[Vision2020] Firearms makers vow reverse boycott

[Joe Campbell]

Paul,

What do you think about this?

Doesn't this impose an undo pressure on politicians? Note: I am not saying
that firearms-makers don't have this right. Of course they do. But
sometimes you've complained about criticisms of, say, Christ Church -- you
said they were a form of political correctness that might silence genuine
debate. People may be intimidated by the fear of being labeled a "bigot" or
a "Nazi." So these are unfair labels, presumably because the prejudice a
person's judgment.

I must admit, I think exactly the opposite in these two cases. Criticisms
of Christ Church or any entity are just that: criticisms; words. People
should be free to criticize anyone as much as they wish, provided they stay
within legal and ethical boundaries.

On the other hand, something seems wrong about firearms-makers putting
pressure on congress. There is no argument here, no reason why the
firearms-makers view is preferred. Other than an unwarranted appeal to the
2nd amendment. Other then that, there is just the fact that firearms-makers
will make profit if their crazy view is accepted. Maybe I haven't put my
finger on it but something has gone wrong here.

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:

> Firearms-makers to politicians on gun rights: You balk, we walk
> Firearms companies ranging from gun shops to machinists are joining forces
> to oppose new gun control laws. Some are threatening to move away from
> states that crack down on guns, others are refusing to sell gear to police
> that can't be sold to citizens.By Patrik Jonsson | Christian Science
> Monitor – Sat, Feb 23, 2013
>
>
> A growing number of firearm firms in the US<http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/United+States>are vowing to reverse-boycott local and state
> governments that enact any new infringements on the Second Amendment<http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Second+Amendment>
> .
>
> Vowing to close what they're calling "the police loophole," at least 50 US
> companies, ranging from gun machinists to gun shops, are now saying
> publicly they'll refuse to sell weapons and gear to police in places where
> governments have banned the use of the same gear by civilians.
>
> Quality Arms, located in Rigby, Idaho<http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Idaho>,
> writes on its website that it "will not supply any firearm or product
> manufactured by us or any other company, nor will we warranty, repair,
> alter or modify a firearm owned by any state, county or municipality that
> infringes on the right of its citizens to bear arms under the 2nd
> Amendment."
>
> The move comes as Congress and some state houses are considering new gun
> controls in the wake of the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary
> School <http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Sandy+Hook+Elementary+School>in Newtown,
> Conn. <http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Newtown+%28Connecticut%29> The
> most direct target of the "police loophole" movement seems to be New York
> State <http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/New+York>, which put into law
> a raft of new gun control regulations, including limiting the size of
> magazines, last month.
>
> "Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from
> selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York [so] we have chosen
> to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or
> located within New York," York Arms of Buxton, Maine<http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Maine>,
> writes on its website.
>
> So far, none of the major gun manufacturers have joined the list, and it's
> an open question whether the smaller companies are bluffing or would even
> have occasion to sell directly to governments in New York State, for
> example.
>
> "Unless S&W, Springfield Armory<http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Springfield+Armory+Inc.>,
> Ruger, Remington, etc. get on board, these boycotts are practically
> useless," writes an anonymous poster on the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog.
>
> Meanwhile, the push for more gun control continues across the country, led
> by President Obama <http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Barack+Obama>.
>
> On Friday, Obama's political advocacy group, Organizing for Action, held
> over 100 events across the country, including letter-writing parties,
> rallies with police chiefs and mayors, and candlelight vigils, to push for
> Obama's federal gun control plan, which includes beefing up background
> checks and banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
>
> Nevertheless, at least one of the companies on the "police loophole" list,
> Predator Intelligence of Phoenix, Ariz.<http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Phoenix+%28Arizona%29>,
> says its pushback against new gun control laws is having an impact.
>
> "We have police from LA and NYC<http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/New+York+City>that contact us about purchasing Magazines if they provide proof," the
> company wrote recently on Facebook<http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Facebook+Inc.>.
> "Why should we consider sending them to states that want to enforce laws
> that are unconstitutional?"
>
> Indeed, the lack of support from police may have led the Minnesota State
> Senate <http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Minnesota+State+Senate> this
> week to drop proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
> “The assault weapons ban and high-capacity magazine ban proposals are
> highly divisive,” Sen. Ron Latz, the chair of the Senate Judiciary
> Committee<http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/U.S.+Senate+Committee+on+the+Judiciary>,
> told the Minneapolis <http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Minneapolis>Star-Tribune, noting that those proposals had not received strong support
> from police.
>
> While Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper<http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/John+Hickenlooper>,
> for example, has said it's time for new limits on some guns and ammunition,
> threats by a major Colorado <http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Colorado>arms manufacturer,
> Magpul, to take hundreds of jobs out of state if the governor signs such
> laws appears to have given Mr. Hickenlooper some pause.
>
> After the House passed four specific gun control bills recently, including
> limiting the kind of magazines that Magpul builds, Hickenlooper has not yet
> signaled whether he'll sign the measures into law. (The Colorado Senate<http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Colorado+State+Senate>has yet to vote on the package.)
>
> “We haven’t taken a specific position on that bill yet,” Hickenlooper said
> this week, as reported by Colorado Public Radio, “but I from time to time
> have said contradictory things on it.”
>
> While Magpul employs 200 people directly, it's slated to spend $85 million
> buying goods, particularly injection-molded plastics, from other Colorado
> firms in 2013. The company says it would spend that money elsewhere if
> Colorado moves ahead with its gun control package, saying their customers
> would object if any or all of the product was built in a gun-critical state.
>
> Texas <http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Texas>, South Carolina<http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/South+Carolina>,
> and Idaho, meanwhile, are pleading with Magpul to relocate to their more
> gun-friendly states.
>
> "South Carolina would welcome Magpul with open arms," US Rep. Jeff Duncan<http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Jeff+Duncan>(R) wrote to the company. "South Carolina is a freedom-loving state. The
> Second Amendment is very near and dear not only to the folks in my
> district, but to folks in the entire state."
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130225/1ff26040/attachment-0001.html>