Magpul Provides “Complete Statement” on NY LEO Ban

Screen Shot 2013-02-28 at 10.54.01 AM

This just popped-up in the comments section, from Magpul Industries founder and CEO Richard Fitzpatrick:

This is a more complete statement..

With our distribution model, it would be difficult to enforce such a blanket policy, and would be a symbolic gesture. Just as it is difficult to stop $50 and $100 PMAGs at the retail level from resellers that buy through multiple levels of distribution, stopping sales to specific end-users would be almost impossible for the same reasons . . .

On the other side of this, we have seen the efforts of the Larimer County Sheriff and others in the CO Sheriffs’ Association, who have been incredible advocates for the Second Amendment here in the fight we are currently in. If a ban passes, these guys would be the ones hurt, and the politicians wouldn’t care. They would also be on our side. On the same front, about 600 of the NYSP have come out in protest of the NY SAFE act and in support of responsible Citizens and the 2A, at the risk of losing their jobs, their retirement, and the safety of their families. Are these the guys that we want to punish? Lumping all individual officers together and wanting to punish them all is no different than politicians who want to punish responsible Citizens for the behavior of criminals. Would a check box on the LE/MIL order form affirming 2A support for all Citizens make a difference? How many out there click on “I Accept” for terms and agreements before an iOS update without reading or caring what they are? Would anyone NOT click such a box? Chuck Schumer would even click that box if he was trying to order PMAGs. (We wouldn’t ship that one.)

If these LEOs who support our cause, and are “gun guys” find employment elsewhere because they can’t get the right gear to perform their jobs safely, or if politicians fire them for voicing their objections, they will simply be replaced with new faces that aren’t gun guys, don’t know any better, and may gladly stomp on your rights without a second thought if given the order. As it stands now, these pro-gun LEOs in occupied or potentially occupied territory are the only voices of reason among the LEO ranks there. Do we really want to purge them out and replace them with guys that wouldn’t know the difference between an AR and a Hi-point, and so couldn’t care less which one they are armed with, and that will also blindly follow anti-2A directives without objection? If you think that politicians will be affected by LE or MIL having less effective tools to do their jobs, you would be mistaken. I enlisted in the USMC during the Clinton years. I know better. If something did get ugly, I’m pretty sure I know who’s side CO Sheriffs will be on. Some folks take their oaths seriously.

Regardless of political views, these guys face violent criminals, make 2 am traffic stops, serve felony warrants, raid meth labs, etc. We refuse to punish LE collectively for the anti-2A beliefs of some, or even of their politically appointed chiefs, who could care less about properly equipped officers in many cases. We see this as no different than demanding that legislators do not punish all of society for the actions of criminals by taking away rights from the law abiding.

Because of this, we won’t bend from our principles, and if anyone decides they need to not buy our products based on this stance, then we are fine with you not bending on yours. If you’re selling any of your Colts over this, I might be interested.

Although we absolutely support the goals of the companies willing to stand up in this effort, we don’t believe a policy like this is the best way to achieve those goals for us. Right now, we are engaged in the fight of our lives for 2A rights here in CO. Despite the high costs that moving would entail, we would actually be better off financially if we had just moved, rather than staying in the fight, based on the time, effort, and resources that we have poured into this battle, and are still pouring in. Simply running away wouldn’t be our style, though, and would be a betrayal of our friends, neighbors, the free Citizens of CO, and would concede a defeat for gun rights across the country. So, we are fighting. We are in this fight on both the state and national levels. Do any of us really want to uproot our families, leave our homes, and head out of the state? Hell no. But we will.

For those of you who want to call it a corporate greed business decision, or that we are following a monetary necessity, we had every opportunity to cave and probably could have written whatever exemption language we wanted if we would have backed off and sold out CO Citizens to completely protect our ability to manufacture. They probably would have cut all kinds of deals to get us to back out and not make the jobs and economy part of the issue, and we didn’t. They came to us prior to the vote on the day the exemption was presented on the floor and asked, basically, “Are we cool now?” To which, we responded NO, and that NO exemption or condition would keep us here, and that we didn’t support that amendment, let alone the bill. We are standing by our principles, and if yours differ, that’s fine, and we encourage you to stand by them, whatever they are.

For right now, we feel that efforts towards this end on our part would be more effective by looking at agency sales on a case-by-case basis behind the scenes rather than with a blanket policy shouted from the rooftops that punishes individual officers, and that our efforts are best directed where we are using them currently. We encourage others, whether friends or competitors, to do what they think is best, also, even if it differs from our position. This may evolve, but for right now, that is where we are at, and while we are always open to listening to reason, no boycotts or flaming will change our minds from doing what we feel is the right thing to do.