giggitygiggity
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,250
This thread spans areas of legal contracts, politics, and 2A activism. Please minimize the political rhetoric so that a constructive conversation can be had regarding creative solutions to averting potential gun control.
Here is what I’ve been thinking... the federal government awards contracts to various gun manufacturers to fulfill requirements for the military, federal law enforcement, and other federal entities. Recognizing that manufacturers make sales to both government and civilians, I suspect they have an interest in protecting the 2A; if for no other reason, their civilian customers like you and me are likely to be more inclined to buy from a manufacturer that takes a pro-2A stance. If you doubt this, feel free to ask people for their opinion regarding Springfield Armory and RRA.
In any case, I believe there is potential for manufacturers to band together and require the federal government to insert a clause into contracts that any future infringements on the 2A will afford the gun manufacturer the option to no longer fulfill orders under the contract. Obviously, there will be nuances which define “infringements” and whatnot. Basically, the message to the federal government would be, “We want to do business with you, but if the federal government makes it difficult for our civilian customers to buy our product or if you impose bans and restrictions that require us to spend time and money retooling, reconfiguring our products, and retraining our employees, try finding someone else.”
The key is that the manufacturers would need to be in unison; otherwise, the government could simply award contracts to those who don’t go along.
If all manufacturers go along, this could cause the bean counters to get fed up when FN, Colt, and H&K stop fulfilling orders for M-4s, M-16s (the USMC still uses M-16s made by FN), M240s, IARs, etc because a clause enables them to back out of contract obligation if there is an infringement. And perhaps these bean counters can put pressure on the politicians and ATF to give it a rest because the unreliability of contracts being fulfilled is causing issues.
Alternatively, the government may be forced to resort to the state producing weapons. I suspect this would be such a disruptive endeavor that accommodating gun manufacturers in order to fulfill orders via contract would be more appealing.
Some will say that the gun manufacturers don’t care about civilian sales and that the vast majority of profits come from government sales. To you, I ask you to show me the statistics to support this. If you can show me something about how 95% of Colt’s sales are to the government, then I’ll give you that. However, I hear lots of people saying things without facts and statistics to support their statements.
This is a conceptual solution. I’ll default to those THR members who are more knowledgeable in law and the gun industry to provide input. If nothing else, I hope this churns the creative juices that we need to deter those wishing to absolve the 2A.
Here is what I’ve been thinking... the federal government awards contracts to various gun manufacturers to fulfill requirements for the military, federal law enforcement, and other federal entities. Recognizing that manufacturers make sales to both government and civilians, I suspect they have an interest in protecting the 2A; if for no other reason, their civilian customers like you and me are likely to be more inclined to buy from a manufacturer that takes a pro-2A stance. If you doubt this, feel free to ask people for their opinion regarding Springfield Armory and RRA.
In any case, I believe there is potential for manufacturers to band together and require the federal government to insert a clause into contracts that any future infringements on the 2A will afford the gun manufacturer the option to no longer fulfill orders under the contract. Obviously, there will be nuances which define “infringements” and whatnot. Basically, the message to the federal government would be, “We want to do business with you, but if the federal government makes it difficult for our civilian customers to buy our product or if you impose bans and restrictions that require us to spend time and money retooling, reconfiguring our products, and retraining our employees, try finding someone else.”
The key is that the manufacturers would need to be in unison; otherwise, the government could simply award contracts to those who don’t go along.
If all manufacturers go along, this could cause the bean counters to get fed up when FN, Colt, and H&K stop fulfilling orders for M-4s, M-16s (the USMC still uses M-16s made by FN), M240s, IARs, etc because a clause enables them to back out of contract obligation if there is an infringement. And perhaps these bean counters can put pressure on the politicians and ATF to give it a rest because the unreliability of contracts being fulfilled is causing issues.
Alternatively, the government may be forced to resort to the state producing weapons. I suspect this would be such a disruptive endeavor that accommodating gun manufacturers in order to fulfill orders via contract would be more appealing.
Some will say that the gun manufacturers don’t care about civilian sales and that the vast majority of profits come from government sales. To you, I ask you to show me the statistics to support this. If you can show me something about how 95% of Colt’s sales are to the government, then I’ll give you that. However, I hear lots of people saying things without facts and statistics to support their statements.
This is a conceptual solution. I’ll default to those THR members who are more knowledgeable in law and the gun industry to provide input. If nothing else, I hope this churns the creative juices that we need to deter those wishing to absolve the 2A.
Last edited:
