C5rider
Member
Right or wrong, there are some laws imposed upon folks in various states/municipalities that restrict the ownership of certain firearms, save for LEO or other worthy entities.
Not wanting to discuss Constitutional law. That is being done elsewhere. What I did want to focus on, are the posts where enthusiasts say stuff like, "so-and-so should stop selling products to ANYONE in that state/municipality, including LEO or whomever."
I don't agree with the mentality that, "I'm the only one in the room with enough knowledge to handle this gun." because THAT has been proven to be false, and if they're so dangerous, why do YOU need them? But I digress.
My question is, has any company ever refused to sell products to those still entitled to receive them due to the limitation from the hands of the common man? Does anyone have knowledge of this or can cite documentation?
There are several companies manufacturing in the midst of contested areas, but do they SELL to (make money directly from) those who impose the regulations?
From a business standpoint, what are the pros and cons of taking such a stance? Again, if there is evidence showing either pro or con of this, please bring that to my attention.
THR.org is a great resource of like-minded individuals with a broad scope of experience, so I was just seeking clarification to a question that I've asked myself numerous times.
thanks in advance!
Not wanting to discuss Constitutional law. That is being done elsewhere. What I did want to focus on, are the posts where enthusiasts say stuff like, "so-and-so should stop selling products to ANYONE in that state/municipality, including LEO or whomever."
I don't agree with the mentality that, "I'm the only one in the room with enough knowledge to handle this gun." because THAT has been proven to be false, and if they're so dangerous, why do YOU need them? But I digress.
My question is, has any company ever refused to sell products to those still entitled to receive them due to the limitation from the hands of the common man? Does anyone have knowledge of this or can cite documentation?
There are several companies manufacturing in the midst of contested areas, but do they SELL to (make money directly from) those who impose the regulations?
From a business standpoint, what are the pros and cons of taking such a stance? Again, if there is evidence showing either pro or con of this, please bring that to my attention.
THR.org is a great resource of like-minded individuals with a broad scope of experience, so I was just seeking clarification to a question that I've asked myself numerous times.
thanks in advance!
