[GarandFan]

Helmke said: Under the law, Starbucks has the right to adopt a gun-free policy ...

Gee, Mr. Helmke. Under the law, the people have the right to bear arms.

Good stuff ... their voice is getting ever weaker.


Tell Starbucks: Keep Guns Out of its Coffee Shops

Dear GarandFan,

Over the past few months, more and more gun owners have been gathering at restaurants and coffee shops like Starbucks with guns strapped to their hips, intimidating fellow patrons.

Businesses can legally prohibit guns from being carried in their establishments – and so far, Peet's Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen have heeded customer concerns and barred the open carrying of guns.

But Starbucks is refusing to prohibit the open carrying of firearms in its stores, despite protests from loyal customers.

Click here to sign the petition to let Starbucks know that you want them to stand up for the safety of their customers and adopt a nationwide, gun-free policy in all Starbucks stores

Because of Starbucks' refusal, the Brady Campaign has teamed up with CREDO Action to tell Starbucks to keep guns out of its coffee shops.

The practice of packing heat in places like Starbucks is intimidating and could be potentially dangerous to our families and communities – and it must be stopped.

It's everyone's right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns, either concealed or openly carried.

Under the law, Starbucks has the right to adopt a gun-free policy, with an exception for uniformed police officers. Such a policy can easily be implemented in most cases by putting up signs at store entrances.

We need to tell Starbucks to bar guns in its stores. These individuals who have been carrying guns into Starbucks have all the firepower of a SWAT team, and none of the law enforcement training.

Please sign the petition to Starbucks today!

Paul Helmke, President
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

[Sigma]

I just sent them a messsage. Everyone should send them one. I stated in my letter that if a law abiding citizen walks in with a firearm on his side to me its the same as a police officer.
i asked them not to bow to their demands. click here to contact Starbucks

[Xwing]

Sigma, on 04 February 2010 - 03:58 PM, said:

I just sent them a messsage. Everyone should send them one. I stated in my letter that if a law abiding citizen walks in with a firearm on his side to me its the same as a police officer.
i asked them not to bow to their demands. click here to contact Starbucks

Email sent! We need to be vigilant in contact companies that do right and praise them, just as we are in contacting companies that try to suppress our rights. Hopefully they will get more pro-gun email than Brady bunch email.

[1957Human]

Quote

"It's everyone's right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns, either concealed or openly carried."

I'm going to petition McDonald's to keep gang bangers out of their restaurants when me and my kids are there. My feeling of "intimidation" should override their rights, shouldn't it?

Quote

"These individuals who have been carrying guns into Starbucks have all the firepower of a SWAT team, and none of the law enforcement training."

If a "SWAT" team carried the same weapons allowed civilians, it wouldn't be a "Special Weapons And Tactics" unit now, would it? And who's to say any particular CCW holder doesn't have any of the training an LEO gets?

Thanks for the good laugh, GF. These control freaks do sound more desperate all the time.

[SirMatthew]

Xwing, on 04 February 2010 - 04:10 PM, said:

Sigma, on 04 February 2010 - 03:58 PM, said:

I just sent them a messsage. Everyone should send them one. I stated in my letter that if a law abiding citizen walks in with a firearm on his side to me its the same as a police officer.
i asked them not to bow to their demands. click here to contact Starbucks

Email sent! We need to be vigilant in contact companies that do right and praise them, just as we are in contacting companies that try to suppress our rights. Hopefully they will get more pro-gun email than Brady bunch email.

I agree, we need to support Starbucks on this. I'll send an email now.

Funny how hypocritical some people can be with their "right to..." message. How about having the "right" to own a business and set company policy in accordance with the law without worry of having to appease special-interest groups?!

[Templar223]

Personally, I'm more inclined to take that message and store it in the old memory bank then do a feature in a couple months on how impotent dipstick and the Bradys are that yet another "initiative" they launched ended in failure.

That's the danger in launching these initiatives and I'm more than happy to "remind" folks about their failed effort down the road.

John

[illinisnare]

I love it.... It's like wanting to keep c.carriers out of bars, but twice as insane. OMG - they may get all hopped up on coffee, chai, or scones - pick a fight a shoot up the place!

[dan]

I fine very tall people intimidating also. they should be restricted from the coffee shop. you never know when a tall guy might go crazy with too much caffeine

[Silver Guardian]

I've never been a fan of Starbucks, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I may have to start patronizing them.

[pyre400]

Sigma, on 04 February 2010 - 03:58 PM, said:

I just sent them a messsage. Everyone should send them one. I stated in my letter that if a law abiding citizen walks in with a firearm on his side to me its the same as a police officer.
i asked them not to bow to their demands. click here to contact Starbucks

You took the words right off of my fingers. I purchased a lb of coffee every month, and have been a starbucks customer since 1997 - they're a good outfit.

Helmke needs to visit for a few months at the "Albert Ellis Institute", and have his issues addressed.

[Drylok]

There they go again making up rights. I don't see in the 1st ten amendments where it states the right of the people to not feel intimidated shall not be infringed. I do however see where it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I am so sick of people using the term "rights" so loosely

[Matt H]

Well very nice. I shall be heading there tomorrow morning for a Tall black coffee and show my support with $$.

[05FLHT]

I saw the same story on The High Road. A lot of people, myself included, sent Emails in support of their stance.

[junglebob]

I found an interesting post on the Arizona forum at opencarry.org

A guy says "I can't say I've encountered one negative OC (Open Carry) encounter in the Tucson area. And I usually carry a large black evil looking handgun.

I visit the usual Lib-minded people hangouts: Borders Books, Sweet Tomatoes, Beyond Bread, Starbucks, etc.

Phoenix Starbucks doesn't prohibit carry I understand. It's probably all these Arizona Starbucks that are giving the Brady Bunch fits.

[Tvandermyde]

FSA seems to be tryign amp up the volume on this issue.




Businesses & Residents Can Defeat Open Carrying of Guns
Opinion by Freedom States Alliance
(15 Hours Ago) in Society / Guns Over the past year, gun proponents have accelerated their efforts to normalize abnormal behavior by encouraging more and more gun owners to pack heat in family-friendly locations. That is why it has been especially encouraging to see that in California local businesses are fighting back.

In January, the brazen actions of members from Bay Area Open Carry triggered a 911 call to police when the open carry advocates showed up with firearms strapped to their hips at a Peet’s Coffee & Tea in Livermore. Peet’s has since posted a policy banning customers from openly carrying in their establishment.

Following on the heels of Peet’s swift response, open carry advocates cancelled a February 6th planned gathering at California Pizza Kitchen (CPK) after CPK’s communications department sprung into action by releasing the following statement:

CPK does not allow guests other than uniformed officers to display firearms in our restaurants. CPK is a family oriented restaurant and the comfort and well being of our guests is a top priority. We are concerned that the open display of firearms would be particularly disturbing to children and their parents.

The same open carry extremists are now testing the waters at the local Starbucks.

The swift actions by Peet’s and California Pizza Kitchen provide an effective blueprint for stopping the gun lobby’s dangerous agenda in its tracks and helps us to raise the alarm that the gun lobby’s agenda is bad for families, bad for communities and even bad for businesses.

The real world implications of carrying guns in public are chilling. Consider:

-- Sipping hot chocolate with your toddler at Starbucks while a fellow patron openly displays a loaded gun at the table next to you;
-- Attending a child’s birthday party at an Outback Steakhouse restaurant when you notice two men walking through the restaurant with guns on their hips;
-- Shopping at the local Walmart when an argument breaks out among two patrons, one of whom has a weapon attached to his belt.

Unless this is the kind of world you want for you and your children, we need to support local businesses like Peet’s and California Pizza Kitchen for taking a stand. We need to rally together, stand firm and voice our outrage over the gun lobby’s extremist agenda.

We also need to demand that the over 40 states that allow some form of open and concealed carry in public places repeal these reckless laws. Afterall, allowing a small group of armed gun owners—versus trained law enforcement officers—­­to make potentially life and death decisions about where and when to use a gun in public places like restaurants, playgrounds, theaters and parks is a frightening prospect.

The gun lobby likes to pretend that only law abiding citizens obtain permits to carry and that openly carrying guns in public locations like Starbucks makes us all safer. What they fail to mention are the numerous shootings that take place each year by legal gun permit holders like George Sodini, a systems analyst at a law firm, who shot and killed 3 women at fitness center in Pennsylvania in 2009.

Despite this fact, the gun lobby will persist in their campaign to arm more people and fill our communities with more guns…no matter the cost to society or to our nation’s sense of safety and well being. That’s why communities across the country must take a firm stand.

We urge you to voice your outrage if an open carry event comes to a location near you. Call your legislators, your friends, local businesses and the local newspaper and let them know that guns do not belong in public places. This is a cause worth fighting for and there is much we can do together to stop the gun lobby’s deadly agenda.

[Tvandermyde]

http://www.mercuryne...ews/ci_14343847

Starbucks: Bring on the guns
By Janis Mara
Contra Costa TimesPosted: 02/05/2010 05:04:57 PM PSTUpdated: 02/06/2010 05:28:56 AM PST
var requestedWidth = 0; if(requestedWidth > 0){ document.getElementById('articleViewerGroup').style.width = requestedWidth + "px"; document.getElementById('articleViewerGroup').style.margin = "0px 0px 10px 10px"; } Starbucks has brushed aside a request from a gun control advocacy group to ban the display of guns in its retail locations, saying it will abide by laws that allow patrons to openly carry unloaded weapons.

The national Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence made the request in the wake of a series of meetings in local restaurants over the past few months by Bay Area Open Carry, a group that hopes to make it legal to carry loaded guns in California. Peets Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen responded to similar requests by banning displays of weapons in the companies' coffeehouses and restaurants.

"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.

The head of a local chapter of the Brady Campaign was disappointed by the response.

"I don't want someone who carries a gun into a store to be making life-and-death decisions. I don't think it's safe for them to be there," said Griffin Dix, who leads the Oakland-Alameda County chapter, which has more than 500 members and other chapters in San Mateo and Contra Costa counties.

The Brady Campaign has sent e-mails to its approximately 180,000 members nationwide suggesting that they e-mail Starbucks asking the coffee giant to create an anti-gun policy.

[GarandFan]

Todd, thanks for not hot-linking to those FSA pricks. It seems that all the gun ban groups are now consolidated on the same page ... pouring all their shrinking resources into the same efforts. I would bet that most of the FSA website traffic is on account of second amendment supporters.

[GarandFan]

Here is NRAs statement regarding this "stunt" ... it's quite good.


http://www.nraila.or...ad.aspx?ID=5367

Maybe Brady Campaign Should Switch To Decaf
Friday, February 05, 2010

The hand-wringers at the Brady Campaign must have figured out what the rest of us have known for quite some time. Having been rendered all but entirely irrelevant, at least for the time being, the group is resorting to weird publicity stunts, in a vain attempt to again be taken seriously by its former not-so-secret admirers in the national anti-gun news media.

Last month, the group gave President Obama an “F” for “failed leadership” on gun control, accusing him of “squandering” the opportunity to push for tighter gun control laws. Now it’s attacking Starbucks for allowing people to carry firearms in its stores as provided for by state law.

Get this doozie: “It’s everyone’s right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns,” the Brady Campaign says, in its modern rendition of FDR’s famous “freedom from fear” quote.

Not surprisingly, while the Brady Campaign easily fabricates a “right” to feel free from fear, it angrily scoffs at the right to self-protection by encouraging its minions to sign a petition demanding that Starbucks establish a gun policy more restrictive than state law. “I demand that Starbucks stand up for the safety of its customers and prohibit guns in your [sic] retail establishments,” the petition reads.

A call to Starbucks has confirmed what was pretty obvious on its face. The company is in the business to sell coffee, not jump in the middle of a Brady-generated squabble that state law has already resolved in favor of the right to carry firearms, in certain circumstances. Starbucks also isn’t in business to help Brady get its name in the paper.

The Brady Campaign’s resorting to this kind of silliness is understandable. It was once the most influential anti-gun group in town, able to claim some of the “credit” for the temporary imposition of the federal handgun waiting period between 1994 and 1998 and the federal “assault weapon” ban between 1994 and 2004.

But in recent years it has experienced the longest losing streak in gun control history. The waiting period has expired in favor of the instant check system. The 1994 gun ban has expired. The number of Right-to-Carry states has continued to rise. The list goes on, at the federal, state and local level. And the group’s core arguments about the Second Amendment were rejected entirely by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. President Obama even signed bills into law which included provisions allowing the carrying of firearms in national parks according to state law, and protecting the sale of surplus military ammunition components to the private sector.

And today, the media’s gun control darling is not the Brady Campaign’s leader, former Fort Wayne, Indiana mayor Paul Helmke, who spends his time blogging about gun control on the Huffington Post website, where members on the fringe gather to rant about mainstream America. Today, the leader of the gun control movement is billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who spends his time (and money) as mayor of America’s most influential city.

Gun owners who like coffee ought to drop Starbucks a line and respectfully encourage the company to stay above the fray into which anti-gun activists are trying to drag them. Click here to do so. As for the Brady Campaign, let’s hope things continue at the present rate. If they do, before too long we’ll have to explain who the group was, before it was forced to close its doors for lack of interest.

[GarandFan]

Dimwits Helmke and Henigan have teamed up for this latest article ... in Huffington Post, of course. They have taken this one step further ... a full-blown criticism of Starbuck's, including calling them "deeply disturbing." Now that the Brady's push against them has been brushed aside by the company's answer ... here is what the Brady Duo has to offer:

Here's the problem with that answer: generally speaking - and certainly in California - businesses have the right to bar guns on their premises. It is their property and, just as they can prohibit entry by people with bare feet, they can do the same for people with guns.

Despite its response, Starbucks clearly does have a policy and it is one that should be deeply disturbing to the vast majority of its customers.

Starbucks has apparently chosen to allow civilians to carry semi-automatic pistols and possibly even assault weapons into its stores.

Such a policy is disturbing to law enforcement officials as well as Starbucks patrons.

So I guess just because they might be able to do something, the Brady's insist they MUST. I am not sure this escalation is going to turn out the way these guys want. Not satisfied with pissing off millions of gun owners ... now they decide to piss off major corporations.




Guns And Starbucks: Espresso Shots, Not Gunshots
by Paul Helmke and Dennis A. Henigan
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Posted: February 8, 2010 06:58 PM

What would your reaction be if you and your kids walked into the local Starbucks and, while contemplating the choice between a latte and a mocha cappuccino, you noticed several fellow customers had semi-automatic pistols and ammunition magazines hanging from their hips?

This scenario has become more than a flight of imagination. In several communities in California, and elsewhere, it has become reality.

Welcome to the "open carry" movement, an effort by "gun rights" extremists to foist their interpretation of the Second Amendment on the rest of us by openly carrying handguns in public places. While virtually all states have at least some minimal restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons, few states do anything to regulate the "open carry" of firearms.

Particularly in the Bay Area in Northern California, "open carry" adherents have been gathering in Starbucks and other coffee shops and restaurants -- their semi-automatic pistols and revolvers in plain view -- apparently to make an ideological statement.

The sight of such gun-toters in Starbucks reminds us of the incidents last summer, when anti-Obama protestors appeared at political events and "town hall meetings" with handguns and assault rifles openly strapped to their bodies -- including events attended by President Obama himself.

The "open carry" folks view this as "normalizing" their self-defined "right" to carry guns with them at all times wherever they please, regardless of its impact on public safety. But what about the rights of everyone else who wishes to be free from lethal weapons in public places, except for trained law enforcement?

Surveys show that the presence of more guns in a community does not make people safer, or feel safer; indeed, it has the opposite effect. Studies show that the more guns there are, the more gun violence there is in that location. In addition, 80 percent of those who don't own guns say they would feel less safe if more people in their community acquired guns; only eight percent would feel safer. Even among gun owners, roughly equal proportions would feel less safe if more people had guns versus those who would feel more safe.

Take the reaction of one coffee shop customer in San Ramon, California when faced with a group of pistol packers: "I'm scared. I'm getting out of here. They say they want to make a statement. What's wrong with a T-shirt?"

The "open carry" gatherings provoked an immediate reaction from Californians who were appalled that coffee shops and restaurants would allow guns on their premises. At least two national chains have responded responsibly.

For example, Peet's Tea & Coffee stated that its policy "is not to allow customers carrying firearms in our stores" unless they are uniformed law enforcement officers. It also indicated that it would post a notification of that policy in all its stores and would call the local police for assistance should a customer display a firearm in the future.

After being alerted by local chapters of the Brady Campaign about a scheduled "open carry" meeting at one its Northern California stores, California Pizza Kitchen issued a statement that it "does not allow guests other than uniformed officers to display firearms in our restaurants" because of its concern "that the open display of firearms would be particularly disturbing to children and their parents."

But now we come to Starbucks. When asked about the company's policy on the "open carry" of firearms in its stores, its Customer Relations Department responded to the Brady Campaign's California chapters that "Starbucks does not have a corporate policy regarding customers and weapons; we defer to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding this issue."

Here's the problem with that answer: generally speaking - and certainly in California - businesses have the right to bar guns on their premises. It is their property and, just as they can prohibit entry by people with bare feet, they can do the same for people with guns.

Despite its response, Starbucks clearly does have a policy and it is one that should be deeply disturbing to the vast majority of its customers.

Starbucks has apparently chosen to allow civilians to carry semi-automatic pistols and possibly even assault weapons into its stores.

Such a policy is disturbing to law enforcement officials as well as Starbucks patrons. As a San Mateo County Sheriff's Lieutenant put it, "Open carry advocates create a potentially very dangerous situation," because when police respond to a "man with a gun" call, they have no idea what the intentions of the gun carrier are and "the result could be deadly."

If a mistake in judgment or perception results in a shooting at a Starbucks, will the company still have no "corporate policy regarding customers and weapons"?

This is no idle consideration. Just this past September, at a picnic hosted by "open carry" activists at a Michigan state park, a gun activist was charged with reckless use of a firearm after he unintentionally fired his semi-automatic handgun in a parking lot. Then there was the California "open carry" activist in December who was arrested for carrying his .357 magnum revolver near a school, complaining, "I just can't see what I did wrong."

Even more disturbing was the man - "of high interest to the FBI because of his alignment with violent demonstrators at abortion clinics" - who was arrested for possession of a semi-automatic handgun which he was carrying openly outside a North Carolina abortion clinic last October.

As these and other incidents show, the "open carry" movement clearly has implications beyond Starbucks. It is part of a broader campaign, led by the National Rifle Association, to force guns into every corner of American society by "normalizing" the carrying of guns in public places, openly and concealed.

The gun pushers want an America where there is nowhere that you and your family can go to be free from guns.

As just one example, the same lawyer who won the U.S. Supreme Court case two years ago which declared a Second Amendment right to have a gun in your home for self defense, has filed a new lawsuit seeking to force localities to allow civilians to carry guns on the streets.

The "open" carrying of guns is just the visible tip of the "guns everywhere" iceberg. The gun lobby's clout in state legislatures has forced consideration of dangerous proposals to allow people to legally carry concealed weapons into bars, churches, workplace parking lots, airports, parks, college campuses and elsewhere.

While most states do not require any permit, license or training of any kind to carry a semi-automatic pistol openly, the NRA assures us that those who have permits to carry concealed weapons are all "law-abiding citizens" whose gun-toting behavior protects the rest of us. Since May, 2007, however, these "law-abiding citizens" have killed at least 117 people, including nine law enforcement officers. During that same period, they have committed eleven mass shootings.

So, Starbucks, what will it be? Like Peets Tea & Coffee, will you do the socially responsible thing and stand up for the rights of families and children to be free from guns when they visit your coffee shops?

Or will you take the chance that there will be more than just shots of espresso being served up in your stores?

If you think Starbucks is wrong here, sign our petition today:

http://act.credoacti..._guns/?rc=brady

[junglebob]

Sigma, on 04 February 2010 - 03:58 PM, said:

I just sent them a messsage. Everyone should send them one. I stated in my letter that if a law abiding citizen walks in with a firearm on his side to me its the same as a police officer.
i asked them not to bow to their demands. click here to contact Starbucks

I find it interesting that people in California are complaining about someone with a handgun on their hip coming into Starbucks. Open carry in California is only legal in rural areas. Californians who have wet yourself, the guy coming into Starbucks probably is a police officer, or security guard. Maybe they are complaining about the Starbucks in Arizona.

[GarandFan]

junglebob, on 10 February 2010 - 07:46 AM, said:

I find it interesting that people in California are complaining about someone with a handgun on their hip coming into Starbucks. Open carry in California is only legal in rural areas. Californians who have wet yourself, the guy coming into Starbucks probably is a police officer, or security guard. Maybe they are complaining about the Starbucks in Arizona.

They are open-carrying unloaded pistols, with loaded mags separately on belt pouches. Carrying an unloaded pistol is legal all over CA. They are doing it to bring attention to the issue ... it's morphing into "open or concealed ... your choice."

[Chiburbian]

recieved a reply today. Sounds like a form letter but I am ok with the response.

Quote

Hello Stephen,
 
Thanks for contacting Starbucks Coffee Company.
 
For Starbucks, the safety of our customers and partners is a paramount concern.  We have existing security protocols in place to handle situations related to safety in our stores.  We will continue to adhere closely to local, state and federal laws and the counsel of law enforcement regarding this issue. 
 
We appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective. 
 
Warm Regards,
 
Madeline A.
Customer Relations
Starbucks Coffee Company
800 23-LATTE (235-2883)
Monday through Friday, 5AM to 6PM (PST)
 
 
p.s. I would really like to know if this information was helpful; please click here if you'd be willing to share your thoughts in a brief survey. 


----Original Message----
From: Stephen
Sent: Feb 4 2010 4:42PM
To: Customer Relations
Subject: other

Message: I just wanted to send a letter to Starbucks in appreciation of thier forward thinking policy towards personally owned and legally carried firearms. History has shown us that the worst mass shootings happen where citizens are disarmed. The only remedy for bad people with guns is good people with guns - and I and many others will not voluntarily enter an establishment that chooses to discriminate against lawful persons carrying firearms. Thank you for making my safety a priority by allowing me to posess means to defend myself (and your other customers if necessary). ================================= Store Location: N/A
Powered by Onyx Software. Please do not remove the following text as it helps us to serve you better.
[[--7858265.8553216--]]

[Richp4797]

Deleted by poster.

[Bill Matio]

Chiburbian, on 12 February 2010 - 10:40 PM, said:

recieved a reply today. Sounds like a form letter but I am ok with the response.

Quote

Hello Stephen,

Thanks for contacting Starbucks Coffee Company.

For Starbucks, the safety of our customers and partners is a paramount concern. We have existing security protocols in place to handle situations related to safety in our stores. We will continue to adhere closely to local, state and federal laws and the counsel of law enforcement regarding this issue.

We appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective.

Warm Regards,

Madeline A.
Customer Relations
Starbucks Coffee Company
800 23-LATTE (235-2883)
Monday through Friday, 5AM to 6PM (PST)


p.s. I would really like to know if this information was helpful; please click here if you'd be willing to share your thoughts in a brief survey.

Received the same response today. Even if it is a form letter, sure is nicer to read than say any email I've ever received from Durbin!

[moparcardave]

Same letter I received. Madeline was a busy lady.

[Xwing]

[quote name='Chiburbian' date='12 February 2010 - 10:40 PM' timestamp='1266036033' post='200776']
recieved a reply today. Sounds like a form letter but I am ok with the response.

Quote

Hello Stephen,

Thanks for contacting Starbucks Coffee Company.

For Starbucks, the safety of our customers and partners is a paramount concern. We have existing security protocols in place to handle situations related to safety in our stores. We will continue to adhere closely to local, state and federal laws and the counsel of law enforcement regarding this issue.

We appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective.

Warm Regards,

Madeline A.
Customer Relations
Starbucks Coffee Company
800 23-LATTE (235-2883)
Monday through Friday, 5AM to 6PM (PST)


p.s. I would really like to know if this information was helpful; please click here if you'd be willing to share your thoughts in a brief survey.

I got the same letter. Sounds like Starbucks will continue to follow the laws of the various states. I can live with that...

[pyre400]

I got the same letter from Starbucks