Open Carry works!

Open carry is totally effective as politcal activism, which is why California banned it after many OC demonstrations and Starbucks has just issued a statement saying “guns are not welcome here.”

We actually dragged Starbucks into this, because they were perfectly happy to leave us alone and take our money, but because we confused a neutral stance on the issue with actual support and started carrying slung rifles in to coffee shops, now Starbucks is saying “enough is enough.”

Good job, open carry advocates.


  1. Oh jeez not this trope again. If exercising a right gets it banned, then it was just defacto banned until it was dejure banned. That’s the situation in California. And in fact because there is an open carry ban, their restrictive may issue ban will be easier to challenge in the courts. So its a win either way.

    And if exercise the right to carry into Starbucks made them change their policy, they had the wrong policy to begin with.

    Its really simple, honestly.

  2. Realistically it does sound like Starbucks is making a declaration of neutrality. We will honor the law of the land just keep us out of your argument and please don’t plan rallies at our stores.

  3. If you stand for something and support that stand….then starbucks and many more like them will not get those that ‘really’ care about ..somethings…business and money…..PS ..imho there is NO middle ground or compromise on this issue….to say otherwise..makes you a candidate for public office…for if you do not stand for a creator given natural right..then you stand for nothing…….but hey that is just this 1 man’s values and opinion…Semper Fi

    1. They -did- really stand for something. They stood for following state law and resisted the efforts of the anti’s to change that policy.

      What forced them to this was people who already had the absolute right to exercise normal open carry in their stores using that right not to carry normally, but to rub that “victory” in the faces of the anti’s.

      I have zero patience for anyone who OC’s a thigh rig or long gun claiming they are “normalizing OC” who doesn’t use that same system and weapon every damn day. If they only do it at events, they are attention whoring, not being normal, by definition and that can only -ever- possibly have a negative outcome.

      After all, once you have the right, you can’t get more of it.

  4. I always thought that the California thing was a ploy to set up their legal challenge. Their first case pushing concealed carry failed because crappy open carry was allowed.

  5. So naturally for you, the guys carrying slung rifles into Starbucks appropriately defines anyone supporting open carry.

    Nicely done, Senator Feinstein.

  6. SD3,

    Oh no you don’t, you don’t get to misstate what happened to try to evade blame for the idiots who bear 100% of the fault here.

    Starbucks had -zero- problem with customers open carrying normally while they came in to get a cup of coffee or a bagel. That’s how you “normalize” carry, by carrying -normally-.

    OC -activists- showed their ass by using Starbuck’s neutrality to rub that “victory” in the anti’s faces. They dragged a business that was doing the right thing into the gun debate by carrying long guns into Starbucks to take pictures and hold rallies. The last straw was likely when a group of particularly stupid and tone-deaf OC assholes chose to schedule and -publicize- a rifle-carry event at the Starbucks in Newton last month.

    If a given locale recognizes the right to OC the way to then normalize that OC is to -not- hold rallies but simply to dress normally (not in 2A gear, just the clothes you’d wear to work or church) and go about your everyday business (not to places you wouldn’t go normally) while armed with the gun (almost certainly a handgun) that you carry every day, not just on special occassions, without in any way calling attention to oneself.

  7. That’s right, Matt. Supporters of open carry are entirely at fault here. 100%.

    Starbucks was looking for an opportunity to re-direct policy. If it wasn’t event, it would have been something (ANYTHING) else. You may now resume kowtowing to your progressive betters.

    1. -Again- with the misstatement, how about dealing with my -actual- point?

      I said nothing about “supporters of open carry” being to blame: I support open carry, I open carry.

      What I don’t support is assholes with an agenda forcing a business that stated multiple times they did not want to take “sides” and merely abide by state law to take sides by not open carrying in a normal way (the way they carry everyday) but instead using that business as a venue for their attention-whoring and to rub their “victory” in the anti-gun rights faces.

      Where OC is legal -and- tolerated, what -exact- purpose is gained by not simply open carrying as part of one’s normal day (which is how you “normalize” anything) but rather driving to a business simply trying to sell some over-priced coffee to people who like chain stores, taking rifles and shotguns out of your trunk and then parading around for a while for the cameras, then putting the long guns back in your car and driving home to not openly carry them until the next time your ego needs stroking?

      What possible -upside- can be claimed by a rational person? You -have- the right, exercise it like a normal person and get on with your life.

      We had -won- already. Starbucks liked our drama-free money better than the anti’s histrionic not-spending. The planned and publicized OC AR-15 event in Newton directly changed that math.

      Our own drama-llamas screwed that up, there was no other cause, and those idiots don’t get to hide under the mantle of the competent pro-OC movement.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: