Jersey City Rules for Gun Manfactureres Bidding on their Police Department weapons

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
This is rather ridiculous:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/11/us/new-jersey-mayor-gun-manufacturer-safety/

Here are the questions:

  • What do you do to combat illegal gun trafficking and illegal gun crime?
  • Do you manufacturer and sell assault weapons for civilian use?
  • Do you agree not to sell certain models of firearms for civilian use?
  • Are you requiring your dealers to conduct background checks?
  • Do you fund research related to gun violence and smart gun technology?
    • Will you commit to prohibiting your brand name from being used in violent video games?"

The mind boggles. I hope no companies bid on them.
 
From the linked article:
The answers will impact the firm's competitiveness, Fulop said. Refusal to answer the questions will deem their proposals incomplete.
...
Fulop said social responsibility requirements exist for most industries and that the gun manufacturers should not be exempt.
Click to expand...
You must answer, in order to be considered.
You must align yourself with New Jersey's attitude toward firearms, in order to be considered.


Sounds fair....
Do they have equivalent requirements for their contracts for police vehicles?
What about their uniforms?
How about the toilet paper used at City Hall? Does it contain at least 80% recycled fibers? Was the remainder of the wood sustainably harvested by a company that actively fights deforestation, invests in toilet paper waste prevention research, and provides "e-dispensers" that ensure no one man gets more than his fair share of the product?
:rolleyes:
 
The article only says that the bidders are required to answer the questions. It doesn't elaborate on what might happen if a bidders gives an answer that the department doesn't like.

If I were a bidder, I would play my cards very close to my chest, as the bid documents are likely to become public record, and I wouldn't want the answers to become the basis for a S&W-style commercial sales boycott.

  • What do you do to combat illegal gun trafficking and illegal gun crime? Our firearms are only sold by federally licensed gun dealers. Federal law requires these dealers to conduct NICS background checks to ensure that the buyer does not have a criminal record.
  • Do you manufacturer and sell assault weapons for civilian use? The definition of the term "assault weapon" varies between jurisdictions. Some of our products are considered "assault weapons" in certain areas. Our company does not sell so-called "assault weapons" in violation of local laws. These products are only sold commercially in places where their purchase is not prohibited.
  • Do you agree not to sell certain models of firearms for civilian use? No.
  • Are you requiring your dealers to conduct background checks? This is already required by federal law.
  • Do you fund research related to gun violence and smart gun technology? No.
  • Will you commit to prohibiting your brand name from being used in violent video games?" No.
:)
 
Last edited:
I fully support this 100%. I think every anti-gun city and state should adopt this and if the gun makers refuse to play ball by their rules they should not buy guns from that maker. Further, the results of the survey should be posted on line for the entire world and shooting community to see.

They should play hardball and take it all the way to the wall even if it means that the officers will be unarmed and down to baseball bats.

Bloomberg should contact MAIG members and get the ball rolling (the ones that are not in jail anyway).
 
Just curious what percentage of gun sales from companies like GLOCK or S&W go to various governmental agencies? The WSJ ran an article yesterday showing how gun sales have slowed over the last two quarters and are expected to decrease even more over the next quarter. So, is it possible manufactures may have no choice but to comply with these requirements?
 
Last edited:
The WSJ ran an article yesterday showing how gun sales have slowed over the last two quarters and is expected to decrease even more over the next quarter. So, is it possible manufactures may have no choice but to comply with these requirements?
Click to expand...

I do not think so, unless the corporate heads were foolish enough to expect sales growth to never slow down after the record breaking panic buying tapered off.
 
BarryLee said:
The WSJ ran an article yesterday showing how gun sales have slowed over the last two quarters and are expected to decrease even more over the next quarter. So, is it possible manufactures may have no choice but to comply with these requirements?
Click to expand...
Highly unlikely.

I don't have hard numbers, but I think I am safe in opining that the lion's share of the LEO market is "owned" by Glock, with everyone else scrambling over whatever market share is left over. I'm a 1911 guy, though, so my views are a bit skewed -- there are virtually NO LE departments anywhere in the U.S. that issue or even authorize the 1911, and yet the 1911 market seems to spawn more and more manufacturers every year.

Colt dropped out of the LE market (for handguns) decades ago. Colt started trying to get back into that market only about three or four years ago, yet with NO LE sales Colt was selling every 1911 they could build -- with zero advertising.

I hope the manufacturers will take a page out of Ronnie Barrett's playbook and just not bid. It's very possible:

Wikipedia said:
Jersey City is the seat[20][21] of Hudson County, New Jersey, United States. As of the 2010 United States Census, the population of Jersey City was 247,597,[12][13][14] making it the second-most populous city in New Jersey.
Click to expand...

With a population of under a quarter of a million, how many cops can they have and how many guns could they be buying? It's a bid, so even without those extra criteria the only way for a manufacturer to win the bid [against Glock] would be to effectively sell at or below cost. I can't imagine any way in which it would be worth it to any company. They would have to sell their corporate soul, [bleep] off their paying [i.e. "civilian"] customer base, and risk losing far more in real money sales than they could possibly hope to make by selling to Jersey City, NJ.
 
You must align yourself with New Jersey's attitude toward firearms, in order to be considered.
Click to expand...
IE you must have the same political ideology. Dangling the dollar ....we need a campaign for writing these manufacturers and warn them that compliance with their demands will hurt them more financially.

Edit: This has the stench of Bloomberg all over it and would not surprise me if he had his hand in it in some fashion.
 
Last edited:
The NSSF has recommended to all FFL dealers that they simply refuse to play the game. Let Jersey City find something other than guns and ammo to buy. Also suggested was to refuse to sell firearms or ammo to the city. :D
 
One would surely hope that there is not a gun manufacturer in business that would conform to such stupidity, nonsense and outright attempt at 'business bullying' by big brother.

I'm thinkin the gun community as a whole should keep a close eye on this one and if Glock or any other gun manufacturer even considers caving in to any part of this nonsense, act accordingly.

Maybe Glock ought to require of Jersey to see just how many drug and violent crime cases involving guns they have been plead down and the BG's released back to the streets to re-offend before they sell guns to them.
 
Last edited:
There are times we can be just as bad as the anti's. The people of Jersey City have every right to install any (legally viable) conditions they want for their pubic contracts. Do any of us believe there's at least one gun owner out there somewhere who would refuse to buy from any company that makes a pink gun? Or "knuckled under" to make a California Compliant version? And don't we think those people might be a little off, but well within their rights to make their own choices?

As a group, we demand quite a bit of tolerance. It's my right to open carry in a Colorado park the day after Aurora. We're having a Starbucks Appreciation Day by scaring off a bunch of their normal business with our big black rifles in the shop. But we're much less tolerant when other people control THEIR lives in ways we don't approve. How dare Joe Bob ban guns from his bridal shoppe? Where do those cops get off rousting some guy walking down the highway with a rifle slung over his shoulder?

We can draw our line in the sand and still be reasonable, and affable. We don't need to burn Jersey City, Horace Smith, and Daniel B. Wesson in effigy. We can calmly and politely stipulate Jersey City can ask these things, but that those things are likely unreasonable enough they won't get any takers, which would be a shame, as their law enforcement deserves to be adequately protected from the criminal element just as much as any other citizen.
 
There are times we can be just as bad as the anti's. The people of Jersey City have every right to install any (legally viable) conditions they want for their pubic contracts. Do any of us believe there's at least one gun owner out there somewhere who would refuse to buy from any company that makes a pink gun? Or "knuckled under" to make a California Compliant version? And don't we think those people might be a little off, but well within their rights to make their own choices?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And then live with those choices. My above post was quite serious.
 
Since this is a business issue to the companies, they should just bid and all answer the questions with the same answers....

The questions and realistic answers are:

What do you do to combat illegal gun trafficking and illegal gun crime? Nothing - Not Applicable
Do you manufacturer and sell assault weapons for civilian use? Yes
Do you agree not to sell certain models of firearms for civilian use? No
Are you requiring your dealers to conduct background checks? As required by Federal and state law
Do you fund research related to gun violence and smart gun technology? No
Will you commit to prohibiting your brand name from being used in violent video games?" No

The we all get to see whether the city chooses to cancel the solicitation and keep the equipment that they currently own.

Wes :)
 
Well, since everyone has taken a shot at the "How I'd Answer" game, I guess i will, too:

What do you do to combat illegal gun trafficking and illegal gun crime? -- (a) Nothing. This company is not a law enforcement agency. or (b) We will abide by all applicable laws and regulations.
Do you manufacturer and sell assault weapons for civilian use? Only in jurisdictions where same is legal.
Do you agree not to sell certain models of firearms for civilian use? Without knowing to which "certain models" this question refers, the question cannot be answered.
Are you requiring your dealers to conduct background checks? This company is not a law enforcement agency.
Do you fund research related to gun violence and smart gun technology? With all due respect, this company's research projects constitute protected, proprietary information.
Will you commit to prohibiting your brand name from being used in violent video games? Please define "commit."

:D
 
The people of Jersey City have every right to install any (legally viable) conditions they want for their pubic contracts.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the problem - they AREN'T "legally viable", in that the questions aren't confined to the location posing them.

What do you do to combat illegal gun trafficking and illegal gun crime?
Do you manufacturer and sell assault weapons for civilian use?
Do you agree not to sell certain models of firearms for civilian use?
Are you requiring your dealers to conduct background checks?
Do you fund research related to gun violence and smart gun technology?
Will you commit to prohibiting your brand name from being used in violent video games?
Click to expand...

As the questions stand, they could possibly, if used for an actual contractual consideration, constitute attempted restraint of trade by not limiting these "restrictions" to the political subdivision posing them. If they were specifically to Jersey City, i.e., "Do you manufacture and sell assault weapons to civilians in Jersey City", that would make more sense. By not doing so, they are trying to do a Bloomberg and force their views on other locations by this restraint of trade agreement, i.e., will Smith quit selling the MP-15 in the Casa Grande, AZ WalMart in order to secure this contract? Doubtful.

I have to wonder what the lawyers would say about this being used as consideration for a government contract. I would also have to wonder what Jersey City cops will be carrying in the future.
 
I have to wonder what the lawyers would say about this being used as consideration for a government contract
Click to expand...

You beat me to it armoredman .

Having taken part in a few government(city) contracts, albeit a different city than Jersey City, you would think there would be certain government guidelines and restrictions a government establishment has to stay within with all contracts set forth on companies they deal with.

If the guidelines/standards JC officials are setting forth for their next supplier of arms is legal, just reading them seems to set forth some serious issue's that could be abused as far as awarding all contracts and need changing.
What's next...you can't supply paper to the city unless you are a member of PETA, donate a certain % of your earnings to the Redwood Forrest along with funding a recycling program?

If this is pushed by JC officials hard enough, it should be challenged through the legal system before precedence is set.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top