PDA

View Full Version : Counter Attack to AB962...


5hundo
10-07-2009, 12:30 PM
I had an idea that might work to our advantage on AB962:

What if we try to get the manufacturers of ammunition to deny sales of ammunition to CA Law Enforcement agencies, and state agencies in general? Perhaps a letter from Winchester, Remington, etc. would convince them that this is a bad idea, unless they want our cops to start carrying sling-shots...

What do you guys think?

kf6tac
10-07-2009, 12:35 PM
Why would the manufacturers agree to such a thing?

5hundo
10-07-2009, 12:38 PM
Why would the manufacturers agree to such a thing?

Barrett did...

They still sell CA legal weapons to Californians but they will not do business with the state. I'll admit, it might cost them some money but given how ammo sales are through the roof right now, it might be something they would be willing to do to protect their profits in the future...

xxG3xx
10-07-2009, 12:39 PM
I have already promised my friends and family that I will no longer support arnies movies anymore if this passes.....buying , renting , watching....keep calling people we have to get this bill veto'd

Tallship
10-07-2009, 12:40 PM
Why would the manufacturers agree to such a thing?

Ever heard of Ronnie Barrett?

Drat two minutes late. :mad:

BigDogatPlay
10-07-2009, 12:42 PM
While it's a nice idea, it's hard to think of any of the ammo manufacturers turning their backs on several million dollars a year in business from state and local agencies in California.

Besides, the manufacturers are, most often, reselling to distributors at the head end of a sales channel / supply chain. Once it leaves their hands they are not responsible and can't really dictate.

Barrett, as a somewhat smaller concern who deals directly with government agencies, has a lot more control over his product.

berto
10-07-2009, 12:47 PM
I had an idea that might work to our advantage on AB962:

What if we try to get the manufacturers of ammunition to deny sales of ammunition to CA Law Enforcement agencies, and state agencies in general? Perhaps a letter from Winchester, Remington, etc. would convince them that this is a bad idea, unless they want our cops to start carrying sling-shots...

What do you guys think?

Won't work unless every manufacturer and all of their distributors are on board. The holdout will make all the money.

kf6tac
10-07-2009, 12:49 PM
Ever heard of Ronnie Barrett?

Drat two minutes late. :mad:

Sure, but how much business was Barrett Firearms doing with California agencies to begin with? That's not a rhetorical question, as I really don't know. But based on their product lineup, it seems like ammo manufacturers such as Winchester or Remington would have a lot more to lose by cutting off their bulk sales to state law enforcement than Barrett had to lose.

And I'm sure ammo manufacturers are quite aware that most of us here aren't just going to roll over in the face of AB962 and say, "Oh well, can't buy ammo over the internet anymore, I guess I'm going to stop shooting." We'll all find our ways to get the ammo we need, whether it's by hoarding while traveling out of state, hoarding at gun shows, or just wiping out the shelves of every local gun shop we can find -- all of which result in the manufacturers getting their cut anyway.

dantodd
10-07-2009, 12:49 PM
Won't work unless every manufacturer and all of their distributors are on board. The holdout will make all the money.

Of course it would work. If they all refused to sell to the CA government the LEA's would all have to buy through wholesalers and/or retailers instead of directly and this would push their ammunition costs through the roof.

bwiese
10-07-2009, 12:50 PM
5hundo,

Irrelevant - because a middleman will sell to them instead. And foreign ammo producers would gladly fill the gap.

Guns as well as many LE gun supplies are sold thru distribution. A mfg can't really control some of this without getting near or into 'restraint of trade' issues.

Barrett is unique because he has a unique gun. Yes, he won't sell to LAPD. But LAPD can probably figure out how to get Barrett guns or parts for them even if Barrett won't sell directly.

So it's all a feel-good issue that just makes certain parties jump thru an extra hoop.

Look what we did early in OLL days: we had middleman FFLs that weren't scared of DOJ... sometimes the early OLL receivers at end of 2005 or first few months of 2006 went thru 2, 3 or even 4 FFLs.

5hundo
10-07-2009, 12:52 PM
While it's a nice idea, it's hard to think of any of the ammo manufacturers turning their backs on several million dollars a year in business from state and local agencies in California. Besides, the manufacturers are, most often, reselling to distributors at the head end of a sales channel / supply chain. Once it leaves their hands they are not responsible and can't really dictate.

True...

...but how many millions do the ammo manufacturers and distributors stand to lose because of AB962? I'm sure the benefits of seeing that the bill doesn't pass outweigh the consequences of it actually passing.

I think it would be effective...

foxtrotuniformlima
10-07-2009, 12:52 PM
The problem with this idea is that the mfgs do not sell direct. They sell through jobbers / distributors. They have contactual obligations to fulfill. Perhaps they could not renew them but I think that we have proven to the mfgs that we will buy no matter the price so I do not think they will care if this passes and causes us to pay more.

CHS
10-07-2009, 12:52 PM
Awesome idea. Will never happen. Period.

5hundo
10-07-2009, 12:57 PM
The problem with this idea is that the mfgs do not sell direct. They sell through jobbers / distributors.

Those distributors stand to lose more money as a result of AB962 passing than they would gain as a result of keeping their contracts in place. The smart play for the distributors would be to do the same thing.

Beisdes... More ammo for us, right? :43:

cmonk518
10-07-2009, 12:58 PM
Good guys + no or little ammo = WORST IDEA EVER!!!

berto
10-07-2009, 1:02 PM
Of course it would work. If they all refused to sell to the CA government the LEA's would all have to buy through wholesalers and/or retailers instead of directly and this would push their ammunition costs through the roof.

Do you really think every manufacturer and every one of their distributors would agree? If I'm Remington and I don't get on board I make the CA LEA sales and reap the reward.

5hundo
10-07-2009, 1:04 PM
Do you really think every manufacturer and every one of their distributors would agree? If I'm Remington and I don't get on board I make the CA LEA sales and reap the reward.

It would have to be a collective effort. That is true...

ZRX61
10-07-2009, 1:10 PM
Once Arnie is out of office you can simply show up at the RockStore on Sunday mornings while he's having breakfast & tell him to his face what you think of him.
That's asuming he has the nads to ever show his face there again of course....

5hundo
10-07-2009, 1:17 PM
Once Arnie is out of office you can simply show up at the RockStore on Sunday mornings while he's having breakfast & tell him to his face what you think of him.
That's asuming he has the nads to ever show his face there again of course....

Did he ever get a proper Motorcycle license after his last crash? :o

bodger
10-07-2009, 1:17 PM
Once Arnie is out of office you can simply show up at the RockStore on Sunday mornings while he's having breakfast & tell him to his face what you think of him.
That's asuming he has the nads to ever show his face there again of course....


He might get a good stoning at the Rock Store if he ever showed up there again.

The "boos" would be heard all the way back Maria's house.

Arnie should just do the right thing here.
If he weasels out and doesn't veto, there should be a movement amongst the people who rent firearms for movie use to refuse to participate in any film Arnold ever does. He should be shunned permanently by anyone who values their 2A rights

ZRX61
10-07-2009, 1:26 PM
Did he ever get a proper Motorcycle license after his last crash? :o

Hopefully not, he's an absolute blithering idiot on a bike. I almost ran into him & 3 of his *clonies* on Mulholland years ago after I found them halfway thru a bend doing about 20mph in a 55 limit.
Ever since then I've backed it off a bit when I smell cigar smoke along that road. That saved his *** THREE other times...

sholling
10-07-2009, 1:41 PM
The big ammo (ATK and Winchester) companies are total lapdogs to the antis. That's why they happily restrict ammo sales to civilians. They want the big military and LE contracts and are completely unwilling to lift a finger to fight for the rights of mere citizens. They want your hunting dollars but their policy is that you can't have their best self defense products.

5hundo
10-07-2009, 1:58 PM
Good guys + no or little ammo = WORST IDEA EVER!!!

Last time I checked, I was one of the good guys. Now, my access to ammo is being threatened...

Is that any more, or less justified than holding CA lawmakers responsible for the drivel that they write?

Maestro Pistolero
10-07-2009, 2:40 PM
It would make a hell of a statement. They could sell all the ammo they could make to the public right now, w/o the LE discount. I don't think it would hurt them financially, not in this ammo market.

5hundo
10-07-2009, 2:50 PM
It would make a hell of a statement. They could sell all the ammo they could make to the public right now, w/o the LE discount. I don't think it would hurt them financially, not in this ammo market.

Yeah, I don't either...

In fact, I think they would be more adverseley impacted by a restriction of civilian ammunition sales in California. I honestly think that they have more to gain, than lose...