapon at all

The question is by no means rhetorical, but i prefer the former; imo it's better to die preoccupied and having tried, than not.
However, i wouldnt haphazardly carry a lethal weapon anyway without some sort of plan of action and regular practice.

dalawang centimos ko

[arnisador]

All reasonable points, MB, but i must ask:
Should an incident occur, which would be preferable?
A) to have a weapon nearby which you might have to fumble with (eg folder), or
B) not to have a weapon at all


I have to agree...they're taking the strongest legal course of action (and are trying to get the law changed so they can have them concealed and loaded). For now, if they're being personally jumped it's one thing, but what if they're in a building and an active shooter enters? As long as they're not the first one or two people targeted, they now have a chance.

I often carry a folding knife. I know a fixed blade is better for many reasons, including quicker deployment, but I have to live and work in the real world.

[PG Michael B]

Should an incident occur, which would be preferable?
A) to have a weapon nearby which you might have to fumble with (eg folder), or
B) not to have a weapon at all

Of course a weapon is preferable. My gist is on the idiocy of carrying one unloaded. If I had my druthers I would carry concealed and loaded even though I am bucking a ridiculous law. Keep your damn mouth shut, pack your piece, mind your business and be ready if it goes bad. If one leads a decent life the odds drastically go down on the possibility of usage in a fray. AS to the folder reference..learn your folder and fumbling will be a nixed preoccupation!

Now onto B...somethimes not having a weapon is good enough. I train to keep my empty hands as nasty and dirty as I can...simple and deliberate brutality that can be as nasty as a weapon can be. If the opportunity opens up then the empty hands will definitely take the lead. In my opinion empty hand skills are a skill set that ust be honed...night after night!


The question is by no means rhetorical, but i prefer the former; imo it's better to die preoccupied and having tried, than not.
I prefer not dying........so what ever I gotta do to keep up above ground I'm down!...lol



However, i wouldnt haphazardly carry a lethal weapon anyway without some sort of plan of action and regular practice.

I agree...Piss Poor Preperation leads to Piss Poor Performance .... And to think..there are more and more half cocked half witts than actually prepared people....and it is true..some folks should never own firearms...NEVER!!!! :)

[pguinto]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/03/armed_and_ready_to_shop.html


Elm Grove, near Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Other customers stare as Nik Clark and Kim Garny do their weekly shop at a large upscale supermarket. It's hardy a surprise as a TV camera is trailing behind their trolley. But people would do a double-take even if the BBC weren't in tow. In some ways Nick wants them to look.
There's a revolver amid the ravioli, an automatic among the avocados.
Like cowboys out of Westerns, the couple carry handguns on holsters on their hips. She has a Smith and Wesson .38 special with a cute pink grip that makes it look almost like a toy. He has a rather more chunky Glock.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/opencarry1.jpgWisconsin Open Carry (http://www.opencarry.org/wi.html). Groups like this have been springing up all over the States in the last year and they've been making an impact in the last week or so, getting Starbucks in California to agree people should be allowed into their coffee shops carrying guns. The groups are made up of people who want to make a point about the Second Amendment right in the Constitution to bear arms, by bearing them openly. Some want to make a point and test whether or not private firms like shops and restaurants recognise that right.
The movement is slightly different in the state of Wisconsin where concealed guns are banned. Nick says wearing a gun in a visible holster is the only way he can carry a weapon legally and he wants others to be aware of their rights: he doesn't want to confront but to convert.
"You have a right to self defence and open carry is a great deterrent. It's about personal protection," he says.
He's a beefy guy, with bulging muscles, so I ask: Isn't he rather intimidating when he's armed as well?
"I've been open carrying for about a year and most people don't notice, or some might make a comment. It's a demonstration I am a law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to hide. Criminals never open carry."
He says that his group respects property rights and if a shop doesn't want their custom and they are asked to leave they are happy to do so: they don't want to patronise that business. But he says most big companies know the law and have a policy that allows them to shop armed.
Kim says for her it is all about self protection: "I can guarantee if I am going to my car late at night and someone sees me carrying a gun they won't make me a victim."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/opencarry2.jpgBut Nick says he is also making a point: "I want people to see me and have a level of comfort, to know that if they are out walking their dog it is OK to carry a gun, if they are walking to their car after work it is legal to carry a firearm."
When Obama was elected many gun enthusiasts expected the tightening of laws. Many of those in favour of controls expected Obama to increase regulation. As a senator he had always been in favour of restrictions on guns. But it seems thing are rather going the other way.
Last year a ban on carrying concealed weapons in national parks was lifted. In Virginia politicians are likely to change the law and allow people to buy more than one hand gun a month.
The supreme court is pondering whether to declare the 28-year ban on handguns in Chicago unconstitutional. They will take months before coming to a decision but observers who've watched the case carefully believe they will rule against the ban, with huge implications all around the states.
In Wisconsin, Open Carry is taking legal action against the rule that bans handguns within a quarter of a mile of schools. The supreme court judgement could have a bearing on that.
Still, when I meet around 30 people from Wisconsin Open Carry over lunch at a big restaurant there is a feeling that their rights need protecting. There are grandparents and mums and little children, and all the adults are armed.
Most tell me that this is mainly about protection but what they refer to as civil rights comes a close second. A couple of people tell me it is the other way around: the politics comes first. One man, whose name I don't catch, says he doesn't feel very threatened in suburban Wisconsin but it is about resisting the encroachment of the last two administrations, it's about not giving in to big government.
Matt Slavic, sitting next to his little granddaughter, observes that outside the United Nations is a sculpture of a gun, its barrel twisted in a knot. "The Second Amendment gives teeth to the rest of the constitution, it keeps tyranny at bay. I do feel it is under threat, not just from within the USA but from the UN - their small arms treaty would restrict hand gun ownership in the United States."
Several people tell me the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, underpins the first, freedom of speech. One of those eating with a gun at their side, John Laimon, goes further: "It's not about guns, it's about civil rights. It's growing because of the plain fear about inadequate politicians. They cut down guns but they've got bodyguards. Our rights are under fire."

[arnisador]

Did people see the series on this in Doonesbury recently?