Peets Coffee and California Pizza Kitchen Prohibit the Open Carrying of Firearms in their Stores

30 Comments

Ken • Jan 29, 2010 @2:35 pm

This is completely correct and straightforward application of property rights. I approve, though I am a strong proponent of individual Second Amendment rights.
Jason! • Jan 29, 2010 @2:55 pm

I think it's worth noting that I couldn't tell if that was a CPK sign detailing their position, or a sign done by the open carry in a private business proponents. I'm kind of bummed to find out it's the latter.
Daniel B • Jan 29, 2010 @3:22 pm

It makes sense except that it doesn't. Private carriers, especially lobbyists, tend to know what they are doing with firearms, and just having them there decreases the chance that any criminal activity is going to happen.

Frankly, it's completely legal what they are doing, but totally dumb.
Brian Dunbar • Jan 29, 2010 @4:17 pm

It's a dumb idea in a ideal universe. As Daniel noted, people who openly carry are gonna be law abiding, responsible adults.

This isn't an ideal universe: shop owners are going to be nervous about alienating the 99% of us who don't open carry and get all nervous about e-vil firearms and worry about lawsuits and a decrease in trade.
Ezra • Jan 29, 2010 @4:19 pm

See, to me in an ideal universe one wouldn't feel the need to bring a gun to get coffee…
Patrick • Jan 29, 2010 @4:23 pm

People who would openly carry in a restaurant are freaks.

I know that if the guy at the next table is sitting there with a piece on his hip, I'm going to stare at him through my entire meal as I would if he had a swastika tattooed on his forehead.

I'm more likely to eat at California Pizza Kitchen now, to show my support for their stand in favor of the 99.9% of customers who don't want to think about the guy with a piece at the next table.
tim • Jan 29, 2010 @4:31 pm

I don't understand people like Patrick who are so irrationally afraid of guns. And nice going Goodwined the thread. You are clearly delusional equating those that carry guns with Nazi's. Get help.

Saying that California Pizza Kitchen is perfectly within their rights to enact this policy. But lets be honest here – it doesn't improve safety. At all. Its a PR move only. A magical sign or written policy does not keep someone who is going to break the law from breaking it.
bw • Jan 29, 2010 @4:55 pm

"People who would openly carry in a restaurant are freaks.I know that if the guy at the next table is sitting there with a piece on his hip, I’m going to stare at him through my entire meal as I would if he had a swastika tattooed on his forehead."

And how many OTHER applications of the label 'freak' have you encountered in your life? I bet that you wouldn't support the LEGALITY, let alone the propriety, of a restaurant restricting access in such a way to spare many patrons the sight of their personal definitions of freakhood.

Ken is correct that it's a perfect application of property rights. Would he support full extension of those property rights to all the possible reasons an establishment might turn away some patrons to accommodate the sensibilities of others?

Food for thought.

It's pretty simple – it's every bit as much a perfect application of property rights for this group to refuse to spend their money at establishments whose policies they dislike, and let the market sort it out. What's more interesting is why this is an acceptable means of handling this one thing that makes some customers uncomfortable, and not others.
Ezra • Jan 29, 2010 @5:03 pm

Given that California's open carry law says the carried weapon can't be loaded how exactly is that making me safer? Also, given the lack of training required to open carry why should I assume I'm safer with any yahoo brandishing a weapon?

When the open carry folks met at a Starbucks in November, there was actually a 911 call made about armed people at the coffee shop. Face it, the average person is not accustomed or comfortable with seeing firearms openly brandished on main street. I think that's a healthy viewpoint.
Ken • Jan 29, 2010 @5:04 pm

bw, I suspect that you are implying that recognizing the property right to exclude people carrying guns is inconsistent with refusing to recognize the property right to exclude, say, Asians or Jews or gays.

That's entirely arguable. Many people have made the point that anti-discrimination laws violate libertarian principles. I'm not trying to pick that fight. For now, leaving that argument aside, there is no law saying that businesses cannot exclude patrons based on their possession of guns. Though I understand some states (Texas?) have discussed passing such a law — which law would have the same philosophical legitimacy as anti-discrimination laws.

Also, I suspect that Patrick is having you on, to a certain extent. However, though I have owned guns, I too would view someone carrying one openly in a CPK with concern.
SG • Jan 29, 2010 @5:26 pm

Hmm, I don't feel like the "banning open-carriers is like banning black people" idea is arguable. A guy who usually open carries and wants to go inside a CPK can always leave his gun at home. A black man cannot (most of the time, anyway, and not in any convenient manner) "whiten" so he can enter a place where black people are banned.

Without taking sides, it seems to me that this decision is perfectly fair. These restaurants make the choice not to have open carriers on their premises, and the open carriers can choose not to go to these restaurants (or they can choose to, leaving their guns at home). It's like these places requiring patrons to wear a correct dress because they feel sloppy dresses wouldn't please their other posh patrons. It's their right, and it's the right of anyone to feel that this is stupid, and thus to avoid going there.
Chris • Jan 29, 2010 @7:12 pm

"But lets be honest here – it doesn’t improve safety."

I somehow doubt anyone in this particular dustup is actually concerned about safety. CPKs don't have a reputation as being a particularly unsafe place. Even if you assume that people with visible unloaded handguns make a place safer, it's not going to make any sort of difference at the margin.

I have nothing against guns, and I would probably be uncomfortable with a visibly armed person at the table next to me. Either he knows something I don't know, and I'm in a far less safe setting than I thought I was in, or he's crazy enough to think he needs to bring a gun to a chain pizza place.
whomever • Jan 30, 2010 @7:06 am

Suppose that Officer Smith's wife (who until a couple of years ago was an officer herself, before she quit to be a full time Mom for the twins) is one of the rare Californians with a carry permit, and she wants to carry because of the threats to kill her and her kids that former 'clients' have been making.

The problem with blanket bans at Post Offices or restaurants or wherever is that they make no allowance for the Ms. Smith's of the world.
TomH • Jan 30, 2010 @7:16 am

This restriction is more like No Smoking, than No White Folk Allowed. Second hand lead poisoning is hurty.
piperTom • Jan 30, 2010 @8:19 am

Patrick says "people who would openly carry in a restaurant are freaks." I'll bet that both he and the restaurants make an exception for people wearing certain gang colors. Say a blue suit with stripped pants and a shield shaped patch? …or maybe just big letters "FBI" across the back?

In an ideal universe, there would not be such gangs and no people "more equal" than others.
Chris Mallory • Jan 30, 2010 @4:32 pm

I hope Patrick realizes that the NRA is one of the biggest gun control organizations in the US.
Gun supporter • Jan 30, 2010 @11:31 pm

To be banned and never had been there is the subversive and dasterdly work of the BRADY BUNCH CAMPAIGN How could we be banned if we had not been there yet. The BRADY BUNCH STRIKES again with their lies and missleading statements California Pizza kitchren you suck How dare you discriminate against law abiding citizens. I hope the NRA sends out a memo with all you unpatriotic vendors on I will never Patronize your business again.
ZK • Jan 31, 2010 @4:09 pm

My impression is that the "No Carry in NRA HQ" myth is just that; I've talked to more than one person who visited and posted that they were open carrying while doing so, and were told there's no such "No carry" policy.
Al • Jan 31, 2010 @4:46 pm

I can't tell if Gun supporter is supposed to be satire or not.
Jdog • Feb 1, 2010 @7:47 am

Face it, the average person is not accustomed or comfortable with seeing firearms openly brandished on main street.

I think that's clearly not the case, assuming — as seems clear from the context — that by "openly brandished" you mean "carried, unconcealed, in a holster." It's very common, across the US, and rarely seems to result in any noticeable discomfort. Granted, most of the folks who carry openly in most places also carry badges of some sort, but open carry is very, very common.

That said, of course, it seems to me that this pizza place is entirely within their rights to discourage open carry at their location. That's unwise of them, but people often have the right to do unwise things.
Randall • Feb 1, 2010 @9:34 am

I can't speak for the NRA headquarters, but the a local gunshop I frequent has a sign on door reading as follows: "If your first name isn't Officer, you had better not bring an uncased gun in here."

The proprieter, a very decent old man, is rabidly pro-gun – but won't let anyone bring a gun into his gunshop unless it is in a case, which only he (or another employee) is permitted to open. I brought in an old rifle to sell a while back, and since I didn't own a case for it, he sent an employee out to get it out of my car and carry it in for me.
bw • Feb 1, 2010 @10:43 am

Actually, an open carry law that doesn't permit weapons to be loaded actually makes it LESS safe. People become accustomed to seeing holstered weapons, which makes it easier for the bad guys to openly carry into an establishment, knowing they're the only ones whose weapons are loaded.
Ed • Feb 2, 2010 @8:14 am

I think it is a great idea. There should be a database of all the shops and businesses that do not allow a firearm.

That makes it much easier for the criminals to decide which ones are the safest to rob.

"Banning" firearms from college campuses and post offices worked so well.

Remember, it isn't a gun free zone if you get shot in it.
Al • Feb 2, 2010 @3:12 pm

That’s unwise of them, but people often have the right to do unwise things.

Unwise in what sense? Do you really think they'll loose more business from the open carry crowd then from families who won't want to show up at a restaurant with a bunch of people packing? Heck, I was in the Marines for eight years and can probably field strip any weapon they're carrying and I would find somewhere else to eat, especially if I were with my kid.
Base of the Pillar • Feb 2, 2010 @8:35 pm

California protects the 2nd and 4th Am! W00t!

Interestingly, I wonder if the opponents of the recent Citizens Utd vs FEC believe that Peets Coffee & Tea should have protected property rights, being the corporations that they are, such that they are able to prevent an individual from exercising his/her right to bear arms.
Abdul • Feb 3, 2010 @1:02 pm

Are you sure about the NRA HQ?

NRA headquarters has a shooting range on the first floor. I've taken a concealed carry class there. I've also seen the museum, and didn't see any "No concealed carry" signs.
Jody • Feb 3, 2010 @2:37 pm

I too was at NRA HQ within the last few months (actually there for a different business that happens to share the campus – whod a thunk it?).

I saw nothing about not bringing guns into the building and several signs about their shooting range.
Jody • Feb 3, 2010 @2:40 pm

In fact, here's a link to the range website…
http://www.nrahq.org/shootingrange/nrahqrange/
Chad Reston • Mar 8, 2010 @10:41 am

Boycott Watch says the boycott will hurt Peet's and they backup the claim.

http://www.boycottwatch.org/misc/peets01.htm
PLW • Mar 8, 2010 @12:34 pm

I'm not sure what you mean by "they backup the claim." They certainly claim it multiple times, but don't actually give any evidence. Want some (weak.. but better than nothing) evidence to the contrary.. check out Peet's share price over the past month.

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:PEET