Union City, NJ Police to Quiz Gunmakers on Gun Control

Freeholder Chairman Christopher Hudak (courtesy unj.org)

“Union County will become the second government in New Jersey to require vendors who wish to sell firearms to county law enforcement agencies to answer questions on gun safety and responsibility,” nj.com reports. “The initiative was laid out today by newly elected Freeholder Chairman Christopher Hudak [above] at this year’s county reorganization meeting. Hudak was formally elected chairman at this afternoon’s meeting. The board’s decision to only do business with gun sellers who answered questions regarding social responsibility follows the model of Jersey City and its mayor, Steven Fulop, who attended today’s meeting. Jersey City is believed to be the first in the nation to make potential gun sellers answer social responsibility questions.” You may recall that 109 NJ Mayors recently signed a “statement of support” for the PC police procurement procedure, initiated by our good friends at Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (a wholly owned subsidiary of Mayors Against Illegal Guns). Will gunmakers fall in line (at their commercial peril)? Watch this space . . .

 

comments

  1. avatar the ruester says:

    The push should be for manufacturers to answer HONESTLY. Wouldn’t it be great for these fascists to have to explain why they had to choose a manufacturer who opposed all but one of their stupid anti-american push-poll questions? (The answer would be “beause everyone else opposes ALL of them…)

  2. avatar polarbear says:

    By that sense we should have politicians answer questions about firearms before they are allowed to enact any new laws.

  3. avatar gej88 says:

    Lose a lot for 81 cops? That’s what, 200 pistols over a 10 year period? Answering the questioare is one thing, giving the answers MAIG/MDA wants is something else.

    1. avatar Steve says:

      Any manufacturer that gives the PC answers MAIG and MDA are looking for will face severe public backlash. None of them are stupid enough to do that in this political climate… I hope…

      1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        Or we could have fun with it. My idea includes a start-up gun company bidding for the contract with all correct PC answers (hopefully the only company to do so) and offering them a .45 ACP version of the 3D-printed Liberator. 😀

  4. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    I would say no.
    Business is booming even without a few cities. Manufacturers who do, will be labeled as anti second amendment causing all sorts of grief. The market share lost from that, would be greater than simply telling those towns to FOAD! And you don’t think that the winners of those contracts wouldn’t be touted by the likes of MDA and MAIG. You couldn’t pull it off on the down low. Not by a long shot.
    Course when the list is widled down to a couple of poorly made wheel guns the Chief of police better show he has the conjones to tell those mayors what he thinks of their idea. If he doesn’t the Police unions will make sure their careers are short lived. Basing your purchases off of political garbage is no way to procure solid firearms for your police force. Doing so puts officers lives at risk plain and simple.

    1. avatar Gene says:

      +1

      Submitting a public FOAD or no bid will get more, better, and free advertising than could be dreamt for the first few respondants. There will simply be not enough revenue from any particular win to make up for public sales loss. Firearm manufacturer PR/Marketing types should need a cold shower over this.

      1. avatar (Formerly) MN Matt says:

        I just hope there’s someone with enough brains at one of these companies to realize that.

    2. avatar ropingdown says:

      I think Union City PD will look great with their brand new Chiappa Rhino’s.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        I’ll bet NORINCO puts in a bid.

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          Hi Point.

    3. avatar 505markf says:

      This is one the manufacturers own. There are only a few companies that can supply the arms. It’s not like Jersey City or Union County can head on down to Fred’s Gun Emporium and pick up a couple of handguns. There’s support and technical assistance that basically requires direct purchase from a manufacturer. This is posturing for publicity sake and when the manufacturers refuse to answer the questionnaire and there are no places left to buy them from, the issue will quietly go away. Unless of course S&W looses their mind again.

      Playing ball with those nuts in NJ would be a line I could never forgive a manufacturer for. Ever.

    4. avatar IdahoPete says:

      All the gun makers and dealers need to do is look at what happened to the then-British owned Smith&Wesson, when they signed an agreement that outraged American gun buyers. S&W’s owners, [Tompkins Ltd?] ended up having to sell S&W at a $100 million loss to a small US trigger-lock company in Arizona. Which company promptly told the Clinton admin and the State of Mass that the agreement was null and void. It took S&W several years to get their customers back.

      Any gun maker or dealer that cannot take a lesson from that experience is probably too stupid to stay in business.

  5. avatar Leg says:

    Any relation to Evie? There’s a strong stupidity resemblance.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      If evie had a son…

    2. avatar Paulus says:

      I was wondering this very same thing. Wouldnt be surprised at all to find this guy is a blood relation to evie hudak of Colorado.

      1. avatar cutting torch says:

        I’m happy to see that the Hudak connection was noticed. They may not be related, but they seem to have the same gun-grabbing mindset. Recall?

  6. avatar paultmccain says:

    Stupid. Really. Stupid.

  7. avatar MOG says:

    Don’t sell to them, problem solved.

    1. avatar paultmccain says:

      Bingo. Wouldn’t that be great?

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      Yep. Happy now? I would be.

  8. avatar borekfk says:

    If any gunmaker answers the survey “correctly” to sell them guns, I say we boycott them into bankruptcy.

  9. avatar BT in Afghan says:

    I would like to see gun manufacturers join together and say “No we will not answer your PC BS. If you would like to buy our product call us. Thank you”

    If no manufacturer will play their game will the police get the new guns they need. It would be interesting to see how quickly they back down.

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      Why not arm them with all the “buyback” guns? After all, they are so deadly that they need to be undone in f*cking Mt. Doom, so surely they are good enough for the coppers…

      1. avatar IdahoPete says:

        Ooooh, I like this idea …

  10. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    dead cops. faulty 3rd rate equipment. wonder if he will smile then.

    1. avatar BT in Afghan says:

      not only would he not be smiling, I bet he would not have a job much longer.

      1. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

        It’s a part time job, anyway. “Freeholders” in New Jersey, the only state to call them that, are county government officials. Similar to a city council, they’re the policy making board of county governments which typically have a full time County Administrator as the day-to-day manager of the county’s business. In a lot of these NJ counties, the freeholders are either retired or hold other jobs. This particular guy holds a full time day job at a local university, for example, one I’d never heard of before today.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          That explains a lot.

        2. avatar Rokurota says:

          Holder is free while he makes the rest of us not. Appropriate in this case.

        3. avatar PeterC says:

          I believe that in his case, the word derives from “Freehole.”

  11. avatar mdc says:

    Don’t sell to them. Actually hand them a box of straws and napkins. See if they can figure that out.

  12. avatar SteveInCO says:

    Imagine, on the other hand, if a really Big Name in handguns actually did this.

    Hypothetically speaking, would Glock lose all of its fans over this? Or S&W? Or XD? Or Beretta?

    1. avatar S.CROCK says:

      i bet they would gain a lot of fans if they refused to sell to them.

    2. avatar Stinkeye says:

      I don’t think any manufacturer who goes along would lose all their fans over it, but they would likely lose a lot more than the couple hundred or so pistols they’d sell to these little shithole New Jersey towns. There’s really no upside for a company to play this game. They smear their name among a large chunk of the “civilian” market, and only gain a low-margin municipal contract. Any company that does it deserves to be ostracized, not for playing the political game with the antis, but for being dumbasses who can’t do basic math.

      This kind of thing might have suckered in a few gunmakers a few years back, but these days, after all the outrage they’ve seen the gun community throw around in the past year over any perceived slight, they’re all walking on eggshells. Why would you attract that kind of vitriol and attention to yourself over a barely-lucrative contract?

      1. avatar Siorus says:

        Whether all of the major gun manufacturers know better or not, I think a bunch of their civilian customers sending them a quick, polite e-mail saying something to the effect of “Hey guys, if you choose to go along with this bidding process in these NJ cities, I won’t be buying anything from you again. Ever. Just thought you might want to know.” would be a good reminder for them. Just to make sure it gets stopped before it can get started.

    3. avatar Rick F. says:

      Yes.

  13. avatar Hannibal says:

    For some reason- probably wishful thinking- I thought at first the title of this article read “NJ Police to quiz lawmakers on guns.”

    Hey how about we make a deal. Grinning little Chris up there can ask the gun makers one question on TV and then they can ask him one. Hey “Chris,” what’s a barrel shroud?

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      I thought so, too!

  14. avatar Totenglocke says:

    I know this will fall on deaf ears, but please gun makers, stop selling to the bad guys. Just say no!

  15. avatar Chaotic Good says:

    Something tells me the grinning idiot won’t be the one carrying a gun made by whatever low bid manufacturer is willing to fall in line.

  16. avatar Model66 says:

    I bet Ruger answers correctly. I recently sold my SR40c because I grew annoyed with all the added safety features. Recently they’ve seemed willing to throw on safeties and tap dance to a tune in order to make their semi-autos CA and MA compliant. Whatever mfg gets NJ’s bids will have mag disconnects, loaded chamber indic(t)ators, and probably have to be painted fluorescent colors.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      I feel the same way about Ruger. They have been sucking up to police and gun-banners forever and a day.

  17. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

    If this would-be Commandant of the PC Police really wants to burnish his liberal street cred, let him start with dispensing with that idiotic, outdated title “Freeholder.” That goes back to Colonial times when only property owners, aka freeholders, were allowed to vote and hold public office. Sounds kind of racist and classist to me, and entirely in line with the whole hoary history of forbidding various lesser people from exercising their God-given right to keep and bear arms.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Racism? In MARYLAND?

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        I’m shocked! But it was in Joisey. I don’t know which exit.

  18. avatar Dog Face says:

    What specific questions will they be asked?

  19. avatar Excedrine says:

    I can’t see any of the major manufacturers even rolling out of bed very often for a 200-gun contract. I know many of them have learned hard lessons (and have had to recently re-learn those same lessons) for dancing to the tune of the racist, classist, exist, anti-rights, anti-Humanist, regressive, fascist bigotry opined by the civilian disarmament industrial complex.

    I can see them backing down when the dust settles over this before any of the major players in the industry ever do, but not before a lot of pissed cops are walking around with shot-out, beat-to-shit hardware.

    On the other hand, it could go the other way completely: the racist, classist, exist, anti-rights, anti-Humanist, regressive, fascist, and bigoted civilian disarmament industrial complex could once again, without any forethought or compassion (as per usual), say that gun manufacturers would rather protect their bottom line than allow cops to do their duty.

    I would say to watch this space for any updates that come of this. I’m sure the writers here at TTAG are already well on top of it. 😉

  20. avatar Darkstar says:

    What I want to know is WTF is Howdy Doody buying guns for?

    1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      Isn’t Howdy Doody a little cowboy? Making up for feelings of inadequacy, perhaps? Opps, did I say that out loud?

  21. avatar Dan says:

    It would be GREAT if all manufacturers refused to business with this city then.

    1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      What would really be great is if the gun manufacturers refused to sell anything to the Po-Po that the general population could not legally obtain in that jurisdiction.

  22. avatar Jus Bill says:

    What is this little punk doing inserting himself into an adult process like a municipal solicitation anyway? Was he elected by his Day Care facility or something? He needs to go home and take a nap. Here’s a quarter. Come back in 20 years, kid.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      +some number!

  23. avatar Lars says:

    Manufacturers need to take a stand with us, they need to stop all sales to an entire state even if one city restricts them from selling there. If it wasn’t all about profit we’d have this gun control nonsense nipped in the butt a little deeper.
    This sideshow reminds me of what a kindergarten school teacher might do before the children can use plastic scissors to cut out their construction paper projects.

  24. avatar DaveL says:

    They should politely inform him that in our republic, the people question public officials to ensure their politics are acceptable, not the other way around.

    NEVER the other way around.

  25. avatar MarcusAurelius says:

    May they get stuck issuing Jiminez pistols.

  26. avatar dwb says:

    don’t answer stupid questions, for stupid politicians, in stupid cities. Who wants to play russian roulette with sales for a couple of cops?

  27. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Screw New Jersey.
    Plenty of other places for manufacturers to sell their goods or make bids.
    Id boycott any manufacturer that goes the asked route myself on general principles alone.

  28. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    My brother-in-law was a LEO in Union for many years before moving to a free(er) state. I think this topic might come up at the next family gathering. I’ll be interested in his perspective and the possible perspective of those he used to work with.

  29. avatar Cubby123 says:

    Screw those assbites let them use slingshots ,those are socially acceptable ( as long as you use dirt clots).No gun makers should bid for their business and any that do should be banned like Metcalf from the firearms community.What they are doing is discrimination and goes against Federal Trade Laws and FTC should press charges against New Jersey as it is the same as an employer asking how you feel about ,religion ,race,sexual preferences,and your political affiliation .That has nothing to do with the product and is frankly none of their business.

    1. avatar B says:

      In NJ slingshots are firearms.

      1. avatar Keith in TX says:

        Even though no “fire” is used to propel a projectile.

        Makes perfect sense.

  30. avatar Keith in TX says:

    All gun manufacturers should just simply trash the questionnaire on arrival.
    If not a single manufacturer replied who would they buy their guns from?
    This needs to be nipped in bud from get-go so others don’t follow suit.

  31. avatar B says:

    Majority of states seem to be saying F* the overreaching federal government, but those states that are going dark are freaking going pitch black.

  32. avatar DougR says:

    What is even worse is what they will find to fill police officer positions.

  33. avatar niceguns says:

    Even if the gun manufacturing company answered the questions the police FORCE wanted to here just to obtain the contract, that would put them in the center of a libel suit. They won’t answer, If they do the CEO should be fired. If they answer the questions, there should only be one answer. ARTICLE 2…

    Time to start contacting gun companies to let them know how we feel about it, After all how much more do they make selling retail?

  34. avatar Michael says:

    The gun companies should be asking the buyers if they know how to use them and if THEY will use them in a responsible manner, if not “sorry, e cannot sell to you”

  35. avatar styrgwillidar says:

    Yeah, a series of questions from the manufacturer starting with, We are concerned that your department will use our product in a responsible manner. Therefore we require answers to the following questions:

    1. Does your department conduct ‘no-knock’ raids?
    2. What are your qualifying and requalifying requirements?
    a. How much force on force training is conducted?
    b. What training is conducted using static targets?
    c. What training is conducted using moving targets?
    d. What physical conditioning requirements exist?
    e. What on-duty and off-duty storage requirments exist?
    f. How often are officers off-duty storage facilities inspected?
    g. Please describe the SCOTUS rulings in Heller and McDonald. Summarize what the court decided and how your city government will respect/adhere to the court’s direction. Please include what types of laws regarding firearms you believe are constitutional.
    h. Are the weapons in this solicitation available to the general public? If not, why do you believe they should be made available to the LEO personnel? What conditions for self-defense are applicable to LEO personnel that do not apply to the general public?
    i. How many negligent discharges has your department experienced in the last 5 years?
    a. Please provide copies of the investigative reports for each incident.
    b. Also provide the actions taken after each incident to preclude future incidents of a similar nature.
    j. Please provide a list of all misuses of a firearm by your LEO personnel.
    a. Provide the details of disciplinary or adminstrative action taken for each incident.

    You could keep going…

  36. avatar BDub says:

    While we are at it, can we quiz these law makers about the Constitution before they are allowed to pass any laws?

  37. avatar Runnerzdad says:

    What the manufacturers need to do is shred the form and include it in the envelope informing the city that they will now be charged MSRP plus 20% if they wish to purchase the firearms. And any officer that has an ND or shots the family dog or kills someone in a no knock raid automatically causes the contract to be null and void and to never contact the company again to purchase equipment.

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      I think the appropriate response to all the questions is: “This manufacturer complies with all legal requirements for manufacture and sales of firearms”

      Certainly there should be some markup on the contract for the man-hours spent in dealing with the questionairre- legal review, management review etc. etc.

  38. avatar styrgwillidar says:

    I don’t know how state contracting works, but in the federal system the criteria for selection has to be provided in the solicitation. (Past Performance, Cost, Quality of Technical Proposal, Personnel Qualifications etc.) A contract can be protested on the basis that the government did not adhere to the criteria they stated in the solicitation when selecting the winner.

    Hard to see how the questions factor in to that- if the responses to the questions are part of the criteria for selection, how are they assessed? How is one manufacturer rated against another. Any non-select for the contract should certainyl protest the award and tie up the purchase for as long (this could take years) as possible.

  39. avatar Josh in TX says:

    Well, so far I have written smith and Wesson, Ruger, Beretta (who makes you create a stupid account) glock.

    I will have to call the following companies who don’t have a convenient email option, Springfield armory, Sig Sauer, heckler koch, Kimber, and walther. Those were the big boys I could think of. I pretty much sent the following (ammending product and manufacturer name as applicable

    Hello,
    I am a gun owner, and a big fan of Ruger products. I actually own a great 10-22 that I purchased new and have been extremely happy with.

    It has come to my attention that some towns in Maryland and New Jersey have implemented a policy of requiring all manufacturers who submit bids for supplying their police officers to return a questionnaire that indicates that manufacturers policy on civilian sales of firearms and so called assault weapons.

    Please let me be clear. If you bid these contracts and participate in the march to civilian disarmament by answering the questionnaire stating you believe in limiting civilian access to modern sporting rifles, standard capacity magazines, or firearms in general, I will permanently boycott any of your products. This would be a real shame because you make many fine guns I still want to acquire.

    I understand your desire to supply our police, but you must understand that you cannot alienate the rest of the country to do it. Stand with me and I shall stand with you.

    Best regards,
    Name

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      Josh, does it make a difference to you if a company bids on the contract but refuses to answer the questions? or simply provides a ‘we comply with all state and federal firearms law’ response?

      1. avatar Josh in TX says:

        Yes, I can understand their desire to bid on all police contracts. As unforgiving as I can be, the police officers nationwide will also be ticked off if a manufacturer just says FOAD to any municipality that has stupid requirements for bids. I would be fine with a manufacturer stating on the questionnaire that they comply with all applicable laws, or more in detail state they service the private consumer with the same product as the law enforcement consumer as applicable. The police officers nationwide would feel betrayed because it (in most cases) is not their fault that their bosses are idiots. What I would find unforgivable is a manufacturer stating they support universal background checks, assault weapons bans, manditory this and that, as an avenue for winning a gov contract. By all means bid, but state plainly the manufacturers position on the questions, should the answers show that manufacturer supports civilian disarmament then cry havoc and let slip the dogs of boycott etc.etc.etc.
        Make sense?

        1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

          Yes. Thanks for the clarification. I’m hoping a manufacturer bids, doesn’t get the contract then ties the award up with a challenge dragging it out. Getting a decision from the acquisition folks to knock this stuff off since it isn’t relevant to procurement of equipment.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email