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

I think you are greatly underestimating the left.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 6:32 PM

.
Experience has shown the Left is not good at critical thinking. Their greatest inclination is to believe in “magical thinking”. Media control has some advantage but you will note more and more people are already tuning the MSM out.

We have an all volunteer military made up, by far, from more right leaning than left leaning individuals. Neither our military or our LEO’s are inclined to take on odds where they are outnumbered 100:1 – much less one that leads to them being a perpetual target.

The red areas of the map generate the food and fuel necessary for the continued existence of the Blue cities.

The most optimisitic for the Left projection I have seen is that “Democratic voters” own roughly 1/4 of the current guns in civilian hands – but that equates owning one gun to owning ten guns, which is more in line with my experience in regarding Democrat/Republican ownership – and the Democrats tend to be real miserly when it comes to ammo, they have enough to “defend themselves” (i.e. home invasion).

No, I am not undestimating the left. I just know what they don’t.

PolAgnostic on February 23, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Experience has shown the Left is not good at critical thinking.

They own the media, Hollywood, Congress, the White House, half the country, the schools, universities, and the political dialogue of what can and cannot be said, or discussed.

Pikers obviously.

The most optimisitic for the Left projection I have seen is that “Democratic voters” own roughly 1/4 of the current guns in civilian hands – but that equates owning one gun to owning ten guns, which is more in line with my experience in regarding Democrat/Republican ownership – and the Democrats tend to be real miserly when it comes to ammo, they have enough to “defend themselves” (i.e. home invasion).

They are currently working on that problem with the help of the Republicans.

No, I am not undestimating the left. I just know what they don’t.

PolAgnostic on February 23, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Well you may have missed their victory in a great many nations around the world, and there too they thought of them as jokes. That funny Austrian corporal, or the Georgian bank robber. They stopped laughing at some point when those jokes kept going and the world starting paying the price for laughing instead of taking them seriously.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 7:01 PM

There is more to consider than political right versus political left and on who’s ‘side’ the military and/or police will fall.

We are on the verge of total economic collapse, worldwide, and when that happens all the pretty little gaming scenarios are out the window. A few rounds bartered for something else could mean the difference between feeding your family or not.

Your blue ribbon stocks, ain’t gonna do that. Not even your portfolio of corn futures will do that
Your stash of gold coins MIGHT…. But I wouldn’t count on it.

LegendHasIt on February 23, 2013 at 7:06 PM

We are on the verge of total economic collapse, worldwide, and when that happens all the pretty little gaming scenarios are out the window. A few rounds bartered for something else could mean the difference between feeding your family or not.

LegendHasIt on February 23, 2013 at 7:06 PM

You know the problem withbartering away rounds… you may end up getting them back.

Archivarix on February 23, 2013 at 7:10 PM

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

wildcat72 on February 23, 2013 at 5:15 PM

National Defense…Homeland Security…whatever. As long as the .gov wants first crack at it – if there IS a law – they’ll get it and call it whatever they want.

I think that they see that there is a bad economic crash coming in the not-so-distant future, and their ammo purchases are to a)supply their “Civilian National Security Force”; and b)put down the riots that will occur as a result of the crash. (And to control the rest of the population)

They keep saying that the ammo is for “training purposes”…but most of it is ending up stored in metal containers around the country; and never sees a range. It’s just sitting there…waiting.
Of course, most of the containers are in the open – subject to temperature extremes…which degrade ammo. So, there is that.

Solaratov on February 23, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Archivarix on February 23, 2013 at 7:10 PM

True. Not something to be done casually in ‘Mad Max’ scenario.

But the same could be said of anything of actual value.

LegendHasIt on February 23, 2013 at 7:16 PM

We knew gun bans would lead to an increased black market, but who would have thought law enforcement personnel would wind up being the increase in the black market’s customer base?

LOL

Couldn’t make this stuff up.

ButterflyDragon on February 23, 2013 at 7:16 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.

Don’t know why. They have unions that can lobby for them and I’m pretty sure if any police union lobbied it was against citizens or to carve out special rights for their members. I mean why in NY do retired cops get more 2nd amendment rights than other citizens?

Zaggs on February 23, 2013 at 7:22 PM

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.

From a Business Law POV (not to mention Con Law), there’s nothing unlawful (that’s the key word, not illegal) about a private business refusing trade/commerce with an entity (such as another business, public or private organization). An individual is an another matter… refusal of service would have to be on an impersonal basis (e.g. – non-discrimination).

The other factor is that these businesses are outside the states they have/had vendor relationships with. Most cities/agencies/organizations solicit for vendor contracts on a bid basis. Those companies that have standing obligations (as a vendor) would have to honor any and all agreements entered into until such time as the agreement/contract ends, or is voided by either party. Otherwise… they’re free and clear.

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

I read in 2009 that Obama ordered all military brass shell casings to be destroyed rather than sold and recycled through ammo manufacturers. The shredding and sale of bulk remnants to China made no economic or environmental sense. It also broke with longstanding custom. Why? Not too hard to understand.

rrpjr on February 23, 2013 at 7:53 PM

I hear sleazy scofflaw Eric Holder is offering to buy back all those weapons the Sinaloa Drug Cartel used in their various killing sprees… but only if the serial numbers are removed first.

If that doesn’t work out Holder will probably ask Barky for some of that “flexiblity” with their friend and fellow Communist Putin….

/S

viking01 on February 23, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Police are the ones that enforce these unconstitutional laws that the politicians are passing. I have no sympathy for an NYC cop. The ones that are just need to leave that city and allow it to become the cesspool it so dearly wants to become.

Kanyin on February 23, 2013 at 7:57 PM

We have an all volunteer military made up, by far, from more right leaning than left leaning individuals. . I

PolAgnostic on February 23, 2013 at 6:54 PM

I think you’ve put your finger on why the lefties are pushing on the idea of restoring the draft. It’s the only way they get enough military trained people for their civilian brown shirt civilian defense force.

AZfederalist on February 23, 2013 at 7:59 PM

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.

There are always Quislings… however, I don’t doubt that their services would come cheap. Traditionally, LEO’s have had ‘favorable’ relationships with weapons manufacturers (and vendors); the current dynamic has changed all of that.

I’ll also point out that those vendors that go Quisling will not have a positive relationship with vendors that do not go along with the plan. Do not account this as a minor thing… there’s a certain level of interplay between manufacturers/vendors that traditionally works on a positive intra-industry relationship. Please note the manufacturers like Smith & Wesson (a MAJOR marketer to the LEO community) are not sitting on their hands.

Right now, it’s only the mid-tier vendors and manufacturers that are making a stand.

This ‘movement’ is showing no signs of slowing down, or reversing. The only weapons companies that will not (immediately) break with the government are those with standing state and federal contracts.

This whole thing is still in it’s early stages… let’s see where this ultimately goes.

CPT. Charles on February 23, 2013 at 8:00 PM

The companies which NYS does their business with (Glock, et al) are not participating.

Mr. Grump on February 23, 2013 at 8:06 PM

The rest of us should be voting with our “feet” too. We left Bank of America 2 years ago, as far as bank accounts; now we’re cutting ties with Comcast since they’re refusing to run ads from gun manufacturers. I’m not paying my money to ANY companies that refuse to respect the Constitution, and my Constitutional rights.

mountainaires on February 23, 2013 at 8:08 PM

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

An equal number disagree. All over the country county sheriffs are telling the Feds and state governments to pound sand. Here in Colorado they’re trying to ban conceal carry on college campus’ again….local police told my sisters class they don’t have a problem with CCW holders or even those who chose to open carry if they carry on campus but campus rules set by the faculty should be obeyed. I don’t believe most cops in the country agree with these policies. Just the ones in the leftists anti-freedom strongholds.

jawkneemusic on February 23, 2013 at 8:10 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, but the politicians.

However, cops have to accept they are agents of the state and will be the ones who will enforce this violation of our rights.

If it was up to me police would only be allowed to carry what citizens are allowed to carry and nothing more.

If in New York that means a can of mace, a biodegradable plastic glow stick, and a whistle…I say so be it…

William Eaton on February 23, 2013 at 8:15 PM

I read in 2009 that Obama ordered all military brass shell casings to be destroyed rather than sold and recycled through ammo manufacturers. The shredding and sale of bulk remnants to China made no economic or environmental sense. It also broke with longstanding custom. Why? Not too hard to understand.

rrpjr on February 23, 2013 at 7:53 PM

.
They did put the ban on reselling brass into effect in 2009 and it got a lot of attention.

They resumed the reselling of brass and blamed “a regulation initiated during the Bush administration” for the ban being put in place.

PolAgnostic on February 23, 2013 at 8:15 PM

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

Now that’s what I’d call pure speculation.

petefrt on February 23, 2013 at 8:35 PM

mountainaires on February 23, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Contrary to popular opinion, that course of action does work.

Once upon a time, Levi-Strauss (of blue jeans fame) wrote a very fat check to Handgun, Inc… and made a big deal out of it.

What happened next? An informal, spontaneous boycott of Levi’s products. They went from the #1 producer of blue jeans to #3 (I believe…); and, wound up closing down 3 US factories. They still haven’t recovered from that choice.

A general boycott of gun brands that sell to gun-grabbing LEOs (and states) may not have the same effect as the Levi’s boycott, but it will have an effect.

And it beats just ‘talking about it’.

Lines are being drawn, and it’s time to pick which side your gonna side on… whether you like it or not.

CPT. Charles on February 23, 2013 at 8:41 PM

I think that they see that there is a bad economic crash coming in the not-so-distant future, and their ammo purchases are to a)supply their “Civilian National Security Force”; and b)put down the riots that will occur as a result of the crash.
Solaratov on February 23, 2013 at 7:10 PM

That’s what Mark Levin says. That’s what I say too.

petefrt on February 23, 2013 at 8:49 PM

I read in 2009 that Obama ordered all military brass shell casings to be destroyed rather than sold and recycled through ammo manufacturers.
rrpjr on February 23, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Doesn’t surprise me one bit. I’d love to see a link documenting that.

petefrt on February 23, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Yesterday, I watched a press conference on C-SPAN of black gun activits. At least two of them repeated a line attributed to Frederick Douglass: “The freedom of blacks lies in three boxes–the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.”

BuckeyeSam on February 23, 2013 at 9:02 PM

Who is John Galt?

Wyznowski on February 23, 2013 at 9:08 PM

Democrats don’t listen to the population (“they’re stupid. They voted for me, didn’t they?”)

Democrats don’t believe in the constitution, it is a living document they would love to kill.

Democrats DO listen to their boss. UNIONS. Perhaps no bigger one then each state’s Policeofficer’s Union. Rattle them, and phones will ring.

kurtzz3 on February 23, 2013 at 9:20 PM

Doesn’t surprise me one bit. I’d love to see a link documenting that.

petefrt on February 23, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Here’s a link from 2009. However polagnostic (above) has updated the issue.

http://www.conservativecrusader.com/articles/obama-gunning-for-the-second-amendment

rrpjr on February 23, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Well, I see some manufacturers that just made my ‘preferred vendor list’.

Midas on February 23, 2013 at 9:31 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

Not entirely correct.

London Metropolitan police constables routinely carried sidearms from the time of Sir Robert Peel (1830s) until the post World War one period. There’s a reason one of Webley’s earliest metallic cartridge double-action revolvers was a compact “snubnose” .450 Adams caliber weapon named the Webley Metropolitan Police:

http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/1101064128/9646619/left%20side%20full.jpg_thumbnail1.jpg

One with London Police property marks brings more money on the collector’s market, more for the association than anything else. They aren’t rare.

Later on, constables were issued the Webley & Scott model 1906 .25 caliber automatic, informally known as the “Metropolitan”, again due to the LMP connection;

http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/handguns/great_britain/1287716956.jpg

The drawdown of regular issue of firearms to constables only began in the 11930s, following several laws passed in Parliament restricting civilian firearms ownership. Not s a response to crime, but due to the perceived (or at least “conveniently assumed”)threat of Bolshevism.

At the start of World War Two, the British Purchasing Commission made a public appeal to Americans to donate small arms to arm the Home Guard in the days after Dunkirk. Thousands of weapons ranging from handguns to rifles were sent over. After the war, they were collected from the Home Guard by the Attlee (Labour) government, and melted down.

Stringent anti-gun laws were passed in the UK in the 1950s, requiring extensive background checks, licensing, and “showing a need” for a weapon. One odd side effect is that many antique arms such as single-shot, breechloading rifles were outlawed, but they could be retained by the owner if they were taken to a gunsmith, who would bore the barrel out smooth and rechamber the arm for a shotgun cartridge, usually the .410 for .30 caliber or .44-.45 caliber arms or the 16-gauge for the older .577 caliber, like the Snider-Enfield military rifle. This was because it was “easier” to get a license for a shotgun than a rifle or pistol. One side effect of this is that today, an unmodified .577 Snider commands a premium price on the collector market.

During this time, LMP and other police forces in the UK still had “Trained Firearms Officers”, or TFOs, who were the equivalent of tactical team units. A TFO would normally accompany other (non-firearms) officers on a potentially dangerous arrest. Actual SWAT-type operations, such as the Iranian Embassy incident in 1980, were normally carried out by the military, specifically the Special Air Service (SAS). Note that unlike the U.S., there is no equivalent to posse comitatus restricting military units in the UK from acting as “aids to civil authority” within the nation’s borders.

Following the mass shooting incident in Hungerford in 1987, the Blair government moved to ban and confiscate not only “assault weapons” (a term they borrowed from American anti-gun activist Josh Sugarmann, who coined it), but virtually all firearms. Today, the British Olympic shooting team has to go outside the UK to practice, and cannot even keep their .22 short rimfire single-shot “free pistols” in the UK; they actually normally do their practicing and storage in Belgium.

In spite of this, crime in general and firearms-related crime in particular has skyrocketed in the UK in the last two decades. And the police have responded by “upgunning” to military level weaponry;

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/02/13/armedpolice460.jpg

Today, not only are most LMP uniformed officers armed, but as you can see, they aren’t just carrying handguns.

BTW, as someone who has “been there”, I can assure you that I have never met a serving peace officer at the “street level” who disagreed with this hypothesis;


If a certain type or “level” of weapon is prohibited to the law-abiding citizens in a jurisdiction, the police should be barred from having it or any higher level of armament, as well. Logically, if such laws are effective in disarming criminals, the police have no need of such weaponry.

By comparison, I could make a long list of police chiefs, police commissioners, district attorneys, & etc., I have met at conferences and such, who think that this formulation is utter bilge. They tend to favor an absolute prohibition of civilian firearms ownership with stringent penalties, plus military-level weaponry for the police. Because “the criminals will always be armed”.

Asking them “So, what are the civilians supposed to do until we get there?”, most of them don’t have a good answer. Never having bothered to think about it. Except for the ones who view the job of the police as being not to protect, but simply to apprehend and see to punishment after the fact.

Never confuse a high-ranking police official with a working cop. It’s a totally different mindset, and the more fruit salad on the cap brim, the more likely it is that you are dealing with a politician who just happens to wear a uniform.

Been there, done that.

/sorry for the length, but there isn’t a “short form” for something like this.

clear ether

eon

eon on February 23, 2013 at 9:33 PM

Now that’s what I’d call pure speculation.

petefrt on February 23, 2013 at 8:35 PM

.
Go out past the point where ‘civilization’ ends in some third world country. It is easy to spot. They are men standing next to the road with automatic weapons charging a “toll” on anyone wanting to enter ‘civilization’.

If you don’t have that experience, you are the one living in a world of speculation.

PolAgnostic on February 23, 2013 at 9:33 PM

The cops have plenty of guns – in every state of the union. They could STOP buying guns for the next 15 years and would have everything they need.

Our police forces are now military units. This has to stop.

HondaV65 on February 23, 2013 at 9:46 PM

The cops have plenty of guns – in every state of the union. They could STOP buying guns for the next 15 years and would have everything they need.

Our police forces are now military units. This has to stop.

HondaV65 on February 23, 2013 at 9:46 PM

.
… and be reversed.

With crime statistics down, why do we need police militarization with tanks and drones?

PolAgnostic on February 23, 2013 at 9:52 PM

As much as I appreciate law enforcement everywhere, they weren’t protesting this law and they didn’t send out the marchers to the newspaper that printed the names of retired police officers and prison guards who lived in the communities served by the paper. Yet, they were right on the ball to sit behind Obama when he lied and said 1st Responders were going to be affected if he didn’t get more tax money.

I hope this goes where it needs to go to have these legislators thinking about the 2nd Amendment and not trying to circumvent it. If the Democrats are so bent on gun control, why don’t they try and repeal the 2nd Amendment instead of just thumbing their nose at it? I doubt they can get it done, but at least they would be honest.

bflat879 on February 23, 2013 at 10:28 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,

These are the same “first responders” (which is not what cops do – cops arrest people after the fact for the most part) that were meant to be exempted in these un-Constitutional laws even after they retired – as if they achieved some sort of super-citizen status just by having been a cop at some point. Of course, ex-military were not equally exempted (although that would still be un-Constitutional) but quite the opposite – as Janet “Butch” Napolitano’s office constantly loves to note, ex-military personnel represent a threat who can generally not be trusted with firearms of any sort.

Added to all this is the simple question about exempting law enforcement (current – not even addressing the idiotic idea of special citizen retired cops and current cops off-duty), how often do cops discharge their weapons in the line of duty, anyway? Enough to have carved out some special exemption for them? Or is it just that the government needs shock troops who are planned to be morphed into first responders (to respond to anyone disobeying the government’s affront to our Constitution) who actively participate in disarming citizens and taking their main Constitutional rights away from them?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 23, 2013 at 11:18 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.

Um, what do cops need AR-15s for? I’m told their purpose is ONLY to kill large numbers of people.

fossten on February 24, 2013 at 12:36 AM

New York had it right when it built a law which leveled the playing field with respect to the arms allowed both private citizens and law enforcement. Said law completely meets the Supreme Court test with respect to the allowable restrictions on the armaments of private citizens — they cannot be allowed less than that allowed to law enforcement personnel for their own self-defense.

In other places, the gun companies are merely voluntarily putting into force this yardstick proposed by the Supreme Court.

unclesmrgol on February 24, 2013 at 1:41 AM

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.

Here’s what you say when legal questions arise.

“We’ve had a few shipments over the year mis-delivered to the wrong address; as the deliveries to Law Enforcement would be items illegal to deliver anywhere else we’re simply guaranteeing we don’t violate the laws as the exist by cancelling all orders for these items in states that don’t allow them for civilian use.”

gekkobear on February 24, 2013 at 2:27 AM

Its unfortunate that this has to happen but its the right thing to do. My sister is a cop and she fully supports citizens arming themselves for self protection. Other local police/deputies say the same thing….they emphasize training and rightly so.

tommer74 on February 24, 2013 at 2:38 AM

but I don’t think there’s anything illegal about the companies refusing to sell to these law enforcement agencies.

…Seriously? You actually have some question on if its somehow a CRIME not to sell something to someone? CMON SHAW !!

TX-96 on February 24, 2013 at 5:52 AM

Someone does need to point out that the right to have a free State is a guarantee in the Constitution.

To be able to do that requires that the Federal government not seek to disarm the civil population and that the States in question have a civil population that can defend them against a tyrannical government and, in turn, defend themselves from a tyrannical State government so that it can be representative of a free people.

And if you don’t want to sell to those State and municipal organizations of a State that is infringing on that right of citizens to have a free State or, even better, to just point out that they are citizens granted special powers but not special rights, then that is the right of the seller. Really, if guns are so dangerous and police are just given special powers and not special rights, then they are armed civilians with badges nothing more, nothing less. Really why should PD’s and other State organizations or metropolitan ones have access to anything that is restricted to citizens at large? The ‘first responders’ are those involved in a situation, not the police or fire department or DMV come to that. Your citizen on the scene is the ‘first responder’.

I want to make sure ‘first responders’ have access to the same level of weapons that criminals have to make sure the odds in that realm are EVEN. I doubt that the criminals have crew-served weapons available, but anything else single man portable? Yup. I like the old English doctrine on that – if one man can carry and use it, then it is something that any civilian should have access to. In the modern era, as well, since as we have seen criminals feel no special obligation to restrict their purchases.

But if States feel certain weapons shouldn’t be available to its citizens then that is true of ALL citizens. No exemptions allowed. NY actually got it right in not exempting PD’s and other agencies if they truly mean the WEAPON is so dangerous that NO CIVIL AUTHORITY should have access to it.

Doesn’t make it a good law. You can go down a wrong path with pure logic and end up in a horrific place, after all. The legislators were just thorough-going in their insanity… makes them no less insane for what they did.

ajacksonian on February 24, 2013 at 7:02 AM

Seriously? You actually have some question on if its somehow a CRIME not to sell something to someone? CMON SHAW !!

TX-96 on February 24, 2013 at 5:52 AM

Try this…

“We don’t sell food to black people, now get out of my store”

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

BobMbx on February 24, 2013 at 8:20 AM

Get ready to hear from the myriad of HotAir supporters who think the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be outlawed or, the neo Goldwarters who think it never should have been passed.

libfreeordie on February 24, 2013 at 8:26 AM

It is the state or municipal government that has decided that some are more equal than others. The firearm manufacturers and gun shop owners are actually treating all purchasers equally in each case. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

ROCnPhilly on February 24, 2013 at 8:45 AM

Get ready to hear from the myriad of HotAir supporters who think the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be outlawed or, the neo Goldwarters who think it never should have been passed.

libfreeordie on February 24, 2013 at 8:26 AM

If you were dragged screaming from your basement and beaten, you’d deserve it.

MelonCollie on February 24, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Law enforcement agencies that have trouble buying weapons from domestic manufacturers should simply buy foreign.

Then listen to the U.S. gun makers squeal!

chumpThreads on February 24, 2013 at 9:08 AM

http://www.conservativecrusader.com/articles/obama-gunning-for-the-second-amendment

rrpjr on February 23, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Thanks!

petefrt on February 24, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Law enforcement agencies that have trouble buying weapons from domestic manufacturers should simply buy foreign.

Then listen to the U.S. gun makers squeal!

chumpThreads on February 24, 2013 at 9:08 AM

Yeah, it would be fitting to see law enforcement walking around with AK-47′s.

Something pretty amazing. I’ve been reading “The Maxims of George Washington.”

It’s like reading exactly what is going on today. Replace Britain with Washington DC and some of these quotes are the same things happening today. Nothing new. Same old fight. Same tactics by the enemy.

George Washington states on one page, how Britain was forcing America to rebel. Then wanted to use that rebellion as an excuse to disarm us and to “strip us of rights and privileges of English men and citizens.”
Britain was also involved in attempting to make us argue among ourselves. To pit Americans against each other. George Washington also states that Britain forged letters, pretended to intercept them, publish them as a means of proving Washington was an enemy of the people.

This is good reading.
Again, just reminds you that that this fight is the same old fight that has been going on since the beginning of time. Only the technology has changed.

JellyToast on February 24, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Get ready to hear from the myriad of HotAir supporters who think the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be outlawed or, the neo Goldwarters who think it never should have been passed.

libfreeordie on February 24, 2013 at 8:26 AM

YOU are an idiot.

And not very intelligent.

And a racist.

(BTW; You DO realize that it’s your beloved democRAT party that passed – and keeps trying to pass – jim crow laws, don’t you? That they started, financed and protected the KKK? That they tried their dead-level best to stop all civil rights laws; including the 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965 laws.
Why do you hate black people, liveasaslaveanddie?)

Solaratov on February 24, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Law enforcement agencies that have trouble buying weapons from domestic manufacturers should simply buy foreign.

Then listen to the U.S. gun makers squeal!

chumpThreads on February 24, 2013 at 9:08 AM

Sounds like a great plan!!

Then, the LE agencies can pay higher prices for the weapons, higher prices for the transportation, storage charges while the guns sit in a bonded warehouse…and then come to you for an increase in taxes to pay for the doubled cost of their weapons.

Yep. Sounds like a winning plan.

You pathetic, whining, sniveling, America-hating piece of offal.

Solaratov on February 24, 2013 at 10:25 AM

On Feb. 25 & 26, make ‘Five Phone Calls for Freedom’
http://www.grnc.org/grnc-alerts-archive/424-grnc-alert-2-21-13-fight-pending-attack-by-obama-radicals

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!
To fight back against this left wing attack, we are asking millions of Second Amendment supporters, represented by the Coalition and others, to deliver a loud and clear message to Congress by making 5 phone calls on Monday and Tuesday (Feb. 25 & 26). Please note that we said CALL, not email. We want millions of voices to ring through the congressional switchboard, so please note that you might have to try several times to get through.
Specifically, we are asking you to call:

1. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell at 202-224-2541

2. House Speaker John Boehner at 202-225-0600

3. Senator Richard Burr at 202-224-3154

4. Senator Kay Hagan at 202-224-6342

5. Your representative to the U.S. House. To identify your US House representative, go to: http://www.house.gov/representatives/ and then enter your zip code in the upper right corner of the page.

DELIVER THIS MESSAGE
Give congressional staff 3 simple talking points:

1. Nothing about the federal proposals is acceptable – not banning semi-automatic firearms and magazines, not expanding the list of people prohibited from owning guns, and not registering private gun sales via the National Instant Check System;

2. Because “compromise” means losing freedom, you will not “compromise” on this issue, including any “lite” version of registering private sales through the National Instant Check System; and

3. As a member of one of the organizations comprising the National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban, you will support coordinated Coalition action against any legislator who supports gun control.

Southern by choice22 on February 24, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Just a quick reminder as to why this issue is like no other… at least for Americans.

CPT. Charles on February 24, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Law enforcement agencies that have trouble buying weapons from domestic manufacturers should simply buy foreign.

Then listen to the U.S. gun makers squeal!

chumpThreads on February 24, 2013 at 9:08 AM

Been there, done that.

The reason the Beretta M92, FN Minimi SAW, etc., were chosen as the new standard infantry weapons of the U.S. armed forces in the 1980s was, among other things, that the progressive clique’ in Congress, then led by Ted Kennedy, was determined to freeze U.S. gunmakers out of military and eventually police contracts. Their theory being that without big government contracts, those companies would die because there wouldn’t be enough commercial demand to keep them in business.

The foreign firms (FN, Beretta, Glock, etc.)were required to set up production facilities, under U.S. government control, in the United States, in effect creating a de facto government monopoly on the manufacture of firearms, for the exclusive use of government.

It began to fall apart in 1993, when the Clinton administration took the contract for M-16 rifles away from Colt (the prime manufacturer at that time) and gave it to FN in Belgium under the aforementioned requirements. FN not only didn’t get the plant built here, they never succeeded in delivering a single useable rifle. It seems the AR-15 design was something their production system just couldn’t cope with. (I believe it. Look at an FN FNC carbine; it’s not built anything like an AR-15, closer to a Heckler & Koch design, being mostly steel stampings with a mechanism more like a Kalashnikov.) In the end, the armed forces went back to buying M-16s and the later M-4 carbines from American gunmakers, not just Colt but Olympic, Bushmaster, and even Smith & Wesson.

The Minimi (M249 5.56mm Squad Automatic Weapon) turned out to be a dog, too. A friend of mine who was stationed at Fort Lewis, WA, when the first ones came through for familiarization was rather surprised, and irritated, to discover that the folding carrying handle tended to jam in the “up” position, blocking the sights, and that the flap dust cover that swung back and forth between the belt-feed aperture and the box-magazine holder (designed to allow the weapon to use M-16 magazines if needed) tended to jam in one position or the other, except when it stuck in between, neatly blocking both feedways.

In the end, the U.S. armed forces replaced the Minimi/M249 with the heavier FN MAG/M240, which was already being made in this country, and had long ago had all the bugs worked out of it. (It amuses me that we replaced the 1961-vintage M60 machine gun with the MAG, which debuted in 1958.)

Meanwhile, Beretta found out that their M92 pistol didn’t stand up to the sort of high-powered 9mm rounds U.S. special forces preferred without extensive redesign to prevent the slide from breaking in two and hitting the shooter in the face (Hence the saying, “You’re not a SEAL until you’ve eaten Italian steel”), and that government and police contracts weren’t enough to make their U.S. plant a paying proposition. (Wages for skilled workers here cost more than in the Old Country, it seems.) To make things worse, Taurus in Brazil, who built an earlier version of the same pistol in a plant that Beretta built for the Brazilian government in the 1970s (and was privatized in the 1980s after that government was replaced by a less statist, and more financially-competent, one), built a plant in Florida to build their version for U.S. commercial sales, thereby cutting into Beretta’s business on that side. (A lot of people prefer the Taurus version, because it has a safety very like that of a Colt 1911, rather than the Walther-type safety of the “developed” Beretta.)

In the end, Beretta had to develop new versions of their pistol, specifically for commercial sale to civilians in this country, just to stay afloat. Otherwise, their American plant was a financial black hole.

The same holds true for Glock, Smith & Wesson (which made a deal with the Clinton administration they deeply regretted- it nearly bankrupted them), and everyone else who supplies arms to the government. Simply put, there just isn’t a big enough market there to support a major business by itself. And trying to run such a business as a de facto “state arms manufactory” is a financial white elephant for governments, as well. The costs eventually skyrocket past the level that even spendthrift statists consider doable.

It’s the civilian arms industry and market that makes the arms of the military and police in this country affordable for the taxpayers. Not the other way around. The same way that building vehicles only to government contracts would bankrupt a carmaker- as GM is learning the hard way with the Chevy Volt, which only the government is buying, and that only because it has been mandated by The One.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that’s how an economy works. If there’s not enough market for it, even government won’t be able to afford it.

clear ether

eon

eon on February 24, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Gun Company Executives:

Your not dealing with normal humans who will act in a lawful way to this action.

Most likely from this bunchof made mop union Chicago Way goons will by executive order buy the guns from China with our tax money and then give them free to the Union co-commie goons in these states.

Hell they will make the buy bigger for a Fast and Furious operation and when the guys show up in Mexico or a Border Patrol guy getting shot, they will say it was the fault of the mean U.S. Gun Companies forceing them to buy commie made guns.

They lie.

Never forget.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 24, 2013 at 11:11 AM

libfreeordie aka life out of balance,,

You send all you guns to a Chicago Union hall, they have enforcers that need the guns for their work.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 24, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Law enforcement agencies that have trouble buying weapons from domestic manufacturers should simply buy foreign.

Then listen to the U.S. gun makers squeal!

chumpThreads on February 24, 2013 at 9:08 AM

I guess using lib logic there is no reason that law enforcement needs weapons in the future since all the evil guns are now banned. All gun crime will be wiped out close to zero. All citizens are now safe. The evil guns have been banned, so all is perfect in lib land.

So, chump, you acknowledge that law enforcement will continue to need semi-automatic weapons even thought all should be safe in the world now?

I’ve had 3 family members killed by drunk drivers. I am wondering at what point you idiot libs will outlaw cars. After all, we can’t blame the perp, it’s the weapon that caused all the damage, right? Maybe we should all walk to avoid the ability of some drunk guy to find a car and attempt to drive it home.

goflyers on February 24, 2013 at 11:15 AM

<blockquoteTry this…

“We don’t sell food to black people, now get out of my store”

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

Neither case is illegal. Over stepping of government telling private businesses who they can or cannot sell is unconstitutional. However, money is money and only a fool businessman would not sell to someone based on how they looked as long as their money was good.

LoganSix on February 24, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Law enforcement shouldn’t need these heavy weapons in states with draconian gun control laws, now should they?…

Pest on February 24, 2013 at 11:50 AM

So they won’t sell to cops but they will sell an arsenal to some deranged gun nut who thinks the next Hitler is around the corner (Obama!!) whose first instinct when children are massacred to to buy more guns and ammo.

Pablo Honey on February 24, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Awesome, I love it. Way to go guys.

Snake307 on February 24, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Awwww….. too bad.

Coburn sees no imminent Senate deal on guns
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2013/02/coburn-not-close-to-deal-on-guns-157696.html

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) on Sunday cast some doubt on the progress of a Senate group trying to strike an agreement on background checks for gun sales – and flatly ruled out a provision that would require keeping records of such transactions.

“I don’t think we’re that close to a deal,” Coburn said on “Fox News Sunday.” “And there absolutely will not be recordkeeping on legitimate, law-abiding gun owners.”

On Sunday, Coburn said record-keeping provisions could “kill” the agreement.

Southern by choice22 on February 24, 2013 at 1:15 PM

So they won’t sell to cops but they will sell an arsenal to some deranged gun nut who thinks the next Hitler is around the corner (Obama!!) whose first instinct when children are massacred to to buy more guns and ammo.

Pablo Honey on February 24, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Why should they sell to police? Don’t give me that nonsense about the Police protecting us. The Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect us according to the Supreme Court.

Don’t give me that nonsense about the police going after criminals either. The criminals go after the victims, who are the public at large, usually several times before the cops get around to looking for the crook. Look at the murder rates, dozens of police, versus tens of thousands of us are murdered every year. In 2012, 25 police officers died in traffic accidents, yet do they wear seatbelts?

I suggested this line of action years ago, not about guns, but from Microsoft. When they were being sued by the Government, Part of the public announcement should have been that Microsoft would no longer license it’s products to be used by the Government. The claim should have been that they were stiumlating competition by forcing the Government to use a less capable product.

The same should be done here, because the Government lies, and we bob our heads and slobber our agreement. Yes, the police will protect us, and should have fully automatic weapons while we are prohibited from owning semi-automatic weapons. PFUI. If it’s too dangerous for us, it’s too dangerous for the cops to have.

Snake307 on February 24, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Pablo Honey on February 24, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Go change your underwear…

and tell your mommy it’s time for your HotPocket.

Solaratov on February 24, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Feds Buy Two Billion Rounds of Ammunition

Speakup on February 24, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Send to Glock, S&W, Ruger…

gssf@glock.us

qa@smith-wesson.com

Dear

I would ask that you join with other firearms manufactures in the boycott of police and politicians in the states where anti-Constitutional laws have been passed with the intent of defeating the sacred 2nd amendment and denying the people their inalienable rights to keep and bear firearms. It is absurd that our employees- the police and politicians should be better armed than their employers- We the People. And it is extremely dangerous too if history is any judge.

We must make a united stand against this intolerable attack upon our God given and Constitutionally guaranteed sacred rights. To those who are given much, much is expected. Your company and the other large gun manufactures have much to risk but also everything to lose if we lose the 2nd amendment to idiots, communists and totalitarians. A united front will all but guarantee victory and not insignificantly, shield individual companies from discrimination and harm.

Sincerely,

Twana on February 24, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Spring Field Armory:

customshop@springfield-armory.com

Twana on February 24, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Banning 3D printers in 5… 4… 3…

Calguns Foundation ‏@CalgunsFdn

And it appears that @DefDist has mastered the 3D printed AR lower http://defdist.tumblr.com/post/43848355063/in-other-news-weve-got-printed-ar-lowers-figured

petefrt on February 24, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Even if every single US weapons mfgr were to ban selling their products to The Gummint, I guarantee that Obama and all the liberal bootlicking LEO bureaucrats will have no problem or moral qualm buying from NORINCO, the weapns manufacturer run by corrupt Communist bureaucrats in the Communist Chinese Gummint.

CatchAll on February 24, 2013 at 3:20 PM

“And there absolutely will not be recordkeeping on legitimate, law-abiding gun owners.”

On Sunday, Coburn said record-keeping provisions could “kill” the agreement.

Southern by choice22 on February 24, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Hear, hear!

Draw the line in the sand here: NO record-keeping. NONE.

petefrt on February 24, 2013 at 3:23 PM

On Sunday, Coburn said record-keeping provisions could “kill” the agreement.

You see, if leftists were serious about background checks for public safety, they’d agree to this. But no, they’ll hold out for record-keeping even if it means a background check bill won’t pass.

And that, in a nutshell, is proof positive of their true intent. They want background checks not for public safety, but because it’s a big step down the road to universal gun registration.

petefrt on February 24, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Get ready to hear from the myriad of HotAir supporters who think the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be outlawed or, the neo Goldwarters who think it never should have been passed.

libfreeordie on February 24, 2013 at 8:26 AM

Do you realize how many times you’ve smacked around on this? Do you read these threads?

A bit of trivia: who are the only politicians in America to speak condescendingly and racially of Barack Obama? Harry Reid, Joe Biden and Bill Clinton. The democrats have a deeply patriarchal, colonial and racist conception of minorities. This is perfectly represented among the lily-white editorial departments and academic warrens of the liberal/left vanguard. The Left needs the races balkanized, dependent and fearful of self-empowerment outside the “movement.” This is not a position for anybody who would respect the autonomy and inherent dignity of others.

Martin Luther King udnerstood this.

rrpjr on February 24, 2013 at 3:34 PM

You have GOT to love this and if you do make certain to let companies still doing business with these anti-Constitution states that they WILL LOSE YOUR BUSINESS.

I may ask my favorite gunsmith how much he would charge me to make a fully automatic pistol from scratch for me … for hunting purposes! I’m certain the price would be right.

DannoJyd on February 24, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Get ready to hear from the myriad of HotAir supporters who think the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be outlawed or, the neo Goldwarters who think it never should have been passed.

libfreeordie on February 24, 2013 at 8:26 AM

History lesson.

At the time of the Civil War, Democrats were the party that supported slavery. Democrats owned slaves. Republicans freed them. Lincoln was actually a Republican, believe it or not. The first blacks in congress were Republicans.

Did you know that welfare was a plantation idea? If you were a slave, you got free food and housing. Free medical care too. All you had to do was obey the master and he took care of you. Think about that.

JellyToast on February 24, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Draw the line in the sand here: NO record-keeping. NONE.

petefrt on February 24, 2013 at 3:23 PM

And what do you think universal background check is?

With liberals, its not the obvious thing you really need to worry about (database), its what behind Door Number 2 or 3.

Someone will just forget to purge records as required by law. Or pass them off to an offline database, simple code/procedure change that no one really needs to see. While GOP is concentrated on Door 1, its the Door 3 that is a real issue that also needs to be pushed back on. Either entire Feinstein bill is struck down, as it should IMO, ir we will end up with a database, one way or another.

riddick on February 24, 2013 at 7:03 PM

I may ask my favorite gunsmith how much he would charge me to make a fully automatic pistol from scratch for me … for hunting purposes! I’m certain the price would be right.

DannoJyd on February 24, 2013 at 4:43 PM

You might want to think twice – maybe three times – before advertising your intent to break numerous federal laws…and to try to get a federally licensed gunsmith to abet you. Jus’ sayin’.

And, full-auto pistols are a pain in the butt. Ammo wasters and not very utilitarian. If you’re going to go full-auto, you might consider a rifle or full-sized machine gun. You’ll put more rounds on target.

Solaratov on February 24, 2013 at 7:05 PM

You might want to think twice – maybe three times – before advertising your intent to break numerous federal laws…and to try to get a federally licensed gunsmith to abet you. Jus’ sayin’.

Solaratov on February 24, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Surely you must be joking since 0bama’s hollow tip agents have been warned to stop harassing people in my area, OR ELSE! We call these officials Oath Keepers.

IMHO, anyone registering their weapons today are just begging the authorities to come bust down their doors as they will soon be doing in Seattle.

BTW, did you catch the program on Glen Beck TV on how to build your own cannon? SWEET!

DannoJyd on February 24, 2013 at 7:12 PM

riddick on February 24, 2013 at 7:03 PM

I hear ya. That’s why I’d prefer buyer self-disclosure with random background checks for verification. Harder to make a data base out of random checks.

petefrt on February 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Mistake [My AZZ!] in gun bill could defeat the effort

In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”

He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.

DannoJyd on February 24, 2013 at 7:19 PM

DannoJyd on February 24, 2013 at 7:19 PM

You’re right, keyword in all of this is “could”. Instead of WILL. I am sure liberals will pass it while stating they intend to amend the law at some future date and sheeple will go along with that, as they always do.

riddick on February 24, 2013 at 7:55 PM

JellyToast on February 24, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Awesome comment JT.

hawkdriver on February 24, 2013 at 9:30 PM

“…claiming that they supported the citizens more than the government.”

‘claiming’ infers fraud, you position-betraying ‘moderate’ establishmentarian crapweasel.

rayra on February 24, 2013 at 10:33 PM

…Those companies that have standing obligations (as a vendor) would have to honor any and all agreements entered into until such time as the agreement/contract ends, or is voided by either party. …

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

Which is exactly what happened several years ago when CA passed their AB50 .50bmg rifle ban, with several appointed CA law enforcement officials parading their department-owned Barrett .50bmg rifles as ‘scare’ props in hearings with legislators. ‘too dangerous to be in civilian hands’ they said.
Ron Barrett cancelled their orders and support contracts and told CA law enforcement to go to hell for misusing his product in that manner.
He then went much further than an active boycott and engineered and brought to market the .416 Barrett cartridge and versions of his .50bmg rifles to fire it – not much of a stretch since it’s a wildcat conversion of the .50bmg, simply necking-down the .50bmg cartridge. Viola, new caliber, no ban. Same rifles, practically the same ballistic power / performance. And then Barrett got busy selling them to CA citizens. Still is, 7-8yrs on.

rayra on February 24, 2013 at 10:42 PM

The companies which NYS does their business with (Glock, et al) are not participating.

Mr. Grump on February 23, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Yet.
BerettaUSA is now openly talking about leaving MD if they pass similar egregious bans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/berettas-future-in-maryland-tied-to-states-gun-control-debate/2013/02/23/bcc56c62-7776-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html?hpid=z3

rayra on February 24, 2013 at 10:46 PM

The roster of firms decling to do business with burgeoning police states is growing every day, both in size and stature of the companies. It started with one guy selling military surplus. Now it is name-brand firms. Magpul in CO was the largest, until Beretta put down their marker.

rayra on February 24, 2013 at 10:48 PM

They did put the ban on reselling brass into effect in 2009 and it got a lot of attention.

They resumed the reselling of brass and blamed “a regulation initiated during the Bush administration” for the ban being put in place.

PolAgnostic on February 23, 2013 at 8:15 PM

The mandatory destruction order has been recently reinstated in several locations. ‘all brass must be crushed or shredded before leaving facility premises.’ They aren’t even taking a sworn / contractual intent to do so.

rayra on February 24, 2013 at 10:50 PM

I hear ya. That’s why I’d prefer buyer self-disclosure with random background checks for verification. Harder to make a data base out of random checks.

petefrt on February 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM

http://www.bob-owens.com/2013/02/the-charade-is-over-democrats-tip-hand-that-background-checks-are-a-smokescreen-for-national-gun-registration/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BobOwens+%28Bob+Owens%29

riddick on February 25, 2013 at 12:27 AM

if only our politicians had such back-bone…

Darvin Dowdy on February 25, 2013 at 7:11 AM

BerettaUSA is now openly talking about leaving MD if they pass similar egregious bans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/berettas-future-in-maryland-tied-to-states-gun-control-debate/2013/02/23/bcc56c62-7776-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html?hpid=z3

rayra on February 24, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Damn. I might just have to make them my next gun of choice.

Chaz706 on February 25, 2013 at 7:34 AM

Back in the Clinton era, Andrew Cuomo was point man for their efforts to get firearms manufacturers to agree to “marketing limits” that were intended to get the gun companies to cram down on civilian ownership. See http://archives.hud.gov/remarks/cuomo/speeches/smwsagr.cfm. The only gun company that signed on was Smith & Wesson; when it did, it created a huge reaction by gun owners. At the time, S&W was owned by a Brit investment banker, and as I recall, shortly after it sold the company to Saf-T-Hammer, which was at the time run by gun people. Those folks turned the company around, big time. As I further recall, no other gun company signed the agreement, which died on its own when Bush was elected.

Why bring this up? Two reasons:

1. Andrew Cuomo hasn’t changed and that should be recalled.
2. Firearms manufacturers react to consumer pressure.

I for one do not intend to purchase any firearms or firearms related equipment from any of the companies who distinguishing who they will sell to between civilians and law enforcement. There are plenty of good companies on the “Nice List” being kept on line, and I plan to give them my thanks with my purchases.

FiveG on February 25, 2013 at 7:46 AM

We have an all volunteer military made up, by far, from more right leaning than left leaning individuals. Neither our military or our LEO’s are inclined to take on odds where they are outnumbered 100:1 – much less one that leads to them being a perpetual target.

Obama has had a plan for dealing with the military since before he took office. If you don’t believe that, you are grossly underestimating him.

tdarrington on February 25, 2013 at 8:09 AM

riddick on February 25, 2013 at 12:27 AM

Yes. To restate:

You see, if leftists were serious about background checks for public safety, they’d agree to this. But no, they’ll hold out for record-keeping even if it means a background check bill won’t pass.

And that, in a nutshell, is proof positive of their true intent. They want background checks not for public safety, but because it’s a big step down the road to universal gun registration.

petefrt on February 25, 2013 at 8:40 AM

One of the companies that’s refusing to sell to New York is Barrett. They make the best sniper’s rifles on the planet. It’s worth considering how a sniper’s rifle can be considered an “assault weapon” because it’s got a pistol grip.

hawksruleva on February 25, 2013 at 10:50 AM

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

Here’s the difference. They’re not able to sell to other people in New York. So they’re not selling to cops, either.

hawksruleva on February 25, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Beretta USA may pull out of MD. They moved some infrastructure in the past to VA. I heard this hinted at the MD Senate hearing on Feb. 6th. Now it is in print and after the bill was changed to exempt Beretta and other gun manufacturers in MD from liability suits.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/berettas-future-in-maryland-tied-to-states-gun-control-debate/2013/02/23/bcc56c62-7776-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story_1.html

amr on February 25, 2013 at 11:08 AM

So – where can I find the list?
The media – Hot Air included – keeps talking about all the companies doing this, but I cannot find an updated list of who is in.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3