CDNN No Longer Ships to NY State
- Thread starter gvf
- Start date
mikejonestkd
New member
New York has ballistic ' fingerprint ' testing, which affects the ability to purchase several brands of handguns. Some manufacturers do the testing and submit the empty cases with the handgun and others do not. CDNN probably doesn't want the hassle anymore, and I don't blame them.
We have many, many laws here that are restrictive, to put it mildly...
We have many, many laws here that are restrictive, to put it mildly...
Given Bloomberg's attitude toward guns and the firearms industry in general it makes sense not to ship to a place where the rules are labyrinthine and they wish to sue the whole industry out of existence. I would like to see the whole industry declare NY and the DPRK persona non grata and cease any dealings there, including the police. Ronnie Barrett has it nailed.
Find a map.
On it, find New York STATE.
Look at the tiny little area in the bottom right corner of the state.
That's New York CITY.
Bloomberg is in charge there.
Now look at the rest of the state--he is NOT in charge here.
As far as the ballistic fingerprinting nonsense goes, it only applies to new handguns. In my experience, if I am shipped a NEW handgun from out of state, the dealer it is shipped to simply calls the NY State Police, and they send a designated officer to do the "fingerprinting".
It delays me from getting the gun for a week or so, but has nothing to do with the dealer on the other end.
I'd be willing to bet that the OP either mixed up NYC with NY State, or received erroneos information.
Once a citizen in NY receives their permit, their rights are very similar to most other states (at least in my area of the state.)
Stop lumping the rest of us in with the city.
rellascout
Moderator
I bet not. CDNN is a high volume place that is moving tons of stuff as fast as they can ship it. They do not want to deal with the extra headache. They have refused to ship to CA for a while.
In the end you cannot blame them. They do not make enough on any given gun to make the hassles worth while. It is easier just to pass on that business and get one with life.
In the end you cannot blame them. They do not make enough on any given gun to make the hassles worth while. It is easier just to pass on that business and get one with life.
If they choose not to ship to NYS that is their right. If there is an added cost for them then they could simply mark up all shipments to NY accordingly. Instead though they choose to punish all NYS residents because of the liberal government.
I would appreciate people in other states NOT buying from CDNN for their unfair discrimination against the residents of NY. I would fully support them not selling to a state agency but why punish those who are blameless?
I would appreciate people in other states NOT buying from CDNN for their unfair discrimination against the residents of NY. I would fully support them not selling to a state agency but why punish those who are blameless?
Two things--
1. The ballistic fingerprinting requirements on new guns in NYS should have no effect, nor add any cost to a firearm purchased in this state. I understand that if CDNN chooses not to send firearms to NYS then that is their right, but I highly doubt that the fingerprinting thing has anything to do with it. (I was charged NOTHING when I had a new firearm fingerprinted, and the out-of-state dealer I bought it from probably didn't even know anything about it.)
2. Before we go asking for a boycott of CDNN (a great company, by the way) maybe we should check to see if in fact this is true.
1. The ballistic fingerprinting requirements on new guns in NYS should have no effect, nor add any cost to a firearm purchased in this state. I understand that if CDNN chooses not to send firearms to NYS then that is their right, but I highly doubt that the fingerprinting thing has anything to do with it. (I was charged NOTHING when I had a new firearm fingerprinted, and the out-of-state dealer I bought it from probably didn't even know anything about it.)
2. Before we go asking for a boycott of CDNN (a great company, by the way) maybe we should check to see if in fact this is true.
rellascout
Moderator
I agree. They are free to sell to whom ever they choose. If it is a problem NY residents need to work to change their laws. I have dealt with CDNN in the past and all went well. As i said they deal at the speed of light and their system and margin do not account for the headaches some state laws cause.
I do understand your frustration about them not selling to you Musketeer but sometimes that is just the way it is.
It's sort of like how Taurus refused to play MA's extortion game of paying vast sums for qualification "tests", basically told them to get bent, and now no Taurus product is legal for sale to a MA resident.
I don't blame Taurus at all. They just didn't want to deal with the hassle, and the only people who can solve the problem are the MA voters...who have been re-installing antigun leftists instead.
I don't blame Taurus at all. They just didn't want to deal with the hassle, and the only people who can solve the problem are the MA voters...who have been re-installing antigun leftists instead.
I just called to double check.
They no longer will ship handguns to New York.
Yes, I agree, it is their right. On the other hand, however, I don't think it's a smart, or well informed decision.
I was told that it is mainly due to the ballistic fingerprinting law (which is a farce--but that's another thread altogether).
The thing is, as I've stated before, the responsibility of fingerprinting rests with the purchaser and dealer the gun gets shipped to--not the seller. Furthermore, in my experience, there was no added cost to have it done.
I also agree with the poster that stated that we NY gunowners need to be sure to vote to get the ridiculous laws changed. (Although we hicks up here in the northern part of the state always seem to do our part and get Republicans elected...)
They no longer will ship handguns to New York.
Yes, I agree, it is their right. On the other hand, however, I don't think it's a smart, or well informed decision.
I was told that it is mainly due to the ballistic fingerprinting law (which is a farce--but that's another thread altogether).
The thing is, as I've stated before, the responsibility of fingerprinting rests with the purchaser and dealer the gun gets shipped to--not the seller. Furthermore, in my experience, there was no added cost to have it done.
I also agree with the poster that stated that we NY gunowners need to be sure to vote to get the ridiculous laws changed. (Although we hicks up here in the northern part of the state always seem to do our part and get Republicans elected...)
banned states
whose bull got gored???I remember when the 68 gun law was paast the shootgunners did not care because it did not affect them.now the laws do.if the companys stopped all shipments to an antigun state including police I wonder how long before there was a real howl.evey little law hurts some one.
barrett wont ship 50s to cal and wont repair the police guns.any of you think thats wrong.
whose bull got gored???I remember when the 68 gun law was paast the shootgunners did not care because it did not affect them.now the laws do.if the companys stopped all shipments to an antigun state including police I wonder how long before there was a real howl.evey little law hurts some one.
barrett wont ship 50s to cal and wont repair the police guns.any of you think thats wrong.
It is all well and good to say "campaign harder to change the laws" but campaigning for gun rigths gets you squat here. The landslide of anti gun laws is part of what came with a liberal Democrat government. That was established by inner city voter panderring by the Dems and the huge hold still possessed by labor unions in this state. The labor unions vote how they are told. My father who was conservative in every way was a 40 year union man and the son of a union man. He voted Dem becasue that was what you were supposed to do. The corruption of unions and the hold they give to the Dems is very strong in this state. Gun laws just don't factor into it.
If distributors and manufacturers want to punish someone punish the governments. Refuse to sell to their agencies. Hanging out the gun ownign public to dry instates like NY and CA is dishonest and backstabbing. We go through more hoops than almost anybody to be able to buy THEIR guns and they reward us by refusing to ship them here. Thanks for nothing. Even when I leave this state I will boycott CDNN as long as they leave the lawful citizens hung out to dry. It would be nice if other gun owners showed some loyalty to those of us truly fighting behind enemy lines.
If distributors and manufacturers want to punish someone punish the governments. Refuse to sell to their agencies. Hanging out the gun ownign public to dry instates like NY and CA is dishonest and backstabbing. We go through more hoops than almost anybody to be able to buy THEIR guns and they reward us by refusing to ship them here. Thanks for nothing. Even when I leave this state I will boycott CDNN as long as they leave the lawful citizens hung out to dry. It would be nice if other gun owners showed some loyalty to those of us truly fighting behind enemy lines.
There was no hassel selling to NY. Send a couple fired cases. SIMPLE. Barring that the cases could be fired and collected in state.
No expensive certification.
No modification of the weapon.
Just send the damn brass. Bill me an extra $1 for it if you want and keep the lousy change.
No expensive certification.
No modification of the weapon.
Just send the damn brass. Bill me an extra $1 for it if you want and keep the lousy change.
Point of view
Everyone has one, so let's look at a couple. "Backstabbing and dishonest" is a pretty extreme point of view, and while a case may be argued for "backstabbing" as a vaild term for what is seen as a betrayal, I don't see where "dishonest" could apply. NO laws are being broken. And morally dishonest doesn't apply either, as they are telling you up front what they are doing (or not doing) and why.
Consider the dealer/distributor/manufacturer point of view for a moment. Their main concern is not to sell us guns, but to stay in business. Their business is selling us guns, and when something artifically increases their cost or puts them at risk of liability that threatens their whole business. A decision to protect their business as a whole by losing a small percentage of sales is not unreasonable. To them, New York, California, Mass., New Jersey, etc., any state which has restrictions that make them more trouble than they are worth, those states have taken themselves out of the market.
Not selling to the state agencies sends a message (and a good one) but it is not one the states care to heed. State govts just don't care if one maker or distributor doesn't do business with them, as long as others do.
Sadly, it is the private citizens who suffer decause of this situation, and that is the whole point. From both sides.
States with restrictive laws want gun owners to suffer. They want to discourage ownership. They would be quite happy if all the private gun owners gave up and found other things to do woth their time and money. Theor laws are intended to bring this about, by their very nature. They stop short (ususally) of outright bans because that doesn't look good to voters, but they do everything else they can to make it a burden, so fewer and fewer people will bother with the hassle.
Firearms makers/distributors who cut off sales to a state also want those state's gun owners to suffer. But for the opposite reason. They have had to shut down doing business with you because of the risk from your govt. They are taking a hit to do this, but think they must in order to keep in business. Because they are taking a hit, you do to, and your suffering is intentional. Maybe because you are suffering, you will get off your butts and do something about the govt that is the underlying cause of our pain.
What else can they do? States only care about voters (and tax money), and out of state businesses can't influence them very much. IF ALL gun suppliers stopped selling to a state govt, that might have an impact, but that is really unlikely. So their only choice is to tick off their former customers, in the hopes that those angry (voting tax paying) people will influence their state Govt in a manner positive to their business.
If you must look to someone for betrayal, look to your fellow citizens, and the individual they (and you) have elected.
Face it, we are a minority. The only time a minority can exert influence is when it acts with solidarity. If ALL they gun owners in your state would for once all vote together, AND let the politicians and the press know why things may be changed.
We are too fractured for that to happen, sadly, because a lot of people, even though they may own guns and shoot, vote away from gun rights, because other things are more important to them. Electing anti gun politicians, because you agree with their stance on other issues is what got us to this point in the first place.
It is hard, but it can be done, if the threat is percieved to be great enough. Look at '94. And don't believe the press when it says it was the republican "Contract with America" it was the gun issue. It was the AWB. It was the Democrats pi**ing off enough gun owners at the same time. We voted their sorry selves out. And they knew it! The press would never admit it, but the Dems did admit it to themselves.
If you can pull something like this off in New York state, New York would be a good place to live, again. Good Luck.
Everyone has one, so let's look at a couple. "Backstabbing and dishonest" is a pretty extreme point of view, and while a case may be argued for "backstabbing" as a vaild term for what is seen as a betrayal, I don't see where "dishonest" could apply. NO laws are being broken. And morally dishonest doesn't apply either, as they are telling you up front what they are doing (or not doing) and why.
Consider the dealer/distributor/manufacturer point of view for a moment. Their main concern is not to sell us guns, but to stay in business. Their business is selling us guns, and when something artifically increases their cost or puts them at risk of liability that threatens their whole business. A decision to protect their business as a whole by losing a small percentage of sales is not unreasonable. To them, New York, California, Mass., New Jersey, etc., any state which has restrictions that make them more trouble than they are worth, those states have taken themselves out of the market.
Not selling to the state agencies sends a message (and a good one) but it is not one the states care to heed. State govts just don't care if one maker or distributor doesn't do business with them, as long as others do.
Sadly, it is the private citizens who suffer decause of this situation, and that is the whole point. From both sides.
States with restrictive laws want gun owners to suffer. They want to discourage ownership. They would be quite happy if all the private gun owners gave up and found other things to do woth their time and money. Theor laws are intended to bring this about, by their very nature. They stop short (ususally) of outright bans because that doesn't look good to voters, but they do everything else they can to make it a burden, so fewer and fewer people will bother with the hassle.
Firearms makers/distributors who cut off sales to a state also want those state's gun owners to suffer. But for the opposite reason. They have had to shut down doing business with you because of the risk from your govt. They are taking a hit to do this, but think they must in order to keep in business. Because they are taking a hit, you do to, and your suffering is intentional. Maybe because you are suffering, you will get off your butts and do something about the govt that is the underlying cause of our pain.
What else can they do? States only care about voters (and tax money), and out of state businesses can't influence them very much. IF ALL gun suppliers stopped selling to a state govt, that might have an impact, but that is really unlikely. So their only choice is to tick off their former customers, in the hopes that those angry (voting tax paying) people will influence their state Govt in a manner positive to their business.
If you must look to someone for betrayal, look to your fellow citizens, and the individual they (and you) have elected.
Face it, we are a minority. The only time a minority can exert influence is when it acts with solidarity. If ALL they gun owners in your state would for once all vote together, AND let the politicians and the press know why things may be changed.
We are too fractured for that to happen, sadly, because a lot of people, even though they may own guns and shoot, vote away from gun rights, because other things are more important to them. Electing anti gun politicians, because you agree with their stance on other issues is what got us to this point in the first place.
It is hard, but it can be done, if the threat is percieved to be great enough. Look at '94. And don't believe the press when it says it was the republican "Contract with America" it was the gun issue. It was the AWB. It was the Democrats pi**ing off enough gun owners at the same time. We voted their sorry selves out. And they knew it! The press would never admit it, but the Dems did admit it to themselves.
If you can pull something like this off in New York state, New York would be a good place to live, again. Good Luck.
DonR101395
New member
They couldn't mark it up enough to cover the legal costs when Bloomberg and his henchman decide to go on another headhunting safari. Do you feel they should punish the consumers in 49 other states by marking up their prices to cover possible legal costs in NY?
I don't buy from them often, but I'll continue to support them for deciding that NY can take their headhunting politicos with their silly laws and play amongst themselves. Personally I don't care if it was a moral decision or a business decision at least they made a decision to not support a state that doesn't recognize the rights of it's citizens. Instead of blaming a business; place the blame where it belongs, your fellow New Yorkers.
Don't take this as a snip against you. I have empathy with the position you're in, However, I have no sympathy.