Time for the big name mfgs. to turn up the heat

M

My Toy

New member
Every body has seen the recent news stories about several gun product manufacturers deciding not to sell their products to government entities that ban those products from their citizens. I attended gun control bill hearings in Annapolis, MD ( MD is the home of Beretta USA) and a Beretta rep. gave very compelling testimony about how the draconian legislation being proposed here will effect them. I think we are reaching critical mass (just heard this morning that Colorado is on a rampage to take it's citizens gun rights) and think it is time for the big names to step up. I know business is usually reluctant to get into politics for fear of losing customers ( in this case government entities) but lets face it their US civilian market looks like it will be shrinking over night with the stroke of a pen. It is time for Glock, S&W, Ruger, HK, Win., Rem., Fed., et.al. to band together and tell the Feds, State and local governments and other gov't. agencies that if this stuff doesn't stop you will be buying civilians banned products from China.
 
Last edited:
I agree, I have already decided my next firearm purchase(s) will be from one of these manufacturers, I don't care how long the wait is.

i don't really need any more guns, but I will show my support for them with my wallet, which I guess is the only way really.

I have already cancelled a planned trip to NY this spring in protest of their new gun restrictions. Fortunately I cancelled with enough notice that I got a 100% refund, guess what I bought with it.:p
 
govt agencies might just say okay and start buying guns from overseas. The federal govt could tacitly tell China or other nations that we, (the USA) will not support anyone who challenges China for patent infringement or such.

What if the governor or a important legislator from New York or wherever gets frustrated not being able to buy the weapons its state needs and then gets elected to federal office? Might they have a grudge against some big manufacturer that would not sell weapons to his state? And consequently push sales to foreign manufacturers?

This tactic could backfire terribly. Or it might work.
 
Last edited:
Horatioo, certain "government agencies" might try something like that, but I guarantee you, the US Military would not stand for it.

They are the single largest procurer of both firearms and ammo. To place them at the mercy of some other nation and what they thought of how our military is told to perform their job, by the same legislature that restricts their procurement methods... Strategically and tactically, it would be a non-starter.

On the other hand, for the BIG manufacturers to stop selling to domestic LE, would affect their bottom line, but only in the short-term. In the longer-term, it would protect both their LE accounts and their civilian accounts (which are much smaller than LE sales, but are a significant portion of their sales, regardless).

To that end, we really need to write their boards of directors and CEO's, outlining the effects of such a strategy. Would companies like Glock and Sig follow us? Who knows, if we don't attempt such a campaign.

I do know, that if the BIG arms companies aligned themselves with the civilian market, LE would raise a stink the various legislatures would not be able to ignore.
 
MrToy said:
It is time for Glock, S&W, Ruger, HK, Win., Rem., Fed., et.al. to band together...
Click to expand...

This is the problem and the solution.

Many of these big-name mfrs cannot simply stop selling to LEA and the govt. They have large & lucrative contracts with those entities, and that keeps profits high, employees employed, and all the wheels turning.

More to the point, those contracts are binding, so these mfrs would have to be willing to get their arses sued off in court.

So, combine "we lost a zillion dollars in revenue because we decided not to fulfill our contract to the govt" with "we got sued for another zillion dollars in court because we breached our contracts", and you get "a recipe for corporate bankruptcy".

Now if they were all to do this, then suing the entire industry would not be in the government's best interest, because the military and LEAs would have nowhere to go for their weapons and ammo. The resulting fallout would bring the issue to a head.

My pie-in-the-sky, optimistic dream is that the reason why those mfrs haven't yet acted is because they're trying to see if they have consensus, and if there's some way they can all act without being thrown in jail by the SEC for violations of their duty to protect their shareholders or something.

Corporate execs really hate to go to prison, because they always end up giving the blowjobs, not receiving them, as they are accustomed to.

horatioo said:
govt agencies might just say okay and start buying guns from overseas.
Click to expand...

Never gonna happen. Remember what happened with Beretta. The contract required Beretta to build a factory here in the USA specifically to avoid any risk, however remote, of a foreign country having any kind of control over the military's supply of weapons.
 
I fully agree with this strategy. I already have plenty if tactical arms, but will be buying at least two pistols this year specifically from a supporting mfg such as S&W. currently I have all Glocks. And I may buy another AR rifle from a supporting mfg, too this year. But for sure, ALL my future purchases will be ONLY from mfg that take a stand with civilians.
 
This won't happen overnight because there are current contracts to be filled to be sure.

But now that several companies have taken the stance, we can support them and any others that wish to do the same. If it catches on and becomes a strong selling point, then I think there is a real possibility of seeing other manufacturers take the same stance out of self defense.
 
Horatioo, certain "government agencies" might try something like that, but I guarantee you, the US Military would not stand for it.

They are the single largest procurer of both firearms and ammo. To place them at the mercy of some other nation and what they thought of how our military is told to perform their job, by the same legislature that restricts their procurement methods... Strategically and tactically, it would be a non-starter.
Click to expand...

Maybe, idk, I do know many politicians want to deny the pipeline for oil across the US. The only thing this accomplishes is to give China a more secure source for oil and the US a less secure source.

I don't think politicians are working for longterm benefit of citizens, but more for corporate interess and govt power.

Idk and you may be right.
 
I think it would be a long road to get some of the major manufacturers to go along with not selling to, or providing law enforcement or military.

First, its the advertising that they get from getting their handgun adopted by, and carried by major law enforcement agencies. Glock did this extremely well in the past, which, I feel at least, is why they have a strong following around the country. Its not just the quality of the firearm, but the perception of that quality, in that, "it must be good since it was approved by so many agencies." So I think if this were done, it would basically stifle some newer designs that may come out.

Second, once the companies have lost these government contracts, it "can" be difficult for them to effectively compete for them in the future. It would probably narrow the market, in a way which would take a long time to re-open.

Lastly, the third is, I feel this will drive a deep dividing wedge between law enforcement and the public. While there are some exceptions in the current laws (and the propossed ones as well) for on-duty exemptions for LE, there is a small segment of the public that would like to either disarm LE or to restrict them to lesser firearms then is available to the general public.

While, unfortunatly the administration of some LE agencies are anti-gun, that doesnt mean that the rank-and-file is anti-gun also, and many of the rank-and-file support gun rights for everyone, so I feel its a way to divide firearm owners even more so.

To each their own though...
 
Let's turn up the heat on those big-name manufacturers...

You guys probably remember the links from places like Ruger & Firearms Policy Coalition where you can just enter your information, and they will email all your reps for you?

Well, now the good peeps at the Firearms Policy Coalition have made a similar tool, which asks a whole pile of industry-leading companies to stand with us. I hope you'll all take the 10 seconds to add your voice to the chorus.

Link: http://www.firearmspolicy.org/take-action/industry/

fpctakeactionindustry2.png


Here are the companies that will be contacted. If you prefer, the tool will also help you download a text version so you can send mail via the Post Office.

Colt Manufacturing Company, LLC
P.O. Box 1868
Hartford, CT 06144
Phone: 800-962-2658

Daniel Defense
101 Warfighter Way
Black Creek, GA 31308
Phone: 866-554-4867
Fax: 912-851-3248

Smith & Wesson
2100 Roosevelt Avenue
Springfield, MA 01104
Phone: 800-331-0852
Fax: 413-747-3317

Walther (see S&W)

FN USA
PO Box 9424
McLean, VA 22102
Phone: 703-288-3500
Fax: 703-288-4507

Heckler & Koch
5675 Transport Boulevard
Columbus, Georgia 31907 USA
Phone: (706) 568-1906
Fax: (706) 568-9151

Troy Industries
151 Capital Dr.
West Springfield, MA
Phone: (413) 788-4288

Remington Arms Company, LLC
870 Remington Drive
P.O. Box 700
Madison, NC 27025-0700
Phone: 1-800-243-9700
Fax: 1-336-548-7801

GLOCK, Inc.
6000 Highlands Parkway
Smyrna, GA 30082
Phone: 770-432-1202
Fax: 770-433-8719

Beretta U.S.A. Corp
17601 Beretta Drive
Accokeek, MD 20607

Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.
200 Ruger Road
Prescott, AZ 86301
Phone: 928-541-8892
Fax: 928-541-8835

Aimpoint Inc.
14103 Mariah Court
Chantilly
VA 20151-2113
Phone: 703 263 9795
Fax: 703 263 9463

L3 Communications
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 697-1111
Fax: (212) 805-5477

Hornady Manufacturing Company
3625 West Old Potash Hwy
Grand Island, NE 68803
Phone: 1-800-338-3220
Fax: 308-382-5761

Winchester
Phone: 800.333.3288

SIG SAUER, Inc.
18 Industrial Drive
Exeter, NH 03833
Phone: 603-772-2302
Fax: 603-772-9082
 
The gov't contracts may be "big", but they are NOWHERE near the profit of the civilian market.

Glock provides many PDs with pistols at no cost. Where do you think they end up making the money?

We have more power than many think, and we need to let the Manf. know it.
 
I would think that Sig & Glock would just be giddy if the other gun companies exited the LE market in certain states, An over seas company may feel that they really don't have a dog in that fight and prefer to mind their own business,
 
Here's a list of the companies that won't sell to NYS, or in the alternative will only sell what the common citizen is allowed to own:

Olympic Arms
Larue Tactical
Templar Custom
York Arms
Extreme Firepower
Cheaper than Dirt
West Fork Armory
Midway USA
Smith Enterprises
Exile Machine
Charter Arms
Spikes Tactical

Then there is MagPul s threat of leaving Colorado, should the legislature there pass those mag bans. See this story for the economic impact: Magpul's departure could crack plastics industry, manufacturer says - The Denver Post

Is this the start of something good? Read On!

Earlier today, quite a few folks who sent Armalite an email, similar to what is being used at http://www.firearmspolicy.org/take-action/industry/ received the following response.

Dear concerned gun owner,

First of all I would like to say thank you for filling my email with all this spam email.

Second, I am not sure where you got this blanket email from to send out as spam, but please stop it.

Third, The manufacture is not the one you need to convince. You need to convince the law enforcement agencies and the common people about their mistake in electing these officials and have them removed. Again NOT the manufacture.


AR Stands for ArmaLite…

Respectfully,

Pat Raley
raleyp@armalite.com
Master Armorer / Sales Rep.
ArmaLite, Inc.
P.O. Box 299
Geneseo, IL. 61254
Click to expand...

There were several emails to specific questions to Mr. Raley that were all answered in the same manner. Since many of these people were in NYS, this has created a firestorm. Think, Social Media!.

Armalite's FaceBook page was inundated with angry responses. It finally reached the owner, Mark Westrom. He took down the page and brought it back up with the following:

Please do not misunderstand me: ArmaLite will not abandon its main customers. Civilian gun owners. We will provide whatever material we can in those states that act like New York.

But we have a lot of good friends in Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement officers are overwhelmingly supportive of our gun rights. They have a hard mission sometimes and deserve our support. We'll supply them under the same terms as our civilian customers: whatever we can. We did so during the AWB.

You've raised a good question though. If we have reason to believe that an officer is a member of an organization that is detrimental to our beliefs, we will not supply that officer.

Yes, it would be simpler to say "No LE sales into a ban state." But that isn't realistic. Most rifle owners are pro-law enforcement. Many of you have friends on various departments and I'm sure you wouldn't deny them the rifles they deserve. I personally have serving friends in various Police departments and I won't deny them good equipment bought out of their own pockets.

Supporting the good guys, civilian and Police, is consistent. It may not always be easy, but I think it's the right thing to do.

But Brother Cuomo needn't come shopping.

Regards,
Mark Westrom
Click to expand...

Er... um... This started it's own Firestorm. Armalite now has a PR problem of major proportions. It will be instructive to see how the even larger US Manufacturers respond..... As for Sig or Glock? Do they want this kind of PR? Hmmm?
 
ArmaLite means clueless. I get it now. Thanks for driving home the point Mr Westrom. Your sales guy left the impression Armalite is snotty and whiney. You made it crystal for us.
 
You just can't win with social media.

This reminds me of that company executive a few months back who filmed himself berating a Chick Fila employee at the drivethru and was fired within 24hrs of the video going viral.

There was then backlash against the company for firing a guy for speaking his mind.

Then the company issued a statement about "values of the company".

Then the guy did some interviews and made himself look like a jackass.

Then the gay/lesbian community jumped on the guys case because he wasn't gay.

And as far as I know, Chick Fila posted record profits last year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top