Starbucks’ Gun Policy Isn’t About Gun Control, It’s About Property Rights

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – You’re supposing the right of the patron or the prospective patron to enter or do business into said business is superior to the right of the property owner and the person who had the capital, bought the property, bought the coffee beans, bought the gizmo that makes the espresso, who took his money out of his pocket and is hiring the labor and training the labor before the business opens.  This is all on the private property owner.  Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

 

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  CueBall writes me:

[reading]

Dear Dude – Just because a business posts a sign requesting its patrons to not carry firearms does not mean the patrons have to uphold their end of the social contract. It is not illegal for a person with a concealed-carry permit to enter an establishment that requests no firearms on premises. The business absolutely has the right to ask you to leave; however, the business must first know you are in violation of their policy. The nature of concealed-carry prevents this from being an issue.

[end reading]

Mike:  I never said anything about concealed-carry, CueBall.  I would also say, extending this conversation out a little bit here, if you’re going to make the case — I was just telling Andrew during the break, we were talking shop about news people and who’s making all the money that he and I aren’t making.  It’s Shepard Smith.  We were talking about Mario Cuomo’s son over at CNN, Chris Cuomo.  I said when I see Chris Cuomo, I see his dad.  I know he wants to scream that these people here [mocking] “They didn’t deserve this!  We have to do better for these people!]  That was what Mario Cuomo would say.

I was reminded by a speech that Mario Cuomo gave to the Democratic National Convention in 1988.  It was the “This is what we believe” speech.  It was evil v. good, white v. black, light v. dark, Republican v. Democrat.  It’s a great speech, especially if you’re a Democrat because you’re a good guy.  You ride a white horse.  Anyone who’s not a Democrat rides a black horse.  I think in too many instances, if not in almost all of our political instances, we like to have things nice and cookie cutter framed for us and presented to us on a table with a little bow on it.  [mocking] “Okay, little Johnny, this is the conservative position and this is the liberal position.”  Is it really that simple?  Does it really have to be boiled down to a difference between one party and another?

For the rest of today’s transcript please sign up for a Founders Pass or if you’re already a member, make sure you are logged in!
[private FP-Yearly-So76|FP-Yearly|FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly-WLK]

I brought this up at the top of the program here, that the newscaster on our top-of-the-hour news says that the Starbucks policy is a liberal policy.  I don’t think taking ownership of your private property and determining what people can have in their pockets if they’re going to come onto your property is a liberal proposition.  I view that as a purely free market proposition.  Furthermore, you’re supposing the right.  You’re supposing the right of the patron or the prospective patron to enter or do business into said business is superior to the right of the property owner and the person who had the capital, bought the property, bought the coffee beans, bought the gizmo that makes the espresso, who took his money out of his pocket and is hiring the labor and training the labor before the business opens.  This is all on the private property owner.  If the private property owner says you can’t bring rabid dogs into my place of business and you say: I’m protected from nutjobs because my dog is rabid, as a matter of fact, I’m protected from most humans because no one will go near my dog because he’s rabid.  Do you have the right to bring the rabid dog as your safety net, as your method of defense?  [mocking] “Mike, that’s different.  Come on, that’s apples and oranges.  You’re endangering other people.”

No, no, no, first principles.  The first principle is to recognize the property.  It is to recognize the owner of the property.  The second principle is, if we have a government, what is the prerogative of the government?  Does the government first recognize the property owner or does the government first recognize the patron?  If you want the government to recognize the patron, then the government ought to just come in and say: We don’t like the price of Big Macs; lower them.  You have to recognize and support and uphold the right of the property owner.  If the property owner is the CEO of Starbucks, I don’t care if he’s a communist.

AG:  It’s your own personal business choice.

Mike:  Yes.  If he’s making a personal business choice, I do not have the right to do business with him.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

[/private]