Larue vows to apply AWB to State law enforcement....

[michaelbsc]

And they'll use your own tax money to do it! I'm pleased that we have such benevolent overlords.

Isn't that the truth. It's the old west equivalent of hanging a man with his own rope.

 

[Zardaia]

I wouldlove to see glock do this, with how popular their handguns are with LEAs. Course that's the very reason it won't, it'd be a huge part of their sales.

 

[Bovice]

Unless they stick it to the feds too, it doesn't mean anything to me. Federal government is the problem, the issues with state/local is just a trickle down effect.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

To say that Larue's message is empty if it doesn't also include the feds is not realistic. It DOES send a message to the federal government as well. It tells them that they could be next.

However, shooting themselves in the foot in taking their stand doesn't make sense if the end result could be financial ruin and closing their doors to business as a result.

Making this statement is a powerful statement. It's also geared in such a fashion as to potentially attract other corporate supporters, which would increase their power and leverage. And THAT is a goal worth acheiving.

It also has great commercial potential in attracting more business from both private firearms owners AND state/local government agencies which support their point of view. This also is a goal worth acheiving, because it stabilizes their financial base in uncertain times, allowing them to more easily pursue their ideals.

Once these things have been acheived, then it becomes easier to leverage their weight further.

So let's not get our panties in a wad over "This policy does not apply to Military / Federal Agencies" just yet.

 

[michaelbsc]

To say that Larue's message is empty if it doesn't also include the feds is not realistic. It DOES send a message to the federal government as well. It tells them that they could be next.

In the same way that the gun grabbers must move incrementally, so must some defensive steps be done incrementally.

The fact the LaRue can do something rather than nothing is good.

 

[Girodin]

Seems to be patterned after Ronnie Barrett's response to CA.

 

[foghornl]

It's the old west equivalent of hanging a man with his own rope

...while he sits on his own horse waiting for that fatal slap on the horses backside.....

 

[thump_rrr]

It is a warning to other states that there will be concequences if they go over and above federal laws.
I will be looking for a Larue mount for my new scope as soon as my rifle and scope arrive.

 

[Tirod]

There are more fights than just Larue. CO is proposing a law to ban the manufacture and sale of mags over ten rounds - even to out of state customers.

Magpul is in Boulder.

On the PD's needing AR's forefront, the US .Gov has been lease lending full auto M16's for years now, first come, first served. I hear my PD practicing at the local range, we're a small town of 3,500.

If all the makers ban the sale of AR's to any questionable jurisdiction, then the pressure for free full auto assault weapons will ratchet up - and that will get the attention of everyone. Including those who are already targeting LEO's and stealing them out of their cruisers . . .

Long term unanticipated consequences, and a not a good thing for a legacy.

 

[Texshooter]

THIS is what I'am talking about!

THIS is what we need to tell every gun manufacturer in America to do.

Don't give me this nonsense about the # of gov't contracts, they don't spend, per weapon, near what we do.

Let the Manf. know if they support the honest Americans, we will support them.

 

[Texshooter]

I wouldlove to see glock do this, with how popular their handguns are with LEAs. Course that's the very reason it won't, it'd be a huge part of their sales.

Look at how many LEOs have Glocks, yes, but don't stop there. Read the details. Glock is, basically, giving them the guns for free. One to one exchange for their old guns.

Guess where companies like Glock end up making their money? ON HONEST AMRICAN GUN OWNERS.

Let Glock, all of them, know that we expect them, if they want our business, to treat us the same as gov't agencies.

Glock in LEO holsters was a brilliant marketing move, not a way to make money. They would be nowhere without honest civilian gun owners.

It can be done.

 

[Akita1]

^^^^ This.

LaRue is voluntarily sticking it to NY and CA. But some people want to gripe that they should also drop federal contracts, and put themselves out of business? Maybe you guys should start a letter writing campaign telling Mark LaRue that he owes it to you to douse himself with gasoline and burn himself to death in front of the White House for your benefit as well.

+1 horsesoldier - he has a business to maintain; stand corrected

 

[RX-178]

Not to mention that cutting of the Federal Government will also leave him unable to support the members of our Armed Services with his products.

 

[Girodin]

There are more fights than just Larue. CO is proposing a law to ban the manufacture and sale of mags over ten rounds - even to out of state customers.

Magpul is in Boulder.

I'm guessing the would move. However, although the same folks that go after guns tend to be anti business, they are also very pro taxes. One would think they wouldn't be so committed as to driving the premiere manufacture out of their state into the welcoming arms of another, who may even offer tax incentives etc to get them. They should/could go next door to Utah, a very pro gun and pro business state. It still has the outdoors and mountains, and (ducks from CO residents) the best skiing I've found, and I've done it on multiple continents.

 

[Akita1]

Amen - Park City is great. Take my family there.

 

[abajaj11]

Good job, Mike LaRue! I will definitely keep an eye out for a LaRue...maybe save for one!

 

[aeriedad]

^^^ Yep. That's what I'm doing.

 

[Trung Si]

^^^^ This.

LaRue is voluntarily sticking it to NY and CA. But some people want to gripe that they should also drop federal contracts, and put themselves out of business? Maybe you guys should start a letter writing campaign telling Mark LaRue that he owes it to you to douse himself with gasoline and burn himself to death in front of the White House for your benefit as well.

I agree 100%!

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Just noticed that Beretta is taking a stand against Maryland:

In testimony this month in Annapolis, Reh, who oversees the plant, warned lawmakers to consider carefully the company’s future. Reh pointed to the last time Maryland ratcheted up gun restrictions in the 1990s: Beretta responded by moving its warehouse operation to Virginia.

“I think they thought we were bluffing” in the 1990s, Reh said. “But Berettas don’t bluff.”


And Baretta has the business bucks to make a serious impact, given such things as their world wide reputation, centuries old history, and military contracts...not to mention private sales.


Source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...c56c62-7776-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html

 

[dogmush]

A good number of manufacturers are going this route. I am definatly using these policies as a determining factor on where to spend my money. In addition I'm telling the componay why. A little note that says "You got my support and business because of this policy" sent along with money goes a long way, I think.

Here's a list of companies

Kel-Tec also mentioned on facebook that a policy letter on this subject was forthcoming.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

One would think they wouldn't be so committed as to driving the premiere manufacture out of their state into the welcoming arms of another,

Well you can ask Michigan about that. The leaders of this state have been dead set on driving out as many businesses and productive people as they can for almost 50 years. And the burned out shell that is Detroit is the sum of their actions. Most of the other places in MI that relied heavily on commerce are facing a similar fate. Never underestimate the zeal with which a leftist will attack business, even though his own tax-lifeblood relies on it.

 

[oneounceload]

While all of these companies saying they are stopping sales to state agencies sounds real nice in theory, I doubt it will have much impact since they are still selling to the military and Federal Government agencies. All that will happen is the feds will buy the guns and send them to the states that are in step with their tyrannical efforts...JMO, YMMV

 

[Bubbles]

While all of these companies saying they are stopping sales to state agencies sounds real nice in theory, I doubt it will have much impact since they are still selling to the military and Federal Government agencies. All that will happen is the feds will buy the guns and send them to the states that are in step with their tyrannical efforts...JMO, YMMV

Military yes, Federal agencies are under the same policy - we do not recognize law-enforcement exemptions to gun control laws.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

While all of these companies saying they are stopping sales to state agencies sounds real nice in theory, I doubt it will have much impact since they are still selling to the military and Federal Government agencies. All that will happen is the feds will buy the guns and send them to the states that are in step with their tyrannical efforts...JMO, YMMV

There's more to it than just this. Taking a business out of state is also a big impact.

There are political pressures created by these moves and policy changes. When the state and local law enforcement people can no longer buy their preferred firearms, or have their existing firearms serviced, it opens the eyes of more people to the circumstances which led to those changes.

Taking their business out of state means that state doesn't get any income from taxes on their business any more.

Taking their business out of state means job losses for that state, contributing to their unemployment record.

Taking their business out of state means collateral losses to other businesses, which increases the loss of state tax revenue, such as shipping businesses for example.

Taking their business out of state means they may lose some state residents who would choose to move with the company, translating into loss of state tax revenue. People who move out of state also do not buy any more products in that state, further decreasing the lost in state revenue.

No policy change, or corpoate move, is all-powerful, I agree. However, these people are choosing to take a stand and make public their reasons why. Some may write this off as ineffective or simple meaningless posturing, but others will not. And that's the point.