Brady Campaign providing free advertising for Open Carry movement

I've talked, here and here, about the Brady Campaign's manufactured hysteria about open carry of firearms in California Starbucks locations. Many other gun bloggers have, too, as have my fellow Gun Rights Examiners:
Seattle--Brady Campaign declares war on Starbucks; time for a cup of coffee
D.C.--Let them drink Starbucks!
Seattle--‘Zero tolerance’ doctrine shares hysteria of anti-gun movement
National--Help the Brady Campaign scald themselves on Starbucks Coffee
National--Good and bad news about Starbucks gun story
Cheyenne--Starbucks – not so fast
National--Armed assaults by cops in bars show folly of unthinking trust
L.A.--Safer Streets 2010: Starbucks v. Gun Control.
L.A.--Safer Streets 2010: Starbucks with thanks.
Cheyenne--Starbucks gets a thumbs-up in Wyoming

And I may have missed some.

Besides the Brady Bunch website--which seems to be nearly wholly devoted to this non-issue of an issue, the gun blogs, and the Gun Rights Examiners, there has been some coverage in more traditional press. Finally, it seems, the Brady Campaign has managed to get some attention.

Is that what they really want, though? It seems to me that most folks have heard of the Brady Campaign (without paying much attention to them), but the Open Carry movement has flown under many people's radar--until now.

Also, take note of what the Brady's Paul Helmke says here:

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.

In other words, "If you aren't with us, you're against us." Alright, Paul, I guess you just made it necessary for them to be against you. By trying to conscript them to your side in the culture war over guns, you have driven them to the other side.

The Brady Bunch calls for people to sign a petition, "demanding" Starbucks formulate a mandated defenselessness policy, but they haven't threatened a boycott (as of yet). That's the one good decision they made here, because if they did try to organize a boycott, they would almost certainly reveal their toothlessness.