Dick's doubles down and hires lobbyists for gun control

Status
Not open for further replies.

boom boom

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Messages
4,767
Location
GA
Dick's doubles down--hires lobbyists to lobby for gun control.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/02...rat-gun-control-lobbyists-april-records-show/

So much for businesses are not ideological but merely responding to their customers.

It's one thing not to sell firearms, but quite another to actively try to prevent others from doing so.
 
What I wouldn't do to be a fly on the wall at their investor's meetings. "Last year, we bought AR15s, with your capitol, and cut them up into little pieces.
This year, we are pissing your capitol away, lobbying to make it hard for folks to enjoy all the other firearms we sell. NEXT year we want to use your
capitol for..."...
 
Last edited:
I vote with my words and my money. I just called Dicks's and spoke with a manager, told him that I needed a camping mat for my kid this weekend for a campout. Probably will spend 30 bucks, no big deal, but it's going to Sportsmans Warehouse instead. I will drive farther, and go to a place that accepts me and my way of life.

I'm also active in my community, and have spoken with all friends and family about avoiding Dick's like the plague, but also to call them and let them know why.

In the end I don't care to hurt a company for their political opinions and action. That's up to any citizen to do as they believe and wish. But I will absolutely support a business in my community that is in it with us and an advocate for a morality that matches mine.
 
Something's not right here.
Curious about it, I searched for the issue and found dozens of articles on this story, but nearly EVERY one of them I found cites back to the original article in The Federalist.
OK.
Looking at the actual Federalist article, the author cites their investigation of the federal filing regarding the Dick's lobbyists and found that the firm registering as "... the Federal DC-based government affairs firm, for “lobbying related to gun control.” No other policy issues were listed in the disclosure form filed by the firm."
The article names the individuals hired, and some of the lobbying firm's histories.

That's quite a leap to say Dick's is doubling down on gun control. The author cites no gun control policies, studies or positions these lobbyists have previously taken. (and if they have, how about filling us in, just having a (D) after one's name is not enough)
So what is Dick's actually lobbying for? (i.e. the filing statement "lobbying related to gun control" doesn't indicate 'for' or 'against' stance or somewhere in the rational middle.) Kind of hard to judge until something else comes out. Everyone is upset over the new age 21 policy and seems to be drawing conclusions based on little evidence.

If Dick's actually goes that route, I expect we'll get much better information than what this otherwise slip-shod article has given us.
Until then, this has the air of just whipping up the base.
 
The country has been polarized. There is less and less middle ground, even for businesses.

This is what seems senseless to me. In business I want to sell to everyone, why alienate potential customers?

It’s one thing to be Henry Ford and say you can have a 1923 Model T in any color you want as long as it’s black.

Totally different to actively go after rights some of your (former) customers enjoy.

I guess success makes a lot of people blind to reality though.
 
Something's not right here. ......Looking at the actual Federalist article, the author cites their investigation of the federal filing regarding the Dick's lobbyists and found that the firm registering as "... the Federal DC-based government affairs firm, for “lobbying related to gun control.” No other policy issues were listed in the disclosure form filed by the firm."

Lobbying related to gun control. What else exactly do you need to see why they are hiring lobbyists?

This action, by Dick's, is completely infuriating if it is as the Federalist reported. You're darned right it's stirring up the base. I'm the base and I've already stopped buying anything from Dicks, but this is enough to get me to actively inform friends who normally don't care about corporate policies and ask them to boycott the place. I think it's time to short the stock.....
 
Something's not right here.
Curious about it, I searched for the issue and found dozens of articles on this story, but nearly EVERY one of them I found cites back to the original article in The Federalist.
OK.
Looking at the actual Federalist article, the author cites their investigation of the federal filing regarding the Dick's lobbyists and found that the firm registering as "... the Federal DC-based government affairs firm, for “lobbying related to gun control.” No other policy issues were listed in the disclosure form filed by the firm."
The article names the individuals hired, and some of the lobbying firm's histories.

That's quite a leap to say Dick's is doubling down on gun control. The author cites no gun control policies, studies or positions these lobbyists have previously taken. (and if they have, how about filling us in, just having a (D) after one's name is not enough)
So what is Dick's actually lobbying for? (i.e. the filing statement "lobbying related to gun control" doesn't indicate 'for' or 'against' stance or somewhere in the rational middle.) Kind of hard to judge until something else comes out. Everyone is upset over the new age 21 policy and seems to be drawing conclusions based on little evidence.

If Dick's actually goes that route, I expect we'll get much better information than what this otherwise slip-shod article has given us.
Until then, this has the air of just whipping up the base.


Uh, it is you that did shoddy work reading the article and supporting documents. Try the hotlink in the article to the actual form LD-1 Lobbying Form.
or you can use this one.

https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cf...70-A497-4192-AA06-E598CB19A30D&filingTypeID=1

Check out item 12--specifically says that the policy issue that these lobbyists are to perform is lobbying related to gun control.

BTW, that is an official government form required by all lobbyists to be filed with the Secretary of the Senate and lying on it is a crime.
 
Oh, and by the way, straight from the CEO's Mouth
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...atement/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fb0438389bd5

Dick's CEO Stack states in the article from March 6th 2018, "
"We implore our elected officials to enact common sense gun reform and pass the following regulations,” Stack wrote. The memo called for banning assault-style firearms, raising the minimum age for gun purchases, banning high-capacity magazines and bump stocks, requiring universal background checks that include relevant mental-health data and "previous interactions with the law" requiring a database of prohibited buyers, and closing the private-sale and gun show loophole."

This is his agenda from his own mouth--the lobbyists are paid to help get his program through Congress. Need a bit more? Is the Washington Post poorly sourced? Is this whipping up the base? Or is Dick's CEO someone who believes in "reasonable gun control"? I think that he should get his wish and sell no more guns nor supplies to any customers because we the customers who support the Second Amendment should make sure that he doesn't make any profit from our "dirty" money.

Note, as I said in the original post--it is not enough for him to stop selling items--he does not support anyone else selling things that he does not like either by power of legislation backed by his company's money and power. How would he like a billionaire supporting eminent domain through congressional legislation to have government seize Dick's locations and turn them into educational shooting ranges. I suspect that he would howl like a wildcat caught in a trap.
 
This is such a "man bites dog" story -- contrary to what you would normally expect -- that I'm naturally skeptical. If the CEO is such an antigun fanatic, somewhere along the line he went into the wrong business.

AFAIK, Dick's is still selling Fudd guns, ammo, and other gun accessories. I can't take any of this seriously until they drop those lines of merchandise as well.

Or, maybe the CEO is "virtue signalling" in an attempt to protect his Fudd business? "Hey, look at me! I'm "responsible" and not like those other guys!"
 
This is such a "man bites dog" story -- contrary to what you would normally expect -- that I'm naturally skeptical. If the CEO is such an antigun fanatic, somewhere along the line he went into the wrong business.

AFAIK, Dick's is still selling Fudd guns, ammo, and other gun accessories. I can't take any of this seriously until they drop those lines of merchandise as well.

Or, maybe the CEO is "virtue signalling" in an attempt to protect his Fudd business? "Hey, look at me! I'm "responsible" and not like those other guys!"

Dick's is being sued for age discrimination in some states as that policy of 21 years old to purchase a firearm apparently violates state laws on age discrimination because it is higher than the federal requirement. However, Stack's call for the AWB which they no longer sell is to prevent anyone else from selling this as well as his demand for UBC indicate a true believer. Someone who wasn't would simply shut their cakehole after making such a statement in March which would be virtue signalling. However, hiring lobbyists to do so indicates something else.

When you are hiring an expensive lobbying group--it is tied to a large multinational firm and are willing to suffer a stagnating/declining stock price (Stack, the CEO, is the largest stockholder of Dick's) then he is indicating quite well that he is willing to curb other people's purchases in his stores but he doesn't want to give up the dollars to others. Some speculate that he is trying to prevent these lawsuits by having the fed's raise the age of purchase.

I suggest that you read the full WaPO article--personally I do not care if Dicks does or does not sell any firearms but realize that he will use some of your money to lobby Congress to take away your right to own "assault weapons" or to sell without government permit to someone else.

There is not a single thing that I need at Dick's that I cannot get elsewhere and after the shafting of Troy Industries in the previous overreaction by Dick's, I have not darkened their door.

Too many companies that actually support the 2A like Hornady who threatened to cut off ammunition sales to NY State govt in reaction to that State's Atty General calling for banks and financial institutions to cut off finances for firearms manufacturers, etc. You want to shop at Dick's, go ahead. Just don't expect to be celebrated for it either.
 
I now do all my discretionary sports equipment spending at Scheel's and I send copies of the receipts to Dick's corporate management including Stack himself via email and explain to them that this is money Dick's would have previously received from me. I doubt that any of them read it, but I spent over $1,100 at Scheel's again today for equipment that Dick's does sell. They will be receiving another email from me.

I wonder if the anti 2A crowd is flocking to their stores in the numbers we pro 2A folks claim we have stopped spending money there.
 
The anti 2A crowd is not "flocking to their stores", and most people buying guns don't care-they will buy them where it's convenient and competitive.
 
The anti 2A crowd is not "flocking to their stores", and most people buying guns don't care-they will buy them where it's convenient and competitive.
That's the problem. Too many people either dont know or don't care enough to stop supporting companies that use our own money from our purchases against us. It's very sad to see that many companies have no principles (hooray for Hornady, Barrett, etc) and many consumers don't care.
 
I always felt Dick's was over priced on ammo and other gun and hunting related equipment. Their fishing stuff, on the other hand, I felt was quite competitive. Oh well, they, in my mind, are like Target.
 
Im going to buy a bunch of camping stuff from there and then chop it up like they did their AR15s. That'll show em.

Just kidding, I do need some things for this summer, but I'll be going elsewhere.
 
Although I am not a huge Dick's supporter I do spend a ton of money at Golf Galaxy, a Dick's offshoot. I contacted their customer service line today and told them I would never spend another dollar in either one of their stores. 10,000 calls like this would be interesting. 100,000 would be even better.
 
May they suffer the same fate as Sports Authority. All the more reason to patronize your local gun shop.

Agreed, but a lot of local gun shops in my area are severely lacking in CS as well. Gun shop employees seem to think they are doing you a favor by selling you a gun and you should be thankful that they even allow you to buy a gun from them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top