Question of the Day: Should Manufacturers Stop Selling Firearms, Parts and Ammo to NY LEOs?

Who’s going to create a New York legal seven-round magazine for existing firearms? In my mind, the answer should be no one. It’s a tricky one; I don’t want anyone to be unarmed (if they want to carry a gun). But The People of the Gun, and the people supplying The People of the Gun, have to use whatever leverage they can to pressure New York legislators to cancel—that’s right cancel—their civilian disarmament program. One of the best ways to do that: a manufacturer boycott of the state’s LEOs. And if firearms, parts and ammo makers don’t cut off New York LEOs, maybe consumers should boycott the manufacturers that don’t boycott New York. Yeah it’s that serious. Agreed?

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

139 Responses to Question of the Day: Should Manufacturers Stop Selling Firearms, Parts and Ammo to NY LEOs?

  1. avatarScott Shaw says:

    Duh….I mean yes.

  2. avatarreoiv says:

    Yes they should, or only sell them guns that work with the reduced mag capacities for that state and say any other mag usage voids the warranty.

    • avatarmike marriam says:

      My thought too except only if they work security for Andrew Cuomo. Why should the king of NY have better protection than his subjects.

      • avatarMikeinDC says:

        There all going to have to use 7 round mags since in their hast they forgot to exempt the police and body guards in the law. Hope Cuomo like his body guard’s machine guns with 7 round mags.

  3. avatar#2 says:

    Yes, you put the squeeze on the governments that put the squeeze on the people. It’ll get nasty, but it’s probably going to force the most change.

  4. avatarmatt anthony says:

    Yes. Make a big stink about it too. Ny can make their own guns. They should stop selling to cali agencies as well. No mag limits or gun bans.

  5. avatarDFF says:

    Hell yeah. They don’t want guns in that state, then start cutting the authorities off, also.

  6. avatarAnmut says:

    What’s good for the geese is good for the gander. If the subjects of NY are subject to these rules and it’s good enough to protect their families, I don’t understand why it wouldn’t be good for the lives of police officers.

  7. avatargloomhound says:

    Yes

  8. avatarSCS says:

    Hell yes!

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      +1 more “Oh Hell yeah!” from down south.

      No guns, no more ammo. The ammo part will turn them around quicker. And be sure that other states don’t become straw purchasers for them either.

      I also thought that the security agencies should have refused to serve that newspaper that printed the CC permit holders’ names & addresses. You know, so they would know the same feeling of vulnerability.

      • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

        What I said above, “And be sure that other states don’t become straw purchasers for them either.” made another thought pop into my head. I could just imagine a governor like Rick Perry passing a law encouraging arms and ammo embargos to “rogue states” like NY and making it a crime to act as a straw purchaser for them. What a hoot!

  9. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    Yes.

    Also, retired LEOs buying stuff under their “retired LEO” exemption to the laws that apply to the rest of us.

  10. avatarJSIII says:

    Hell yes they should

  11. avatarJB says:

    Yep. A lot more effective than writing to your congressman.

  12. avatarInBox485 says:

    I think Barret has the right idea. If citizens can’t have it, civilian police can’t either.

    • avatarEric S. says:

      Barrett could do it because his company is privately owned. Any publicly traded company (like S&W) will have to answer to shareholders and a CEO who made that call would be fired by the Board of Directors pretty quick.

      • avatarC. Walther says:

        As far as I know, the only big manufacturers that are public are Ruger and S&W. So, that’s a lot of companies that can theoretically pull a Barrett.

        • avatarEric S. says:

          Darn, you caught me before I finished the edit. :-P

        • avatarCasey T says:

          I bet S&W and Ruger could get away with it too. They could argue it’s a strategic decision by forgoing revenues temporarily to open closed markets. Plus, most businesses aren’t really accountable to their shareholders because it’s damn near impossible to replace the board unless you own a big part of the company and it’s still really hard then. Trust me, we studied replacing board members a lot in business school.

      • avatarDirk Diggler says:

        1) A lot of the large institutional shareholders have bolted or are threatening to bolt (ie, pension funds) so I would’t worry about them

        2) I am a Ruger & SWHC shareholder. You gave me a great idea – a shareholder proposal. I need to investigate when they have their annual meeting and the timing for a written proposal, but this may be worth the effort!!!

    • avatarDavid-p says:

      I think Barrett had the right idea and I hope others follow his lead. If it is too dangerous for your citizens then it is too dangerous for your state. I am pretty sure they nypd would become the laughing stock of the law enforcement world when they go back to s&w wheel guns. I think it would be a brilliant move by the gun companies. They should issue a statement every time the police claim that they are out gunned “we agree that nypd are probably outgunned by the criminals at this time, this was not the case 2012 and before. In 2013 they decided to limit their capabilities by passing a ban. While we do not agree with this ban we have done our part to respect their law and did all that we could to make sure not a single one of our guns passed state lines after the law was passed.”

      • avatarGerry Nance says:

        Under the 2nd Amendment and State laws, you should have a right to buy man-portable weapons equal to your county sheriff.

        • avatarJhon Doh says:

          In former times public spirited citizens and groups bought cannon and other weapons for use by the local militia (under their command of course).

  13. avatarJim says:

    If i owned a gun company, I’d stop selling to NY authorities.

  14. avatarRob says:

    Yes.

    They should stop selling both firearms and ammo, they should cancel all current orders and refund them, and they should stop mechanical servicing for all firearms for all police and law enforcement agencies in the state of NY as well.

  15. avatarkarl hungus says:

    yes, they should sell only post ban items. if bank of america can judge, so can every other business.

    they wont though… because they, like us, are still entrepreneurial minded americans who are trying to pay the bills.

  16. avatarMike123 says:

    If 7 rounds is good enough for me, its good enough for the pros. Heck, the Pros get so much more training than me, they probably only need 1 round mags.

  17. avatar7350livin says:

    Yes. All manufacturers should follow STI International’s example of their big FU to Cali and stop selling guns to the Disarming States of America.

  18. avatarIvy Mike says:

    Aren’t they the Only Ones professional enough to handle guns anyway?

  19. avatarIanmcall says:

    YES!

  20. avatarmountocean says:

    Ronnie Barrett had what it takes, and it hasn’t bankrupted him.
    His letter to LAPD: http://gunowners.org/op0304.htm

  21. avatarSammy says:

    I think that would only encourage them to take ours for ‘National Security”

  22. avatarMatt in FL says:

    Unequivocally, yes.

    If I was a firearms or accessories business owner, I would definitely go the Barrett route.

  23. avatarCrazed Java says:

    I would think it’s just not good business to keep stratifying a physical product to meet individual state standards.

    I almost inadvertently bought a MA compliant S&W Shield until I realized I don’t want the 50lb. trigger pull or whatever ridiculous “safety” feature it was. Why do gun manufacturers incur the extra cost. At some point it was probably worth it but I would think the new regulations have got to be slicing their profit margins thinner.

    Which may be the whole point. These deep blue states don’t care about gun manufacturers. The manufacturers really should return the favor.

    • avatarmountocean says:

      I accidently bought a 5 rnd factory mag for my ruger 10/22 (in 10 rnd mag packaging). My LGS clerk didn’t even know they existed, who knows what shitty state it was supposed to be in.

    • avatarMark N. says:

      More and more they don’t. Taurus, after it sells off stocks of PT745s (which are all but gone) will be down to three pistols in California. Springfield does not sell XDms or XDs here. Bunches of Kimbers and Kahrs inventory are not rostered, and Colt has only a few pistols (its revolvers are grandfathered.) All because of the state requirements for features (LCI, mag lock, manual safety) and the requirement that any “new” gun be submitted for testing in duplicate, along with a heavy testing fee, before it can be approved. But of course that is the plan.

  24. avatarMatt Uguccioni says:

    All manufactures should stop right now from supplying any weapons or ammo to the state of NY. And if any new bills get passed on the federal level they should stop it for all government nation wide even the military!!

    Only sell to the people and F#@% your gun laws!!

    We need to throw these gangster politicians out on their azz!!!

    • If gun makers and accessory makers were smart, they’d do the following:
      1. REFUSE TO SELL ANYTHING TO NY (LEOS OR OTHERWISE)
      2. OFFER NY-ERS A “NY DISCOUNT” TO BUY AT NEIGHBORING STATES

      What that 2-point plan does:
      1. It keeps the good guys fed with what they need to defend themselves
      2. KEEPS TAX REVENUE OUTSIDE OF NY STATE POLITICIANS.

      The checkbook is the only way to make these POWER HUNGRY, CONSTITUTIONAL-RIGHTS AND LIBERY THIEVING THUGS obsolete!

  25. avatarstormchaser says:

    I would hope the manufacturers will stop selling to LEO in NY and any other state that comes up with some additional infringements.

    Not that they have anything to sell right now, it would be good to see a statement from say Glock, Remington, Sig to that effect.

  26. avatarOddux says:

    No, forcing the police to have less firepower than criminals will have (because again, they don’t follow mag laws or anything else) will only embolden criminals further and endanger the police and populous more than the senate already has.

    Focus on the senators, those with private security, refuse to sell to any agency with a contract with them. If they have carry permits, put pressure on the media and attorneys to see them held to the same standard as the people (because what do you want to bet they’re not loading down to 7 rounds or making their security detail do the same). Additionally, we should pressure all manufactures in NY, such as Remington, to leave with a press release condemning the new laws, and NY feel the lost revenue and jobs.

    • avatarChris Mallory says:

      Government employees are more dangerous to me than any criminal. Disarm the cops for a safer America.

    • avatarRuun says:

      Stupid should hurt. The people of New York voted for Liberal Politicians. They voted for their CLEO’s. They wanted these policies so they should suffer any ill effect that comes of them.

      • avatarJebNY says:

        Not everyone in NY voted this government in. The NYC and Long Island area pretty much controls the NYS government because of population density. If NYS and Long Island vote was removed we would be a strong red state. If the handful of Republican senators from downstate would have stayed strong we would not have this monstrosity of a law.

    • avatarGs650g says:

      Criminals know cops operate under rules of engagement citizens do not. I think they would rather be arrested than eliminated.

  27. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    Yes, dry em up. Certainly many will still get through. It would still be a huge embarrassment for them & their subjects though, Randy

  28. avatarSilver says:

    Yes.

    I fail to see how firearms companies can become rich off the 2A, express their support for it, then arm the goons who are paid to enforce its destruction.

  29. avatarjwm says:

    Why should we, the end users do all the fighting for the gun companies making the profits off us? They need to have skin in the game too. If they won’t support us by cutting off the state officials and agencies pushing for these illegal gun laws then we need to not support them with our business.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      If none of them break away from the herd and refuse a la Barrett, then we won’t have this option to exercise. All it takes is one to start the stampede, once they see that the 2A community is steering business towards the principled company, but it does take at least one.

      Here’s to hoping that either S&W or (even better) Glock will do the right thing, the brave thing, and refuse to sell to the oppressors. It would be HUGE if Glock declined to sell to NY gov agencies.

  30. avatarLance says:

    Yes that’s what Barret Firearms did to LAPD and all gun makers should boycott against Police departments who disavow the constitution LAPD CPD and YES NYPD should not be given a slingshot they deserve nothing.

  31. avatarUnlikely says:

    It’s not going to be easy to convince HK and Glock as they are not American companies. It depends on what % of their guns sold are to civilians.

    • avatar16V says:

      Exactly. Exacerbated by the popularity of aforementioned brands.

      Don’t get me wrong, I love the idea philosophically and I think if done even a decent percentage, there will be a message sent.

      Realistically, between the fact that LE gets supplied by contract and can pull from Federal stocks if they make some calls, the practical hurt put on them will be zero.

    • avatarAPBTFan says:

      Being that Glock donates no small amount of money to various iterations of U.S. shooting sports and the entities that fight for us I wonder just how far their commitment to us would go. It would behoove them to keep in mind that even 20 years after the fact there is still hate towards Ruger and S&W for playing ball with the grabbers.

  32. avatarSDFreeman says:

    Hell Yes of course

  33. avatarMichael C says:

    Yes. Stop ALL sales and service to ALL law enforcement agencies in ALL states with these types of laws (including bans on concealed carry, whether legislative or regulatory) on the books. No guns, ammo, accessories, tactical gear, clothing, or anything else firearms related or sold by firearms makers or dealers. Cancel any procurement contracts with said agencies and modify all such contracts with agencies in all other states and the federal level such that the passage of ANY similar laws will render them immediately null and void with NO REFUNDS for product purchased but not yet delivered.

    • avatarIpe says:

      Hell yes. I like this plan!

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      That’s easy to say when you’re not the one with a payroll to meet, small-business loans to pay back, and a product line that has been tailored to the requirements of government buyers.

      Plenty of the companies making that stuff are dependent on government agencies (local, state, and federal) for revenue that makes the difference between going out of business vs. keeping the lights on. If they did as you suggest, they would die.

      • avatarBill says:

        That may or may not be true. But I would rather go out of business standing up for my principles than join their cult of oppression just to make myself richer.

  34. avatarJoke & Dagger says:

    As a small business owner, I can assure you the quickest way to close down your business is to start worrying about the political persuasion of your customers. Not many businesses can afford to boycott customers.

    • avatar16V says:

      Not to mention that if this starts happening and trending, the State and Feds will be making examples of the participants in short order. There’s always 20 ways to close a guy down who doesn’t have 7 figures in the bank, and white shoe lawyers on retainer.

      • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

        That’s fine. Gather all your employees to break the news that the government is taking action that forces the company to shut down, sorry about the short notice for the layoff. Write your congressman. Nothing like more unemployment to get media attention.

        • avatar16V says:

          As I said in an earlier post, I’m all in favor of the idea. I just know that if/when it happens, things will get very messy. The Feds will move swiftly and surely to completely eff up the lives of some “examples”, and attempt to quash any further resistance.

          I do like your idea about layoffs and the press. Though to be honest, I’ve seen the effects of smoking bans on bars/nightclubs, and nobody cared, nor did the media pick up on it when hundreds upon hundreds lost jobs in that industry.

          I fear the media angle would be about as sympathetic as it would to a layoff at the Zyklon B plant.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      So… you’re saying it’s unlikely that any company currently supplying arms or armorer parts/services to NY state gov entities is unlikely to refuse further business?

      I can see that at the level of small goods/services business, but on the other hand, I could also see Noveske Rifleworks (to pick a random yet awesome example) declining to sell to NY gov agencies.

      Seems to me the question is more whether you have sufficiently diverse revenue sources that you have the option to refuse, VS whether you’re a small business.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      Joker, I get what you’re saying, but on the flip side, if I was a small business owner, what do I have to lose? If they get their way, I’m gonna be out of a job anyway.

    • Slipper slope there. See, this NY BS law will and is having a domino effect. Soon, many other deep blue states will follow King Cuomo’s lead and piss on the US Constitution. Gun makers NEED TO ACT NOW if they think they’ll have a prayer once this ban gets really rolling. MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF NYS NOW, OR SIMPLY PETER OUT LATER ON!

      If gun makers and accessory makers were smart, they’d do the following:
      1. REFUSE TO SELL ANYTHING TO NY (LEOS OR OTHERWISE)
      2. OFFER NY-ERS A “NY DISCOUNT” TO BUY AT NEIGHBORING STATES

      What that 2-point plan does:
      1. It keeps the good guys fed with what they need to defend themselves
      2. KEEPS TAX REVENUE OUTSIDE OF NY STATE POLITICIANS.

      The checkbook is the only way to make these POWER HUNGRY, CONSTITUTIONAL-RIGHTS AND LIBERY THIEVING THUGS obsolete!

  35. avatardudebro says:

    Cuomo forgot to exempt NY PD/Sheriffs from 7 rd max. They will be in violation of the law come March. ahem… LOL!!

    http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Fnew_york&id=8958116

  36. avatarCZJay says:

    There are two ways to lead: 1) lead by example (the best way to lead) or 2) lead by dictate/coercion.

    So the best way for NY politicians (which includes the police) to go about fixing their problems is to give up all their rights to. Since that is what they think is best for “public safety” in NY. Japan did it!

  37. avatarTotenglocke says:

    All companies should stop selling guns, parts, ammo, or providing repair services to any police, federal agents, or military based in states that have oppressive gun laws. Then they should make a very public announcement that if any new Federal restrictions are put in place, they will stop selling the all police, federal agents, and military groups.

  38. avatarJesse says:

    Yes they should absolutely stop selling them to LEO. If a regular citizen shouldn’t have it then the police shouldn’t have it either. If I was a gun manufacturer I would absolutely stop selling to NY period. If we could get retailers to comply and stop selling anything gun related to NY as much as it might suck for the people that live there it would send a very strong message.

    I hope NYC PD likes using tasers.

  39. avatarMatt says:

    More that just stop selling parts, they should declare all LEO warrenties void, and refuse to preform any service on the firearms.

    • avatarAlan Rose says:

      And recall banned guns as “being unsafe under current law.”

      • avatarGerry Nance says:

        The use of safety and environment as appeals to influence consent have long been some of the best propaganda tools of Communism. They use your fear to control you, gain your membership and even trick you into funding their agenda.

  40. avatarstateisevil says:

    We should absolutely boycott. We need to get organized so our civil rights are completely recognized. I’d rather do this peacefully and stuff like RF suggests is just the thing.

  41. avatarDoug says:

    Yes. Just like all firearms and ammo manufacturers in NY should pack up and leave as well.

  42. avatarGregolas says:

    Unconstitutional statutes passed with speed all too frenetic
    To be shunned by all gunmakers would be justice so poetic!

  43. avatarimrambi says:

    The question is not if the companies should stop selling firearms to NY and CA and other states, but can the civilians boycott the companies that sell to those states. If gun owners can come together and say we will not buy your product unless you stop selling to those states.

  44. avatarconceal7 says:

    T-TAG I absolutely admire, 100%, how you guys lay down the truth.

  45. avatarCZJay says:

    Do you know that in Brazil they [gangs] murder police and armed security just to acquire their firearms? A group of them just walk up and without warning shoot them [police/security] and run off with their guns.

    That wouldn’t happed in NY because criminals can still get guns without doing that, but if the government continues to disarm the public that would likely be what befalls the police and armed security.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      That’s an excellent point, and one that has also been on my mind lately. The bigger we make this gap between the knights and the peasants, excuse me, between LEOs and private citizens, the more likely that violence against LEOs will become a source of guns.

      • avatar16V says:

        And/or “diversion” ala Mexico (and half the known world).

        The corruption doesn’t have to rampant, but just like drugs, when there’s a massive margin, there’s a way. Anybody who doesn’t think some percentage of confiscated arms will end up sold right back to the street missed a whole lotta history class.

        Not to mention a Faro Arm (CMM) to input your firearm of choice, a decent CNC mill, and some materials , and you are a manufacturer. Leaving out 3D metal printers, and all the fun you can have with easy to make plaster molds and readily available epoxies.

  46. avatarRKflorida says:

    Yes. And immediately.

  47. avatarALH says:

    I say yes!

  48. avatarTyler says:

    Hell no. Don’t make special mags just for the fools in New York.

  49. avatarWilliam says:

    NO GUNS OR PARTS for NY cops!!!

  50. Robert just wants NYPD to be forced to adopt his beloved Caracal as the standard duty weapon. I kid, I joke….do I?

  51. avatarJPD says:

    Nope, just what the gun grabbers want. We start war on each other, no one makes anything for New York. Guns leave state, crime goes up. Gun grabbers blame us for sneaking weapons into bad guys. Anyone paying attention to the excuses used in Chicago?

  52. avatarOne If By Land says:

    The short answe is “yes” – they should cease all sales to Law Enforcement in this state…..

  53. avatarRKflorida says:

    Here’s a thought. What do the manufacturers in NY do that make guns that are in violation of NY law for sale in the rest of the nation? For example, Remington. They are in violation of the law to be in possession of these “illegal” guns that they make to ship out. I would NOT trust any NY authority on an exemption.

  54. avatarMOG says:

    Whatever is safe for the law is safe by me. If they think no guns is the way to go.

  55. avatarMOG says:

    ‘‘Four out of five politicians surveyed prefer unarmed, ignorant peasants.’’ — Unknown

  56. avatarokto says:

    DO IT. Make NY gun-free. That’s what they want, innit?

  57. avatarTJB says:

    The more significant option would be to refuse to sell anything larger then 7rd magazines or non-banned for civilian use firearms anyone in the state. So… No sales of anything that a common citizen can’t own to law enforcement or any government installation in the state. That would include any military or other government installation within he state. Whats good for the goose should be fine for the gander.

    • avatarAPBTFan says:

      That’s pretty much where I’m at.

      No parts, period. When all their weapons wear out they can find some less principled company to buy from. If they need new mags they will be capped at 7 rounds. Private security details for the wealthy or politicians should be absolutely bound to whatever limits we get saddled with.

      What I’ve always found interesting is the argument that cops need more rounds than the rest of us.

      The cops are armed to DEFEND themselves or others, same as us, so if full capacity pistol mags and AR’s are good enough for the cops they should be doubly good for people like us for these reasons…

      Many times cops patrol in pairs but we rarely if ever have armed backup right there with us.

      If a cop is alone he/she has a radio that will immediately get half the department breaking every traffic law there is to get there as fast as possible. Our best option is trying to dial 911 during an adrenaline dump and hope we don’t get put on hold and let’s face it, cops will go the extra mile for another cop in trouble.

      Simply put the cops are armed for the same reasons we are and when things go south we start with a handicap. There is zero reason we shouldn’t be as well armed as the cops.

      • avatarmike marriam says:

        Well put. Just got back from our gun appreciation day / 2A rally in Albany, NY. Pretty good crowd. Some really good signs. Not much media coverage. Have a feeling there will be more at future ones. As fired up as every one was they aren’t going to be able to ignore us forever.

  58. avatarKris says:

    I agree, mfgs should boycott sale to locations where laws are passed that restrict their business. Since money is the end all, this isn’t feasible. What is feasible is to charge out the @$$ for any non-civilian component. Let’s look at price of NFA fully-autos. The price is astronomical due to supply/demand. One could argue, however, that it is the true cost of an item designated for a specific audience. It is also the necessary cost of doing business in their state with the new law imposing additional costs on mfgs to comply with new regulations. Thus it is only fair to attribute such a cost to its source. I think I saw earlier that 2 stripped lowers are ~$1600 via Para. What, then, is the current market value (plus recovery of undue costs of business in NY) of any high-capacity magazine, tactical firearms, or parts? Don’t boycott, hit them in the pocket book.

  59. avatarDaveY says:

    A good idea – http://www.facebook.com/pages/Gunleaders-USRKBAorg/137689739611539

    Although NY is the current focus of ire, it’s not really fair to only focus on them when there are states like MA, CA, HI, MD and let’s not forget DC with magazine bans.

    NY is good place to start, but don’t ignore the rest of the gun hating states & cities.

  60. avatarJack V says:

    Absolutely. All manufacturers should follow the example of what Barrett firearms did when .50 caliber rifles were banned from the California market. As a result of the ban, the Barrett Firearms Company announced it would no longer sell to or service any of its rifles in the possession of any California government agency. (Despite the legislature’s claim of a terrorist threat, as of 2012, there have been no terrorist attacks involving a .50 BMG. In fact, not only has the .50 BMG never been used to harm or kill anyone in California, there is no record of a .50 BMG rifle ever being used in the United States to commit a crime. )

    At the very least, any given manufacturer should sell to LEO ONLY what they are allowed to sell to civilians. If there is a 10 round limit for us “regular” people, the manufacturers should apply the same rule to the cops. No full auto, ever, in any state that doesn’t allow full auto, same with no suppressors, SBR’s, etc., all the way down the line.

    Manufacturers need to draw a line in the sand and we need to stand by the ones that do and dump the ones that don’t.

  61. avatarDisThunder says:

    Yes. I am concerned for my NY-gun owning brothers and sisters, but look at it this way: If 7 rounds is all they get, this improves your odds of not getting hit by NYPD “friendly fire” by at least 50%!

  62. avatarCasey T says:

    Quit selling everything to NY government. Ammo, body armor, vehicles, etc. Obama and Biden talked about how economic sanctions are working on Iran, they should do the same on NY. If every manufacturer did this, how long would it take for a reversal? Sooner or later you would have Police Chiefs and Sheriffs fighting the Governor publicly because they can’t do their job. I would love to see those guys run around with Billy clubs for awhile trying to fight crime. It would serve New York perfectly,

  63. avatarJim D says:

    Stop the sales immediately, let ‘em buy them the fast and furious way!

  64. avatarSlappy says:

    Weighing in late on this…..yes! But, the manufacturers would never do it, all they really care about is the all-mighty greenback. Watch how fast they start turning out 7 round mags for Empire Staters; afterall a host of other northeast States are not far behind.

    WRT LEOs in NY, why punish them? I seriously doubt all of them are goose-stepping around in celebration of the draconian atrocity that occurred in the NY legislature this past Tuesday.

  65. avatarJames St. John says:

    Why stop with NY LEO’s, do the same with NJ, CA, IL, and MA. If not a full fledge boycott at least make them use the same equipment they legislate for civilians.

  66. avataruncommon_sense says:

    Yes, anyone who makes or supports anything related to firearms should not do business with New York because New York just attacked your business!

  67. avatarTim says:

    Absolutely yes, based on the logic of maintaining a free society the people should be as equally armed as the government. If the government forces disarmament of the populous they too should be disarmed.

  68. avatarHenry Bowman says:

    If I were a firearms manufacturer, I would never sell to any government agency. I think it is morally irresponsible to provide dangerous weapons to known psycopaths.

  69. avatarGerry Nance says:

    7-rd mags will lead to 3-rd mags, then what?
    Yes not a boycott, but an embargo should be placed on NY LEOs.
    Sell the nothing related to firearms. In fact, I’m told, the new law lacks the exemptions for NY LEO’s, so they have to obey the same laws they have to enforce on NY citizens. Law maker, law breaker!

  70. avatarRalph says:

    Yes, but since the manufacturers are in the G’s back pocket, it’s not gonna happen.

  71. avatarCrunkleross says:

    Does the state of NY receive tax revenue from Kimber, Remington, or any firearms manufacturers in the state? If so aren’t we cutting are own throats when we buy those brands?

    I would love to see manufacturers of firearms, ammo, anything connected to shooting, move out of all the restrictive states to states more supportive of the peoples 2A rights. That would send a huge message.

  72. avatarChris says:

    Agreed!

  73. avatarhklenin says:

    I would like to see how fast their policy changes when the companies decide that they wont want to sell them the parts. However, this is a capitalistic state, and to keep up they may need to sell to the NYPD

  74. avatarHuman Being says:

    Agreed, Mr Farago.

  75. avatarAdam says:

    If I were making decisions at a firearms company not only would I stop selling to LE in NY and other states with oppressive gun laws, I wouldn’t make guns that complied with their laws or at least wouldn’t submit them for approval if they coincidentally complied. I know there are civilians who are stuck in those states but most of the gun owners are complacent and knuckle under. Quite honestly I wish all the gun-rights supporters would move out to friendlier states and let the antis have all the misguided gun control they want. let those states have a total ban and see how well it works out for them.

  76. avatarJoe says:

    + 1000!!!!!! Heres looking at you S&W, Glock, Sig, H&K, Colt, Mossberg and Remington.

  77. avatarSelousX says:

    I am afraid I, too, must say, “Yes”.
    Maybe next time the NY folks won’t elect a fascist. Maybe they’ll muster the courage to recall him.
    Maybe I’ll start pooping 24kt gold and I’ll be able to retire.
    Just sayin’…

  78. avatarMoonshine says:

    As of Wednesday, my company doesn’t ship to New York, period. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

  79. avatarProfshadow says:

    Yes.

    Time to press back.

    And time for Remington to move on south…come to Florida! We love gun manufacturers here! No income tax. Right to Work State. Good weather…you can leave those snow shovels there!

    And orange juice..fresh from the tree. Riding that motorcycle 12 months a year instead of just 3 (and then polishing chrome 9) months.

    Yeah…we even let people carry concealed. Or on the way or back from camping, hunting or fishing. We’re working on getting open carry restored too!

    • avatarGerry Nance says:

      I don’t like a 7-rd restriction unless the gun has a big bore and 7 is comfortable design fit. If I can buy a Glock in California, that is the same, make/model/caliber as the local police, sheriff, CHP, FBI, DEA, ICE, etc., and it can fit a 10, 15, 20 rd magazine, then constitutionally, I should be able to buy and carry whichever I desire. Also, is this 7 rd cap limited to how many rds I can carry on my person or just in the weapon?

  80. avatarMichael says:

    I agree! Where’s the petition? Where do I sign?

  81. avatarTom Flaherty says:

    Does anyone know why California, Illinois and Minnesota were not included? Minnesota is marketed as the model for the gun control initiatives. Having reviewed and commented extensively to members of that house about the proposed (horrific) initiatives should have qualified it. Feinstein’s campaign should have earned California a place on the list. Perhaps they will be added later.

  82. avatarTom Flaherty says:

    The gun manufacturers have shown us the path. We have the opportunity to bolster their efforts. In the “note” portion of any online transaction we have the opportunity to instruct the cancellation of our intended purchase. We need only instruct the provider to cancel the purchase if it originates, is manufactured or is shipped from, e. g. New York, California, Illinois (particularly Chicago) and Minnesota to name a few.

  83. avatarNY SAFE Act boycott says:

    NY SAFE Act is a dagger through the heart of all gun owners. Please show your support by immediately boycotting all NY State, local, and city police agencies and departments. Do not provide them with any sales or services until the abominable NY SAFE Act is repealed. All manufacturers, distributors, and LE sales outlets need to join this effort, and every customer or potential customer should urge them to please publicize their action so that the appropriate message is clearly received.

  84. avatarStu Chisholm says:

    LET ‘EM EAT REVOLVERS! :D

    Oh, and cut off Kalifornia AND the newly minted anti-gun Colorado.

  85. avatarDavid says:

    I am 63 years old and have never owned a gun but as I am a born and raised american citizen and proud of it I now feel I need to arm myself because of the Obama tryanie. America is being trampled on everyday from this president and his administration and he needs to be removed.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.