Defensive Carry banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,864 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Magpul, as well as any company who continues to do business with the police agencies in states that ban certain firearms, magazines/limits, types of ammo(hollow points/lead rounds), or anything else that the legislators feel like banning, are eventually screwing themselves along with us for not saying no to these states/cities and the Federal government.

Here is a post/article pertaining to the Magpul particulars;
GrantCunningham.com - Revolver Liberation Alliance blog

Having a company in our industry publicly declare that they recognize need as a valid reason to sell to a specific part of the public is the next best thing to carving the concept on stone tablets and having a certain Senator from California carry them down the mount, loudly declaring "Thou Shalt NOT!"

Don't get me wrong; I understand that a Magpul boycott of a state's police agencies would be unlikely to have any effect on their lawmaker's votes. The police aren't going to lobby the Legislature for a repeal of the law because they have their exemption; there is no incentive for them to urge a repeal, and no boycott by the industry is likely to ever change that. I also recognize that a boycott won't do anything to forestall the burgeoning tiered society we're creating with such exemptions to these laws.

None of that matters. Efficacy is a poor argument; principle is not.

I don't care if a company's boycott against a state is successful. I do care about the lack of such a boycott cementing into the public's minds that some people need certain things and others don't, and that ownership of those items should be based on that need. Allowing these companies to enact, publicize, and defend policies which recognize the need argument -- or, at the very least, don’t voice any opposition to it -- lends credence to one of the prohibitionists’ main and most successful talking points.

END

What these companies are neglecting to realize is that when other states decide they want to ban whatever it is they sell, sooner or later what they(the manufacturer of whatever gun product) sell will be no longer available to the average citizen, thereby reducing their sales dramatically, and ultimately signing their own death warrant through eventual loss of sales/profits/bottom line.
All it will do is leave very few manufacturers in the business who make a very large and wide array of products which the police and military will need.
NOT A VERY WISE BUSINESS PRACTICE.
I aplaud them putting the states they are currently in on notice that they may move, but that is not enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Magpul is busy trying to flood the Colorado market with magazines before the recent 15 round ban is signed into law. I applaud this effort! Responding to your argument against them for not joining the popular trend to limit sales to law enforcement in those states, I believe your view is wrong. In Colorado, the County Sheriff's of Colorado have joined together in opposing new gun control legislation. They have been at town hall meetings and the state capitol. Would you suggest that despite this strong pro-gun stance, they should not be allowed sales? This practice of restricting sales, although emotionally satisfying, cannot be enforced, much like state magazine restrictions and background checks among friends and relatives. Maybe Magpul realizes the futility of this current practice. If we believe that this sales restriction will have any effect, we are no better than the antis.You, yourself said you don't care if the boycott is successful, so in effect you are demanding that a free market company lose profits for "making a statement". I think we can all see that Magpul is supporting those who believe in 2nd amendment rights and I support their decision either way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,864 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
No,The part in BOLD is what is from the article.

What I said is that when a company decides to accept the banning of firearms related items on an incremental basis, in any form, from pistols, to ammo, to certain types of long guns to magazines, they are in effect going to slit their own throat in time, when their only market will be LE and the military, when the majority of the states successfully ban their product to civilians, they won't be selling much of whatever it is they make.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
Magpul has reversed that decision and they are now not selling to Law Enforcement in banned states.

Their statement reads, in part:

"With the fight in Colorado right now we do not have time to implement a new program, so I have suspended all LE sales to ban states until we can implement a system wherein any Law Enforcement Officer buying for duty use will have to promise to uphold their oath to the US Constitution – specifically the second and fourteenth amendments – as it applies to all citizens."

Here's a link to their statement in its entirety:

Magpul Reverses Policy, Ends LEO Sales in Ban States | The Truth About Guns
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top