[Vision2020] Firearms makers vow reverse boycott

Tue Feb 26 01:40:56 PST 2013

So, because the majority or Americans want arms manufacturers to stop selling to criminals, arms manufacturers are protesting by refusing to sell to police officers that protect us from the criminals they arm? I guess they want both sides armed equally so they stay in business. 

Isn't ironic that the people that want the same armament as a trained professional law enforcement officer in case someone breaks into their house don't own a high pressure fire hose in case of a fire, or an AED device in case of a heart attack. Both the latter far greater to strike and save their life. 

Donovan J. Arnold

From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
To: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> 
Cc: Moscow Vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Firearms makers vow reverse boycott

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> 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 are vowing to reverse-boycott local and state governments that enact any new infringements on the 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, 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 in Newtown, Conn. The most direct target of the "police loophole" movement seems to be New York State, 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, 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, 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.
>>
>>
>>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., says its pushback against new gun control laws is having an impact.
>>
>>
>>"We have police from LA and NYC that contact us about purchasing Magazines if they provide proof," the company wrote recently on Facebook. "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 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, told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, noting that those proposals had not received strong support from police.
>>
>>
>>While Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, for example, has said it's time for new limits on some guns and ammunition, threats by a major 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 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, 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 (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
>>=======================================================
>>
>

=======================================================
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/20130226/6c3271c5/attachment-0001.html>