[Vision2020] Firearms makers vow reverse boycott

[Paul Rumelhart]

They of course have every right to refuse to sell guns to whomever they 
wish.  I don't think it's a very good idea.  It's similar to when some 
businesses were thinking about not selling coffees or whatever to the 
megaload trick drivers.  I don't personally like the idea of selling to 
only people who believe what you do.  I think if you put it out there 
for the public to buy, then you ought not to restrict certain members of 
the public from buying it without good reason.

On the other hand, they make a good point about weapons laws and law 
enforcement.  Why are there guns that a law enforcement member can buy 
and use legally that an ordinary citizen cannot?  They are not 
military.  I'm sure, legally, because the laws on the books allow them 
to.  I just don't see an argument for it based on the Second Amendment.

There is also the irony that if certain gun laws are going to be 
enforced on the general public, it's going to be done by law enforcement 
officers carrying guns that the public isn't allowed to use.

Anyway, it's a complicated topic.  I don't know exactly what to think.

Paul

On 02/25/2013 05:04 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>     =======================================================
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130225/7d49b2b6/attachment.html>