Did Ruger buy their way out of being banned?

[Oolong]

Source video https://youtu.be/tXyIEDrhjNw

So being 25 I only vaguely remember the CGB as that time period where guns were in every movie except romantic comedies even though I think I ever saw 2 in real life and both of them were ment for hunting, not the cool black rifles and glocks that were in the movies, music, and games.

Later I learned that 3 companies back the gun control laws of the 90's and early 2000's Ruger, S&W, and Colt. Mind you I'm not sure as to the complete validity of colts involvement but the idea that my own money could be used to take away my ability to own said weapons is startling and thus I refuse to buy from them.

I ask though considering the specific unbanning of the Ruger mini 14 I wonder does anyone else think Ruger is at it again?

 

[khegglie]

Ruger is at IT Again..

Is at what specifically?

 

[Radagast]

Bill Ruger had his own prejudices and business interests. He supported, IIRC, a 15 round mag capacity for handguns because that was what his gun had. Glock would have been handicapped. The politicians took it one step further and legislated a ten round limit
He considered the Mini 14 to be a civilian hunting rifle - it was sold as the Ranch Rifle with a five round magazine. I guess where rifles are concerned he was a 'Fudd', with the viewpoint that they were for hunting, not militiamen or self defense.

A good read here about that time period:
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/papabill.html

That said, he's been dead for 14 years and left the helm of Ruger 16 years ago. These days they have new management and are on the side of gun rights.

In 2013 they boycotted the NSSF Eastern show after it banned the display of ARs.
http://www.getthatwholesale.com/blog/more-bad-news-for-the-eastern-sports-outdoor-show/
They are also raising funds for the NRA ILA for the current campaign:
http://www.ruger.com/micros/TakeAction/index.html

Last, but just as important, they make a good product and stand by.

 

[Oolong]

I don't see how them not going to a show couldn't have just been them not wanting to waste money since they offer a lot of ar esque things, which isn't really a boycott as only people can boycott. Further more if they are open about donating money to a organization to buy politicians does that mean they haven't done it in Massachusetts to get them selves excluded from another gun ban.

 

[RX-79G]

Is it bad that they did something to make their products more available? I don't understand if you are for or against whatever Ruger did.

 

[DPris]

Yeah- at what?
What un-banning of the Mini?

The Mini, incidentally, was introduced originally in the middle 70s for LE only.
It was quickly opened up for general consumption as a hunter & plinker.

The Ranch Rifle designation came along much later.

As far as boycotting any particular gunmaker goes, that's up to you.

Bill Ruger's views were never so strongly opposed to mine that I was willing to short myself of an excellent product line because of them, or to cease covering them professionally.

S&W's infamous sojourn into the Dark Zone was another matter, and while I still owned & acquired their products during those days, I did cancel a publication project I had in the works when they made their policy clear.

I was not about to be involved in anything that could be interpreted as condoning the corporate actions that led to their boycott, and I told their president at the time exactly why I was cancelling coverage of their products for the duration.

Once that nonsense was over, with new ownership & new management, it was back to covering their products again.

Colt, even with a short-lived foray into the politics of a Smart Gun, never caused me to deprive myself of acquiring those Colt products I felt filled a need.

If you refuse to buy from Ruger, S&W, and Colt, you're urinating on your own boots.
You immediately deprive yourself of most of the best DA & SA revolvers on the general market, along with a whole slew of perfectly fine rifles, and some of the best ARs short of the expensive custom-build outfits.

But, your decision to make.
Denis

 

[Radagast]

I don't see how them not going to a show couldn't have just been them not wanting to waste money since they offer a lot of ar esque things

Most of their popular products are not AResque. Handguns for CCW, hunting and competition. Bolt action rifles. Shotguns. Single shot rifles. Rimfire rifles.
The black rifle market is not their main area.

which isn't really a boycott as only people can boycott.

The people who manage Ruger pulled out after already committing money, staff and material a year in advance, when the show organizers decided to harm Rugers competitors. I call that a boycott.

Further more if they are open about donating money to a organization to buy politicians does that mean they haven't done it in Massachusetts to get them selves excluded from another gun ban.

You are the one slandering the companies reputation, it is up to you to provide the proof for your paranoid speculation.
I'm sure the Democrat controlled legislature of Mass. will look favorably on Ruger's products when Ruger donates five million dollars to prevent a Democrat president from being elected. Not.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I ask though considering the specific unbanning of the Ruger mini 14 I wonder does anyone else think Ruger is at it again?

Can you explain specifically what you are talking about?

The Ruger Mini-14 was never banned, how could it be unbanned?

What do you think Ruger is doing again...when did they do it previously?

...which isn't really a boycott as only people can boycott

You seem to have a distorted or limited understanding of the term "boycott".

As a verb, it means to withdraw from commercial or social relations

As a noun, is means a punitive ban that forbids relations with certain groups, cooperation with a policy, or the handling of goods.

Boycotts are most commonly engaged in by governments or corporations...not individual people
Example: The US boycotting the Olympics in protest of Russia's invasion of Afghanistan

 

[RX-79G]

I don't know if anyone in this thread is defending or apologizing for Ruger. If Ruger did something wrong recently, I'm certainly interested in hearing about it.

I just can't tell what the OP is talking about.

 

[MedWheeler]

I keep coming back to that Mini-14, er, Ranch Rifle, over at Wal-Mart. Might be time to go pick it up and see if that helps me figure out this thread...

 

[jmr40]

I don't understand the point of your post. But I'll try to educate you on the 1994 AWB in regards to Ruger and the Mini-14. The law was written by people who knew nothing about firearms and they specifically banned guns that looked scary instead of basing their decisions on how a gun functioned. The Mini was not banned because it LOOKED like a hunting rifle, not because of anything Ruger did.

After the ban was in place gun owners used the Mini as the perfect example of the how senseless the whole ban was. Not only the Mini, but the AWB in reality didn't ban much of anything. AR's were always legal, the only significant difference in a pre-ban rifle and a post-ban rifle is the flash hider. In fact it was during the ban that AR sales took off, they just couldn't sell them with a flash hider. Prior to the ban AR's and rifles that are labeled as "assault rifles" were extremely rare.

Bill Ruger gets a lot of grief from gun owners for supporting the 10 round magazine limit. It is true, he did, but there is more to the story. Congress already had the votes, the ban was going to happen. The details were just being worked out. The number being tossed around was to limit mag capacity to either 5 rounds or 7 rounds. Bill Ruger used his influence to convince congress to go with a 10 round magazine capacity limit. Put into perspective his support of a 10 round mag limit doesn't seem so bad.

But once again even the AWB did little to curb high capacity magazines. The law grandfathered in magazines made prior to the ban. For some guns, such as the Glock 20, 21, 22, and 23 which had just been introduced there were only a handful of hi capacity magazines available and used mags for those guns sold for as much as $150-$200. But for most other guns older magazines were readily available at elevated, but not crazy prices. S&W, Ruger, Beretta, Sig all approached LE agencies world wide and traded them brand new post ban mags for their older pre-ban magazines and flooded the market with used hi-cap mags. The same thing happened with used AR magazines.

 

[Tirod]

During the AWB there was a lot of interest in tricking out the Mini even more than what was happening before. Flash hiders, mag conversions, rails, etc. It was becoming the 5.56 battle rifle that Bill Ruger never intended in the hands of owners who couldn't buy AR15's. And they were becoming exactly what the AWB banners didn't want, which is the perverse nature of the human condition.

Don't tell us we can't get it.

As for S&W at the time of it's seeming compliance the business was owned by overseas interests, British IIRC. That came to a close when ownership changed hands. Strangely enough I'm looking for a .45 cal auto pistol from that era now. It was about the only alternative to Glock on the LEO market that was viable and they are becoming collectible - much less I missed the days of the $359 police trade ins. They are still undervalued in the market for a US made all stainless pistol.

Colt had it's issues but for the most part they weren't selling many AR's to the public so changing them slightly to cozy up for continued single source contracts was to be expected. A lot of that goes on in the defense industry. If anything Colt altering one pin size or profiling the back of the BCG just showed how silly it gets - it doesn't change the function or effectiveness whatsoever.

Boycotting products is something every American does every day. We don't buy just anything or have an interest in everything. I don't like Mini 14's and never have - but I have lived life long enough to know that for some reason, I might change. Ten years ago I wouldn't have been interested in an all stainless .45 from S&W and would have said they were less than worth the bother. Now? I'd liked to have bought one then. Our reasons for "boycotting" are much broader than political - it's only when we state them as such that they appear to be so. I stopped considering Ruger for BR's stance on mag capacity, but when the company corrected course later I bought an LCP. It's not what I wanted, tho, I sold it off and now, I'm boycotting them again. Not politically - they just don't have something that appeals. At the moment.

But, that could change.

What changed me? Not letting emotional overreactions about something someone said, which really has little to nothing to do with the value of a reliable and well made firearm. What I did was grow into being even MORE an American. Whatever gun someone else might consider to be politically tainted, too bad, because I embrace even more the idea that nobody can tell me I can't get it.

I'm no longer sympathetic to extremist political panderers who muddy the field with rants over what some corporate head said or didn't. They won't be in charge any longer than the President - and there is a classic example of what some promise vs what they actually deliver. Remember, you can tell they are lying because their lips are moving.

 

[stoky]

DPris,
IIRC, Bill Ruger's capitulation to federal pressure followed his being personally subpoenaed as a witness to a murder trial, in which the perpetrator used a stolen .44 carbine. A DA was trying to make a name for himself, at a time when anti 2A was at a fever pitch, culminating in the "assault" weapons ban. Could you elaborate on this?
Then there was the Hamilton v. Accu-Tek case, in which twenty four manufacturer's were (successfully) sued, for restitution of one shooting victim.
I didn't (and don't) begrudge Bill Ruger for doing what he perceived as being necessary for the survival of his company. The magazine restrictions were more symbolic than pragmatic. Anybody that wanted a twenty or thirty round Mini magazine had no trouble acquiring them, factory or aftermarket.

 

[Clayguy]

2A

at a time when anti 2A was at a fever pitch..
Stoky, I hope the pitch doesn't get any worse!

 

[stoky]

Welcome to the forum Clayguy.
+1 on hoping it doesn't get worse. It's my impression that there's a better bulwark in place to preclude such things now, but worse might be just a SCOTUS pick away.
Monica's ex boyfriend's wife is no friend of gun owners.

 

[HoosierQ]

Ruger is the largest gun company in the USA for one reason: They make and sell a whole heck of a lot of guns. All of this Bill Ruger bias is nonsense. He's dead. Ruger is an awesome gun company who makes guns in the USA. What's not to like? OK, nobody thinks the Mini-14 is worth it's MSRP. But besides that?

 

[stoky]

Who pays MSRP?
Some of the schlock outfits probably don't like Ruger's customer service.

 

[TimSr]

So let me get this straight..... We are so adamant about protecting our right to buy a firearm of our choice, possibly a Ruger, that we are going harm Ruger financially in order to preserve our right to buy a Ruger in the future?

We are going to financially harm large companies that employ tens of thousands of pro-gun workers because a single high ranking company officer once said something stupid, and this will help freedom of Constitutional gun ownership how?

Do we really have anti-gun, gun manufacturers out there trying to take away or rights to purchase their product?

Differences in political tactics, and knowing when you accept something you don't want in order to preserve the bigger picture should not be mistaken for being anti-gun.

My Mom used to say "you'll eat what I made for dinner, or you won't eat at all". Sometimes people in power are faced with the option eating something they don't like or want, in order to keep from being starved out.

 

[DPris]

Stoky, I couldn't add anything to what you said beyond saying Bill Ruger tried to mitigate the frenzy of the "anti-assault weapon" movement at the time, and did so in the best way he thought appropriate.

I did not consider him the "sell-out" that many people labeled him.

I didn't then & never will boycott his company over that.
Anybody who does is extremely short-sighted.
Denis

 

[buck460XVR]

Gun folks have always had a difference of opinion on what and what is not needed for them, personally. Bill Ruger was no different than the rest of us. Folks need to get over it and move on to something important.

 

[DPris]

Yeah!
We haven't had a good MIM discussion for a few days now.....
Aren't we overdue?
Denis

 

[straightshooterjake]

I am not sure I understand the theme of this thread. But I live in Massachusetts, and I want to add a bit of clarification about the Massachusetts assault weapons ban (AWB).

I think there is a claim in this thread that Ruger has paid to have the Mini-14 excluded from the Massachusetts AWB. That claim is a bit silly. The federal AWB of 1994 included a list of firearms that were excluded. The Mini-14 was on that exclusion list. I do not know how that list was made, but I believe the following factors were involved:

• the Mini-14 is not scary looking
• the whole list was a political compromise
• the Mini-14 is widely used by hunters and ranchers
• the mini-14 has never been adopted by any army

The Massachusetts AWB, which was adopted in 1998, used the same language as the Federal ban. So the Massachusetts AWB uses the same list of exclusions that the Federal ban used in 1994.

So the Ruger Mini-14 is excluded from the current Massachusetts ban because of a politcal compromise that was made 22 years ago. Ruger did not do anything bad to get the Mini-14 "approved." In fact, saying that the current Ruger company did something wrong is like saying that a witness is responsible for a trainwreck. And witness to a trainwreck is really the analogy that comes to mind.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

The popular belief is that Bill Ruger sold us in the RKBA out with his "No honest man needs more than 10 rounds" nonsense. He did say it, or something substantially similar. Once more, her personally lobbied congress by letter to restrict mag size in 1989. And his interests were protected in that the Mini 14 ended up not being on the AWB of 1994 (and many others) because in civilian dress it came only with a 5 rd mag and no 'ugly' features. By design or accident it beat the ban before the post-ban versions came out of ARs and so forth. But Ruger is dead, and the leadership of his company has moved on---now selling factory hi cap mags for the Mini, 10/22, etc. and MSRs as well. My first purchase from Ruger after my Mini many moons ago was factory hi-caps when they first sold them. They moved on after Bill, so I began buying their goods again. Just my take on the thing, it's fairly old news by now and Ruger is on the same page as most RKBA folks today.
----
S&Ws "Deal with the Devil" (the Fed Gov in this case) occurred when they were under foreign ownership and cost them dearly in sales. They were sold and the whole mess largely went away.

 

[CraigC]

At a time when government sponsored lawsuits were crippling the industry, Bill Ruger tried to make a deal with Congress in essence, to save the industry. Of course, his words were twisted by the media and because shooters love a good witch hunt, all this anti-Ruger crap ensued.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Bill Ruger being on the side of some restrictions also put him in the place to be on the same stage or panel to contradict or correct some of the usual anti-gun nonsense put forth by knee-jerk banners, so he was a thorn in their side too.

Back in that era the anti-gun movement had a lot more steam before the CDC 2003 and NRC 2004 reviews of objective research found no measurable benefit any of the gun control policies. Ruger, Colt and S&W were practicing what appeared realistic facing the gun politics of the pre-Heller and McDonald time. I think it was a silly as the people who gave in to pressure to burn their Beatles White Albums, but they were facing a lynch mob mentality.