More gun companies not selling to law enforcement in anti-2nd Amendment states

posted at 4:01 pm on February 23, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

When this first cropped up in the news, I thought it was just some sort of outlier. Here in the Empire State, where one of the nastiest gun grabbing laws in recent memory was passed last month, USA Today reported that some gun companies were refusing to do business with law enforcement agencies, claiming that they supported the citizens more than the government.

Some gun manufacturers say they will no longer sell their firearms to New York law enforcement agencies after the state passed a broad assault-weapons ban last month.

At least five companies have said they won’t sell to New York police since Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the Safe Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act in January. The bill, known as the NY SAFE Act, included a ban on any semi-automatic rifles or shotguns with “military-style” features, such as a pistol grip or a folding stock.

The companies included Olympic Arms, LaRue Tactical, York Arms, Templar Custom and EFI. I had immediate mixed emotions about the story. On the one hand, I was pleased to see the industry putting principle ahead of profit in standing up to such an odious law. But at the same time, I was sympathetic to our first responders, not wanting to see them in a situation where they might have less access to the tools for their job when it wasn’t the cops who crafted these laws, but the politicians. But, as I said, it seemed like an isolated thing, and they would surely find other resources for tactical weapons, so I didn’t pay it much mind.

Now, as reported at The Blaze, this seems to be turning into more of a trend, involving dozens of gun companies shutting off their business in multiple states.

The list of companies that have stopped selling firearms and ammunition to law enforcement agencies in states that are restricting the Second Amendment has more than doubled since Wednesday and is more than five times larger than just one week ago. There are 42 companies on our list, with more being added as we receive notification…

It’s worth a trip to their article, particularly since they include corporate statements released by a number of these companies explaining their actions. Here’s one sample from Citizen Arms:

”Due to legal, ethical and moral concerns, Citizen Arms offers only those custom firearms that are legal for all lawful citizens of a given state to possess, regardless of law enforcement status. LE personnel living in states where citizens must have restrictive features will only receive like product support from Citizen Arms. We’re very appreciative of the sacrifices made by the law enforcement community but we’re even more appreciative of the right guaranteed to all law-abiding US citizens by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution: A well regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

Powerful stuff. We’ll have to drag some lawyers in here to figure out the details, but I don’t think there’s anything illegal about the companies refusing to sell to these law enforcement agencies. And it still seems likely that all of the agencies will still find somebody to sell to them. In the end this looks mostly like a morality statement – and a fine one at that – which won’t actually change anything directly. But if enough voters catch wind of it and recognize the serious nature of this debate, perhaps they’ll stop electing the sort of people who enact laws like this and the companies can return to business as normal.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

How is that different from this?
“We don’t sell firearms to cops, now get out of my store”

How soon will see discrimination laws updated to include “occupation” in this list “race, color, creed, sexual perversion, or religion”?

BobMbx on February 24, 2013 at 8:20 AM

hawksruleva on February 25, 2013 at 11:00 AM

The other difference is the police and other government agencies don’t typically have cops just walk into the store to buy something. They usually buy in bulk on a contract that goes through the Request For Proposals (RFP) process where the manufacturer or a wholesale distributor provides bids on what they will sell to the agency and for what price.

Besides, if it’s a gun store in a place like NY – he already can’t sell those weapons locally, so he’s not likely to have anything in the store anyway.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to a thousand a year from what we’re at now,” Biden told reporters after meeting with Senate Democrats in the Capitol.

J_Crater on February 25, 2013 at 11:40 AM

“Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to a thousand a year from what we’re at now,” Biden told reporters after meeting with Senate Democrats in the Capitol.

J_Crater on February 25, 2013 at 11:40 AM

I’d bet Romney’s $10k that violent crime rates go UP in the areas where law-abiding citizens’ gun rights are violated.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 11:49 AM

…I suppose it’s possible that a state could attempt to ‘strong-arm’ a native company (residing within a state), but I doubt it would end well for the state. Any company has the option of shutting their doors and moving to another location. Short of martial law (or outright seizure), the state can’t compel a company to remain ‘in business’… or engage in trade with an entity that had no contractual ties to, previous or otherwise.

I’ll leave to your imaginations as to what would happen if the above scenario was triggered.

For many folks, the phrase… ‘Game On’ comes to mind.

CPT. Charles on February 23, 2013 at 7:42 PM

But apparently Obama and his illegitimate NLRB can tell private companies where they may and may not build plants, witness Boeing. Every time somebody says but but but something-or-other can’t happen, I just laugh. Then groan.

Fenris on February 25, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Evidently, some ammunition companies are also refusing to sell to government – both because of 2d Amendment issues, and because of concerns about the quantity of ammunition some national government organizations are acquiring.

GWB on February 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Evidently, some ammunition companies are also refusing to sell to government – both because of 2d Amendment issues, and because of concerns about the quantity of ammunition some national government organizations are acquiring.

GWB on February 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Who’s doing this though?
Can’t find a comprehensive list anywhere. Jazz???

Also, from what I HAVE seen of the list, they’re mostly all small time companies – many I’ve never even heard of. So unless we see some big names join this list – S&W, Remington, Winchester, Colt, etc – I don’t see this causing much impact to the government entities they’re targeting.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 12:17 PM

… when it wasn’t the cops who crafted these laws …

Perhaps not. However, “the cops” are the “tool” of politician’s and WILL use their guns, without hesitation, to execute these crafted laws.

And by the way, “the cops” don’t function based upon law … they function upon chain-of-command orders.

Carnac on February 25, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Who’s doing this though?
Can’t find a comprehensive list anywhere. Jazz???

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 12:17 PM

I don’t recall which ammunition companies were cited. I seem to recall the information was on a firearms blog/forum. (Which I will never be able to find right now.)

GWB on February 25, 2013 at 12:47 PM

I don’t recall which ammunition companies were cited. I seem to recall the information was on a firearms blog/forum. (Which I will never be able to find right now.)

GWB on February 25, 2013 at 12:47 PM

I was hoping if Hot Air is going to post a thread on this topic, they would have a link to an actual comprehensive list somewhere.

I have the same problem with Fox News – way too many articles referring to photos or other things – but they don’t include the relevant photo or even links to it or other items.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM

GWB on February 25, 2013 at 12:47 PM

here you go:

blog 1
blog 2

Fenris on February 25, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Perhaps not. However, “the cops” are the “tool” of politician’s and WILL use their guns, without hesitation, to execute these crafted laws.

And by the way, “the cops” don’t function based upon law … they function upon chain-of-command orders.

Carnac on February 25, 2013 at 12:34 PM

.
If you believe LEO’s are Nazi’s willing to follow any order handed down the chain of command, you know nothing about LEO’s.

In my experience, they are MORE tuned in to the failings of politicians than your average person because they live with the “unintended consequences” politicians generate.

Please spare us your OWS, gramatically challenged ““the cops” are the “tool” of politician’s” nonsense.

I have never met a LEO/Mil who wanted to be on the wrong side of 100:1 odds – and 95% of both groups have NO illusions about what it would be likeif some jacka$$ politician ordered them to confiscate legally owned weapons.

PolAgnostic on February 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM

PolAgnostic on February 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM

I think it depends on the cops themselves and where they are.
My county sheriff has publicly stated he will NOT enforce any laws that violate the 2nd Amendment. Some of the city cops I’m not so sure about – although most of the cops I’ve known personally would more likely be on our side (us “gun nuts” that is) of this issue.
However, if you look at comments made by some chiefs/sheriffs from places like Baltimore and Chicago, I get the impression they seem to be very willing to run out and start confiscating weapons – from law-abiding citizens – probably not so quick from the gang-bangers who are the actual problem.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Nice sentiment…but still no sale.

LEO’s can defend their rights just like the rest of us have to, thank you very much!

MelonCollie on February 23, 2013 at 4:11 PM

if the LEO’s don’t like it .. vote the b*stards out that crafted this “law”

conservative tarheel on February 25, 2013 at 2:25 PM

oh and you can add Barrett to the list.

conservative tarheel on February 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM

blog 1
blog 2

Fenris on February 25, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Thanks for posting those lists.
However, now that I’ve seen the lists, they confirm my concern that this is mainly an advertising gimmick for the little guys who depend on the pro-gun civilian customer base. Don’t get me wrong – I’m all in favor of it. But I doubt these companies are major sources of weapons and equipment for government agencies – who typically buy in large quantities via RFP. So this will have little to no impact unless the big boys jump in. Until S&W, Remington, Glock, Winchester, and other big manufacturers/distributors get in, it’s kind of a hollow gesture – or perhaps a hollow point (ok – bad pun, couldn’t resist ;) ).

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 2:57 PM

So unless we see some big names join this list – S&W, Remington, Winchester, Colt, etc – I don’t see this causing much impact to the government entities they’re targeting.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Not going ot happen with Remington. That’s owned by Cerberus Capital Management, a notoriously left-wing company. They also own Bushmaster, DPMS Firearms, Marlin (owned by Remington),and Advanced Armament Corporation, all of which were organized under the umbrella of Freedom Group, which, last I checked, Cerberus was trying to dump after Sandy Hook. Don’t know if they succeeded, though.

totherightofthem on February 25, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Not going ot happen with Remington. That’s owned by Cerberus Capital Management, a notoriously left-wing company. They also own Bushmaster, DPMS Firearms, Marlin (owned by Remington),and Advanced Armament Corporation, all of which were organized under the umbrella of Freedom Group, which, last I checked, Cerberus was trying to dump after Sandy Hook. Don’t know if they succeeded, though.

totherightofthem on February 25, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Darn – I should have looked that up before I bought my Marlin .22. I had one back in HS and it was a decent little rifle, and they’re cheap, so I got another for target plinking. I guess I should have paid a bit more and got the Ruger.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 3:47 PM

It just means the cops won’t get special deals for being cops

Sounds good to me

Feel sad for the good cops, if a couple years down the road, their bosses are buying them buffoon guns from the ‘bend over’ manufacturers willing to issue Bloomberg approved non hurtful weapons

entagor on February 26, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3