Blogs Mar 3, 2010 at 8:19 am


It's an odd nonsequitur at least both ways, Will: banning guns from a business establishment = not allowing law abiding citizens to defend themselves? Um... wha?

Starbucks can do whatever the hell they want, but I can choose to not support a business that allows Wild West behavior by paranoid, insecure men who don't get laid enough.
Hmm, I just carry concealed; I figure it's nobody's business but my own. Problem solved.
Like Maurice Clemmons was going to obey a "no guns in our establishement please" sign.

While open carry in a coffee shop (or anywhere public) seems just weird, concealed carry is not, and I bet in most crowded coffee shops it is a pretty regular, and unknown to anyone else, occurrence.
"I compile a list of things that distract me at Starbucks, average-looking guys with handguns are far down the list..."

This illustrates nothing except that you don't know how to prioritze dangerous items.

@2 -- That makes sense.
Liberals need to rethink this one.

The law is open carry. (btw anyone can, the permit is to be able to carry concealed, duh.)
I believe if lots of gun owners started to open carry, most people would be freaked out and this would lead to stronger gun control support. And it would lead to some nut in a Starbucks going up to the happy NRA clan members and pulling out one of their guns and shooting them quickly, before any of them could draw, probably hitting a few bystanders and kids too.

THEN we'll have gun control.
Washington Ceasefire needs to shift the focus away from Starbucks and towards the insecure, juvenile goofballs that want to run around everywhere brandishing a gun. We wouldn't even need to ban guns if they were only owned by sensible grownups instead of these paranoid gun nuts.
And the ones who want to carry a hidden gun are ten times creepier than the ones carrying one openly. Crazy ass Taxi Driver motherfuckers.
Not a problem for me. I patronize the lingerie barista shack behind Wade's gun shop.
I am astounded to see this perspective on Slog. Bravo. You and Mudede should fight after school.
"Open carry" has meaning in gun law and Washington does not allow this. So writing that those with permits here can "carry handguns openly" is somewhat misleading.
The example of the police officer shooting is actually an example of why banning open carry won't help anything. If a nut case is going to get a gun and shoot innocent people the laws wont stop him. What he did was already illegal, shooting people. You don't need to ban open carry since it won't prevent criminals from committing crimes. It will only make a few gun-shy people FEEL safer without actually making them safer.
Sorry about that. I just assumed this was a local issue. I read the article and see this open carry debate is really just in the states that already allow it.
@10 I would imagine that those with concealed carry permits are also allowed to carry openly.
I am still amazed by the NRA types that wet their pants whenever they see somebody "scary" when they do not have their guns.

The last thing I want is a bunch of civilian pinheads trying to shoot somebody they think is a bad guy. Police usually have uniforms- not to mention training- so they can frequently tell the good guys from the bad guys. A bunch of guys in civies shooting at other people in civies because of a hunch, and then everybody else joining in, does not sound like law and order to me.

I am sure the police are really supporting all these great carry laws.
When I compile a list of things that distract me at Starbucks, average-looking guys with handguns are far down the list, below "loud cell phone talkers" and just above "freelance blog writers monopolizing the only table next to an outlet."

To each their own but I feel exactly the opposite. Seeing an armed civilian walk into a cafe would be far more upsetting and distracting to me than the petty BS you cite. Perhaps that's because I know that an armed civilian walking into a cafe is probably some gun-nut trying to make a point and there's nothing "average" about that.

""Open carry" has meaning in gun law and Washington does not allow this."
I do belive in general it's legal to open carry, just not to brandish, if you know otherwise please cite the RCW and thanks in advance for setting the record straight.

If you can.

" So writing that those with permits here can "carry handguns openly" is somewhat misleading." Hmm, the point was you don't need a permit to carry openly in Washington. So anyone can open carry, in general (eg not 5 y.o.'s, felons, not bazookas, etc.).

That's why it's called a "concealed weapons" permit, dude. It's not called a "weapons permit." We do not have a big gun control regime here where you need a special permit just to own or carry, IMHO, and by the way that would violate our state's very clear individual right to bear arms. "Bear arms" = "open carry," got it?
but by all means if you got the RCW to show I'm wrong, and you've got the Washington supreme court case that somehow declares this kind of law constitutional, in the face of a constitutional provision for an individual right to bear arms for self defense, you're free to cite 'em and receive our thanks for illustrating that our common terminology ("'concealed' weapons permit") makes no sense and is deceptive.

But I doubt you do.

@13: The laws on that vary from state to state. That's not always the case.

@14: Deep sigh. There's some truth to what you say, but even so, most cops support private ownership (and carry) of guns. I do, however, wish there was a little bit more training required before Joe Civilian was allowed to carry. Little things like "don't shoot someone who's only trying to steal $50 in cash from the cash register" and "be aware of what (and especially who is standing behind the guy you're shooting."

That said, cops are not exactly a paragon of marksmanship and training either, for the most part. Most departments view guns as one of the least-important aspects of the job.
We tried that open carry thing but it didn't work so well.
@10 so the right to bear arms means the state can ban openly bearing arms?

Open carry is legal in Washington. (See 2005 FISHORMAN v. ELLENSBURG ruling.)

Except: "It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons."
(RCW 9.41.270)

So don't play with it in public.

pointless blah blah

"its WAY too late for gun control in america"
-steve earle
@19: Most states do ban open carry, yes. That may change in June after the McDonald decision, though.
I have mixed feelings about open carry (mainly as an issue of tact), but am glad that Starbucks is going along with the state law. In my admittedly limited experience with open carry folks, they like to be a little provocative, but are at least fairly knowledgeable about firearms. They aren't the ones you have to worry about shooting you. It is the criminals who don't obey "no gun" signs...

(Remember when they made pot illegal and pot went away? This would be just as effective!)

The anti gun groups are losing the legal battle, so instead they are just trying to publicly pressure companies with "think of the children" crap.
I don't really see the point of carrying a gun into a Starbucks (is it a comfort thing? A bravado thing? A phallic thing?), but I've never seen it as that big of a deal. Like Amnt says @23, those aren't the ones you have to worry about shooting you.
So I can pack a pistol when I go get a latte, but I can't buy lawn darts? Where's the justice in that? I want my damn Jarts!
Personally, I would not give my business to any establishment that allowed people to carry guns inside.
Given what happened at the Georgetown Starbucks, I think the employees should be carrying, too.
I always carry a speargun or a harpoon.
Customers tend to self-select. If a "regular" at an establishment is uncomfortable around people with face jewelry and tatoos, he will tolerate a few who drop in to check the place out, but will find another place when the newcomers reach a tipping point. Hang outs slowly shift customer bases that way. The gun carriers will make their point at Starbucks, and move on - maybe take their kids to McDonalds.
@26, you've been giving your business to establishments that allow people to carry guns inside for as long as you've been alive.

Unless their is a clear NO GUNS sign on the outside, businesses remain neutral about it, as Starbucks has for its entire existence. All these people who are now suddenly concerned about guns at Starbucks, what have they been concerned about for the last 30 years?
Sigh. For those of you who would not patronize an establishment that permits it's customers to carry a concealed weapon, chances are you already do, and with no ill effect. If the weapon is concealed, then you don't know about it, so really any one over the age of 18, to the casual observer, might have a gun on their person. Why maybe even that small boned middle aged white lady by the condiment bar!
Good point, Schmucky. Statistics show that, on average, one out of every 10 people you encounter has a gun concealed on them (whether legally or illegally). You're rubbing elbows with armed people everywhere you go, every day, whether you know it or not.
What is this, ostrich-style see no evil theory? If I can't see your gun, I don't have to worry about you getting all crazy with your gun, right? Just avert your eyes if you don't want to see someone's weapon.

Guess who ALWAYS carries concealed? Off-duty police officers. Now they won't be going to Peets cause they can't bring the guns that are always in their purse/pocket/holster. I'm sure that will keep Peets' customers much safer. Peets might as well advertise their "self-defense-free" zones.

Late, but @ 7: you and I have met, (last year at Slog Happy) and I must say I am kind of flattered that I struck you as so an intimidating a figure as Travis Bickle. :)
@30 FTW

Also, you obviously let highly trained special operations military personnel into a coffee shop with a ball tip pen, those guys are much more dangerous than your average inexperienced gang member packing a gun that they've probably only fired once in their life, if they were lucky.

Also...when you add in PTSD into the Special Op officer's past I would be much more afraid of the pen.... just sayin'
id kill for a baked potato with sour cream right now
This is not a state law issue, it's a "public accommodation" issue. The state restricts some indecent exposure, but doesn't require the wearing of shirts in public. But Starbucks can prevent people without shirts from being on their property. The state cannot (under the state constitution) unduly restrict the individual right to bear arms, but Starbucks can prevent people from carrying firearms on their property.

Unless they can't. For example, under antidiscrimination laws, Starbucks, as an establishment open to the public, can't prevent Muslims from coming on to their property.

So it's really up to Starbucks, and their customers. I expect in gun-happy states, people will patronize a Starbucks that permits firearms; in not-so-gun-happy places, not so much.
kk, there's no such thing as a "not-so-gun-happy" place. There are places where it's less legal than others, but guess what? People just break the law more often there.
Obligatory Godwin's law reference.
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.- Adolph Hitler, April 11 1942
Why would I be "Intimidated" by an insecure nut case who needs a gun to get enough courage to leave the house? People who are well put together can be intimidating if they have some reason give you a hard time, to but gun nuts are just nuts. Sad, yes. Creepy, yes. Intimidating? No.
Those cwazy gun nuts! They will NEVEW be satisfied, will they?

Well, to all those who think only crazy white men with masculinity issues carry: I'm female, mixed race, married to a man who is a minority of another race, pro-gay marriage, pro-affirmative action, etc. And yet, I'm a gun-owner I would concealed carry if my city allowed it b/c my job puts me in touch with some sketchy people (whom I'm trying to help) and b/c I don't trust the government to protect me (b/c they tried to eradicate my ancestors!)

Being afraid of cops and the government is NOT some wacky right-wing position. The range I frequent is populated mostly by minorities, many of whom are liberal. Shockingly to some of you, there are quite a few gay male couples who are out there every weekend. If you talk to them, you find they don't trust the local cops to come help if they are the target of violence. Given what just happened in Forth Worth recently, can't say they are irrational on this.

Personally, given that the "minority" side of my DNA is from a native tribe that the white government tried to eradicate while white society sat back and let it happen, I think I'll keep my ability to defend myself in my hands rather than to trust all you caring people to put your lives on the line for mine.

For those of you who trust cops to carry around a gun but not me: Are you nuts? I'm better trained and better able to make a decision on whom to shoot than most cops. I shoot every week b/c I'm responsible about it. Many cops I've known only shoot when they have to pass their annual test. As for judgment: I wouldn't shoot someone just b/c they were a "scary-looking" black man, even if they were a gang-banger. Cops are notorious for shooting people b/c of how they look, instead of what they do. Ever heard of Rampart Division? Amado Diallo? (sp) The guy shot int he back by the Bay Area Transit Cop? You really want to use cops in urban areas as the measure of gun safety and wise decisions on when to shoot? Really?

WRT to the Seattle shooting, I don't know those cops, don't know how well trained they were, etc. I can tell you I know a lot of cops, and almost all of them are piss-poor shots. The training they get is woefully inadequate. Some cities take this more seriously than others, but most cities don't make shooting accuracy a priority It's really about a very minimum level of competence. (I know, I've been through the training!). So their inability to defend themselves says nothing about anybody else's ability to do so.

Oh 40, it was a joke! If you don't immediately recall who I am (because really, it was over a year ago) look at my profile picture. I'm a tiny little middle aged lady and in no way intimidating! Look at the stuffed mouse sticking out of my purse for heavens sake! Indeed, a motivated eighth grader could kick my ass, and having been the victim of assaults both physical and sexual I have made the the considered decision to upon occasion exercise my right to carry a concealed weapon. Does that make me intimidating? No, since when I do carry a gun it is concealed. Is it sad that the world is such a place where I feel the need to protect myself from predation? Yes. Does that make me creepy? I hardly think so, but you are welcome to your opinion. :)
40-Attitude means NOTHING in the face of a physically superior opponent. In those cases, only superior weaponry and the training to use it matters.

My ancestors intimidated the hell out of all the other tribes around them. They were badasses. Some of the bands would have made the Vikings look like nice people. And yet, when the US government and white settlers came in with guns, their badassery didn't count for anything until they wised upthey armed themselves with the weapons of the white man.

Given that women are inherently physically weaker than men and that an armed person is weaker than an unarmed one...and that there are plenty of bad people with illegal guns out there, Lissa is not insane in choosing to own a gun. (So long as she knows how to use it and could psychologically do so when faced with that decision).

Anyone who says they can be intimidating enough without one has NEVER stared at the face of a hardcore, muscled criminal who wants to kill them and could do so b/c he's big, mean, and serious about the threat. (Goes with my job. Sometimes trying to help the poor and oppressed of America's urban core pisses off people who want them to stay poor and oppressed).

Every time I hear someone say that no one needs guns for self-protection, I have to wonder if they live in some "white" middle-class or upper class enclave. I have to wonder if they have ever been threatened by someone who could have killed them. I wonder if they realize the cops won't protect you and have no legal duty to protect you. (SCOTUS has said so on more than one occasion).

You can choose to defend yourself in other ways. You can choose to patronize stores with gun bans. It's your choice. It's a perfectly sane choice as well.

Just because there are those out there who have had other experiences and make other choices does not mean they are crazy or that they are "insecure nut cases".

Of course, it's much easier to make ad hominem attacks than to deal with the issues. In that regard, many of the posters on this comment thread are no better than the crazy religious zealots who oppose gay marriage.

And a previous poster is correct- most cops I know actually want private citizens- particularly women and ex-cops/ex-military to carry- because they know they can't be there in time in 90%+ of the cases where they are called. It's just physically impossible. And when they are too late, they get irrational public hew and crying about incompetent cops.
See Lissa. My point exactly:

There has never been a need for anyone at Slog Happy to whip out a gun to defend themselves against anybody's sharply-worded opinions, or their bad haircuts, or their carelessly spilled drink. The threat level there is at what we could call green.

Yet here you are, running around in a bar with a gun, which could get you arrested or somebody seriously hurt. Why? Because of baggage you carry around from the past, not because you are thinking rationally or acting responsibly. And that is typical of gun owners. For every gun owner with a logical need for a gun there are 50 with what we could charitably call unresolved issues.

And the debate over gun law pretends that it's about rights or freedom or some bullshit like that when it's really about people with psychological scars. What a fucking mess.
We live in days when we cannot board an airplane if there is a snow-globe in our checked luggage.

Let's all just be wrapped in ridiculous fears.

Bans on handguns give us no more protection than making drunk driving illegal.

And yes, I am one of those small-boned white chicks who carries concealed, and have since I was twelve. It's just the way I roll.
We live in days when we cannot board an airplane if there is a snow-globe in our checked luggage.

Let's all just be wrapped in ridiculous fears.

Bans on handguns give us no more protection than making drunk driving illegal.

And yes, I am one of those small-boned white chicks who carries concealed, and have since I was twelve. It's just the way I roll.
Elenchos you are assuming facts not in evidence nor in my post. I said that:
"I have made the the considered decision to upon occasion exercise my right to carry a concealed weapon." The important words are "considered" and "upon occasion".
I do not carry all the time. I carry when I am or will be in a situation that I consider shows an increased danger to my safety. For example, working late at a theatre costume shop that was located in Pioneer Square. In that situation, I carried a gun.
I don't carry in a bar as that would be illegal, so rest assured you were safe from me when we met and will be again if I can ever manage to get to another Slog Happy.
The one thing I think should go without saying is that if one chooses to exercise the right to carry a firearm. Then one is responsible for getting trained in legality and safe and ethical use of deadly force. I have been a ccw holder for over a decade and can sate that everyone that I know has done likewise takes the responsibility of being armed seriously. And yes I consider myself a liberal. I just choose to be able to protect me and mine if needed as opposed to being a victim.
where did this "open carry" movement (if you can call it that) come from anyway? government has not been cracking down on, nor has threatened to crack down on, folks who carry guns in public any more than in recent years past, am I wrong?

I'm all for gun rights, even for assault weapons, but what is it with this country, that the potential for random violence, and the need to defend against it, is on the minds of so many people? as opposed to more positive thoughts?
My local NBC station did a segment at my store. You can see me ring the guy up lol.…
The real question is, as far as I'm concerned, why do Americans want so bad to own guns? Huge parts of the world, generally referred to collectively as the civilized world, have banned private gun ownership, and you know what? There are very few of them dying from gun wounds, unlike in America. If no one has a gun, then who needs to defend him/herself from people wih guns? Bitch all you want, but the numbers don't lie.
elenchos is just another privileged white hetero male making assumptions about why people would want to protect themselves. Must be nice to feel so safe.
Why can only Law enforcement be proficient with weapons? I put as many rounds down range as most City of Seattle officers do. I can test and pass their training requirements for yearly qualification. Still if my head is in my Coffee talking about TV last night to my friends, in condition white, no amount of training laws or wishful think will save me from a determined practiced assailant. Please be responsible for yourself and your own safety in which way is most comforting to you. For me it's a .45 I'll call the police but have you ever had a busy tone?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.