Manufacturers boycott states?

[North86]

It's my understanding that there are several manufacturers that boycott state sales to restrictive states like ours, NY, etc.. Those include, but are not limited to: LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, Extreme Firepower (EFI, LLC), and Barrett Firearms.

For the record, I am not anti-police.

How do we get the pistol manufacturers to do the same? That will hit the police, which will cause their unions to respond. Stories like this (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opini...022-story.html) lead me to believe that this may be a viable option.

I am sure that this has been discussed before, and likely dismissed as counter-productive but at some point this may be a viable tactic. I worry that by the time the manufacturers get the balls to do this, it will be too late, and ineffective.

Thoughts?

[44fred]

I know some manufactures sell directly to law enforcement. That said...if they stop, the distributors will step in and sell. Glock for example has no control where their guns are sold outside of law enforcement and a few other exceptions.
I'm certain some of the manufactures products you mentioned end up in the hands of those they boycott, just pay a little more.

[ke6guj]

It's my understanding that there are several manufacturers that boycott state sales to restrictive states like ours, NY, etc.. Those include, but are not limited to: LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, Extreme Firepower (EFI, LLC), and Barrett Firearms.

for the record, LaRue does not boycott CA.

http://www.laruetactical.com/state-variances

[North86]

for the record, LaRue does not boycott CA.

I meant LE sales, not regular sales.

[North86]

I know some manufactures sell directly to law enforcement. That said...if they stop, the distributors will step in and sell. Glock for example has no control where their guns are sold outside of law enforcement and a few other exceptions.
I'm certain some of the manufactures products you mentioned end up in the hands of those they boycott, just pay a little more.

There are lots of ways to deal with this with contract language between manufacturers and distributors. It's a matter of whether or not this is a good idea, and if its worth it in the long haul.

Could Turner's sell to LEO without knowing it? Sure, but they'd be limited to the 10rd mag, and all of the old features like the rest of us.

[BONECUTTER]

Does not work.... as with all the LEO agencies still buying Barrett's

CA LEO Agency: Hi Barrett, we want 4 M82 50BMG.
Barrett: We won't sell to CA Agencies or service them. *Hangs Up*

CA LEO Agency: Hi (any dealer in most other states)we want 4 M82 50BMG.
Out of state dealer: No Problem
CA LEO Agency: How do we handle repairs or warranty issues.
Out of state dealer: Ship to me and Ill ship to barrett.

Any extra cost involved just comes out of your tax dollars.

[North86]

Does not work.... as with all the LEO agencies still buying Barrett's

CA LEO Agency: Hi Barrett, we want 4 M82 50BMG.
Barrett: We won't sell to CA Agencies or service them. *Hangs Up*

CA LEO Agency: Hi (any dealer in most other states)we want 4 M82 50BMG.
Out of state dealer: No Problem
CA LEO Agency: How do we handle repairs or warranty issues.
Out of state dealer: Ship to me and Ill ship to barrett.

Any extra cost involved just comes out of your tax dollars.

Oddly enough, there are lots of out of state dealers not willing to sell to anyone in California. But certainly, your scenario is valid. Can an FFL ship directly to LEO offices?

[BONECUTTER]

Oddly enough, there are lots of out of state dealers not willing to sell to anyone in California. But certainly, your scenario is valid. Can an FFL ship directly to LEO offices?

Yes, with a Agency PO and letter you can ship directly to a PD.

[dustoff31]

I'd have to say that the manufacturers have already determined that it either isn't viable, not in their interest to do so, or they just don't give a crap.

Sure Barrett can ban CA LEAs, so what, he doesn't sell 20 or 25 rifles. Smith and Wesson bans CA LEAs and it doesn't sell 20,000 pistols. Not gonna happen.

[Cowboy T]

The problem here is California's purchasing power. No company wants to forego the revenue from sales of the nation's (by far) most populous state, and as we all know, the more people you have, the more cops you need. That means more duty firearms to sell. The gun manufacturers, like all other companies, want to make money, first and foremost, even at the expense of looking the other way when it comes to bad politics for their own industry. I understand it. I just don't particularly like it.

Any successful boycott would have to include all major makers of guns, including Glock, S&W, Ruger, Sig Sauer, Beretta, you name it. Sig Sauer's probably not going to do it because they're a Swiss company (European). Beretta USA *might* if others do so as well, but what about Beretta Italy? Glock is Austrian (gun control country), so no chance there. AR-15 sales, everyone makes those now, so no chance there.

Then you'd have to deal with the likely backlash from the California General Assembly. "WHAAAAT?! They're all boycotting our state agencies? HOW DARE THEY?! Well, then we'll just pass a law saying anyone who boycotts CA LEA's, *you* are banned from sales at all in CA! That'll show 'em, ha ha!" Naturally, whoever the governor is at the time, whose own bodyguards are CA LEO's, would sign that one in a hurry. And we're back to the purchasing power of California's population, which no company wants to lose.

It's a difficult situation, unfortunately. I'd love to see it. But those are the obstacles that would have to be overcome. *Could* it happen? Yes. Is it *likely*? Sure, when evangelical Christians convert en-masse to Islam. :-)

This still needs to be solved at the ballot box. Californians need to make that decision. Right now, that decision seems to be, "2A? No biggie, wanna restrict guns for everyone except the cops, go ahead, I've got kids to feed, a job, a mortgage, bye bye." Hopefully that will change at some point.

[North86]

Cowboy T - you're points are fair ones, but here's the one I'd like to dissect:

Then you'd have to deal with the likely backlash from the California General Assembly. "WHAAAAT?! They're all boycotting our state agencies? HOW DARE THEY?! Well, then we'll just pass a law saying anyone who boycotts CA LEA's, *you* are banned from sales at all in CA! That'll show 'em, ha ha!"

Truth is that all new handgun sales are already banned. While these firms make new guns, they have to keep the tooling and production in place for the old ones. So not only can they not sell their newest, bestest, safest, most profitable product to CA residents, they are basically forced to keep their old production lines in place. There are costs for this that aren't insignificant.

I think hand gun makers are quickly approaching this rubicon, whether they like it or not and they are far better off doing it on their terms rather than those of the state.

The hypocrisy of the government being the only ones allowed to have certain hand guns needs to be exposed for what it is. We are all citizens, and our public servants do not deserve elevated privileges.

If there is another way to force the state government's hand, other than the ballot box because clearly we're dealing with sheep that do as they are told and the courts, I am all ears.

[Cowboy T]

Cowboy T - you're points are fair ones, but here's the one I'd like to dissect:



Truth is that all new handgun sales are already banned. While these firms make new guns, they have to keep the tooling and production in place for the old ones. So not only can they not sell their newest, bestest, safest, most profitable product to CA residents, they are basically forced to keep their old production lines in place. There are costs for this that aren't insignificant.

Indeed, that is a problem. DC and the People's Republik of Maryland do the same kind of thing. Matter of fact, DC patterned its list off of California's. Government officials have no business concocting a "we bless these as safe and allowed to be sold to the mere people" list. Basically, it'll be revolvers and 1911's after a while and nothing else. Nothing bad about either, of course, but why should a "Glock Gen 5" be banned in the largest market in our nation unless you're government?

I think hand gun makers are quickly approaching this rubicon, whether they like it or not and they are far better off doing it on their terms rather than those of the state.

Oh, I agree, and I hope that your prediction is correct, especially in light of your first point. I'd love to see that. The big question would then become, would they make more money by eschewing CA gov't agencies and risk the entire state's customer base, counting on the rest of the country? Or would they make more by keeping the older lines open? Sadly, there's also a "short term quarterly gains" mindset in a lot of boardrooms.

Not saying you're wrong; your scenario is actually the desirable one in this case.

The hypocrisy of the government being the only ones allowed to have certain hand guns needs to be exposed for what it is. We are all citizens, and our public servants do not deserve elevated privileges.

If there is another way to force the state government's hand, other than the ballot box because clearly we're dealing with sheep that do as they are told and the courts, I am all ears.

Your points are not only valid, but also correct. I'm afraid I don't know any other way to do that at this time, at least not quickly. The ballot box is a long-term strategy. I wish I knew of a faster way.

[Dutch3]

The hypocrisy of the government being the only ones allowed to have certain hand guns needs to be exposed for what it is. We are all citizens, and our public servants do not deserve elevated privileges.

If there is another way to force the state government's hand, other than the ballot box because clearly we're dealing with sheep that do as they are told and the courts, I am all ears.

How about looking at it from the standpoint of workplace safety and liability?

As an employer in this state, if you provide your employees with unsafe tools to use at work, how long do you think it will be before CAL OSHA comes sniffing around?

How is it then that thousands of LEO's are walking around with loaded and exposed weapons (tools) in public that have been deemed unsafe by the state? Of course, you and I know that those handguns are not any less safe than any firearm can be (so does the state) but where is the the outcry over officer safety - and dare I say it - public safety?

This is probably a discussion for a different thread, but it seems like a pretty straightforward argument. Lots of concern about safety in this state with this one glaring exception.

[djmere]

How about looking at it from the standpoint of workplace safety and liability?

As an employer in this state, if you provide your employees with unsafe tools to use at work, how long do you think it will be before CAL OSHA comes sniffing around?

How is it then that thousands of LEO's are walking around with loaded and exposed weapons (tools) in public that have been deemed unsafe by the state? Of course, you and I know that those handguns are not any less safe than any firearm can be (so does the state) but where is the the outcry over officer safety - and dare I say it - public safety?

i believe we have a winner

[tankton]

i believe we have a winner

Wrong. LEO are trained to operate dangerous implements, that untrained, uncertified, and unsworn civilians are not capable of handling.

Case in point, we don't just hand the keys (... Lol) of a nuclear reactor to any old person.

Or whatever the real counter argument for those weird fantasy arguments is.