<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
      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.<br>
      <br>
      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.<br>
      <br>
      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.<br>
      <br>
      Anyway, it's a complicated topic.  I don't know exactly what to
      think.<br>
      <br>
      Paul<br>
      <br>
      On 02/25/2013 05:04 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8yeEPx3R8Ru0ho23wY3+3p0vJ2atpq0i4UkUNNY7qnqZA@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">Paul,<br>
      <br>
      What do you think about this? <br>
      <br>
      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.<br>
      <br>
      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.<br>
      <br>
      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.<br>
      <br>
      <div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Paul
        Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span>
        wrote:<br>
        <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
          .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
          <div>
            <div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:times new roman,new
              york,times,serif">
              <h1>Firearms-makers to politicians on gun rights: You
                balk, we walk<br>
              </h1>
              <h2><span style="font-weight:bold"><span
                    style="font-weight:normal"></span></span><span
                  style="font-weight:bold"><span
                    style="font-weight:normal"><span
                      style="font-size:16px">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.</span></span></span></h2>
              <cite>By <span>Patrik Jonsson</span> | <span>Christian
                  Science Monitor</span> – <abbr
                  title="2013-02-23T19:05:24Z">Sat, Feb 23, 2013<br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                </abbr></cite>
              <div>A growing number of firearm firms in the <a
                  moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/United+States"
                  target="_blank">US</a> are vowing to reverse-boycott
                local and <span>state governments</span> that enact any
                new infringements on the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Second+Amendment"
                  target="_blank">Second Amendment</a>.</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>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.</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>Quality Arms, located in Rigby, <a
                  moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Idaho"
                  target="_blank">Idaho</a>, 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."</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>The move comes as Congress and some state houses are
                considering new gun controls in the wake of the Dec. 14
                massacre at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Sandy+Hook+Elementary+School"
                  target="_blank">Sandy Hook Elementary School</a> in <a
                  moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Newtown+%28Connecticut%29"
                  target="_blank">Newtown, Conn.</a> The most direct
                target of the "police loophole" movement seems to be <a
                  moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/New+York"
                  target="_blank">New York State</a>, which put into law
                a raft of new <span>gun control</span> regulations,
                including limiting the size of magazines, last month.</div>
              <div
                style="font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;font-family:times
                new roman,new york,times,serif"><br>
              </div>
              <div>"Based on the recent legislation in <span>New York</span>,
                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 <span>New York</span>," York Arms of
                Buxton, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Maine"
                  target="_blank">Maine</a>, writes on its website.</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>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.</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>"Unless S&W, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Springfield+Armory+Inc."
                  target="_blank">Springfield Armory</a>, Ruger,
                Remington, etc. get on board, these boycotts are
                practically useless," writes an anonymous poster on the
                Sipsey Street Irregulars blog.</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>Meanwhile, the push for more gun control continues
                across the country, led by <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Barack+Obama"
                  target="_blank">President Obama</a>.</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>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.</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>Nevertheless, at least one of the companies on the
                "police loophole" list, Predator Intelligence of <a
                  moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Phoenix+%28Arizona%29"
                  target="_blank">Phoenix, Ariz.</a>, says its pushback
                against new gun control laws is having an impact.</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>"We have police from LA and <a
                  moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/New+York+City"
                  target="_blank">NYC</a> that contact us about
                purchasing Magazines if they provide proof," the company
                wrote recently on <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Facebook+Inc."
                  target="_blank">Facebook</a>. "Why should we consider
                sending them to states that want to enforce laws that
                are unconstitutional?"</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>Indeed, the lack of support from police may have led
                the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Minnesota+State+Senate"
                  target="_blank">Minnesota State Senate</a> this week
                to drop proposals to ban assault weapons and
                high-capacity magazines.</div>
              <div>“The assault weapons ban and high-capacity magazine
                ban proposals are highly divisive,” Sen. Ron Latz, the
                chair of the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/U.S.+Senate+Committee+on+the+Judiciary"
                  target="_blank">Senate Judiciary Committee</a>, told
                the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Minneapolis"
                  target="_blank">Minneapolis</a> Star-Tribune, noting
                that those proposals had not received strong support
                from police.</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>While <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/John+Hickenlooper"
                  target="_blank">Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper</a>,
                for example, has said it's time for new limits on some
                guns and ammunition, threats by a major <a
                  moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Colorado"
                  target="_blank">Colorado</a> arms manufacturer, <span>Magpul</span>,
                to take hundreds of jobs out of state if the governor
                signs such laws appears to have given Mr. Hickenlooper
                some pause.</div>
              <div
                style="font-style:normal;font-size:16px;background-color:transparent;font-family:times
                new roman,new york,times,serif"><br>
              </div>
              <div>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 <a
                  moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Colorado+State+Senate"
                  target="_blank">Colorado Senate</a> has yet to vote on
                the package.)</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>“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.”</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>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.</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Texas"
                  target="_blank">Texas</a>, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/South+Carolina"
                  target="_blank">South Carolina</a>, and Idaho,
                meanwhile, are pleading with Magpul to relocate to their
                more gun-friendly states.</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>"South Carolina would welcome Magpul with open arms,"
                US <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Jeff+Duncan"
                  target="_blank">Rep. Jeff Duncan</a> (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."</div>
            </div>
          </div>
          <br>
          =======================================================<br>
           List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
           serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
                         <a moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
                    mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
          =======================================================<br>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
      <br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>