• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Can we encourage gun makers to stop selling guns to non-gunfriendly states/cities?

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

El Rojo

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
2,540
Location
The People's Republik of California
That Barrett 50 Caliber thread got me to thinking. Why can't we start a letter writting campaign to encourage more gun manufacturers to cut ties with states and cities that pretty much destroy our right to keep and bear arms? I have to go to work soon, but lets start by posting as many feedback e-mails on this thread and then e-mailing the companies and see what we can do. Before we do that, maybe we should discuss the pros and cons. If the gun manufacturers started cutting off the PRK, would that hurt us in the long run? How would PRK residents arm themselves? Would it be worth it to give up buying new guns with the idea that as soon as police agencies start taking a hit on service and new weapons, that would put enough pressure on law makers? Would law makers throw a fit and call it unfair business practice, sort of like they tried to claim when we sent the message loud and clear to Smith and Wesson? What do you guys think?

I personally would love to see all gun manufacturers cut California off. I have all the guns I need right now. I know others might not, but how long until the state gets it and has to act? What if they don't? Interesting theory.
 
I would much rather see all gun manufacturers or importers in unfriendly states simply move out.

I can't figure the logic (based on principal) of manufacturing in a state that persecutes those who purchase the manufacturer's products. The reason they stay put is because they are getting subsidies out te ying-yang. Once more hypocracy reigns supreme.
 
Let me get this straight...

You want to encourage gun manufacturers, who are already fighting an up hill battle to provide firearms to the unfortunate citizens that live in anti-gun states, to just give up?

Why don't you just go and donate all your money to the nearest anti-gun group you can find?

You want to encourage gun manufacturers to stop sending any guns to Kali?

Isn't that what the anti gunners want.
"Great even the pro-gunners I helping us to stop bringing guns into the Soviet Socialists Republik of California... yehaa lets start on Colorado now..."

Wouldn't it be better to write letters to the firearms companies saying we are willing to pay more for our guns in guns friendly states, so that they may provide honest law abiding citizens with a more affordable way to procure firearms in anti-gun states. The more firearms owner we have in those sates the clearer the message we said to the liberal anti-gun legislature...

Am I getting this arse backwards????

HS/LD
 
Sales boycott the government, not the people...

He means refusing sales to anti-gun government agencies and police departments, not the civilians...

The thread he's talking about is: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26210

Barrett is refusing to sell any .50's or service existing Barrett rifles to any California PD or LEO agency since the LAPD ordered one and it turned out that it was for the express purpose of showing it off in anti-.50 news conferences. They later made a request for service and he told them where to shove it. :D

But I think getting Colt, S&W, Glock, Ruger, and HK to ever agree to it would be a waste of time, and having them not on board would make any such boycott symbolic at best. It could also backfire because state legislatures could ban civilian sales of those guns in retaliation.

While I love the poetic justice of it, I think getting anyone other than the small/semi-custom makers to do this will be impossible.
 
I think what El Rojo meant was for manufacturers to stop falling all over themselves and peeing on each other's legs to supply xxxxx PD or Sheriff with their latest model at bargain discount prices. When xxxxx PD or Sheriff sends their weapons for service, the guns should have no higher priority than that of a civilian customer.

It would be nice if all manufacturers quit dealing with PDs and Sheriffs in states that are anti-gun, but there is at least one manufacturer who will continue to do so because it believes that equipping the PDs and Sheriffs is great advertising for their product in the civilian market.


Pilgrim
 
I am not in manufacturing, but it is doubtfull that old established firearm companies like Colt, S&W, Winchester, Remington, and I'm sure there are more, could survive picking and choosing where they sell their products too.
These gun makers are dependant on sales to customers to survive.
Witness S&W. Even with all the Govt contracts, the consumer boycott almost killed them.
I have read that CA, even with their assinine gun laws is one of, if not the biggest sales area for firearms. Would you deny this to the gun makers? I don't think so.
So imagine how it would effect them to loose CA. Then NJ. How about a couple other states. Pretty soon forget Winchester rifles, all you will see is Winchester vacuum cleaners.

Bottom line, just like any company, they can't afford to loose sales. Competition is fierce between gun makers, so I'm sure their profit margin is lower than we think it is.

(To re-direct the topic a bit)
What I would like to see, is gunmakers like S&W, Colt, Ruger, Remington, Winchester, et al pull up stakes and remove all their manufacturing plants, offices, and everything else from anti-gun states. Deprive these governments of the taxes and revenues that the companys generate. That would get their attention.
But alas it would probably cost us many of the gun makers too. They probably couldn't survive the cost of the move and training new employees.
 
Alright, I can understand gun manufacturers refusing to deal with local governments that're viciously anti-gun..isn't that what Barrett is doing? Refusing to sell his rifles to the LA police?

It'll never work, though. Even if Glock, Ruger, or whatever should cease selling to the police of Chicago, California or wherever, other manufacturers would instantly step in to seize the market share.
 
Maybe if the gun makers refused to sell to distributors selling to police or other gov't agencies in the targeted states. Let the makers be the watchdogs of our rights since we don't seem willing to impeach lawmakers who consistently violate their oath and and remove judges who exceed their job description.
 
I know a few people in the industry who tell me that the manufacturers cannot live on government sales alone. If they did, they would resemble the aircraft industry. Look at the mergers that have occurred amongst aircraft manufacturers over the past. Douglas was absorbed in the merger with McDonnell. Northrup, the initial designers of the YF-17 which became the F/A-18, was absorbed in the merger with McDonnell. McDonnell has disappeared into Boeing.

The reason the police departments have so many models of firearms to choose from is because of the vast civilian market supports a large variety of firearms being manufactured. I believe if the police market drove the firearms industry, eventually the only gun we could buy would be Glocks.

I think what El Rojo suggests would work, if all the firearms manufacturers agreed to cooperate. Let's say the New Jersey State Police decides they want to regun and asks for proposals, i.e., send them free samples to test. In return they are studiously ignored by the firearms manufacturers. In essence, the NJSP has to shop for their guns like you and I do. Go read the gun magazines. Go to the range and rent guns. Shoot guns belonging to a friend. I think it would be amusing, to say the least.

If and when the NJSP finally settles on a model and submits a request for say 2,000 guns, wouldn't it be a hoot if they are told, "See your local stocking dealer. Ask him to cut you a deal."

I think it would be excellent if the ammunition manufacturers did the same.

Pilgrim
 
Many of the firearms currently popular with American military and law-enforcement organizations are manufactured by companies headquartered in countries where the disarmament of common subjects has been state policy for thousands of years. Assuming major American manufacturers would go along with this strategy—which few would, if any—why would foreign companies, with no history of universal RKBA, do so?

~G. Fink
 
Hell, why stop at not selling to states or cities with anti-gun laws. Why don't we really screw up and not sell any guns to the federal government! That would teach them a lesson. We would have soldiers without firearms. What a great idea! - NOT! Colt would fold overnight without gov't contract rifle sales.

Just because some cities or some states (not to mention the fed government) may be anti-gun, that does not mean that every department within a city or state is anti-gun. Here in Texas, I have seen a couple of articles pertaining to gun debates where both sides of the debate had LEOs from the same county. In the last one I recall, one side had a sheriff and one a police chief.

The problem with getting makers to not sell to those states or cities is that you harm the good with the bad. Also, why do you want to punish gun companies by getting them to cut their sales? For a major city, gun contract can be worth a LOT of money to a company. Here it has to be pointed out that the problem is NOT with the gun company, but the city or state government. If you want to start a letter campaign, the gun companies are not who you should be addressing.

Okay, so you get companies to stop selling to anti cities and states. Great. Now sales are down as the companies lose the economies of scale that reduce their costs via larger production runs. Without economies of scale, costs go up, profits go down, workers get laid off, and the burden is passed on to the individual consumer like you and me. Now that $750 Springfield is $1195. Some companies are already close on their margins and this sort of thing could be very bad news, such as folding. I mentioned Colt above. Colt doesn't have the contract for handguns and their major profits comes from government contract rifle sales. This is what has kept them alive. Cut that off and I would bet the company would not survive.

What Barrett did was pretty neat. At the same time, however, his grandstanding does not represent a large number of units that he is withholding from sales. Just how many CA LEO departments have Barrett .50 guns and how many are held in those departments? He will lose some money, no doubt, but the numbers of units is not high. He may lose 50 or 60 sales to CA departments. It is not as if he has contracts for several hundred of his guns with LAPD.

While Barrett's stand is cool, no doubt it was a very shrewd business move. The few sales lost to California law agencies will be more than made up by sales to civilians who will buy Barretts sooner than later because they support what he is doing. That is great.

The point is that Barrett isn't a really high volume gun maker with high volume sales to California agencies. He does not have a contract for 2500 of his rifles to LAPD or anything like that. So, he is in a much more viable position to make a stand than many other companies and it is cool that he is doing so.

Don't try to change the behavior of gun companies to somehow punish unfriendly states or cities. That complicates the process and hurts those beyond you intended groups to hurt, the cities and states. Cut through the middle man and deal with the cities and states directly.
 
I think not selling guns to the enitre PRK just because its not a gun friendly state going in the wrong direction.

I personally would love to see all gun manufacturers cut California off. I have all the guns I need right now.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:


Now if we ONLY SELL to the GOV what they allow to the "Common People" to buy that would be a step in the right direction.

What!!!! Law enforcement agencies only being able to carry 10 round mags, no EVIL BLACK GUNS in Squad Cars or MP5s for the SWAT guys and Special Agencies.

Why should someone with a badge or who is sworn to protect the public have more of a right to protect themselves than the "average citizen". If the common people are limited by law what that "this and that" will decrease crime rates. The reduced crime rates would make crime easier for the Gov to handle.

Gun Makers could put the Gov and the decision makers on the same playing field as the general public, would this happen. I dont know but it would take everyone in the community to stand up for their rights. This makes for an interesting debate!
 
As DNS pretty much said, Barrett may lose out on one or two sales, but Colt and Glock would lose out on millions of dollars in sales. They are already being beaten up by the whole lawsuit thing, but this would surely drive them towards bankruptcy.

I like 45R's suggestion about making the police and .gov abide by the same rules we do.
 
Thanks for all of your replies. The thing I was relying on more in such a shrewd move was that you call a bluff and see if the State of California folds. The only way it would work is if everyone refused to do business with them. You make the legislature make the next move. The fun manufacturers are refusing to do business with a state that has such restrictive laws. If the laws were to change, then the business resumes. The bad thing about this is, if such a thing were to happen, what is to stop officers from getting a firearms allowance from the state and then them having to pay for the firearms? We might be able to keep the departments from doing such a thing because the only way to get these goodies that are illegal for us common folk would be to provide a department letterhead. Bad part is the distributers probably would go for the money and sell it anyway or the legislature would say that a letterhead wouldn't be required to get past the law. That would just further the police/non-police divide.

So the only real way to do such a thing is to cut off the entire state. Is that such a hard thing to do? Anyone read Shotgun News? Look at all of the places who don't ship a whole lot of guns to the PRK. What would the backlash be like if the manufactures said on specified date, no more firearms will be sold to California addresses. Think of all of the sportsmen, politicians, and law enforcement who would be up in arms over this. Some of you say that is horrible, and it is a step backwards. I don't know, it seems to me to put a lot of pressure on the legislature to take action.

Think of it this way. We all have argued at one point or another that there is no way the anti's can just do an outright ban right? It would cause too many people to get really upset and actually do something right? So what are they doing? Piecemeal, one gun at a time. Here goes full-auto,there go the "assault weapons", next comes the "Saturday Night Specials", get rid of the .50 BMG, no more "sniper weapons"...on and on and on. Why not let the manufacturers skip the piecemeal and just throw California and say New Jersey away? Yeah, the people of that state are screwed. We are screwed anyway!!! After that, the legislature is either going to take action or they are not. Their police forces are going to be pissed as heck. We all know that the police and correctional officer unions don't have any swing in the PRK right??? The corrections union bought Grey Davis's campaign!!! You don't think they have any weight? When Mr. Trap shooter can't get a new trap gun, you think he is going to keep on being apathetic and not going to vote or not write any letters? Can't buy a new hunting rifle anymore? What are you going to do?

I mean when you think about it, what is the only thing that makes these bans work? There is a law enforcement exemption!!! The cops get the goods, the non-leo citizens gets nothing. You cut off the cops and the citizen at the source, what are they going to do now? The citizen doesn't lose anything, we already can't buy AR-15s, magazines over 10 rounds, or anything else that the rest of free America gets. It doesn't hurt any of us much. It will crush law enforcement. And for those of you who don't think law enforcement agencies and unions don't have pull, you need to think again.

Yeah it probably wouldn't work. Somone would probably cross the line and sell. However, if we continue the way we are going, what makes you think the rest of this country won't soon be like the PRK??? Look at this new AW ban they are thinking about putting together. It is more restrictive than the PRK ban!!! Doesn't that scare you guys? Doesn't that concern you that no matter how you vote, or how you feel about it, it might go through anyway? Welcome to PRK politics. Try as you might, you are outnumbered. These politicians will do what they want and to hell with you. And you want to pretend like voting is going to help anything?

Honestly, I think the rest of this country does have a chance. I think that the AW ban is going to die in Congress and I think it is going to happen because of the pressure the NRA puts on law-makers. I sure hope for the rest of this country I am right. I really don't want to see the rest of the country end up like the PRK. However, part of me does want to see everyone who ever bad mouthed this state and the people who live in it suffer like we suffer. I want to see you realize there isn't a damn thing you can do about it sometimes.

Yeah, this state is pretty much hopeless. The only thing that would change our situation is to get a new influx of conservative voters or to do something really rash. I would take either one. No matter what happens, it can't get much worse than what is happening now. That is why I wouldn't mind seeing all the manufacturers give a time deadline and then cut the entire state off after that. Either people are going to get the legislature to change or this state will suddenly have an exodus of conservatives fleeing for higher ground. Why not have the manufacturers chose the time and place on their terms rather than the government do it at our expense?
 
I have long argued for it, El Rojo. I would love to see it happen in a "test market". I would start with a city, not an entire state.

I nominate Chicago! Let CPD protect Oprah and King Daley with rocks and sticks.

However, as Standing Wolf sez, it is up to the people to disarm the police who argue that our rights are to be infringed on their behalf, not the gun makers.
 
How do you propose we disarm the police that have authority under the laws set by our representatives? I would think we can either do it by force, which we will be resisted, or we can do it legally. Good luck with either one. 2nd, if we disarm the police, then no one has guns! Yes the same scenario, except we didn't do it at the source, we did it legally. Now no one gets "assault weapons" by law. Try fixing that. No the easiest way are for manufacturers to do it. And secondly, we are manufacturers. The domestic gun industry is owned by the people, supported by the people. Yeah, lets start one city at a time. I vote Los Angeles first. Actually that would work well. The companies that support the ban on Los Angeles, need to be rewarded by everyone outside of Los Angeles. The only problem is that just about anyone outside of Los Angeles in the state of California can sell a gun to someone who lives in Los Angeles. It would have to be like the Smith and Wesson boycott. Everyone would have to try to enforce it based on principal. Hell I think that is a good idea. Start with Los Angeles. They are pretty much screwed anyway. The only people this would really serve to hurt would be a few gun businesses and all of the city and county government. They are as liberal as they come anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Differing Views Are Voiced by City on Gun Lawsuits
Replies
10
Views
645
Partisan Ranger
P
redcon1
  • Locked
13 States Back Mexican Gov’t’s Lawsuit Against U.S. Gun Makers
Replies
4
Views
763
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
C
  • Locked
USA: "Are the Lawsuits Against Gun Makers Really the Best Way..."
Replies
1
Views
407
Standing Wolf
S
C
  • Locked
New Jersey: "Cunningham honored for fight against gun makers"
Replies
2
Views
804
Standing Wolf
S
L
  • Locked
New York City Strikes Again
Replies
23
Views
981
Graystar
G
Back
Top