Firearms Manufacturers Refusing to Sell to States That Pass Strict Gun Laws

A number of firearms manufacturers and companies that sell firearms related products have joined a growing list of companies refusing to do business with states, counties, and other government agencies that pass new laws restricting citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

A list of some 34 of these companies has been posted at a website called The Police Loophole. The site informs visitors that the companies have publicly announced that they “will not sell items to states, counties, cities, and municipalities that restrict their citizens rights to own” the products they sell.

“There are some states, counties, cities, and municipalities in our great nation that fail to allow their citizens to fully exercise their right to keep and bear arms with restrictions such as magazine capacity or types of firearms that are widely available to citizens of other states, counties, cities, and municipalities. However, these government entities do not place these restrictions upon their own employees, such as police officers.”

The “police loophole” phrase is a take off on the so-called “gun show loophole” that gun control advocates use in order to push their anti-gun policies. One good “closed” loophole deserves another, as far as these website operators are concerned.

Several of the companies have thus far limited their ban on sales only to government agencies in New York State, but most have no specific locales for restrictions announced.

York Arms of Buxton, Maine, is typical of the move to refuse to sell to government agencies in New York. The company recently announced it won’t sell to any government agencies in the Empire State.

York Arms posted the following notice to its website: “Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York. We have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York. As a result we have halted sales of rifles, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, machine guns, and silencers to New York governmental agencies.”

he Maine-based York also cancelled all outstanding orders it had in the works with government agencies in New York.

One of the country’s largest mail-order merchants of firearms-related merchandise also announced a ban on sales to governments.

“Recently, companies such as LaRue Tactical and Olympic Arms have announced that they will no longer sell prohibited items to government agencies and personnel in states that deny the right to own those items to civilians. It has been and will continue to be Cheaper Than Dirt’s policy to not to sell prohibited items to government agencies and/or agents in states, counties, cities, and municipalities that have enacted restrictive gun control laws against their citizens. We support and encourage other companies that share in this policy.”

Other companies on the list include MidwayUSA, Smith Enterprises, Inc, Barret Arms, Norton Firearms, Tactical Solutions, and many more.

Slavery Flap Shows Emory University Professors are Morons
Obama Fails to Register ',' Hilariously, Site Re-Directs to NRA Homepage
  • GarandFan

    Just hope the “big guys” start joining as well.

  • LiberalNightmare

    i disagree with this.

    They should only sell smoothbore muskets to those state law enforcement and federal agencies

    • herddog505

      Good one!

      I wonder what the average US police officer (sheriff, constable, etc.) carried in 1787? Since (apparently) the Second Amendment applies only to that time and place, I think it only fair to equip our police officers* with the appropriate gear. Well, the police in gun-grabbing states and municipalities, that is. Can you see Bloomers and Baby Cuomo being guarded by cops with truncheons and Brown Besses?


      (*) And where, pray, is there a right for the police to carry guns???

  • At this point, 101 companies are refusing to sell to NY law enforcement.

    One stated:

    “Our standing policy is that we will NOT make exceptions for LE/gov’t agencies in states that prohibit their own citizens from owning the same items. If a particular product is not allowed for the true “first responders”, we are not going to sell it to members of a reactionary force who will show up later to deal with the aftermath of an incident that has most likely already finished by they time they arrive.

    This sort of “special privilege” makes as much sense as making lug wrenches and jacks only available to tow truck drivers, yet the idiots (yes, IDIOTS) in gov’t still push for legislation that supports this sort of illogical reasoning. If it is important enough for members of the LE/gov’t community to have yet verboten for the public, we DO NOT want to do business with you, feel free to take your business to one of the ever-decreasing number of vendors who will turn a blind eye to this injustice you are foisting upon the law-abiding citizens of this country.”

    I keep getting the feeling I’m living in a Tom Clancy knock-off, where the top politicians haven maneuvered for years to get to a point where they think they’re untouchable and unaccountable, and ready to implement their ideas for ‘proper control’ of the population. First, disarm them so they can’t object. Second, set themselves up to be in control permanently. Third – do everything they think is best for the people, whether the people want it or not

    In a cheap novel, this would lead to massive bloodshed, and a collapse of the government. I hope like hell that we’re not characters in a cheap novel.

    • jim_m

      In a cheap novel, this would lead to massive bloodshed, and a collapse
      of the government. I hope like hell that we’re not characters in a
      cheap novel.

      The left hopes that you are, except instead of the collapse of government they hope for the abrogation of the constitution and a declaration of autocratic rule.

  • ackwired

    The idea that firearms manufacturers would refuse to sell to ANYONE could be seen as good news, although this does not seem to be a step in the direction of accepting more responsibility.

    • jim_m

      If accepting responsibility for people who break the law then the answer is no, they should not have to do so. If you are talking about taking responsibility as citizens to protect and defend civil and constitutional rights of 300 million citizens, then yes they are accepting more responsibility by not enabling an overreaching statist thugocracy to take away our liberties.

    • Conservachef

      Sorry, ackwired, I’m not sure what you mean by “accepting more responsibility.” Are you saying that manufacturers should accept responsibility when someone misuses their product? Or that the gov should accept responsibility for enacting dumb legislation?

      • “Are you saying that manufacturers should accept responsibility when someone misuses their product?”

        That’s how I’m interpreting that. He’s not mentioning government, as far as I can see.

        But it’s been a trend for a long time now in consumer litigation. Customer misuses item (like using a lawn mower to trim a hedge) and predictably hurts himself, then sues the manufacturer because there was no explicit warning to NOT use the fool thing as a hedge trimmer.

        The user is NEVER at fault – it’s always the manufacturer.

        • Conservachef

          I’m giving the benefit of the doubt in this case since he didn’t just come out with “ZOMG GUN NUTS!”

          The best one I heard was someone put his RV on cruise control, and got up to go get something. After the crash, he sued. (That may just be urban legend in my neck of the woods, I’m not sure.)

          You would think that, in the case of firearms, it’s obvious that manufacturers can’t be responsible when the consumer uses their product recklessly, or -especially- in the commission of a crime.

          • You’d think that – but I think you’d be wrong on that. I remember a few attempts to introduce product liability on firearms – google that up and you’ll see a number of them.

            What may be obvious to you or I is simply money for lawyers.

            It kind of reminds me of the general aviation market. The pilot is almost NEVER at fault in a crash, even if his corpse has a blood alcohol content of .29 and there’s shattered bottles of booze without caps in the wreckage – the family will always find a lawyer who’ll immediate sue the maker of the plane, the engine, and the avionics. (Which tends to drive up the prices for general aviation aircraft and such. Insurance for such litigation’s expensive.)

          • Conservachef

            That’s why you get “do not use in bathtub” warnings on curling irons, hair dryers, and even toasters… I’ve seen a warning on a bag of trail mix (containing peanuts) that says “this product processed in a facility containing nuts.”

            I think (in regards to firearms, at least) that manufacturer liability is a losing battle. Does anyone successfully sue Budweiser for the drunk driver that drives down a sidewalk? I’m betting that self-righteous gun grabbers will turn to personal liability- mandating insurance for your guns.

          • Looks at bag of peanuts…

            “Allergy Information: Packed in a facility on shared equipment that may contain peanuts, tree nuts, soy, wheat, seaweed, milk, eggs, and FD&C colors.”

            Yep. We’ve reached critical mass on lawyers. We’re doomed.

          • jim_m

            Maybe it’s the lawyers who should be doomed.

          • I’ll grant that lawyers do have a purpose, and a valid one… but they’re a lot like OTC painkillers.

            Aspirin’s good stuff – but OD and “Symptoms may range from mild nausea and vomiting, abdominal pain, lethargy, tinnitus, and dizziness to severe such as seizure or cerebral edema depending on the dose consumed.”


            I leave it to the reader to figure out what stage we’re at on the Lawyer OD symptoms. I’m thinking abdominal pain and lethargy, myself.

          • Conservachef

            99% of the lawyers give the other 1 a bad name…

          • That’s like giving the benefit of the doubt to Charles Manson…

        • jim_m

          Actually, in many states even if there is an express warning and a safety mechanism to prevent injury and the user deliberately defeats that safety mechanism and knowingly misuses the product, liability laws will allow the user to sue the manufacturer and collect damages. The trial lawyers believe that manufacturers must indemnify their users despite manifest evidence of gross negligence.

          It is this sort of liability that the left wants to apply toward gun manufacturers for the purpose of putting them all out of business.

          • Well, there’s a lot of unemployed lawyers out there… and they can’t ALL work at Starbucks.

            Just think of it as a jobs program for unemployed lawyers!

          • Conservachef

            Heck, you almost need a doctorate to read some of those orders. I heard that some guy ordered a $48 cup of coffee from there recently…

          • Must have been a cup of elephant coffee. (I wish I were joking – there’s coffee aficionados who highly prize the beans that have gone through an elephant’s digestive system. God, I hope they wash ’em before they grind ’em.)


          • Conservachef

            Wow does that open the door for some crappy bad jokes…

        • ackwired

          I would not suggest that the manufacturer is responsible for the misuse of their product. But in a sane society, the manufacturer of firearms would make at least a small effort to prevent easy access by felons and the mentally ill. Instead, they demand the right to sell to anybody.

          • Conservachef

            ackwired, which manufacturers demand the right to sell to anyone? That sounds absurd.

          • ackwired

            It is absurd. But that is what the firearms industry association (NRA) demands. They consistently oppose anything that would reduce sales by the slightest amount, and they consistently advocate more gun sales as the only solution to any problem involving guns.

          • jim_m

            See my comment above about your ignorant and false claim that the NRA is the official gun industry association.

            Perhaps you could acquiant yourself with SAAMI and the NSSF


            Perhaps it just hurts too much to contemplate that millions of people disagree with you and think you’re an ass.

          • I have to admit, I’m not that thrilled with a totally armed society – but I like that idea better than a society that’s legally disarmed.

            It’s really simple, if you observe nature. Predators prefer prey that can’t fight back. You won’t see a pack of wolves (for example) go after the healthy members of a herd – they’ll look for the sick, the weak, and make a meal of them.

            Human predators are no different. That asshole in Sandy Hook went after CHILDREN, in a ‘gun free zone’. The Colorado asshole went to a theater where they had an explicit ‘No Firearms Allowed’ policy. They may have been crazy, but they weren’t stupid enough to search for prey where the prey could fight back effectively.

            Look at DC. No guns allowed – high death rate. Look at Chicago – no guns allowed and again there’s a high death rate. The theory is that if guns were banned in the areas around those cities, the death rates would drop… and they’d likely be right, because those deaths would be spread over a larger area, IE the areas surrounding the cities once firearms were prohibited there.

            Remember – a predator likes prey that can’t fight back.

            Take the odd case of Kennesaw, GA – they mandated each homeowner have a firearm… and the results were interesting.

            Gun rights activist David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.[20] Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999. A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw’s crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure.[21] Later research claims that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw],[22][23] even though the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005.[24]

            The city’s website[25] claims the city has the lowest crime rate in the county.

            There’s no teeth to the law, no fine if you don’t have a gun – but if it’s a choice between a 50/50 chance (maybe) of getting your hide ventilated in a burglary and a maybe 1 in 20 elsewhere – are you going to pick a high-risk area?

            Like I said – predators prefer prey that can’t fight back. And in the case of Chicago and DC, that’s what they’ve got.

            So, much as it’s nationally embarrassing to admit – maybe there’s something to the idea that knowing a gun might possibly be there will deter crime.

          • Conservachef

            Your assertion is absurd. The firearm industry does not demand that sort of thing. Show where the industry, or shooting enthusiasts advocates (the NRA) demand the right to sell to felons or the mentally ill.

            The problem isn’t the guns, it’s the nuts that use them to do bad things. I say go after them and leave the millions of law-abiding gun owners alone.

          • Sorry, man, but you’re wrong on that.

            They want to sell to those who can legally buy. You can’t pass a background check, you’re SOL trying to buy new from a distributor. How is that ‘demanding the right to sell to anybody’?

      • ackwired

        I would not favor legislation. However, I do think that a company that chooses to manufacture a product who’s purpose is to kill has a responsibility to society to distribute the product in a responsible manner.

        • Conservachef

          ackwired, I think they do distribute in a responsible manner. As far as I know, all manufacturers distribute their firearms through dealers- the ones that are required to perform background checks. Additionally, I believe that many include things like trigger locks, and if not they run around $30+. Guns are built with safeties, and some even have more than one (most semi-automatic pistols have two).

          Is it the manufacturer’s responsibility that the consumer use the product in a safe, responsible manner?

          • ackwired

            It is not their responsibility that the consumer use the product in a safe, responsible manner. The firearms industry association (NRA) opposes background checks for all gun purchasers. The industry is also known for not monitoring dealers. They comply with the law. But they are more interested in maximizing sales within the confines of the law than they are in taking responsibility for minimizing the number of guns that end up in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

          • jim_m

            The NRA is not the official representative of industry. It is an association of owners and gets most of its revenue from member dues. (annual budget of $200M, 4.5M members at $35 per year is $157.5M from member dues)

            The idiotic claim that the NRA is nothing more than a mouthpiece for gun manufacturers is a bald faced lie and a base tactic of dishonest or ignorant people who seek to delegitimize the voices of millions of citizens.

          • …It’s what he knows that just ain’t so…

          • [citation required]

          • jim_m

            The NRA opposes expanding background checks because the federal government does nothing to prosecute those who are breaking the law and are caught by the background check and states fail to put the data into the system on people who are adjudicated as mentally incompetent.

            Why should we expand a system that the government is not enforcing or using as promised? What purpose would it serve to force people to jump through more government hoops to access their constitutional rights when the government is not holding up their end of the deal?

          • Conservachef

            The firearms industry association (NRA) opposes background checks for all gun purchasers.

            Wrong. On several counts. First- the NRA is not a representative/lobbying arm/mouthpiece of the manufacturers. It has been pointed out that the NRA represents the individuals that participate in shooting sports and 2nd Amendment supporters. Does that line up with the interests of the manufacturers? Maybe, but that’s because the two are by nature aligned. Again, the NRA represents the people, not the manufacturers.

            Second, neither the industry nor the NRA oppose background checks. Buy from a dealer- submit to a check. There are a number of problems with “universal” background checks. They won’t work without a “universal” gun registry. It is the gov sticking its nose into a private transaction. They won’t do anything to bother criminals.

            You yourself said it is the responsibility of the consumer to use the product correctly. So let’s go after the ones that misuse the product instead of the millions of others that do use theirs responsibly.

    • herddog505

      Does this include car manufacturers, whose products kill about 30,000 Americans each year? Or alcohol manufacturers, whose products kill about 10,000 per year? How about swimming pool or water sports equipment manufacturers? Why, we could save about 4,000 people per year if only we accepted the responsibility of keeping Americans (especially children) away from water. And what about knives? Those deadly weapons (does my 8″ chefs knife count as an assault knife, I wonder?) account for about another 2,000. If the anti-smoking people are to be believed, cigarettes kill nearly a HALF MILLION people per year. Well, we need the tax money, right?

      Let’s face it: the effort to blame an inanimate object for deaths is not only foolish on its face, but the statistics make a hash of the liberal whine that “we wanna SAVE LIVES!”

      By punishing the innocent…

      • ackwired

        Certainly, blaming the object would be foolish. However, a company that manufactures a product who’s purpose is to kill has some responsibility for the distribution of that product in a sane society.

        • jim_m

          Are you claiming that the gun companies have control over individual sales? You’re irrational

          • ackwired

            I’m claiming just exactly what I say. There is no need to cleverly rephrase it.

          • jim_m

            You are asking if companies should be responsible for those sales. Responsibility implies authority over that activity which the gun manufacturers simply do not have nor does any manufacturer really have much power over the retailers who sell their merchandise.

            You are also ignorant of the fact that federal law protects gun manufacturers form this sort of obscene liability that you are suggesting is appropriate.

          • ackwired

            Your implication, not mine. And your assumptions are wrong again.

          • jim_m

            a company that manufactures a product who’s purpose is to kill has some responsibility for the distribution of that product in a sane society.

            Your own words. Are you perhaps having a problem with your English comprehension? You alleged that manufacturers have a responsibility. Back it up and don’t ell me that I am making things up. The intent of your statement was quite clear.

          • He either cannot keep track of is own arguments or is lying…

            Come to think of it, that’s a non-exclusive or as liars often have trouble keeping track of their lies.

          • herddog505

            I don’t think that ackwired is lying: I think that he is, rather, profoundly ignorant about the firearms industry and takes as fact all the things (ranging from the merely stupid to the maliciously dishonest) that the gungrabbers pass off as fact, such as the “gun show loophole”, that the NRA is a mouthpiece for manufacturers, and that gun owners and manufacturers are all in favor of passing out machineguns like candy to anybody who comes along.

            He also has fallen into the trap of blaming inanimate objects (and their manufacturers) for criminal activity, as if the manufacturers of AR-15 hire witch doctors to curse their weapons to make people use them for murder.

          • I do.

          • jim_m

            Lying/irrational/incoherent? What is the difference? He claims that he doesn’t want restrictions on firearms and then argues that restrictions are reasonable. He claims that companies should be responsible for how their products are used but admits that they have no control over who uses them.

            Either he’s lying or just with diminished capacity. I choose the latter, Rodney the former. Ultimately it nets us the same result.

        • herddog505

          I’m sorry: what do you mean by “some responsibility for the distribution of their product”? Guns in our country, contrary to what lefties believe, are NOT sold willy-nilly: there is a rather well-defined, regulated industry for the sale of firearms. It’s not as if Remington, Ruger, CZUSA, etc. send them through the mail to anybody who collects enough boxtops, or that anybody can sell firearms from his house or Mom ‘n’ Pop shop without a license and considerable paperwork. Do you suggest that the firearms manufacturers send out a team of investigators to conduct background checks and psychological evaluations on everybody who tries to buy one of their products?

          Try this: look up a gunsmith or other FFL – preferably a private one, not a “big box” like Gander Mountain – and arrange to talk with him about the paperwork he has to maintain, the taxes he has to pay, and the other legal formalities he has to deal with in order to sell / transfer firearms. I’ve done this: it’s quite a staggering legal responsibility. The vast majority of FFL holders in our country are (shocker!) very law-abiding citizens who are KEENLY aware of their legal responsibilities. Witness the fact that BATFEIEIO and Eric Holder had to coerce them into selling to drug cartels.

          Honestly, you seem to believe that craziest things about firearms.

          Then, go talk to a cop about the hoodlums he deals with. I believe that you’ll find that most of them have prior records; in many cases, very serious ones. Yet, we keep letting them back out on the streets, to often go from crime to crime until they wind up killing somebody. Who is not being responsible here?

          Oh, and as for “a product who’s purpose is to kill” is quite an inflammatory statement. My 22 rifle certainly CAN kill (I shot many a bird and frog and one racooon with it as a boy, before I got a bit older and learned to enjoy watching wildlife instead of shooting it), but to say it’s PURPOSE is to do so is a bit of a stretch. But let’s take a more robust weapon: an AR-15 or a 1911. Yes, they certainly can kill and, indeed, are designed for defense, though I don’t personally know anybody who’s done this; I certainly haven’t*. However, like any tool, they can be used for good (defense) or ill (murder). In the same way, my chefs knife can be used for good (dinner… I hope!) or ill.
          Once again, blaming an inanimate object for the wicked uses to which is it put – worse, blaming the manufacturer of that item – is silly, bordering on outrageous.


          (*) I suspect that my Garand has killed some people, though I trust that you wouldn’t brand it as “wicked” for that.

          • herddog505

            Oh, a final note about manufacturers and their “responsibility”:

            Have a look at many recent designs: they feature locks, loaded chamber indicators, and a variety of other safety devices AS WELL AS prominent printed warnings about safe use. Ruger is especially well-known (mocked, in fact) for this.

            What more do you want?

          • ackwired

            Paperwork and Bureaucracy are not what I’m talking about. Nor is legality. I know that what I’m talking about is old fashioned, and certainly scoffed at by many. I am talking about the idea that those who function as a part of society have a responsibility to make that society better. I would like to see the NRA and the firearms manufacturers sponsor a study of how criminals and the mentally ill obtain firearms. Firearms are unique. Anyone holding a firearm is capable of easily killing. The weakest, most cowardly person alive is in charge with a firearm. If a member of society (human or corporate) is willing to make money providing firearms, decency requests that they go the extra mile to protect society from those firearms falling into the wrong hands. Instead they resist background checks. To add insult to injury the only people they refuse to sell to are the police that need them for self protection and to protect us.

          • herddog505

            So… you want the NRA to conduct a study to tell us how crooks and loons get guns? Seriously? That’s your idea of “responsibility?” Hey, maybe the car manufacturers or the beer breweries can conduct studies about how drunk drivers get loaded and get behind the wheel, too. It’s so unclear how these things happen…

            Ah, but that really ISN’T it, is it? It’s the whole, “Guns are TEH EEEEVIL, and we should stop people getting them! So, those nasty ol’ moneygrubbers who make filthy lucre selling things that KILL should sign on to laws that restrict or abrograte the rights of Americans to buy those products!”

            Yeah, good luck with that.

            As for the, “They won’t sell to police!!!!” whine, consider that the firearms manufacturers are merely doing the “responsible” thing. After all, the governments of those cities and states are making it abundantly clear that they view firearms as teh icky, as vicious weapons that have no other purpose in life than murder and mayhem. So, the manufacturers are merely doing the responsible thing and helping ensure that NOBODY in those jurisdictions can have those brutal murder weapons. After all, our police aren’t killers, are they? So, why do they need sinister, evil weapons like AR-15’s that belong solely on the battlefield? If the average citizen can simply call the police when some hoodlum is in his house, why can’t the police just call for back-up? Why can’t the police just follow Uncle Choo-choo’s advice and get a good double-barrel shotgun, which is MUCH safer and easier to use than a complicated AR-15?

            Oh, wait: that isn’t the sort of “responsibility” you have in mind, is it?

            [EDIT] – I realized some time after I’d originally posted this that I wrote “our police are killers”. This was a typo; I have corrected it to read “our police aren’t killers”.

          • ackwired

            Quite a strawman! Now pour a drink, relax, and try to be rational.

          • He’s more rational than the anti-gun folks, by far.

            They’ve gone way past self-parody to morbid insanity… because their delusions do cause death.

            They’re not willing to admit that disarming the law-abiding lets the law-breakers do what they want with no chance of harm from their prey.

          • ackwired

            Rational people listen to each other and try to understand the other person’s point of view. They don’t make up positions for the other person so that they can tear those positions down.

          • Physician, heal thyself.

          • I’m trying to understand your point of view. I’m looking at what you wrote, and to be honest it simply doesn’t make sense to me.

            “Anyone holding a firearm is capable of easily killing.”

            Yes. We saw that, with the hunt for whatsisname the rogue cop in CA. Police were shooting up vehicles that maybe kinda matched the description of his car, even if the occupants didn’t. If the ability to easily kill is a reason to prohibit firearms then the prohibition needs to be universal, because simply carrying a badge obviously isn’t sufficient to give the wisdom or judgement on when to use a gun and when not to.

            “The weakest, most cowardly person alive is in charge with a firearm.”

            Now – this is the point that I don’t get. The Colt revolvers were billed as “The Equalizer” – because it gave let the weaker a way to protect against the stronger who wanted to hurt them. Without them, the weak ARE at the mercy of the strong that want to hurt them.

            Maybe you can explain it a bit better, but it seems like you’d prefer the weak and cowardly to not be able to defend themselves because they might decide they want to be in control. Perhaps I’m reading more into that than is there.

          • ackwired

            Let’s try this. The weakest, most cowardly person alive has protection against others who are also armed, and will probably not be a problem. If the weakest, most cowardly person is the only one who is armed, then he is in charge.

          • Okay, that’s a bit better – but then the corollary is that you need to have more people armed so the weakest, most cowardly won’t be in charge. (Assuming he wants to be in charge in the first place, which isn’t necessarily a given.)

          • herddog505

            How is it a “strawman”? You wrote above:

            I would like to see the NRA and the firearms manufacturers sponsor a study of how criminals and the mentally ill obtain firearms.


            If a member of society (human or corporate) is willing to make money providing firearms, decency requests that they go the extra mile to protect society from those firearms falling into the wrong hands. Instead they resist background checks.

            Now, it may be that I exagerrated your position a tad, but I think I got the basic gist of it, i.e. “gun manufacturers should be RESPONSIBLE by supporting lefty positions like background checks (although I’m not sure where you get the idea that the NRA, Remington, Ruger, etc. DO resist background checks) and they shouldn’t punish cities and states that make their products illegal by refusing to sell to police in those jurisdictions.”

            Do I read the riddle a-right?

          • ackwired

            Read your strawman post again. You even said that I did not believe what I wrote, and then proceeded to assign me some views that you could object to. Pure strawman.

          • herddog505

            OK, then let’s clear the air:

            What EXACTLY do you want gun manufacturers to do? Don’t say “be responsible”; that has no concrete meaning. What EXACT steps do you want them to take, or what EXACT policies do you want them to pursue? Then, explain how will these things help prevent criminal misuse of their products.

          • ackwired

            I disagree that taking responsibility has no meaning. But let’s try the phrase “take an interest”. I would like them the take an interest in how criminals and the mentally ill are obtaining their products. I would like them to try to find out if there is anything that they could do to reduce the numbers of their products that end up in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. What I see them doing instead is making the claim that the only way to stop a “bad” person with a gun is to maximize gun sales so that a “good” person with a gun can shoot him. And now they are even saying that they are going to refuse to sell guns to the “good guys” if their bosses advocate anything that might limit gun sales. I know that you don’t like the word. But I think that is quite irresponsible.

          • herddog505

            This is exactly what I mean by “no concrete meaning”: what do you mean by all of that? HOW should the CEO of Blammo Firearms “take an interest in how criminals and the mentally ill obtain their firearms”? Is there some deep mystery about this that he needs to know? Is it somehow more complicated than “they steal them” or “they buy them illegally from somebody else who’s stolen them” or “they buy them illegally from shady dealers who the government refuses to prosecute”? And how ought he to try to stop his products ending up in the wrong hands? How is this his responsibility any more than it’s the responsibility of the CEO of Toyota or Budweiser to stop people drinking and driving (i.e. misusing THEIR products)?

            As I’ve written above, you have a very strange notion of what the firearms industry is like. Again, contrary to what you seem to really believe, gun manufacturers do NOT simply hand out their wares to all comers. They also do NOT support the sort of complete absence of regulations that you seem to think. Rather, they take the very reasonable attitude that they are NOT responsible for the criminal misuse of their products and see no need to be punished for the actions of a relative handful of crooks and lunatics.

            I also am beginning to take exception to referring to the police as “the good guys” when the policies they are enforcing – and, in the case of this fool from Chicago, urging – are aimed at taking away my rights, at punishing me though I’ve done nothing wrong. Further, if the police MUST be so heavily armed, doesn’t this say something about how dangerous our society is? In the face of such apparent danger, why on earth do we want to disarm law-abiding citizens?

          • ackwired

            A lot of thoughts to deal with here. I do not accept your assumptions. But let’s assume that you have identified the ways that criminals and the mentally ill get guns. Why should the manufacturer continue to sell through the shady dealers?

            I agree with you that the CEO of Budweiser also has a responsibility. The alcohol industry promotes responsible use of their product, as does the firearms industry through their sponsorship of the NRA.

            Concerning your final point, I am not in favor of disarming anyone. I disagree with you that disarming police in cities with famous Democrat mayors is somehow supporting civil liberties. I see no advantage in having our police outgunned.

          • herddog505

            Does the manufacturer know they are “shady”? If so, how? Is the manufacturer supposed to employ private detectives to check up on their distributors? And are THEY liable? Let’s say that Blammo Firearms legally sells an AKR-1547 “assault weapon” to Bob’s Bait and Tackle, a licensed firearms dealer. Joe Loon comes in and, in accordance with state and federal laws, purchases said “assault weapon” and uses it in the commission of a crime. Who is responsible here?

            Let’s meet you half-way and assume that Bob’s Bait and Tackle is as shady as an oasis in the desert; they’ll sell anything to anybody for the right price. BATFEIEIO knows about them but (dang it!) just can’t quite get around to prosecuting them for this. So, in due course, Bob’s sells to Joe Loon, who goes out and commits a crime with his illegally-obtained “assault weapon”. Who’s responsible here?

            Again: the federal government refuses to prosecute these shady dealers. Yet, apparently, the anti-gun folks KNOW who the “shady” dealers are. What’s going on here?

            I suggest that we have grossly different ideas of what constitutes “responsibility”. Now, if a company sells a product that they KNOW to be defective or KNOW will be misused, then I’d say that this should cause their CEO some sleepless nights. However, selling firearms, like selling alcohol, cars, steak knives, baseball bats, or any other thing that CAN be misused – even criminally misused – in our country is legal. The legal onus is and always has been on the government to prove criminal charges, not on a manufacturer to – somehow – be “responsible” and – somehow – NOT sell to people who a crystal ball tells them will misuse their product.

          • ackwired

            If the manufacturers cared, they could find out how guns are obtained by criminals and the mentally ill. Once they understood they could take appropriate action if they cared. It is possibly more difficult and less profitable than making legalistic arguments.

            As you say, you and I have very different ideas about individuals and companies taking responsibility for their actions and living up to their responsibilities to the society in which they function. I still believe that responsibility means something.

          • ” I still believe that responsibility means something.”

            But that responsibility isn’t without limit. Logically, the responsibility for what the end user does with the product for the manufacturer should end once the product is shipped to the wholesaler. (Who could nominally be seen as the ‘end user’ at that point.)

            You seem to be arguing that the manufacturer has responsibility for their product forever, no matter what happens in the course of the items’ lifetime.

            As an example, I have responsibility for my son’s actions to a certain point.

            I have to teach him how to conduct himself as best I can, but there has to come a time where I step back and go “Okay, kid – you’re on your own. Hope I’ve taught you well enough so you don’t do any permanent damage to yourself and others. I’m here for advice, but you’re running on your own judgement.”

            He has had the mantle of ‘responsibility’ put on his own shoulders for his own actions. Once he moves out, I can no longer control him – he’s an independent agent.

            As another example, we don’t blame cars for the decisions made by their drivers. Would you support blaming GM for people being hit in crosswalks, or killed by drunk drivers?

          • ackwired

            it is not all that complicated. They can either maximize sales within the restrictions placed upon them or they can accept some responsibility for the harm that their product can cause society.

          • jim_m

            You are so full of crap. Here you talk about restrictions but when I talk about restrictions being unfair you claim that you haven’t advocated for any restrictions. Time to dial it back a bit on the meds because you are freaking incoherent on this thread.

          • ackwired

            There you go again. There is no place on this thread nor any other that I talked about restrictions. Quite the opposite is true.

          • I think you’re completely missing what I’m saying.

            I don’t know whether it’s intentional or not – or whether you even read what I posted there.

            They’re making the firearms and selling them in accordance with all laws. The manufacturer sells it to the wholesaler, and the wholesaler sells it to the retailer.

            The retailer sells it to the consumer. A new firearm sale, a new gun sold by a retailer, HAS to have a background check done on it.

            After the new firearm is bought – legally, since you can’t buy one without passing a background check – who’s responsibility is it for what’s done with the firearm? Straw-man purchases are illegal, and a FFL retailer won’t do them knowingly. (Emphasis on the ‘knowingly’ – intentionally and they open themselves up to a world of hurt. Lying bastards buying guns for others – that’s a different story.)

            Judging by the way things are going in the retail market, they’re doing a pretty good job maximizing sales at this point.

            But again I ask – at what point does the responsibility for what the firearm does pass from the manufacturer to the user?

          • herddog505

            This is becoming farcical. You keep repeating “Responsibility!” and claiming that this means that, somehow, gun manufacturers need to solve the alleged deep mystery of how crooks and loons get guns (hint: it usually involves theft). Do you expect that this IS a deep mystery to them? And that solving it will cause them to have some great revelation that will lead them to… do what, exactly?

            A product manufacturer, has a limited amount of responsibilities, mostly related to providing a safe (i.e. will not cause harm if properly used) product and meeting their contractual obligations. They are NOT responsible for the misuse of their product. I suppose that, in your book, this means that they don’t “care”.

          • jim_m

            I disagree with you that disarming police in cities with famous Democrat mayors is somehow supporting civil liberties. I see no advantage in having our police outgunned.

            I take it that you disagree with the contention that the 2nd amendment is also intended as security against a tyrannical government, that the people should be in all cases out gunned by the government and incapable of forming any resistance against oppression.

            Also, how is it that our police could be outgunned when the proposition is simply that gun manufacturers will not sell their products to police forces in cities and states where civilian ownership of their weapons is banned? This is only creating a level playing field (granted we are not talking about play, but “level battle field” just didn’t sound right).

          • ackwired

            There you go again!

          • jim_m

            I thought the last question was quite valid. How, indeed, are our police outgunned if they are limited to the same weapons that law abiding citizens are using? Or are you going to admit that your restrictions do nothing to reduce actual crime and are only impositions and restrictions on the constitutional rights of people who have been obeying the law?

          • ackwired

            There you go again! Just making up whatever you want. Just what restrictions that I have advocated are you talking about?

  • Paul Hooson

    Local laws are one of the most frustrating areas for national manufacturers and distributors who are supposed to somehow be legal experts on every local rule. The adult entertainment distributor industry is used to these frustrations as well, having to be mindful of local court decisions and zip codes to add to “do not ship lists”. Strangely, what is legal for sale with adult novelties or DVDS in most states, could violate some local law, and thereby actually then be liable for federal prosecution if a local law is violated. Head shop items that might be perfectly legal for sale in individual states might be liable for federal prosecution if transported over state lines. And the firearms industry faces many unfair standards as well where local communities like D.C. for example, ban larger ammo clips.

    It’s very difficult to do business with such unfair standards placed on businesses.

    • Commander_Chico

      And booze laws, too!!

      Guns, whiskey and porn make America great.

  • superdestroyer

    I am surprised that more sites are not writing about the Maryland proposed gun laws. Maryland plans on requiring gun licenses for all owners and requiring finger prints submissions for all license holders. Of course, what the media does not say is that many counties in Maryland refuse to do finger print cards for residents or anyone else.

    It seems that the whole point of gun laws is to create a system where the government must say yes for an individuals to be able to own or purchase a gun and then have the government say no or create a system where it is impossible to say yes.

    • Of course.

      “It’s a simple process. You’ll need to take an approved gun safety course. Here’s a list of places – they have weekly classes. Take one, and you’re good. Then you’ll need to fill out a Form 19 and get the local Sherrif’s signature before you can buy a gun.”

      “May I have a Form 19 then?”

      “Sorry – they haven’t been printed yet. The Committee for Public Safety is still trying to finalize the wording on it.”

      “How long until that’s decided?”

      “The next meeting to discuss it is in September, 2014.”

      “That’s… kind of a long time off, isn’t it?”

      “Then they’ll need to solicit bids to print it. I wouldn’t expect them in before 2016, at the earliest… and even then that’s if they manage to come to an agreement on the wording this time through. I wouldn’t hold my breath, confidentially….”

      “How long have they been trying to figure out the wording?”

      “They started when the Assault Weapon Ban passed in 1994…”

      “… Okay, then. You don’t really have a process to allow people to buy guns, do you?”

      “Of course we do. Two steps – safety class and a Form 19. Simple, easy, non-restrictive.”

      “Except there’s no Form 19. Doesn’t that seem a lot like a Monty Python sketch to you?”


      • jim_m

        That’s how Chicago initially got their gun ban. They required universal registration then they simply stopped issuing and renewing registrations. Never underestimate the power of government red tape to take away our rights while maintaining the false appearance of preserving them.

        On the bright side, Beretta has announced that they are considering removing their operations from Maryland and taking the 400+ jobs away to a state that believes in the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

  • Pingback: Guns - Page 36 - Piper Forum()

  • disqus_MZe2ymfHQj

    If the arms makers would they could refuse to make arms for any state or the feds if they pass gun laws to restrict the lawful citizen