[jonconsiglio]

Magpul has really disappointed a number of us and those in the industry this week. Fitzpatrick seems like a good dude, but like Armalite, is going against what over 100 other companies are doing to fight the bans.

Personally, the Magpul gear is coming off of my rifles, what little I still use, and while I'll continue to use my PMAGs until they break or are replaced, from now on I'll be buying GI mags with tan followers.

Magpul Breaks Bad, Continues Sales to LEOs in Ban States | The Truth About Guns

 

[Sig35seven]

Some people will do anything for money.

 

[jaxjag]

They're probably obligated contractually to sell to LEOs and whatnot.

 

[MatthewF]

That's one of the main reasons that I supported them in the first place. I guess I will unlike their Facebook page. That's sad that they may have done this to get their name mentioned in the news. Lets see how this effects their public image. Guess its all about the $$$$$$$

 

[blitzburgh]

Yes, indeed. The last thing they want to do is hurt those who support “our” cause. Apparently, to Magpul, that means supporting those who will enforce unconstitutional restrictions on our Second Amendment rights.

That's a home run right there folks.

 

[MountainAir]

Magpul reverses their policy, Ends LEO sales in ban states - on March 1. "update" on the top of your link.

 

[blitzburgh]

I'm glad I got sidetracked and then forgot to place my order with them. Somebody else will be getting my business.

 

[blitzburgh]

Magpul reverses their policy, Ends LEO sales in ban states - on March 1. "update" on the top of your link.

Makes no difference to me, still won't be spending my money with them because of their original stance in the article.

 

[GoPackman]

I wonder if they're still gonna move out of CO since a bunch of the new gun laws got passed there. Or are they gonna back out on that one.

 

[tokerblue]

Magpul reverses their policy, Ends LEO sales in ban states - on March 1. "update" on the top of your link.

- Text below.

Magpul Industries Corp.
March 1

REGARDING LEO SALES
March 1st, 2013

Back in 1990, when I was deployed in Desert Shield and Desert Storm as a Marine grunt, some companies prioritized me items for my M16 for shipping that I purchased with my own funds. After getting out and forming Magpul in 1999, I established the same priority policy for Military and Law Enforcement, due to the requirements of their profession.

The same policy has been in place for 13 years now and has never been an issue until a few days ago. I do not support the idea that individual police officers should be punished for the actions of their elected officials. That said, I understand the concerns that some have with Law Enforcement officers getting special treatment while at the same time denouncing second amendment rights to another citizen in the same state.

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.

Richard Fitzpatrick
President/CEO - Founder
Magpul Industries

Makes no difference to me, still won't be spending my money with them because of their original stance in the article.

- I would put more stock in them if they make good on their word and leave Colorado if legislation passes.

 

[jonconsiglio]

They're probably obligated contractually to sell to LEOs and whatnot.

No they are not.

As for the revision..... My mistake. I saved this article some time back and just copy and pasted the link after a thread on SOCNET reminded me of it. Still, I'm not sure how to feel about that one.

 

[ccw9mm]

They're probably obligated contractually to sell to LEOs and whatnot.

Companies truly putting their money where their mouths are could easily be renewing such contracts only where the contractual lingo includes statements that ensure adherence to the 2A/14A with respect to citizens' rights to keep and bear arms in their states, and where any such failure to do so makes such contracts are null and void. If all companies did such a thing, I'd bet the liberty-haters would begin to think twice once the teat began to run dry.

I highly doubt many will be doing such a thing, but it is within their ability to close the door on such unconstitutional crap in such a way. It's only gotten so bad due to our complicity, by allowing it to happen. And it'll continue, so long as we keep being complicit.

 

[Jemsaal]

Companies truly putting their money where their mouths are could easily be renewing such contracts only where the contractual lingo includes statements that ensure adherence to the 2A/14A with respect to citizens' rights to keep and bear arms in their states, and where any such failure to do so makes such contracts are null and void. If all companies did such a thing, I'd bet the liberty-haters would begin to think twice once the teat began to run dry.

I highly doubt many will be doing such a thing, but it is within their ability to close the door on such unconstitutional crap in such a way. It's only gotten so bad due to our complicity, by allowing it to happen. And it'll continue, so long as we keep being complicit.

I agree it's a good idea, but could you see the uproar on the left about "Big Business" and "Military Industrial Complex" controlling our government? It'd be a hissy fit like we've never seen!

 

[ccw9mm]

I agree it's a good idea, but could you see the uproar on the left about "Big Business" and "Military Industrial Complex" controlling our government? It'd be a hissy fit like we've never seen!

Damn right. There should be. It is, quite simply, about our People's security, in each of the several states.

 

[peckman28]

I say as long as their stance is right now (no sales to LE in anti-2A states) then support them. I see no point whatsoever of boycotting a company for not doing what you want, then continuing to boycott them when they come around. Isn't the whole point to get them to do the right thing? So once they do the right thing, why would you not vote for such with your dollars?

 

[tacman605]

I have read the letters posted by some companies like LaRue and others about not selling to LE in certain places and it is a good thing I guess. However if you read a lot of the statements it states that it will not affect military or government sales these companies want to support the 2A and gun owners but they are not stupid. Some of them are simply following suit and getting whatever good press they can. It would be like the makers of Hipoint's stating they would no longer sell to LE or Government in banned states, it would not amount to a hill of beans.

Magpul was one of the first companies that stated anyone found price gouging their mags would be dropped as a distributor and since they had passed the gun laws in Colorado they would be moving out. Many on here and other places slammed places like cheaper than dirt and others for prices and then lo and behold individuals started doing the same thing but "Supply and Demand" was/is the battle cry of the day. Magpul has continued to support gun owners with their business practices and always will.

Hate to break it to many but LE and military have always been given first priority in guns, ammo, mags and other items. I have been able to purchase all of the aforementioned items at regular prices, when the supply is there, simply using my Government ID card so this is not a conspiracy or new practice. Anyone who is in LE, Fire, EMS, Government Agency, Retired or active duty is eligible for the same treatment as they are considered First Responders. You can buy ammo and firearms at LE prices. Glocks are still $398.20 for basic models as they have been for years.

As someone stated the front line guys should not be punished for what the elected officials do they still have to complete their job or mission and not be penalized for it.

 

[mkh]

I say as long as their stance is right now (no sales to LE in anti-2A states) then support them. I see no point whatsoever of boycotting a company for not doing what you want, then continuing to boycott them when they come around. Isn't the whole point to get them to do the right thing? So once they do the right thing, why would you not vote for such with your dollars?

What he said.

From the article it sounds like they heard the outcry and changed their policy. I can understand his stance about not punishing the officers for the idiotic stuff the politicians do. I see no reason not to support MagPul.

 

[DaveCO]

the front line guys should not be punished for what the elected officials do they still have to complete their job or mission and not be penalized for it.

The strong arm tactic into getting magpul on board with the boycott is absolutely embarrassing. At the heart of this legislation is the same BS tactic. A small sector of the dem party is taking the strong arm to any who aren't in their camp. It reeks of mafia like protection arrangements. If any of this behavior caused real consequences to LE do you think it will be timely enough to make a darn bit of difference except for putting good officers at risk?

Speaking up for what you believe is wrong is critical to the duties of being a citizen of this great nation. However, you need to create your own smell test. Will it communicate my intention? Will it bring harm to unintended persons? Will it be effective? Add at will. You get the point. Toddlers don't give that level of consideration to their expressions however adults should.

 

[heatherr855]

Since i live on a budget,if their mags are cheaper to buy,then i buy them.I'm not paying more for a different brand because of something they are doing somewhere else,unless they were trying to ban something,obviously.The only one that would be effected,if i paid more, would be me,not Magpul,or anyone else.So far as me,i'm just being honest.Everyone has to do,what they think is best for them.I don't have much to spend on it anyway,so my few pennies will make very little difference.

 

[jonconsiglio]

The strong arm tactic into getting magpul on board with the boycott is absolutely embarrassing. At the heart of this legislation is the same BS tactic. A small sector of the dem party is taking the strong arm to any who aren't in their camp. It reeks of mafia like protection arrangements. If any of this behavior caused real consequences to LE do you think it will be timely enough to make a darn bit of difference except for putting good officers at risk?

Speaking up for what you believe is wrong is critical to the duties of being a citizen of this great nation. However, you need to create your own smell test. Will it communicate my intention? Will it bring harm to unintended persons? Will it be effective? Add at will. You get the point. Toddlers don't give that level of consideration to their expressions however adults should.

Putting officers at risk? If you head over to Lightfighter and SOCNET, which is primarily vetted special operations soldiers and law enforcement, including many SWAT officers, they pretty much all seem to disagree with Magpul's original stance and feel they SHOULD NOT get priority in a ban state.

Then, Fitzpatrick changes his stance to agree with those saying they should not get priority IN A BAN STATE. IT DOES NOT AFFECT MILITARY, nor should it.

Nobody here has to agree with my views, nor do I care if anyone does. Just posting my opinion, which happens to be similar to many of the very people this would affect.