Armed criminals now find safe haven at gun-free Starbucks!

CEO Announces Policy Disallowing Guns

Keith Farrell

            Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced Tuesday that the coffee giant will no longer allow firearms to be carried in its stores.  In an open letter to Americans Shultz asked costumers to leave their guns home.  Not wanting their employees to confront people carrying guns, the CEO said the store wouldn’t institute an actual ban, but would urge costumers to heed their request.  The move comes after numerous pro-gun rallies were recently held at Starbuck locations.  Gun rights advocates coordinated a Starbuck’s Appreciation Day last month which encouraged people to patronize the establishment locked and loaded.

Howard Schultz: No More Guns at Starbucks Stores

      The announcement fell on the same day as the tragic shooting at DC’s Naval Yard that left thirteen dead.  Despite the coincidence, Shultz stated the event had nothing to do with their announcement, instead stating that “The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.”  Advocates of gun control had recently organized a Skip Starbucks Saturday, though Shultz claimed the event had no impact on sales and the move was not profit related.

The issue brings to light civil rights issues which can conflict with private property rights.  Recently Korean nightclubs in New York City have taken heat over the exclusivity.  The privately owned clubs try to maintain a Korean constituency, so Koreans may interact and dance with other Koreans, speak their native tongue and attempt to recreate an environment reminiscent of Korea’s nightclubs. Is this discrimination?  On one hand, they are discriminating against people based on race and nationality.  On the other hand, they are on private property and have freedom to associate or not associate with whomever they choose.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act made it illegal for private property owners to refuse entrance or service based on race.  Such acts of discrimination, it was deemed, were violations of Americans’ civil rights.  However, the Second Amendment clearly states that bearing arms is also an American civil right.  If federal law can force private property owners to serve people regardless of race, to uphold their civil rights, could the same not apply to discrimination of costumers exercising their Second Amendment rights?

Regardless of the private property issues, Shultz has made a move which may make some costumers more comfortable but in turn makes them more vulnerable.  Yesterday’s tragedy in DC marks the sixth mass shooting in America in the past six years.  All of them occurred in gun-free zones.  Mass murders intent on inflicting maximum damage seek out soft targets where they will meet no resistance.  Whatever Shultz’s motives, broadcasting this move makes Starbucks a defenseless target.