I read Two Rabbis Fight For Gun Control From Pulpit — and the Heart at forward.com. I watched the accompanying bloody shirt waving extravaganza. I left a simple comment: “What part of never again don’t they understand?” And then I ran into this: “The potential game changer for Mosbacher and his colleague would be a pledge made by New York City’s new mayor, Bill de Blasio, to require all gun suppliers selling weapons to the city’s police force to fill out the gun safety questionnaire. [ED: five survey questions listed below.] If de Blasio, whose city has the largest police department in America, follows through on the promise that organizers said they had received from him during the campaign, pressure on gun manufacturers will increase substantially.” True dat, but not in the way that writer Nathan Guttman thinks . . .

If freshly-minted Mayor Bill de Blasio forces the NYPD to satisfy the rabbis’ and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America’s demand that they add a political purity test to the po-po’s procurement process, any gunmaker that plays ball will face a consumer backlash that will make the Smith & Wesson boycott look like a hissy fit. Mark my words. Watch this space. We will.

Click here to read the history and sordid details of this civilian disarmament plot via Rabbi Joel Mosbacher is a Putz. Here are MDA and the rabbis’ five questions for gunmakers who want to supply police departments with firearms:

Does the manufacturer refrain from selling its products through dealers with a history of selling guns that end up at crime scenes?

Does the manufacturer insist that dealers train their employees to spot “straw buyers” — people buying guns for end users who are circumventing background checks?

Does the manufacturer run buyback programs that help keep its used products from being sold on the internet?

Does the manufacturer cooperate fully with law enforcement — for example, by developing advanced ballistics technologies like bullet microstamping?

Is the manufacturer moving at breakneck speed to bring safer guns to market, like those with biometric recognition or other systems that prevent non-authorized users from pulling the trigger?

Recommended For You

101 Responses to NYPD to Add Anti-2A Questionnaire to Firearms Procurement Process?

  1. If any gun maker tries to force some “safety” device just to appease these authoritarians, you are damn right I will be boycotting them. Maybe if they try this, no gun maker will be willing to supply the NYPD, and they will have to use slingshots.

    • If any “biometric” safety devices are mandatory on ALL firearms purchased by the NYPD, and no grandfathered weapons allowed to remain in their arsenal (there’s the proper use of that term), but such devices are offered as an option to individual consumers (most of whom are not stupid enough to pay for a device that could get them killed), then I may refrain from boycotting that manufacturer.

      • Yeah, “biometric recognition”. Just like my “state of the art” iPhone that sometimes takes 3 -5 seconds to recognize my fingerprint. DGU over. I lost.

        • And that 3-5 seconds is assuming the battery didn’t die, you aren’t wearing gloves, and your finger is in just the right spot.

      • My main concern, is that the questionnaire will say something along the lines of, “Are all of the firearms produced by (Company A) equipped with (insert useless and dangerous ‘safety’ feature such as biometric recognition or a 15 lb trigger)?” If the features are just for the NYPD, and the company doesn’t force the feature on the general market (like the S&W frame lock), then I may refrain from boycotting said company.

      • Aside from the obvious fact that requiring answers to these questions, except as the answers apply solely to the qualities of firearms that will be sold to the purchasing authority in New York City, is a violation of several federal statutes protecting free commerce, every answer can trivially be answered, “sure, uh huh, at least we think so.”

        It would not be a violation of federal law for NYC to demand that guns to be sold to it’s agencies and departments provide the requested features, or to ask if the manufacturer is researching such features for future sale to NYC agencies.

        Nothing is new under the sun: A few more clerics are out out for publicity, wanting to influence government while despising our Constitution. Big surprise. I suggest they purge the canonical holy books of their religion of all positive views on genocide and the discriminatory treatment under law of specifically those people who were not Jewish. I can hear them now: “But we like those parts, and it was so long ago.” Sure, one team’s favorite genocide or discriminatory law was not as bad as another group’s. Rubbish.

        • Which brings up the (so far) unaddressed question: what if the city responds with an answer unacceptable to the MDAMAIGs? Are they going to forward a stern e-mail voicing their disappointment to the mayor and city council? Aside from a vague insinuation of potential negative PR I fail to see any downside to telling them to fvck off.

  2. The best hope is the gun manufactures refuse to play these liberal BS games. It is a sizable amount of money for the gun maker to pass up I just hope they stand together or they will all fall together. It will also be interesting how the feds will react if the gun makes all refuse. I see them going after them for RICO Act, if any conspiracy can be found, real or imagined.

    • Oh, it would be SO entertaining watching the Department of Fast & Furious try to establish RICO intent among multinational manufacturers.

      Pass the popcorn.

      • True. I think there’s another maker out there who would be happy to play too: Kimber. It’s no coincidence that the SAFE act magically limits mags to seven rounds. Kinda perfect for ol’ NY-based Kimber, huh? Correct me if I’m wrong but I haven’t heard of any tough talk from Kimber about putting that POS state in their rear view mirror for its assault on the RKBA. Kimmy and Remmy heart NY. Just imagine it… a 12 lb 1911 trigger.

        Finally, to correct my typo: then=when.

        • If any U.S. gun manufacturer thinks they can survive solely on sales to big city LEOs, they can certainly give it a shot. But they mostly have shareholders to answer to when the annual financial statements (and/or dividends) show red ink, so I think they will all think long and hard before falling for this partisan pressure campaign.

          It would be very nice to see some manufacturers engage in a big ole FUNYPD campaign.

    • The union will just demand “Gun Days” in their next contract, in addition to sick days and personal days.

      The rabbis live in New Jersey, not NYC. Don’t they realize they have to clean their own house first? New Jersey’s full of illegal guns. Get to it, guys. Go do god’s work in Newark, Trenton, and Camden. Not your kind of places? I thought so. A bunch of white guys afraid of dark people with guns. Just say it, guys.

      • There’s no such thing as an “illegal gun” in the U.S. as long as it’s “bearable.”

        From page 8 if the Heller v. D.C. Supreme Court decision, approx. 3/4 way down page:

        “The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms …”

        Just sayin’.

  3. They keep peddling this crap that there are “gun dealers” and “online sales” that will sell a complete gun right to a person’s front door.

      • Not in NY. When I bought my Garand in 2012, it was delivered by Fed Ex. Of course, the CMP did the background check and the transfer. I basically owned the rifle when they shipped it.

        Since the SAFE Act passed, all CMP deliveries to NY must be to an FFL. I know that I used to be able to ship a gun directly to the manufacturer for service and it would be sent directly back to me. I don’t know if that’s allowed any more under the SAFE Act. It’s not clear. All private sales must be conducted by an FFL with a background check.

    • What’s wrong with delivery, provided the dealer is licensed, runs a NICS check, and does the paperwork correctly? Are they against mobile and sat phones? Are they also against the delivery of properly documented pain-killer prescription refills? Do they want every old person with cancer to actually show up at the pharmacy? Bizarre. Have these guys expressed their outrage over Fast & Furious? Didn’t think so.

  4. 1) Does the manufacturer refrain from selling its products through dealers with a history of selling guns that end up at crime scenes?
    — Uh…. so the NYPD can’t purchase guns? I’m pretty sure the NYPD’s firearms end up at ‘crime scenes’ often. Or does that not count? And if not, what else doesn’t count? How about DGUs? And who decides what counts as a history? And how many angels can fit on the end of a firing pin?

    2)Does the manufacturer insist that dealers train their employees to spot “straw buyers” — people buying guns for end users who are circumventing background checks?
    — Yes, instead of trying to do something about a real problem lets “insist” on stuff. That always works.

    3) Does the manufacturer run buyback programs that help keep its used products from being sold on the internet?
    — And here I thought manufacturers were in the business of selling guns, not loaning them out.

    4) Does the manufacturer cooperate fully with law enforcement — for example, by developing advanced ballistics technologies like bullet microstamping?
    — And by providing law enforcement with everything they ask for without any due process, isn’t that where you’re going with this gentlemen? Also unicorns.

    5)Is the manufacturer moving at breakneck speed to bring safer guns to market, like those with biometric recognition or other systems that prevent non-authorized users from pulling the trigger?
    — I’m sure the NYPD will be interested in guns that will be disabled at the moment they are most needed based on technology developed at “breakneck speed.”

    Bunch of arrogant shmucks who, like many people making such stupid political demands, have no idea what they are talking about.

    • “I’m sure the NYPD will be interested in guns that will be disabled at the moment they are most needed based on technology developed at “breakneck speed.”

      Yeah, “biometric recognition”. Just like my “state of the art” iPhone that sometimes takes 3 -5 seconds to recognize my fingerprint. DGU over. I lost.

      * Apologies for the repost Robert & fellow TTAGers, I felt it relavant here also.

  5. Aren’t guns used in crimes usually stolen from legitimate owners? Doesn’t the initial legitimate purchase server any link between dealer and crime scene?

    An I missing a beat here? I’m way under caffeinated so I would believe it.

  6. Here is, verbatim, how I would answer these questions if I were a manufacturer.

    Q. Does the manufacturer refrain from selling its products through dealers with a history of selling guns that end up at crime scenes?

    A. And here I thought I wasn’t supposed to be held legally responsible for the actions of stupid people who decide to do stupid things with my products, per the Firearm Owners “Protection” Act of 1986. Otherwise, every last brewery and car maker would have already been run right out of the country by now. Don’t forget big tobacco and fast food, either. I guess you don’t have too much faith in the Rule of Law, do you?

    Q. Does the manufacturer insist that dealers train their employees to spot “straw buyers” — people buying guns for end users who are circumventing background checks?

    A. The National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (and really big house fires) already have such a training program in place, and they’ve been at it since 1995 — close to two decades now. Guess you missed (or conveniently ignored for your own sake) that memo, huh?

    Q. Does the manufacturer run buyback programs that help keep its used products from being sold on the internet?

    A. Oh, here was go again with the whole “internet sales” thing. Listen. Whether you or anybody else on all of God’s green f*cking Earth like it or not, private-to-private sales are in fact legal. The whole “40% of gun sales without background checks” has already been thoroughly debunked as pure myth. It’s still against the law for an FFL like me and my carefully chosen dealers and distributors to sell firearms through the mail (C&R licensees notwithstanding). Even FFLs that do business over the internet still must and DO conduct their sales face-to-face with a NICS background check if that person is not another FFL, per relevant federal and state statutes. P-E-R-I-O-D. But, I think it’s safe to assume that you don’t know and don’t ever care about what current rules and regulations actually say.

    Q. Does the manufacturer cooperate fully with law enforcement — for example, by developing advanced ballistics technologies like bullet microstamping?

    A. It’s been conclusively proven that microstamping is utterly fascicle on its face. Serial numbers on firing pins, ejectors, and extractors can as a matter of fact be very easily filed off completely without adversely affecting the fit and function of any gun one iota whatsoever. Not to mention giving criminals the ability to “salt” any crime scene with dozens of spent cases from dozens of different guns, only further hampering and confusing police investigations because EVERY serial number MUST be traced and the owners of ALL those guns MUST be investigated.The National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, for example, has never ever even so much as generated a single hit in a single criminal investigation since it’s initialization in 1990, and has never ever helped in the return of a single stolen gun. It, just like every local and state-level gun registration scheme that has ever been enacted as well, is and has always ever been literally nothing more than a colossal waste of money and manpower that can be better spent actually catching scum bags that commit violent crimes. This doesn’t surprise me, being that your ilk has always been very “liberal” with MY tax dollars when it suits you.

    Q. Is the manufacturer moving at breakneck speed to bring safer guns to market, like those with biometric recognition or other systems that prevent non-authorized users from pulling the trigger?

    A. When they can actually invent a system that doesn’t disintegrate after a few dozen rounds of [insert any caliber you want here] or even being dropped, has a 50-year battery life, never gets confused or jammed by errant (or intentional) electronic signals, and doesn’t make the gun it’s installed in prohibitively expensive, then and only then will I or anybody else for that matter even bother to so much as dream to think of considering it. Note that I highlighted the really important parts strictly for the sake of your convenience, as I already know what the score is. ALL proposed “user-ID” systems have all of these problems. Yes, even SkyRFID has all of these problems, despite being “successfully” [READ: UNsuccessfully) tested in a “.375 magnum” [READ: .38 Special]. I’m confident that police and military units the world over are just clambering for guns that will be completely and totally useless when they most need them.

    Don’t bother soliciting me again.

    • When you list features that would make a “smart” gun acceptable, I have two edits and one addition:

      EDIT: replace “50 year battery life” with “10,000 year fusion cell that can withstand a nuclear blast, measures 1mm x 1mm and weighs .000001 KG.”

      EDIT: “never gets confused or jammed by errant (or intentional) electronic signals” TO INCLUDE EMP

      ADD: At MAIG’s expense, any proposed smart gun system must be field tested for reliability/practicality for a period of no less than 10 years with every local, state and federal law enforcement agency in the US prior to public release. Should any of those agencies reject/return the system within the 10 year time frame, the system will be deemed unsafe for the public. All weapons will then be immediately returned to MAIGs office to be melted down into dild0s, with which any proponent of smart gun technology will be forced to go f*ck themselves.

    • Re biometrics, the manufacturer should also add- The City of New York must agree to hold this manufacturer harmless and release them from all liability for any failure of the biometric system which results in the death or injury of a citizen or law enforcement officer. Hereafter referred to as the Murphy/Murphy’s corollary clause.

      The manufacturer will also require the security details assigned to the mayor or other elected officials to only carry biometric recognition firearms, without exception, as evidence of the City’s faith in their suitability.

  7. Here’s a bit of a random history lesson. Back in the darker days of crime in NYC (early 1990’s and prior), the NYPD was limited to revolvers. This changed, in large part to a shootout in Far Rockaway, Queens when a patrol officer was reloading his revolver behind the cover of his bullet-riddled squad car when the banger he was exchanging fire with came around the car and killed him with a semi-auto (it was something similar to a tec-9 if I remember correctly; sorry I couldn’t find the story). I remember Mayor David Dinkins actually making some ‘off the record’ comment about not wanting to give semi-auto handguns to patrol officers because it would lead to more dead criminals. The best article I could find about the politics at the time was this one from the Grey Lady rag:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/31/nyregion/gun-of-choice-for-police-officers-runs-into-fierce-opposition.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

    Maybe another political war could brew if the manufacturers don’t cave (I can dream right).

  8. WTH is “bullet microstamping”?

    And it’s pretty amazing that an organization like MDA, with no skin in the game, thinks it’s got tons of weight to throw around.

      • Yeah, casing and primer microstamping, not bullet microstamping…. They can’t even call their own crazy impossible pipe dreams by the right name! Anti-gunners are a sick joke.

    • P.S.: So long as the lamestream media is solidly behind MDA, as it is with every other anti-rights propaganda mill under the Sun, they have a lot more weight to throw around than you might think. That will continue to be the case until, like every other passing fad, they milk the cow for every penny its worth and toss it aside like a used condom without even so much as a “thank you”.

    • “Bullet microstamping” i.e. a technology that would effectively grind the ammunition industry to a halt and guarantee that recreational shooting becomes a thing of the past for everybody but the wealthy.

    • Hey, don’t give them any ideas! If they really knew what they were talking about they would be promoting some scheme to include “taggants” in the lead or copper bullet such as the required in commercial explosives and the confetti released when you fire a Taser. Imagine the big expensive bureaucracy they could build around trying to track that stuff!

  9. Now is not a good time to be an NYPD officer.

    Under DeBlasio, I wouldn’t be the least bit shocked to see the use of lethal force by the NYPD come attached with the requirement to personally call his office for permission to shoot.

  10. There are 800,000 cops in America. I can’t imagine more than 20% of them are members of departments that would go in for this kind of crap. That comes out to 160,000 or so sales to motivate gun makers to agree to these ridiculous surveys.

    There are (estimated) 30 to 80 million gun owners. We’re a much bigger market and need to make our opposition to this kind of foolishness known.

    • I got a surprise for you….

      Most cops just don’t care one way or the other. They’d go along with this if their bosses told them to. They couldn’t care less about gun rights or about what they have on their hip, as long as it works for them according to their training.

      Police are not our allies in the civil rights battlefield. They are at best a neutral party and at worst an advocate for the enemy.

      • A lot of LEOs serve in small departments in small cities, towns, and villages. Many are also deputies of an elected sheriff. More are employed by state governments. In any of these venues across most of the U.S. proposing this kind of anti-gun nonsense will get the boss fired or unelected.

        See Colorado.

  11. There is something else at stake here, folks. Why would the PDs in progressively operated cities be pushing this issue? True, they gain ground with other progressives, but what else? I do not believe for one second the cynical operators pushing these issues really think they will gain ground this way. What I think they would LOVE is to be able to show that firearms manufacturers are united against gun safety, against law enforcement, against public safety.

    Why ask for something you know won’t happen, that you realize is a deal breaker? They are playing a propaganda game is all I can think. Imagine when all of the firearms companies refuse to play ball – the point goes to progressive operators because “the firearms industry doesn’t support gun safety”. Imagine what happens if the firearms companies just refuse to sell to those progressive utopias, “see, the firearms industry is completely in bed with the gun lobby and NONE of them care one bit about public safety or EVEN THE LIVES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS!”

    It’s like a chess match, and we are following instead of leading. We are being led down a path our enemies control and in this game whoever follows is the loser. I wish I knew what the answer was, but we – gun owners, dealers, and manufacturers – had better get ourselves together because it’s a true minefield out there.

    • Chess match yes, following no. Unless you are.

      I’m still focusing on taking as many friends and family out shooting as are willing to give it a try. A bare minimum of experience and education is all it takes to expose the farce of measures like this questionnaire.

        • I’m not so pessimistic. Besides, you don’t even know my scorecard yet….

          I took 1 neutral and 2 anti-gun coworkers to the Phoenix Crossroads show in December, and everyone had a good time. The neutral guy is looking into a purchase for home defense, and at least one of the two antis will be attending the AR shoot I’m setting up. A 4th coworker who didn’t come to the show is now set on getting an AR, which is what prompted setting up the AR shoot–I’ve got a beater Bushie and am wrapping up a really nice carbine build as well as a .300BLK pistol. All 3 will come out so we can discuss bullet points (pun totally intended) about customizing ARs.

          Meanwhile, over the holidays I went out shooting with one of my best friends, and he brought his daughter. She’s about 12. She shot, among other things, another friend’s AK and my Tavor and became a hero among her friends on Facebook, apparently. Her mom, a teacher, wants to come next time.

          In November I took a college buddy of mine out while he visited from MD; he talked about shooting every time we chatted for weeks after that. 🙂

          Before that, I took my next door neighbor–another lifelong friend–to the range. He’s now set on getting a revolver after shooting my Ruger Blackhawk; his wife won’t have it until their kids are out of the house, but I think that still lands in the W column.

          So, to recap, over the past 3 months or so that’s 2-3 probable new gun owners and at least half a dozen other people with direct experience shooting as well as an earful from me about gun safety and navigating the laws. Sure, that’s a drop in the bucket if you want to be pessimistic, but the people I’ve taken shooting are far more likely to change from that experience and share what they’ve learned with others than anyone who reads about that stupid safety survey in the news. The only people that will speak to are the ignorant, so I’m curing “ignorant” one new shooter at a time. 🙂

  12. I say cut off NYC now, gun manufacturers cannot survive just on government contracts alone. Any gun manufacturer who sells to NYPD, call for a boycott.
    There is no law that compels a private business to do business with the government. Therefore states or cities have no legal recourse if the gun industry wont sell to their agencies.

  13. I look at this much more simplistically. All the rabbis ask for are answers to the questions. They do not say that the “correct” answers are a litmus test for procurement. So the manufacturer should just answer honestly, and if the City doesn’t want to buy their guns, too bad so sad. Particularly since there is not a single manufacturer that makes guns that fulfill the dream list these rabbis would seek to impose, and there isn’t a single manufacturer has any intent–as witnessed by Ruger last week–to do so. NY City uses Glock. Glock is a privately owned company. Glock doesn’t play ball unless it chooses to. Glock will not play ball with this crap.

    To say nothing of the fact that these rabbis don’t know bupkiss about gun laws, and their questions are inane.

  14. If biometric ‘security’ is in their guns, I can’t wait to see them all die when it inevitably malfunctions…

    Idiots don’t know how to be careful what they wish for… They have no clue how reality works.

    • I don’t wish death on anyone without a VERY good reason. Allowing others to make painful holes in extremities, however, is an entirely different story…

  15. Even if all the AMERICAN manufacturers actually do boycot them, they’ll just import HK or SIG or GLOCK or FN directly. Those companies already have no qualms with statist domination. They wouldn’t even exist without it…

  16. hmmm salting a crimescene with multiple fired cases…. Havent heard of bad guys that organized…. might make a good TV show tho….

  17. I’d love to see the NYPD walk their beats like old school English constables, just a night stick and a whistle.

  18. “Is the manufacturer moving at breakneck speed to bring safer guns to market”

    you know, regardless of your position on it, that’s just a stupid question.

  19. He is Jewish in name only. I am embarrassed and disgusted with this man. He is clueless.
    I hope none of the manufacturers respond. Let them get the police union to have a hissy fit and go ballistic on the Mayor. Pathetic..

  20. for example, by developing advanced ballistics technologies like bullet microstamping?
    ——————————————————————————-

    So full of fail it’s hard to know where to begin.

    1. Microstamping has nothing to do with bullets, it is stamping the case, not the bullet.
    2. If it did stamp the bullet, this still wouldn’t be a ballistics technology. Ballistics is either the science or study of the motion of un-powered projectiles, as bullets, shells, or bombs or the art or science of of designing projectiles for maximum flight performance. Stamping the bullet has no relationship to ballistics, as it is not being done to improve flight performance.
    3. Microstamping cases obviously has nothing to do with bullet flight performance.

    It’s like a young student using words that are not properly understood, and writing “the verdant tennis player” when the student means the “inexperienced tennis player”, because the student wanted to sound intelligent and looked up a synonym for inexperienced and found green, then looked up a synonym for green and found verdant, but by not understanding the actual words used, came across as an idiot.

    How would a competent person even answer this question, since it betrays stupidity on the part of the questioner?

  21. Perhaps there should be a reverse set of questions the dealers/manufacturers ask in return:

    1) How often is your police officers found guilty of negligent homicide
    2) What is the police departments policy regarding handling of firearms when off-duty.

    etc etc.
    This political litmus test is getting a bit ridiculous. I’d wonder what the experience might be of a dealer/manufacturer to counter submit their own questions to be sure their products won’t be used by corrupt police.

  22. Nypd can FOAD. GLOCK needs to cut them off. This is stupid, we are dying because of big city anti gun politicians and chief LEO’s taking away our rights, coming up with absurd microstamping bs, and denying carry permits.

  23. Glock won’t cut them off , Glock is a European gun manufacturer and will pressure their biggest dealer here in the US to sell NYC whatever it wants , it’s the money , I have nothing for Glock , don’t care for a striker fired handgun don’t really vp care for a polymer frame gun either , plus it ain’t American made . Be prepared and ready. Keep your powder dry.

    • Glock won’t stop selling to city law enforcement for any second amendment principled reasons, but I think they know that a loss in NYPD sales will not equal the backlash loss in sales from the american public if they add microstamping and biometric safeties to their guns.

      • Well, the small, tiny problems here are that the cost to add microstamping to the manufacturing line is prohibitive (it’s probably more profitable to go out of the gunmaking business and make yo-yos or something) and there is NO reliable “smart gun” technology anywhere near production, even in DARPA (who would be the biggest customer). Other than those teensy-weensy issues, have at it.

  24. Just a few months ago some NYPD officers were busted in a drug/gun ring that spanned several states. They were selling duty weapons. So, sure, ask the questions.

    Ever sold guns to cops before? Then your company is a menace.

  25. Suggested answers:

    Does the manufacturer refrain from selling its products through dealers with a history of selling guns that end up at crime scenes? Since a dealer has no control of a gun once it’s sold (much like a car dealer has no control over a car once it leaves the lot), no.

    Does the manufacturer insist that dealers train their employees to spot “straw buyers” — people buying guns for end users who are circumventing background checks? That sounds like the responsibility of a government agency and we have no current aspirations of doing their job for them.

    Does the manufacturer run buyback programs that help keep its used products from being sold on the internet? We do have a tradein program whereas we refurbish the firearm and offer them for sale. The intent of this program is not to inhibit the legal sales of firearms by any means, internet or not.

    Does the manufacturer cooperate fully with law enforcement — for example, by developing advanced ballistics technologies like bullet microstamping? We cooperate fully with law enforcement to the extent that this cooperation does not in any way detract from citizens’ rights. We fail to see how developing an easily defeated technology such as microstamping that would serve only to put firearms out of the financial reach of many who would need them most in any way would be cooperative with law enforcement.

    Is the manufacturer moving at breakneck speed to bring safer guns to market, like those with biometric recognition or other systems that prevent non-authorized users from pulling the trigger? If the NYPD is willing to be the ‘guinea pigs’ testing such technologies, we might be willing to develop these systems provided NYC is willing to kick in development grant money. PS. When talking about a tool intended to save your life, bringing a new technology out a ‘breakneck speed’ is rarely a good idea.

    Additionally, if any purchasing decisions are made on the basis of the answers to these questions, rather than the performance of the weapons systems bid, you may very well be hearing from our attorneys.

  26. I think this is the third or fourth thread on this subject since this started with a city in New Jersey. The answer to the questions is one simple sentence:

    This manufacturer complies with all state and federal regulations.

    If the manufacturer answering in this manner loses, they should challenge the award of the contract and tie it up in court for years. No new firearms for NYPD from anybody until it gets resolved.

  27. Isn’t it really hard to microstamp a bullet? I get stamping the casing but the bullet?

    The two first questions seem reasonable but shouldn’t that be the dealers responsibility.

  28. Dear Sirs,

    The Hasbro Corporation is pleased to present the following bid for the supply of sidearms and long arms to the New York Police Department. We at Hasbro take great pride in the safety record of our Nerf brand weapons. To answer your questions:

    1) Hasbro has no knowledge of the number of its products that end up at crime scenes, as this is not tracked by police, and have no way of identifying any dealers that may be problematic in this regard.

    2) Hasbro has never seen the need to institute any training for the recognition of “straw buyers” of our product.

    3) Hasbro does not have any program in place to prevent the sale of its products on the internet. In fact a sizeable fraction of our sales are completed using the internet.

    4) We at Hasbro pride ourselves on being good corporate citizens and always cooperate completely with law enforcement. However we currently have no plans to implement any microstamping program for projectiles. We would, however, be willing to provide customers with personalized monogrammed projectiles for an extra fee.

    5) We are confident that our Nerf products are an industry leader in product safety, but we fail to see how biometric technology would make a foam dart gun any safer than it already is. Given Nerf‘s safety record with its weapons as compared the NYPD’s safety record with theirs, we will keep our own counsel on this matter.

  29. I cannot imagine any manufacturer answering the way they want

    Does the manufacturer refrain from selling its products through dealers with a history of selling guns that end up at crime scenes?

    A. It is not the manufacturer’s job to police dealers. If the distributor or dealer is properly licensed, it wouldn’t do to refuse them sales. If they shouldn’t be selling, they shouldn’t be licensed.

    Does the manufacturer insist that dealers train their employees to spot “straw buyers” — people buying guns for end users who are circumventing background checks?

    A. This is not the job of the manufacturer, to dictate policies to other entities. If such should be part of what it is to be a lawful dealer, that is the ATF/State’s business, not the manufacturers’

    Does the manufacturer run buyback programs that help keep its used products from being sold on the internet?

    A. False dichotomy. Even if a manufacturer wanted to prevent “internet sales” they could choose a different way. And besides, internet sales are a red herring.

    Does the manufacturer cooperate fully with law enforcement — for example, by developing advanced ballistics technologies like bullet microstamping?

    A. This sets a false dichotomy. A manufacturer may say, we follow the law and cooperate with law enforcement, but do not invest in worthless development’s like “bullet” or “case” microstamping.

    Is the manufacturer moving at breakneck speed to bring safer guns to market, like those with biometric recognition or other systems that prevent non-authorized users from pulling the trigger?

    A. No. Because such guns are not safer, but less reliable and would not sell. A manufacturer is a business that seeks to sell a product there is a demand for. No one who is actually wanting to buy guns wants this, so no profit.

  30. stop supplying firearms and ammunition to these police forces. I, mean, ammo sales are still through the roof, no?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *