Page 1 of 3 123 Last
Like Tree47Likes

Thread: 59 Gun Companies Stop Sales To Law Enforcement In Anti-2nd Amendment States

  1. #1
    Auxiliary Police Officer
    wolfgang1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    203

    59 Gun Companies Stop Sales To Law Enforcement In Anti-2nd Amendment States

    Excerpted from REAL CLEAR POLITICS: 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 44 companies on our list, with more being added as we receive notification. Here are the additions since Wednesday:

    Barrett Firearms
    Exile Machine
    Tier One Arms
    Bravo Company USA
    Primary Weapons Systems
    Crusader Weaponry
    Top Gun Supply
    Kiss Tactical
    Clark Fork Tactical
    OFA Tactical
    One Source Tactical
    Templar Tactical Arms
    NEMO Arms
    Old Grouch’s Military Surplus
    Big Horn Armory
    Midway USA
    CMMG Inc
    Rocky Top Tactical
    Badger Peak
    Controlled Chaos Arms
    SRT Arms
    Norton Firearms
    Citizen Arms
    Evolution Weaponry
    Doublestar Corp
    JCW Industries
    Huntertown Arms

    Here’s a sample of statements from some of the recent additions to the list as well as the positions of the companies that have reached out to TheBlaze directly to declare their policy shift:

    Steve Adelmann of Citizen Arms shared the following from his company’s statement, made the day after New York changed its laws:

    ”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”.

    Link: http://patdollard.com/2013/02/44-gun...ndment-states/

    UPDATE:
    Seems as though there is a rally going to be held on Feb 28th in Albany, NY

    2nd Amendment rally announced in Albany

    On Thursday, 28 February, there is going to be a "Civil Rights – 2nd Amendment Rally" at noon at the Legislative Building, 80 Swan Street, in Albany.

    This rally, sponsored by: National Rifle Association, NSRPA, activist JJ Johnson–Smith and the Second Amendment Foundation, is to protest the recent anti-gun legislation passed by New York Governor Cuomo.

    That legislation, touted by the governor to be the strongest anti-gun law in the country, contains the followin provisions

    •Assault weapons are defined by having two "military rifle" features, such as folding stock, muzzle flash suppressor or bayonet mount. The proposal would reduce that to one feature, including the popular pistol grip. The language specifically targeted the military-style rifle used in the Newtown shootings. Current owners of those guns will have to register them.
    •Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family would be subject to a background check through a dealer. New Yorkers also would be barred from buying assault weapons over the Internet, and failing to safely store a weapon could lead to a misdemeanor charge.
    •Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.
    •Stores that sell ammunition will have to register with the state, run background checks on buyers of bullets and keep an electronic database of bullet sales.
    •Therapists who believe a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally will be required to report it to a mental health director who would have to notify the state. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.
    •Increased sentences for gun crimes including the shooting of a first responder that Cuomo called the "Webster provision." Last month in the western New York town of Webster, two firefighters were killed after responding to a fire set by the shooter, who eventually killed himself (http://yhoo.it/X00Nf5).

    .NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre Senate Testimony
    NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre Senate Testimony

    Location: 80 Swan Street, Albany, NY
    42.658199310303 ; -73.754508972168 .The National Rifle Assocation (NRA) has been at the forefront of this latest gun debate. Their CEO testified before the a U.S. Senate Committee on gun violence yesterday, 30 January. The organization has millions of members across the country and defends the 2nd Amendment and the private citizen's right to bear arms.

    The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), based in Bellvue, Washington, is "dedicated to promoting a better understanding about our Constitutional heritage to privately own and possess firearms. To that end, we carry on many educational and legal action programs designed to better inform the public about the gun control debate" (http://bit.ly/VwK45E).

    Link: http://www.examiner.com/article/2nd-...nounced-albany
    Last edited by wolfgang1; 02-25-2013 at 12:41 PM. Reason: Update
    beachcop05 likes this.
    America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

    ~Abraham Lincoln

    Quote Originally Posted by CACBAND View Post
    One of my background investigators put it best. He said, We're not looking for perfect people, they don't exist, we're looking for people who can be honest about their less than staler moments, face them, and learn from them.

  2. #2
    taxi driver
    Max K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    449
    That will go together well with the 493 sheriffs who have indicated that they will not enforce any new Obama gun restrictions:

    constitutionclub.ning.com/forum/topics/county-sheriff-s-honor-roll

    But since the second amendment is at the center of the argument: I don't understand parts of the second amendment, for example, the way the commas are placed:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Can anybody point me to a good website that explains it? Okay wait, I just looked at wikipedia, and they have more than one version there, including this one which was authenticated by Thomas Jefferson (the commas are different here):

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Much better, now I can see some of the logic that is lost to me in the other version. Why do they always quote the other (confusing) version? But I still don't understand "well regulated militia": libs use that phrase to say: "see, the Founding Fathers wanted only militias to have guns, and even those were regulated by strict gun control laws". Then there was the Heller decision, which I think changed what the second amendment officially means: these things suggest to me that the second amendment is too ambiguous that anybody could honestly say that it is "simple, clear, and self-evident". Maybe what is needed is for the second amendment to be amended (clarified), to MAKE IT simple, clear and self-evident, because not everybody is able to become a constitutional scholar. Even a supposedly simple question like "what is a militia" immediately causes partisan division and disagreement.

    [edit]: I just found this:

    freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/texas-to-block-cops-from-enforcing-federal-gun-laws/
    Last edited by Max K; 02-25-2013 at 01:57 AM.

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,320
    While I aplaud the effort and message it sends, it won't do a damn thing to LE and the state gov unless Glock, Sig, and S&W join that list
    slamdunc, jannino, NYCDep and 8 others like this.

  4. #4
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    51
    This situation is really getting messier. My point is why we a young teen need a gun? Whatever the politics is going on this issue, I want the access of arms to really needy one only. It is an obvious fact that access to the gun in our country is not restricted to the desired level.

  5. #5
    Senior Veteran

    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    TN USA
    Posts
    757
    And I want your rights to assemble, to speak out freely, to vote and complain about the government restricted. You haven't truly demonstrated any need to speak out, I just want to restrict it to the desired level.

    See how that works there?

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NW Ohio
    Posts
    3,123
    Quote Originally Posted by TashaSilvester View Post
    This situation is really getting messier. My point is why we a young teen need a gun? Whatever the politics is going on this issue, I want the access of arms to really needy one only. It is an obvious fact that access to the gun in our country is not restricted to the desired level.
    In many of the cases where tools were used in a crime (guns are tools) it was illegal for the criminal to have that tool for the use they put it to. It is illegal most places for "young teens" to have guns without supervision. It is illegal under federal law for a person under the age of 18 to buy a long gun from a dealer, or under 21 to buy a handgun from a dealer.

    Bill
    Just pay your dues, and be quiet :-)

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    IAM Rand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,116
    I would love to see the major player's like Glock, Smith and Wesson, Ruger, and Colt to join this pledge. Changes only occur when it becomes too painful to ignore.
    beachcop05 likes this.
    "Don't make perfect the enemy of good."

    There are truths which are not for all men, nor for all times.

    "Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe."

    Frederick Douglass

  8. #8
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    215
    I'm confused. So these companies are refusing to sell to law enforcement agencies where the State is anti 2nd amendment? Regardless of the views of the law enforcement agency?

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    96
    The person who compiled the list got some bad information, at least on one of the companies listed. I'm not going to name the company, for personal/professional reasons. While it is supportive of the second amendment, it certainly shouldn't be listed here.

  10. #10
    taxi driver
    Max K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialBlend View Post
    I'm confused. So these companies are refusing to sell to law enforcement agencies where the State is anti 2nd amendment? Regardless of the views of the law enforcement agency?
    Yes, because this is not about the views of law enforcement agencies, this is about restrictive gun control laws (like the new law in New York); the companies are saying to state governments:

    if you're going to turn honest citizens into felons by passing new laws, we do not support that, and our way of showing our disapproval is to make no distinction between LE and civilians, as customers: if civilians cannot purchase arms because of new restrictions, then LE cannot purchase them from us, either.
    beachcop05 likes this.

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    1911user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by RSGSRT View Post
    While I aplaud the effort and message it sends, it won't do a damn thing to LE and the state gov unless Glock, Sig, and S&W join that list
    +1. I would love a ringside seat to that show. Imagine no parts or ammo for the Local and State LE. No new firearms or parts from any vendors. This whole mess is just that, a mess and sad state of affairs.

    An ammo boycott would really put a hurt on all departments. They were in dire straights at the beginning of the run on ammo over 2 yrs ago, imagine if they were told to...expect No Ammo once your current contract Is fulfilled!! Where do I buy a ticket?

  12. #12
    Tmg
    Tmg is offline
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,482
    Those companies are a bunch of jack arsses.

    Its bad enough the state has made it so people can not defend themselves. Now these companies want to make it harder for the people that can defend the innocent not be able to as well and with less equipment.

    Not selling to the Police is only going to benefit the bad guys.......
    Making the streets safer, one donut at a time

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    GangGreen712's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Between Boston and DC
    Posts
    1,796
    Quote Originally Posted by IAM Rand View Post
    I would love to see the major player's like Glock, Smith and Wesson, Ruger, and Colt to join this pledge. Changes only occur when it becomes too painful to ignore.
    Ruger, as far as I know, has no major LE contracts and, as large as they are, they wouldn't make an impact if they refused sale to LE agencies. However, Colt and Remington/Bushmaster are probably the two biggest suppliers of ARs to law enforcement and civilians and they would make a major impact if they refused sale, as smaller companies would be following suit like crazy. It's a very real possibility as Remington is already hurting from NY's SAFE act and Colt has threatened to leave CT if any further gun restrictions or tax hikes pass, though our Adam Henry governor doesn't care.

    I hate to say it, I can't see the major pistol suppliers sacrificing their contracts to some of the most populated states in the country. Glock, Sig, and H&K are all European companies that couldn't care less about the right for civilians to bear arms. All three supply guns to all the European countries, almost all ban most, if not all, civilian firearm ownership under most circumstances. If that isn't bad enough, they all supply various totalitarian counties such as Pakistan, Malaysia, Singapore, Belarus, and Yemen. These countries punish speaking against the government with death, and if Glock, Sig, or H&K supplies them, I don't think they care if a U.S. state has a magazine restriction. Smith & Wesson is the only one of the bunch I could see refusing sale to states that restrict the 2nd Amendment. However, they are on bent on taking away the LE market from Glock, so I don't know if they would be willing to sacrifice NY and CA if that's their mission.
    Jacob2899 likes this.
    "If the police have to come get you, they're bringing an @$$ kicking with them!"
    -Chris Rock

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    IAM Rand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,116
    If you saw the Dorner stand off you would have seen a Deputy slinging a Ruger Mini 14. I know some guys that carry Ruger pistol, why I am not sure.
    "Don't make perfect the enemy of good."

    There are truths which are not for all men, nor for all times.

    "Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe."

    Frederick Douglass

  15. #15
    Salty Dog

    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    California Central Coast
    Posts
    6,981
    Quote Originally Posted by TashaSilvester View Post
    This situation is really getting messier. My point is why we a young teen need a gun? Whatever the politics is going on this issue, I want the access of arms to really needy one only. It is an obvious fact that access to the gun in our country is not restricted to the desired level.
    Yeah, okay JarJar. Once you get the second semester on your ESL class done, maybe you can rewrite that in some manner that makes sense.
    Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. - Ronald Reagan

    I don't think It'll happen in the US because we don't trust our government. We are a country of skeptics, raised by skeptics, founded by skeptics. - Amaroq

  16. #16
    DENIED!
    NYCTNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    5,003
    Glock, Sig and other major branded gun manufacturer need to flood the civilian market with sales of guns so they can unload thousands in that state, then shut it down after a couple months.

    This will get the consumers ticked off enough and maybe just maybe sway someone on top to redo these silly laws.

    The only big company there is really Barrett. I doubt LE uses the other companies for their fire power.
    Last edited by NYCTNT; 02-25-2013 at 10:46 PM.
    beachcop05 likes this.

  17. #17
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Tmg View Post
    Its bad enough the state has made it so people can not defend themselves. Now these companies want to make it harder for the people that can defend the innocent not be able to as well and with less equipment.
    The problem is that the "police" and the "people" are supposed to be the same thing:

    Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

    So, yes... that we have less makes things difficult. The problem is that the government is trying to divide "we" into "police" and "not police", a definition which you've apparently bought into, when such a definition is both unnatural and contrary to the maintenance of liberty.

    "We" should have everything we need to perform our civic duty to defend ourselves, our neighbors and our liberty... whether somebody has issued us a badge or not, whether we get paid to do it full time or not.

    Restricting police to equipment that non-police can buy makes perfect sense, since the only difference is SUPPOSED to be the paycheck. As the people enforcing the unconstitutional restrictions against the rest of the population it also aids liberty to restrict the police to the same equipment as everybody else.

    If the police don't like it they should go re-read their commissioning oath and then do some hard thinking.
    "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

  18. #18
    Forum Jedi
    Raiden341's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    1,921
    I laugh how these gun companies are taking it out on LE agencies like they are the ones actually making the laws and imposing the BS restrictions . . . Refusing to sales to them doesn't prove a thing. Do something that effects the politicians that are actually trying to PUT the BS into action . . .

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    southern CA to the northeast
    Posts
    1,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Tmg View Post
    Those companies are a bunch of jack arsses.

    Its bad enough the state has made it so people can not defend themselves. Now these companies want to make it harder for the people that can defend the innocent not be able to as well and with less equipment.

    Not selling to the Police is only going to benefit the bad guys.......
    Couldn't disagree more, they are doing it to make a point.

    These companies have an absolute right to do this and I applaud them for it.
    BigTzzy likes this.

  20. #20
    Molon Labe
    LA DEP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    9,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Tmg View Post
    Those companies are a bunch of jack arsses.

    Its bad enough the state has made it so people can not defend themselves. Now these companies want to make it harder for the people that can defend the innocent not be able to as well and with less equipment.

    Not selling to the Police is only going to benefit the bad guys.......
    What is good for the general public is good for the government and its' agents as well.

    I support this move 100% and hope that EVERY company follows suit.
    Resq14, beachcop05, KJB and 2 others like this.
    The posts on this forum by this poster are of his personal opinion, and his personal opinion alone

    "Politicians are like diapers. They need to be changed often and for the same reason"

    "We fight not for glory; nor for wealth; nor honor, but only and alone we fight for freedom, which no good man surrenders but with his life"

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    St. Louis area/Missouri
    Posts
    1,209
    I only wish more of the big companies jumped on board. I would love to see the security details for poltitians abiding by the same limit, including when the POTUS comes through town and we are all blocking off intersections and shutting down highway for his-heinous....

    no it wasn't a misspell
    beachcop05 likes this.

  22. #22
    taxi driver
    Max K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by Raiden341 View Post
    I laugh how these gun companies are taking it out on LE agencies like they are the ones actually making the laws and imposing the BS restrictions . . . Refusing to sales to them doesn't prove a thing. Do something that effects the politicians that are actually trying to PUT the BS into action . . .
    Others have said that LE guns are mostly made by a few big companies who are unlikely to join the boycott, so it's not like the police will have to go back to bows & arrows again. The boycott is intended to be an indicator that something is amiss, and it is a stronger indicator than just words: it is an action. The final outcome is uncertain, but in the meantime there is a chance that this kind of action might get noticed, might inspire others, and ultimately might help to overturn some of these you-can-only-have-7-arrows-in-your-quiver laws.

    [edit]: here is an example of why these companies are doing this: a letter by Ronnie Barrett of Barrett Firearms from 2-20-13:

    Barrett’s Position Regarding the Assault on Liberty

    Barrett opposes those who are illegally disarming the American public from their efficient arms and creating superior armed elitist government agencies.

    Elected state officials of New York, having been sworn to protect our Constitution, have instead committed an offense against it and their citizens by stripping inalienable rights duly protected and guaranteed under the Second Amendment. By their deliberate and sinister actions, these officials now cause their state and local policing agencies to enforce these unconstitutional and illegal so called “laws”.

    By current law, Barrett cannot be an accomplice with any lawbreaker, therefore, cannot and will not service or sell to New York government agencies. Barrett also applies this stance to the individual elected official who, as a matter of public record, has voted for or created regulation that violates the constitutional rights of their citizens. This is an expansion of our 2002 ban against the California government due to their second amendment infringements, and shall apply to any future violators.

    In the course of world history there have been officials that strip inalienable rights from the people that were given to all by our Creator. Most of these officials inevitably come to trial, some do not.

    Intentionally violating constitutional rights by officials that have sworn to uphold them should have severe prison sentences.

    With the clear vision of horrible events in history repeating itself, all manufacturers of firearms or related equipment remaining in partnership with such violators should have a respectable fear of being found with the guilty on their day of trial.

    During this era of assault on liberty, Barrett will remain steadfast in our efforts to serve law-abiding citizens of all fifty states, and stands together with you in the struggles we will fight and win.

    Ronnie Barrett, Chairman and CEO
    Last edited by Max K; 02-26-2013 at 03:17 AM.
    beachcop05 likes this.

  23. #23
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    2,520
    It is not JUST about making a statement.

    They are sticking to the intent of the 2nd amendment. They do not want to government to be armed to the teeth while the rest of us have only sticks and stones.

    Is it going to completely prevent LE from acquiring firearms? Of course not. But each person or company can only do their part. Better to be part of the solution than part of the problem!

  24. #24
    Tmg
    Tmg is offline
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,482
    Quote Originally Posted by tanksoldier View Post
    The problem is that the "police" and the "people" are supposed to be the same thing:

    Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

    So, yes... that we have less makes things difficult. The problem is that the government is trying to divide "we" into "police" and "not police", a definition which you've apparently bought into, when such a definition is both unnatural and contrary to the maintenance of liberty.

    "We" should have everything we need to perform our civic duty to defend ourselves, our neighbors and our liberty... whether somebody has issued us a badge or not, whether we get paid to do it full time or not.

    Restricting police to equipment that non-police can buy makes perfect sense, since the only difference is SUPPOSED to be the paycheck. As the people enforcing the unconstitutional restrictions against the rest of the population it also aids liberty to restrict the police to the same equipment as everybody else.

    If the police don't like it they should go re-read their commissioning oath and then do some hard thinking.
    So by your argument we should take the lights and sirens off of our cars since the average citizen cant have them nor can they run stop lights/signs, speed, and so on while running code.

    Or your argument suggests we should let people speed, run stop lights/signs, and so on. We should also allow the average person to have lights and sirens.

    Restricting weapons from the Police will only hurt the good guys and help the bad guys.

    The Police are not making these laws. These jack arss companies should be going after the politicians NOT the people who are caught in the middle and have nothing to do with with the passing of these laws.
    Making the streets safer, one donut at a time

  25. #25
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    7,114
    Looks like a list of companies that do little to no LE related business anyway, so no one is really out anything.

Page 1 of 3 123 Last

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Click here to log in or register