Update -- A Starbucks Representative contacted me and said "there has not been any policy change and Starbucks follows the laws of the state and municipalities they are located in"
They also said "this has been a misunderstanding and apologies go out to any customers this may have inconvenienced".
See -- Starbucks gets a thumbs-up in Wyoming
Original Article ------------------------------------
National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea recently wrote an article in which the Brady Campaign is petitioning Starbucks to ban firearms. Is it possible that Starbucks is experimenting here in Wyoming before making sweeping policy changes?
The problem - a member of Wyoming Gun Owners stated:
“After I purchased my beverage I was asked to remove my firearm from the premises”.
It would appear that Starbucks is taking a clear path to ban firearms in Wyoming locations. I can say this because of my own conversation with the store manager "Matthew" at the Casper location, he stated that "unless you are Law Enforcement no firearms are allowed in the store", he said he read this from an internal company web-site. He also said that he has confirmed with his Regional Manager that Starbucks has a “no firearm policy”.
Another interesting statement by the Manager is he stated - “I own guns but why would anyone want to carry them around women and children”. The Manager also stated that Starbucks corporate office called him but only to verify his conversation with he had with me not to assert policy, we can assume by the corporate office actions that they have intentions of banning firearms.
Lastly, I received a call from Casper Police obviously directed at me by the Starbucks store manager, Officer Cook gave me the usual private property speech to which I told him I understand, he also asked me “why is this such a big deal”, to which I said I'm just trying to get to the truth.
The question of the day is, has the Casper Police become an agent of Starbucks?
With Wyoming being a state with the highest gun ownership per citizen and given the slow economy, actions against lawful gun owners is probably not one of the best business decisions Starbucks could make here in the Cowboy State.
End of original article ---------------------------
Update -- A Starbucks Representative contacted me and said "there has not been any policy change and Starbucks follows the laws of the state and municipalities they are located in"
They also said "this has been a misunderstanding and apologies go out to any customers this may have inconvenienced".
See -- Starbucks gets a thumbs-up in Wyoming
.gif)
Comments
Mickey D's is cheaper and gun friendly.
This is just another example of Starbucks ignorance of the constitution and marxist political attitude. They will continue to not get a single penny out of me. I never bought their stuff anyway...
After reading Davids and Kurts( St Louis GRE) articles on this matter, i think here is an interesting question, Arent these Franchised Stores , bought from the parent corp(Starbucks) and owned by a seccond party, could this be a case of the franchise owner making that choice and not any policy of Starbucks themselves? What i have usually found to be true is that the owner of the franchise , is usually the one with the issues such as this , and usually they hold other franchises in the area, maybe we should find out who owns the Casper stores franchise and boycott anything they own since they choose to discriminate against , people lawfully exercizing their rights. Private property rights considered of course.but i know i wouldnt be patronizing anything they own if i knew who it was. i can let my purchasing power speak in that manner.
Just did a quick look , Starbucks does Not Franchise , so that makes my response moot.
Very interesting... I don't come to Casper very often, and I don't like Starbucks coffee (or the prices) anyway, but those of us who do might be sure to let this manager know... as well as the national company.
Keep digging, Anthony.
And as for carrying a gun around women and children, the only objection I'd have is if they didn't have their own! Age and skill appropriate for the children, of course. But any woman who isn't armed is a darn fool. And yes, even in Wyoming!
I guess I am going to have to eat my words of praise based on the other article and avoid starbucks. If this is company policy all over the country then we should be avoiding all the stores. I never carry in public but if I felt the need I would not want someone telling to me to leave. Again armed citizens prevent crime in and around the stores they are in.
“I own guns but why would anyone want to carry them around women and children”.
Sooooo..... Does the manager ask the cops to leave their guns in the car when women and children are in the store? Just askin'. ;-)
Further.... Just what is Starbuck's national policy about regular folks being armed on their property? One story says they like it. One story says they don't give a darn. One story says they don't allow it. I'm a CCW holder in the Sunshine State. Just to be on the safe side I'm staying out of Starbucks until the national management makes their corporate policy a little clearer.
Here's an interesting tidbit for you, in the state of wyoming there is a law that towns cannot further regulate firearms than the state statutes. however i'm not certain of the property laws but my guess would be as long as there is no alcohol on the premises and its not a federal building it cannot restrict open carry of firearms.
Why did you not ask Officer Cook why he was making such a big deal out of it? After all, it wasn't any of his concern since you were obviously in Starbucks with permission right up until they got your money. Then he asked you leave and you did. So, Officer Cook had no business at all calling you. So, why did he "make such a big deal" out of it?
Call him back and ask him.
So let the women & kids that are afraid of Guns patronize starbucks. The rest of us can do without their hi priced java anyway. In Wyoming Starbucks will surely regret this decision
& in many other states likewise....
According to an article posted by the Contra Costa Times on 2-5..."Starbucks does not have a corporate policy regarding customers and weapons; we defer to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding this issue," Starbucks' customer relations department said in response to the Brady Campaign's request.
PERHAPS, the article here, or more likely store Manager Matthew mistakenly placed the "a" before the words "no firearm policy?"
Why the visit from officer Cook? Somebody at the store who is too insecure to address an issue themselves and leave it at that, dropping dime to report a "threat," thereby creating automatic hassles with law enforcement for a law-abiding citizen that the caller disagrees with.
Matthew said, “I own guns but why would anyone want to carry them around women and children”. Because they are the most vulnerable Matthew. So, we protect them.
Most outrageous item in this? The store was most willing to take the customer's money, THEN saying must leave!!!
"I own guns but why would anyone want to carry them around women and children."
As a gun-carrying woman, attitudes like this make me want to vomit.
I personally am not a gun owner/carrier but I do live in wyoming have been raised to use a gun, even I am afraid of a few local citizens here in Casper that carry firearms, as a woman I hesitate especially at a meeting place like Starbucks which is a very family friendly store. I think that anyone who beleives they should carry a gun for protection isnt helping anyone... if you know how to use a firearm and are comfortable with it then why cant you take into consideration someone who isnt? I'm not saying i completley agree with Starbucks and everything they do but when was the last time you purchase wholebean coffee from folders to profit a ceo in california, where as starbucks all their coffer comes from third world countries... i think helping needy families and children should come before boycotting a company? I mean if they were local you'd want to protect them by carrying firearms right?
I am split. I carry a gun, and have for over 10 years. I believe that since mass shootings only seem to happen in "Gun Free Zones", that whole argument is a crock. But on the other hand, if a company (NOT A GOVERNMENT!) wants to ban them on their private property then that is well within their rights. To say that I would no longer spend any time or money there goes without saying. Free enterprise means that I will go where I am welcomed and will patronize what stores I want. My two cents.
Some of these comments defy logic. "Why would anyone want to carry them around women and children?" Are you kidding me? This person says they are a "gun-carrying woman". So, why do YOU carry? Oh, or maybe she only carries in places where there aren't woman and children? This is insane. I carry so I can protect my family, and your's, from your own IGNORANCE if you ever happen to be in a shop when it is robbed by armed criminals. The police will show up and take a report, clean up the blood, and hopefully find the criminal. Rarely does Law Enforcement PREVENT a violent crime. In the mean time, you and/or your children are now DEAD. So, why would I want to carry? I've seen death and carnage up close and personal, and I don't want MY family to be a part of it, especially if I have the means and wherewithal to STOP it.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!