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

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…

Then they should speak out for these rights if they want them protected. Why isn’t it equally concerning for a homeowner to be denied the tools needed to save their own lives?

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Good for all these and I sure hope the ‘big gun’ companies follow?

If the ‘law’ has guns they can overpower the citizens of the gun grabbing states and that is NOT what the 2nd was about!
L

letget on February 23, 2013 at 4:06 PM

A State that doesn’t trust its own citizens with firearms, should not be trusted … period.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 23, 2013 at 4:06 PM

LE personnel living in states where citizens must have restrictive features will only receive like product support from Citizen Arms.

If these restrictions are good enough for law abiding people then they’re good enough for everyone else.

darwin on February 23, 2013 at 4:07 PM

^I should add that the criminals will get guns when they want them from where ever they can. And they don’t do background checks either. Just look at chicago?
L

letget on February 23, 2013 at 4:07 PM

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”.

Womp Womp!!! solid writing there.

ted c on February 23, 2013 at 4:09 PM

I support these manufacturers with my wallet, and hope the others follow their lead.

petefrt on February 23, 2013 at 4:09 PM

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.

No shirt
No shoes
No 2nd Amendment
No service
******************

seems legit to me.

ted c on February 23, 2013 at 4:10 PM

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…

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

In the end this looks mostly like a morality statement – and a fine one at that – which won’t actually change anything directly.

All of these business have enough business right now that they can afford to turn away customers and I’m certainly glad that they are doing just that.

ted c on February 23, 2013 at 4:11 PM

I wonder how the gun-grabbers will sneer about this. Maybe something like, “These companies are endangering the public!”

Liam on February 23, 2013 at 4:11 PM

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…

Then they should speak out for these rights if they want them protected. Why isn’t it equally concerning for a homeowner to be denied the tools needed to save their own lives?

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 4:05 PM

The problem is, that as many as oppose the new firearms regulation also support them.

Police chiefs back Obama gun-laws plan


San Diego Police Chief Supports Greater Gun Regulation

SWalker on February 23, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Now if only Smith and Wesson and Sturm Ruger could be persuaded to join in the boycott, this could have a real impact.

merlich on February 23, 2013 at 4:13 PM

The problem is, that as many as oppose the new firearms regulation also support them.

Police chiefs back Obama gun-laws plan

San Diego Police Chief Supports Greater Gun Regulation

SWalker on February 23, 2013 at 4:11 PM

I know. They need to decide who’s side they are on and this action highlights for them that their is a choice to be made and it won’t be consequence free.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Arizona’s Kiss Tactical’s Facebook page also carries a story about denying a California police officer’s request to purchase an AR-15.

On Saturday I refused to sell a AR-15 rifle to a police officer from California. He came into my shop and wanted to buy his duty gun in AZ because the same gun in his home state would cost him more. I told him that I would not sell him the gun even though he had his department letter saying he was able to buy it. I told him that if the gun was not legal for law abiding men and women in CA, I would not sell it to him. after he told me that “civilians don’t need them type of guns” I asked to leave my shop. as he stomped out mad.

Let’s call it what it is, Jazz. It’s an arms race.

ted c on February 23, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Arizona’s Kiss Tactical’s Facebook page also carries a story about denying a California police officer’s request to purchase an AR-15.

On Saturday I refused to sell a AR-15 rifle to a police officer from California. He came into my shop and wanted to buy his duty gun in AZ because the same gun in his home state would cost him more. I told him that I would not sell him the gun even though he had his department letter saying he was able to buy it. I told him that if the gun was not legal for law abiding men and women in CA, I would not sell it to him. after he told me that “civilians don’t need them type of guns” I asked to leave my shop. as he stomped out mad.

Let’s call it what it is, Jazz. It’s an arms race.

ted c on February 23, 2013 at 4:14 PM

And everyone with two functional brain cells knows how every arms race turns out.

SWalker on February 23, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Wonder if this continues with the gun businesses, will bho/holder get their face involved to ‘put the gun companies’ in their place? Will they try to put them out of business ‘for the greater good’?
I would not put it past them if they thought they could.
L

letget on February 23, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Look, it is no surprise that police departments and LEOs are going to back reducing weapons. It just makes sense, because they are the guys that have to face the most risk when they are in the hands of criminals. The rest of us law abiding citizens, face that risk far less rarely and have a different perspective. There are really fundamentally 4 parties involved 1) criminals that want guns 2) law abiding citizens that want guns 3) the government that wants guns and 4) police/ government that don’t want criminals to have guns.

It is a merry go round arms race. Where does this end???

ted c on February 23, 2013 at 4:18 PM

As citizens, this is one of the few actual powers we have left…the take away. We should use it more often considering such a high level of corruption taking place, shouldn’t hold back any more.

Alinsky on February 23, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Police and first responders shouldn’t need guns now, after all, the law says it will be safe now. No market there now. ///

hip shot on February 23, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Doctors refuse Medicare patients all the time. That’s essentially like saying that they don’t want to do business with the government. Is that a proper comparison? I dunno….

ted c on February 23, 2013 at 4:21 PM

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.

Unfortunately, the tide is moving in the other direction. Millions of Americans, and the media that feeds them, think guns are just plain dangerous and scary, and aren’t interesed in a debate of anything more substantial than that.

MT on February 23, 2013 at 4:23 PM

It is a merry go round arms race. Where does this end???

ted c on February 23, 2013 at 4:18 PM

It ends with the 2nd amendment being repealed.

SWalker on February 23, 2013 at 4:25 PM

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

The second amendment protects the right of people. It says nothing about the tools of law enforcement.

BobMbx on February 23, 2013 at 4:25 PM

I support these manufacturers with my wallet, and hope the others follow their lead.

petefrt on February 23, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Absolutely. It’s almost enough to make me want to do business with CTD again.

Almost.

But yes, we should focus our purchasing in support of the companies that have joined in this embargo, and avoid those who have not.

TexasDan on February 23, 2013 at 4:26 PM

But at the same time, I was sympathetic to our first responders,

When the criminal confronts you, invades your space, threatens your with rape — YOU’RE the first responder. Cops are the second responder.

rrpjr on February 23, 2013 at 4:28 PM

Look, it is no surprise that police departments and LEOs are going to back reducing weapons. It just makes sense, because they are the guys that have to face the most risk when they are in the hands of criminals. The rest of us law abiding citizens, face that risk far less rarely and have a different perspective. Ted C

No, it doesn’t make sense. The reality is that when weapons are regulated, those regulations only affect already law-abiding citizens. These regulations do nothing to change the risk that LEOs face from criminals. It does nothing regards disarming criminals.

Ace ODale on February 23, 2013 at 4:28 PM

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…

Well they don’t say shit, their unions vote dem and there are always plenty of em standing as props at photo ops.

arnold ziffel on February 23, 2013 at 4:28 PM

In the end this looks mostly like a morality statement – and a fine one at that – which won’t actually change anything directly.

Jazz surrenders.

I guess he’ll wait until somebody develops the nuclear weapon of ideas to stop the rise of socialism. This kind of pissant stuff isn’t exiting enough, I guess.

BobMbx on February 23, 2013 at 4:29 PM

It ends with the 2nd amendment being repealed.

SWalker on February 23, 2013 at 4:25 PM

I don’t foresee that happening. It can’t be done. It’ll just be ignored and set aside “for the good of the people” or another canard.

ted c on February 23, 2013 at 4:30 PM

SWalker on February 23, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that police chiefs speak for the rank and file any more than Obama speaks for you. They’re politicians who are often political appointees made by mayors.

FadeToBolivia on February 23, 2013 at 4:30 PM

When the criminal confronts you, invades your space, threatens your with rape — YOU’RE the first responder. Cops are the second responder.

rrpjr on February 23, 2013 at 4:28 PM

good one.

I want to be the First Avenger……/

ted c on February 23, 2013 at 4:31 PM

It ends with the 2nd amendment being repealed.

SWalker on February 23, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Not necessary. Just degrade and nullify it over time with transgressive laws, EOs, etc.

rrpjr on February 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM

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

G O O D !…let them reflect on what they are actually doing!

KOOLAID2 on February 23, 2013 at 4:33 PM

The only solution here is for the government to manufacture it’s own firearms and shut down the rest of these yahoo gun-mongers.

/

Curtiss on February 23, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Look, it is no surprise that police departments and LEOs are going to back reducing weapons. It just makes sense, because they are the guys that have to face the most risk when they are in the hands of criminals.

Uh, NO…how many of NY’s Finest or Chicago’s Finest died last year at the hands of armed criminals? How many CIVILIANS?

The rest of us law abiding citizens, face that risk far less rarely and have a different perspective.

Again it’s the CIVILIANS dying, by-and-large at the hands of criminals, not Peace Officers.

There are really fundamentally 4 parties involved 1) criminals that want guns 2) law abiding citizens that want guns 3) the government that wants guns and 4) police/ government that don’t want criminals to have guns.

Well the problem is that 1) and 2) don’t procure their firearms from the same sources, but 4) is restricting 2)’s ability to arm itself, but not 1)’s ability to arm itself, with much of the proposed legislation.

And to be honest, many of our fellow citizens WANT 2) to be dis-armed.. they freely admit it. So really gun control advances THEIR agenda, whether or not it stops 1), at all. In fact, the existenc eof 2) JUSTIFIES the action of 4) to limit 2).

It is a merry go round arms race. Where does this end???

It needs to end with the Second Amendment intact. It needs to end with the “2) law abiding citizens that want guns” freely having that right.

JFKY on February 23, 2013 at 4:35 PM

<blockquoteNow if only Smith and Wesson and Sturm Ruger could be persuaded to join in the boycott, this could have a real impact.

merlich on February 23, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Plus Glock, Sig and Colt.

Our sheriff in Yavapai County has stated, as many others have, that he won’t enforce laws that he considers to be violative of the Second Amendment. For those who have not taken it, the oath taken by servicemen, government workers, and even lawyers is to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution, not the government. And … to protect it from enemies foreign and domestic. (Lord knows I’ve so sworn many times – Air Force and many different jurisdictions.)

And there’s nothing illegal here – they’re not colluding to set price.

Dan Tanna on February 23, 2013 at 4:36 PM

The only solution here is for the government to manufacture it’s own firearms and shut down the rest of these yahoo gun-mongers.

/

Curtiss on February 23, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Don’t give them any ideas. Rahm Emanuel already tried shutting down gun makers with his letters to two banks asking them not to do business with those companies. I think it was BofA that froze a maker’s account for a few days, too.

Liam on February 23, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Not necessary. Just degrade and nullify it over time with transgressive laws, EOs, etc.

rrpjr on February 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM

And, more than anything, by the generational indoctrination of the school-children.

Draw a gun – suspension.

Play like you have a gun at recess – suspension.

This is why the Marxists have taken over the public schools, and it’s why they’ve sought to destroy the two-parent family. Single-parent, female-dominated families are far more likely to be unarmed, and depend on and trust the benevolent State.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 23, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Checking websites…
Colt, nope
Bushmaster, nope

Until companies that can have an impact join in, this is all Hopey Changey type whishful thinking

The only benefit from the smaller companies pulling out is that the Police departments in these states will have to pay more to buy from the large manufacturers

notalemon on February 23, 2013 at 4:39 PM

will bho/holder get their face involved to ‘put the gun companies’ in their place?

letget on February 23, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Is a frog’s butt watertight?

petefrt on February 23, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Plus Glock, Sig and Colt.

Not likely….look Larue Tactical, whoever they are, probably sells to ME more than the NYPD, so it’s easier for them to “do the right thing.”

Colt, is NOT going to run the risk of losing out on government money, because I bet that’s the MAJORITY of their income. My purchases, are but a tithe of government purchases.

JFKY on February 23, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Wonder why Freedom Arms isn’t on that list…

Ace ODale on February 23, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Cut every one of those states off. Laws have consequences.

GarandFan on February 23, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Now, if only the ammo manufacturers would follow suit and stop selling all their product to the government leaving crumbs for the rest of us.

HiJack on February 23, 2013 at 4:42 PM

But at the same time, I was sympathetic to our first responders

Not me! As long as they stand behind Obama in photo-ops supporting his gun control policies, he11 no.

HellCat on February 23, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Is a frog’s butt watertight?

petefrt on February 23, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Not after the State has its way with it.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 23, 2013 at 4:44 PM

I’m 100% with these MFG. I would refuse the sales also. More companies should.

AMMO companies should do the same thing.

TX-96 on February 23, 2013 at 4:46 PM

What are the total sales of these companies to the State of New York? If it is zero or next to zero then this isn’t a boycott it’s just grandstanding for some free publicity.

meci on February 23, 2013 at 4:46 PM

I think it’s up to 34 companies that are refusniks…

KUDOS to them!

workingclass artist on February 23, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Not after the State has its way with it.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 23, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Ughh, nothin’ worse than a leaky frog butt.

petefrt on February 23, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Police and first responders shouldn’t need guns now, after all, the law says it will be safe now. No market there now. ///

hip shot on February 23, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Good point. Ask a cop what need will he have for a firearm if all weapons are banned. If he responds that there will still be criminals, then that’s the time to tell him that’s what we’ve been saying all along. Why do cops need guns if there are criminals, but the public doesn’t?

HiJack on February 23, 2013 at 4:48 PM

What are the total sales of these companies to the State of New York? If it is zero or next to zero then this isn’t a boycott it’s just grandstanding for some free publicity.

meci on February 23, 2013 at 4:46 PM

This + citizen outrage might be influencing the governor of Colorado?

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/colorado-governor-isnt-sold-on-magazine-capacity-limit-after-huge-public-fallout/#

workingclass artist on February 23, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Now, if only the ammo manufacturers would follow suit and stop selling all their product to the government leaving crumbs for the rest of us.

HiJack on February 23, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Exactly what I was thinking.

The Rogue Tomato on February 23, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Why do cops need guns if there are criminals, but the public doesn’t?

HiJack on February 23, 2013 at 4:48 PM

London Bobbies didn’t start carrying firearms until about twenty years ago. Since then, Britain has outlawed private ownership but I bet the cops still have their guns.

Liam on February 23, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Now if only Smith and Wesson and Sturm Ruger could be persuaded to join in the boycott, this could have a real impact.

merlich on February 23, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Agreed. If you see the big manufacturers do this, then the manure will transfer the rotating wind deflector.

LoganSix on February 23, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Agreed. If you see the big manufacturers do this, then the manure will transfer the rotating wind deflector.

LoganSix on February 23, 2013 at 4:54 PM

+1. Right now the 5-0s may be inconvenienced, emphasis on “may”.

If the big-name gun makers join in we WILL see things turn ugly. Fast.

MelonCollie on February 23, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Now, if only the ammo manufacturers would follow suit and stop selling all their product to the government leaving crumbs for the rest of us.

HiJack on February 23, 2013 at 4:42 PM

IIRC, there’s a federal law that the .gov has first dibs on ammunition. Now, that might just be from the big manufacturers or even on only certain types of ammo; but if what I read is correct, there’s not a lot that the ammo-makers can do about a boycott.
I suppose it comes under “national defense”.

Solaratov on February 23, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Every industry should do this. Gov. Says no more gas guzzlers, halt sales if trucks and SUV’s to the gov. And so on.

jawkneemusic on February 23, 2013 at 5:08 PM

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.

I’m not sympathetic, not the least little bit.

No civil government agent should be allowed to have arms that civilians can’t. WE ARE THEIR RULERS NOT THEIR SUBJECTS!

wildcat72 on February 23, 2013 at 5:12 PM

This is a great example of the type of action we should be taking in many, many areas. It has long amazed/disappointed me that employers in America have not pushed back harder against the fascists as they pass more and more laws dictating how they run their businesses. Minimum wage, hiring quotas, levels of benefit they can/cannot give, limits on executive compensation, limits on the height of toilets, Sarbanes/Oxley, dictated leave of absence laws (FMLA), and on and on. It’s amazing there are any employers left in America at all. We must also consider a nationwide taxpayer strike to force federal politicians to return to the limits of the Constitution. No more million dollar training junkets to exotic locations. No more depts of energy, education, OSHA, EPA, NLRB, HHS, etc. etc. All of it goes back to the states….keep what they need, chuck the rest. Oh, and no more welfare & free education to illegal aliens. We must all hang together or we will surely hang separately!

devan95 on February 23, 2013 at 5:13 PM

This is good news…for now.

The government can buy as many guns & ammo as it can, if private citizens can keep buying them as well.

Kudos to the makers & sellers who have taken a stand.

22044 on February 23, 2013 at 5:13 PM

IIRC, there’s a federal law that the .gov has first dibs on ammunition. Now, that might just be from the big manufacturers or even on only certain types of ammo; but if what I read is correct, there’s not a lot that the ammo-makers can do about a boycott.
I suppose it comes under “national defense”.

Solaratov on February 23, 2013 at 5:07 PM

The Social Security Administration buying millions of rounds of hollow point ammo doesn’t qualify as national defense.

I was thinking the other day how great an investment would be in starting an ammunition company that sells ONLY to civilians and refuses to take any government order…

wildcat72 on February 23, 2013 at 5:15 PM

This is goooood!!!

Schadenfreude on February 23, 2013 at 5:16 PM

What the F is up with the Feds ‘secretly’ buying millions of ammo rounds?? And simultaneously gun grabbing?? Liberals are all down wit it. Quick rant… Liberals only want is a ban on assault rifles.. This sets the precedent congress can limit 2nd Amendment Rights. Then the genie is free.. Almost as stupid as the Feds mandating commerce in order to regulate it. That sounds crazy!!

drivingtheview on February 23, 2013 at 5:16 PM

If the NRA really wants to be useful, they should promote these manufacturers to their members. I wouldn’t suggest a boycott of those who don’t follow their lead, just an encouraged [i]buycott[/i] from those who put principle over profit.

I want to see Colt’s name on there.

Daemonocracy on February 23, 2013 at 5:19 PM

I want to see Colt’s name on there.

Daemonocracy on February 23, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Yep, Colt, Remington, Glock, all of the bigs all need to be on there.

Ammo manufacturers need to stop accepting new government contracts and instead focus on getting stock on store shelves.

Yes, government contracts are big money, but the civilian market DWARFS it.

wildcat72 on February 23, 2013 at 5:22 PM

What the F is up with the Feds ‘secretly’ buying millions of ammo rounds?? And simultaneously gun grabbing?? Liberals are all down wit it. Quick rant… Liberals only want is a ban on assault rifles.. This sets the precedent congress can limit 2nd Amendment Rights. Then the genie is free.. Almost as stupid as the Feds mandating commerce in order to regulate it. That sounds crazy!!

drivingtheview on February 23, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Obama is directing them to buy the ammo off the market so as to effectively turn all of our firearms into poorly designed clubs…

wildcat72 on February 23, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Yep, Colt, Remington, Glock, all of the bigs all need to be on there.

Ammo manufacturers need to stop accepting new government contracts and instead focus on getting stock on store shelves.

Yes, government contracts are big money, but the civilian market DWARFS it.

wildcat72 on February 23, 2013 at 5:22 PM

The manufacturers have to choose between liberty & tyranny. Hopefully they choose liberty.

22044 on February 23, 2013 at 5:26 PM

The manufacturers have to choose between liberty & tyranny. Hopefully they choose liberty.

22044 on February 23, 2013 at 5:26 PM

If they choose the government and don’t stand for the second amendment they’ll soon find out that the Feds will need only ONE supplier and most of them will be out of business…

wildcat72 on February 23, 2013 at 5:27 PM

It ends with the 2nd amendment being repealed.

SWalker on February 23, 2013 at 4:25 PM

.
IIRC, you live in California …

The Second Amendment has been repealed there.

For a more realistic assessment, look at the red/blue voting maps.

The coasts and some major inland cities (Chicage, St. Louis, etc) – yep, the sheep have acknowledged they are sheep and surrendered their Second Amendment rights some time ago.

ALL the red area? We are on the other side of the issue/mindset.

IF they try to repeal or deny our Second Amendment rights, they will have a new Civil War.

And for all the “They’ll take them by force!” idiots …

How does it not occur to you, “If the police/government won’t even make a serious effort to suppress/seize weapons from street gangs which the police outnumber, where are the going to get the cojones to try to take them from millions of people who base their entire concept of our society on the right to bear arms?”

PolAgnostic on February 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM

This is good news. The citizens are resisting tyranny.

Next, I hope appliance manufacturers refuse to follow EPA regs and build their machines in Canada or Mexico. My dishwasher is pure crap and cost twice as much as my old one, all because of EPA energy regs. And they are tightening up again in May.

Dishwashers: the middle class contraband.

PattyJ on February 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM

If they choose the government and don’t stand for the second amendment they’ll soon find out that the Feds will need only ONE supplier and most of them will be out of business…

wildcat72 on February 23, 2013 at 5:27 PM

That’s a good angle, and I agree!

22044 on February 23, 2013 at 5:30 PM

SWalker on February 23, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Police chiefs are appointed political hacks who have to fall in line with their political bosses if the want to keep their jobs. Fluke em. It’s to local sheriffs who are elected that matter and most of them are already on record in opposition to these gun grabbing measures.

jawkneemusic on February 23, 2013 at 5:33 PM

I support these manufacturers with my wallet, and hope the others follow their lead.

petefrt on February 23, 2013 at 4:09 PM

A nationwide boycott by American gun buyers of manufacturers who continue to sell to LE in such states would be even more effective.

farsighted on February 23, 2013 at 5:40 PM

How does it not occur to you, “If the police/government won’t even make a serious effort to suppress/seize weapons from street gangs which the police outnumber, where are the going to get the cojones to try to take them from millions of people who base their entire concept of our society on the right to bear arms?”

PolAgnostic on February 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Exactly. Why else would the police rather set up checkpoints and use “drug sniffing dogs” as a pretext to do illegal searches in a fishing expedition for “crimes” than go into the `hoods and disarm the gangs?

Answer: they don’t like getting shot!

Look at all those red areas on the map. Those are soon to be “no go zones” for the government.

wildcat72 on February 23, 2013 at 5:41 PM

That’s a good angle, and I agree!

22044 on February 23, 2013 at 5:30 PM

To further illustrate the point: The military made the M1911 pistol it’s standard sidearm in 1911 and they remained so until the 1980′s when they were replaced by the Beretta M9. They hadn’t bought a single M1911 off Colt since World War II.

Yet, post World War II millions of M1911 type pistols have been sold to civilians by Colt and other manufacturers.

That is where the money is, not government orders. The small arms industry isn’t like the other defense industries, ie, the military is the only market for the ones that make fighter jets, but for small arms, the civilian market DWARFS the government market. It’s just that the government right now is creating artificial scarcity by ordering ammunition it does not need..

If Boehner had any balls the House would put a stop to that.

wildcat72 on February 23, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Obama is directing them to buy the ammo off the market so as to effectively turn all of our firearms into poorly designed clubs…

wildcat72 on February 23, 2013 at 5:23 PM

.
There was an ammo shortage for the 18 months after the SCOAMF was elected in November 2008. It was nowhere near as bad as this one, but it was due to panic buying.

The current ammo shortages are not due primarily to government purchases of ammo.

The shortage is a by-product of the “ban assault weapons” hysteria and has bled over into the .22 LR ammo where idiots are each buying 20,000 rounds at insane prices without any consideration of just how long it would take them to use up 20,000 rounds.

The .223/5.56 ammo is being bought in even larger quantities by panic buyers who are buying a lifetime supply at the rate they actually use it and paying a ridiculous premium to “stock up”.

An AR-15 ‘enthusiast’ is a casual shooter who takes his rifle out a couple times of year and burns through roughly 500 rounds/year.

Some of these are the same folks who are currently building stockpiles of 20,000 – 100,000 rounds.

When the panic subsides, they are going to realize they have paid a ridiculous price and tied up enormous amounts of money by paying a 300% premium for something they will never be able to use in any reasonable time frame.

One final note, people who are more than ‘enthusiasts” use roughly 2,500 rounds per year … and it makes no sense for them to buy a 40 year supply.

PolAgnostic on February 23, 2013 at 5:45 PM

If they choose the government and don’t stand for the second amendment they’ll soon find out that the Feds will need only ONE supplier and most of them will be out of business…

wildcat72 on February 23, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Right, and it wouldn’t be long before they’d nationalize it and then prohibit private manufacture of guns/ammo altogether.

petefrt on February 23, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Some of these are the same folks who are currently building stockpiles of 20,000 – 100,000 rounds.

When the panic subsides, they are going to realize they have paid a ridiculous price and tied up enormous amounts of money by paying a 300% premium for something they will never be able to use in any reasonable time frame.

One final note, people who are more than ‘enthusiasts” use roughly 2,500 rounds per year … and it makes no sense for them to buy a 40 year supply.

PolAgnostic on February 23, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Unless the government does do what many have been afraid of and then they will be the clever ones. If they have the cash to spare then let them.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Eff “first responders” who needs’em? We have a county Sheriff and Deputies. They cost a whole lot less and are more effective then any unionized city PD. Of course, we have open carry laws as well.

Mr. Arrogant on February 23, 2013 at 5:52 PM

One final note, people who are more than ‘enthusiasts” use roughly 2,500 rounds per year … and it makes no sense for them to buy a 40 year supply.
PolAgnostic on February 23, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Barter.
IF TEOTWAKI comes, they will be worth more than their weight in gold.

LegendHasIt on February 23, 2013 at 5:53 PM

some gun companies were refusing to do business with law enforcement agencies,

Aren’t they simply refusing to sell anything to law enforcement that a citizen can’t have too?

Up until Obamacare, the idea that anyone could be forced to enter into a contract was inconceivable. Nevertheless, I don’t think these suppliers have any legal problems arising from refusal to sell.

Rank and file police officers broadly support the Second Amendment and an armed citizenry. Where you get opposition is from the Democrat controlled National Association of Chiefs of Police and related organizations of political types in law enforcement. These groups, the NACP in particulare, are often cited as speaking for police officers. They don’t.

novaculus on February 23, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Unless the government does do what many have been afraid of and then they will be the clever ones.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Investors speculate in all kinds of things. Wine, precious metals, wheat, corn. Why not guns/ammo?

petefrt on February 23, 2013 at 5:55 PM

petefrt on February 23, 2013 at 5:55 PM

I just wish I was better at it. The Finnish Nagants I sold a few years back have tripled in value.

novaculus on February 23, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Investors speculate in all kinds of things. Wine, precious metals, wheat, corn. Why not guns/ammo?

petefrt on February 23, 2013 at 5:55 PM

True enough and it is something you and your friends use on a regular basis, gives you peace of mind, and if the SHTF you can supply the resistance.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 6:01 PM

THis is EXACTLY what the gun companies should have started to do years ago. If S&W, Beretta, Glock and Ruger would join in, and simply state that they don’t want LEO in any state to be given firearms and equipment which the state legislature, in its omniscience, has determined are unsafe, this crap would stop quickly.

As for law enforcement et al not having access: too damn bad. Why do I say that? Because it’s their political-based bosses (ie, Chiefs) who push this crap, and I suspect if the line guys discovered they’d lose the tools of their trade, they’d put pressure on their bosses.

So far, the big gun companies have continued the “they won’t hurt us” crap. You’d think S&W would know better — given how they got burned by Andrew Cuomo back in the 90s.

FiveG on February 23, 2013 at 6:05 PM

novaculus on February 23, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Sounds like my problem, timing. I’m really good at when to buy, but really lousy at when to sell. :(

petefrt on February 23, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Racist!!!!
/

CW on February 23, 2013 at 6:14 PM

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 5:50 PM

.
A second Civil War will be short, ugly and make the first one look like a high society afternoon tea if “the government does do what many have been afraid of” …

… and the panic buyers are NOT the people who will be leading the way. Those willing to lead have been preparing for years. My outlook is money put into too much ammo is money which could have been used to address other potential needs.

IF TEOTWAKI comes, they will be worth more than their weight in gold.

LegendHasIt on February 23, 2013 at 5:53 PM

.
Decades ago I learned scenario assessment/planning. Applied to our current level of society/population/economies, if we get to a point where the bartering ammo is part of the economic landscape, it really will be the end of the world because there will have been at least two limited nuclear wars, many regional wars, a total global economic collapse and at least 2 billion deaths worldwide.

There is NO UPSIDE to this scenario. People will die and be left to rot in the street. And there is NO LEVEL of individual or small community planning which will mitigate its effects.

Investors speculate in all kinds of things. Wine, precious metals, wheat, corn. Why not guns/ammo?

petefrt on February 23, 2013 at 5:55 PM

.
Those ‘speculators’ you itemized are not trading in items which can cause immediate great bodily harm or death.

The people looking to acquire guns/ammo from a speculator may not be willing to meet the price asked but still have enough of their own supply to take everything from a speculator.

PolAgnostic on February 23, 2013 at 6:21 PM

The interesting one out of the now 44 places is Midway USA. Them and Cheaper Than Dirt are pretty big on the civil side, and I bet that a few PDs have accounts with them. Barrett is the first really recognizable name on the manufacturers side.

ajacksonian on February 23, 2013 at 6:27 PM

PolAgnostic on February 23, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Whatever.

Far be it from me to denigrate people doing their best to prepare for a future that they fear may come.

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it has always been my philosophy.

LegendHasIt on February 23, 2013 at 6:28 PM

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

That would hold water except that police unions overwhelmingly support abrogating the second amendment and their members vote the gun grabbers (I.e. democrats) into office where they make these laws to disarm law abiding citizens. So no sympathy here.

AZfederalist on February 23, 2013 at 6:31 PM

A second Civil War will be short, ugly and make the first one look like a high society afternoon tea if “the government does do what many have been afraid of” …

PolAgnostic on February 23, 2013 at 6:21 PM

I think you are greatly underestimating the left.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 6:32 PM

The police carry firearms for the exact same reason I do. Self defense. They’re not issued a firearm to protect Joe Citizen. Since police officers are likely to encounter threats daily, I want them to have the best tools available to them. That said, the average citizen should have the same tools available as the average police officer.

If a firearms or accessory manufacturer wants to limit sales to law enforcement to match what civilians are allowed to own, I don’t have a problem with that. We all have the same right to self defense. If State governments want their police forces to have the best, they need to stop illegally restricting the rights of the people they serve.

Wendya on February 23, 2013 at 6:42 PM

http://www.ncgunblog.com/new-york-boycott/

As of right now:

LaRue Tactical 2-8-13
Olympic Arms 2-12-13
Extreme Firepower Inc, LLC (Per EFI, policy is several years old)
Templar Custom 2-13-13
York Arms 2-13-13
Cheaper Than Dirt 2-15-13
Bullwater Enterprises 2-16-13
West Fork Armory 2-16-13
Smith Enterprise 2-17-13
Alex Arms 2-17-13
Spike’s Tactical 2-18-13
Quality Arms Idaho 2-19-13
Liberty Suppressors 2-19-13
Doublestar Corp 2-19-13 (Includes J&T Distributing & Ace LTD)
American Spirit Arms 2-19-13 (complete with a video!)
Trident Armory 2-17-13 (reported to me 2-20-13)
Head Down Products 2-20-13
J&G Sales 2-20-13
Barrett Firearms 2-20-13
Exile Machine 2-20-13
Tier One Arms 2-15-13 (reported to me 2-20-13)
Bravo Company USA 2-20-13
Primary Weapons Systems 2-21-13 (read my blog post on PWS)
Crusader Weaponry 2-20-13
Top Gun Supply 2-21-13
Kiss Tactical 2-21-13
Clark Fork Tactical 2-21-13
OFA Tactical 2-17-13 (reported to me 2-21-13)
One Source Tactical 2-21-13 (Scroll down to shipping restrictions)
Templar Tactical Arms 2-12-13 (reported 2-21-13)
NEMO Arms 2-21-13 (check out their photo!)
Old Grouch’s Military Surplus 1-15-13 (NOT a typo!)
Big Horn Armory 2-22-13
Midway USA 2-22-13
CMMG Inc 2-22-13
Rocky Top Tactical 2-22-13
Badger Peak 2-22-13
Controlled Chaos Arms 2-22-13
SRT Arms 2-22-13
Norton Firearms 2-22-13
Umlaut Industries 2-22-13
Predator Intelligence 2-2-13 (Read comments)
Citizen Arms 2-23-13 (At the bottom of the page)
Evolution Weaponry 2-17-13
Chaos Arms 2-23-13
Warbirds Custom Guns 2-23-13 (Scroll to the bottom)
JBTAC 2-23-13
Stoner Arms 2-22-13
Ammoclip (Date of policy unknown)
3 Rivers Precision 2-22-13
2A Firearms 2-22-13
Lanco Tactical 2-22-13
Predator Tactical 2-23-13

crosspatch on February 23, 2013 at 6:43 PM

It ends with the 2nd amendment being repealed.

SWalker on February 23, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Not necessary. Just degrade and nullify it over time with transgressive laws, EOs, etc.

rrpjr on February 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Which means I and many others, I’m certain, will proceed to ignore.

PatriotGal2257 on February 23, 2013 at 6:44 PM

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.

these communities seem to think firearms are un-necessary for protection so i have no problem w/ their first responders not being able to buy weapons regular citizens cant. the govt has no business putting itself above the people in this manner. and even so a large portion of police agree w/ these laws. it’s surprising how many LEO’s want people dis-armed.

chasdal on February 23, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Up until recently there has been some positive legal battles against those municipalities with unconstitutional restrictions on guns. I have heard nothing about any legal challenges to these new restrictions. Anyone?

TfromV on February 23, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3