(courtesy badcopdonut.net)

We first saw gun control advocates attempt to use government contracts as leverage against gun makers in New Jersey. Institute gun control or our cops won’t buy your guns! That came to nought. In October on this year, New York Senator Chuck Schumer demanded that the Army make its handgun selection contingent on whether or not the aspiring supplier complied with various gun control proposals. That also fell by the wayside. And here it is again, via huffingtonpost.com‘s Why Aren’t We Talking About This Practical Way to Curb Gun Violence? Because it puts our police in peril? Here’s the authors list of demands . . .

There are several common sense, feasible conditions that should be part of every government contract with a firearms manufacturer or seller. Here are some key ones:

1) Require that, at every stage of the distribution process, the manufacturer or distributor sell guns only to dealers with responsible business practices that minimize the risk that criminals will obtain the weapons. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s Code of Conduct is a model for responsible practices.

2) Require the manufacturer to commit to developing and installing life-saving features on firearms, such as user authorized or childproof “smart” technology;

3) Require manufacturers to sell military-purposed assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines only to governments, and not to civilians.

Former U.S., Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman and New Yorkers Against Gun Violence Executive Director Leah Gunn Barrett (yes, that’s her name) reckon that “mayors and governors across America [should] use their collective purchasing power right now to stop the appalling carnage that, sadly, has come to define us as a nation.”

What these hoplophobic harridans don’t understand: the free market helps define us as a nation. But then why should they understand that when they can’t read the U.S. Constitution?>

Recommended For You

73 Responses to Gun Control Advocates: Use Government Contracts to Blackmail Gun Makers to Create Gun Control

  1. Being not old enough to shave or stay out after 10 at the time, what was the backlash on Ruger Sr’s betrayal of gun owners with the AWB? Think that might be a pretty good cautionary tale that the government has nothing but poison to offer gunmakers?

    • Yep. And S&W got a fit of the stupids at the same time.

      The wrath of gun owners/buyers in the US “left a mark,” one might say.

      • as much as I love my S&W revolvers the company lost me to Taurus for a while. The sad thing is I bought the Taurus equivilent of a mod 15 and it shot as good as my Smith.

      • I vaguely remember that, also the S&W fiasco. I was still in HS at the time, and walked into the gun store with my dad, the rifle racks were thin and the pistols were ALL sold with the exception of the S&W guns. They were marked down nicely too but never moved, not for months and months after. I honestly think Taurus got the sales boost it needed during that time to develop its LARGE revolver line, like the raging bulls, ect.

        If your going to crap all over a populations rights, make sure they are not your customers as well.

    • I went back and did a little woodshed ‘N research on the issue. The problem was Ruger’s hubris. He thought by behaving like a Quisling he could “save” his gun company from what he imagined was coming. He thought he understood when, in fact, he was clueless. He was justifiably handed his head by America’s gun owners.

    • Asshat Bill Sr was the one who came up with the 10 round magazine limit and lobbied for it hard in the Imperial City. I have not bought a Ruger since.

  2. Here’s something to add to their list- gun manufacturers are only to offer to LEO/state agencies the same weapons available to the general public. I.E. those weapons the state has defined as suitable for defense.

    • Absolutely. Start this bad boy off with reminding all those LEOs that these types hold so near and dear (unless there’s black people around) that they too are mere citizens and civilians. Therefore, your newly minted gun-buying clout will restrict the proliferation of “military-style assault weapons” to, you know, the REAL military, not the SWAT team.
      That should go over real good.

        • I believe he’s referring to the rise of an anti-police narrative on the American left with regards to their treatment of racial minorities.

          So the same people who say that we should leverage the purchasing power of police and restrict “military-assault-weapons” to only LEOs and the military will turn around and complain about racist, corrupt LEOs in their next statement. I think his point is that the progressives can’t decide if police are paragons of virtue who can be trusted with special rights by virtue of their special goodness and competence, or if they’re racist oppressors who single out minorities for shooting.

        • Perhaps the left dreams of a day when their political ascendance is total, so that the police are their lackeys. I consider this the Lenin dream.

          But the left gets a clear head now and then, realizes their oppressive dreams have been spotted, and turns on the police as presently constituted. Fickle humans.

        • Alphapod
          Right like all Blacks are Dems.
          lol yall need to stop and think, there are Many Blacks that are gun owners and Republicans or Independents.
          Racist just push them to be Democrats or if nothing else — Anti Republican/Tea party.

          Both Racist and total left Liberals Try to divide our people/country against each other.
          A house divided Will fall sooner or later.
          I for one will be jumping for Joy if a third party as Independents get as powerful as the Dems and Repub’s Both are old money entrenched and not really much Difference between the Two. Neither has the welfare of the Country at heart. Only the power they can control for themselves.
          As far as the article goes – I agree with many – the Police are not a protected class even though they think they are and should not have weapons the citizens that pay their wages have.
          It is Now a Felony to get into a fight with an off duty Cop in Oklahoma ?? Even though many of them are no more than Thugs that start the fights.
          So I guess cops are a special privileged class over the Peon Tax paying citizen.

      • Actually, what Colt did isn’t half as stupid as what they’re expecting firearms companies to be. Colt ignored the civilian market because they had the military contracts. They’re expecting companies to burn their bridges in the civilian market to cater to the smaller government market. The government contracts made Colt uncompetitive in the civilian market because they didn’t need to innovate. The competition left Colt behind. If a company signed on for this the consumer will leave it behind. Sounds like a Faustian deal to me.

  3. Private sales exceed government sales by a wide margin. There isn’t that much government market power.

    • Wouldn’t it be something if some department went all-in on this and then couldn’t find anyone to sell them guns?

        • They sure did! It was 2005 when that legislation went into effect in CA. Barrett stopped all service and sales to government agencies for the .50 BMG systems. They currently will not service or sell their products in CA or NY (https://www.barrett.net/dealers/military) to government agencies. They have a really good FAQ section that encourages people to elect officials that support the 2nd amendment. Ronnie has always had a backbone in the 2nd amendment arena, and he never backs down. He is definitely the example the firearms manufacturers should follow (unlike Colt, unless they like the idea of bankruptcy).

  4. Manufacturers already sell “military-purposed” weapons to the military. They sell “civilian” variations to civilians. Guess they can check that one off their list.

    • Yeah, my first thought when reading that was that “compliance” wouldn’t be particularly hard with any of those points. An AR 15 isn’t a military grade assault rifle and magpul/lancer make better aftermarket mags anyways so who cares if they couldn’t sell their own. I guess the devil is in whether or not they decide that for a standard capacity non-extended flush fitting pistol magazine that holds more than some arbitrary number of rounds as “high capacity”. That would be annoying, but then they could just ship it with a reduced capacity mag and the aftermarket would pick up the slack.

  5. With somewhere around 800,000 law enforcement at all levels nationwide and even if every one of them suddenly had boating accidents and had to re-tool-up at the same time, the potential market pressure from such an effort at manipulation is easily matched by sales to the general public… in one month.

  6. Guess it’s going to be sticks, stones, or sword time again. No manufacturer in their collective minds would sell a gun to the Gubbermint under those terms.

    • No manufacturer that depends on the civilian market.
      The likes of atk or Lockheed would, but at a massive markup since they’re quite familiar with government contracts.

  7. We have said it countless times, people who are willing to throw firearms ownership and the Second Amendment under the bus are willing throw everything else under the bus including the other Amendments as well as free markets.

    Remember, government is their solution to everything … even things that are NOT a problem.

    • …and there we have a winner!

      People don’t seem to understand why I put so much emphasis on 2A compliant states and politicians: its because the 2A is, essentially, a litmus test – as you say if they are willing to violate the 2A they’re willing to violate many other things just for government convenience. Gun Rights Violating states, politicians and people in general are a no-go zone for me on that basis.

      • I liken the Second Amendment to the proverbial canary in the coal mine. The “death” of the Second Amendment means the conditions exist to “kill” the rest of the Amendments and the rest of our rights.

  8. Best comment on the HuffPo thread:
    “Why aren’t we talking about this practical way to curb gun violence?
    1. It isn’t practical
    2. It won’t address gun violence “

  9. Even if the Government ever went full on retard like this, easy way around it. Make Glock-MIL-USA as a separate company for MIL/LEO sales. A little bit of overhead expense but no company in its right mind will throw away the civilian market in favor of the LEO/MIL.

  10. Doing this would piss of a huge percentage of civilian gun buyers. Ask Colt and HK how depending almost exclusively on government contracts has worked out for them. S&W still remembers what happened the last time the agreed to pimp for the gun grabbers.

  11. If only the gunmakers would wanna let go of the huge markup they charge us over LE/MIL prices, face our boycotts, and compete for govt programmes that will be scrapped in the end. Marketing works on us, not on the big brother. Selling guns to us is much easier business. Ya listenin’ colt, s&w?

  12. May I?

    There are several common sense, feasible conditions that should be part of every government contract with a firearms manufacturer or seller. Here are some key ones:

    1) Require that, at every stage of the distribution process, the manufacturer or distributor sell guns only to dealers with responsible business practices that minimize the risk that criminals will obtain the weapons.
    Agree. The NICS background check achieves that goal and all dealers are required to use it.

    2) Require the manufacturer to commit to developing and installing life-saving features on firearms, such as user authorized or childproof “smart” technology;
    Every gun company is already committed to installing key life-saving features, such as triggers that actuate a firing pin and launch bullets at threats. Done.

    3) Require manufacturers to sell military-purposed assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines only to governments, and not to civilians.
    As Another Robert pointed out, this one is also done, minus the high cap mag part. Sorry, you only get half on this one.

    So Holtzmann and GUN, BARRETT get two and a half out of three proposals. What are they whining about?

    • The one common characteristic about this bunch is that like spoiled, petulant children, they never stop whining. Something that is clear to anyone viewing these fools, even if they got everything they asked for, they would turn around and ask for more, therefore there is no point in giving them anything. Ever.

      • Rusty, the simple fact of the matter is they really don’t care about gun violence. They say it all the time. If they wanted to do that, we’d take away the guns from the cops and the military. They kill 10 times (collectively) what the termed “gun violence” does.

        Secondly, the measures will not, do not and won’t ever curb gun violence AND THEY FRIGGIN KNOW IT!

        Which comes to the point of my post: Like that spoiled, petulant child that is never satisfied, they simply use “gun violence prevention” and so many other BS terms to woo you into giving up this or that. Once you give up, say, hicap mags, then they’ll want larger calibers. Once they get that, they’ll want something else and on and on and on and on until, like in Europe, they outlaw carrying a pen knife.

        Big government wants big control.

        Sorry, we’re not into that. The law is the law and what it says simple is that…

        The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed since it is necessary for the the formation of a well regulated militia which is necessary for a free state.

        To put it in unbulleted (no pun intended) common language, the 2A would be written like this:

        Since an armed populace is necessary to protect a free state from tyranny and that armed populace cannot form unless the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed upon then that right shall not be infringed.

        “A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

        Read it people! Its the law, and, any LEO will tell you: THE LAW IS THE LAW. Those that break it: go to prison.

  13. I think the opposite would be great. Manufacturers banding together and not selling to any government agency until the Second Amenment is restored to its full faith and intent. In every state and every city.

  14. I hope that some Dims actually try leveraging their purchases to make a political point, because the outcome will be very different than the one that they want.

    For ’tis the sport to have the engineer hoist by his own petard.

  15. As always, I take the contrarian point. I’m all for this.

    As others point out, no company would sacrifice the civilian market for government sales and survive. Even if one broke ranks and made the concessions, the monopoly power they would enjoy would be offset by both the increased market share for the others and the higher cost the government would need to pay a monopolistic supplier (not to mention reduced quality as they work to maximize profits).

    The end result, from a small arms perspective, would be heavily armed civilians and an effectively disarmed military/police. I think we can all live with that.

  16. Once again huffpo detaching its self from reality. No surprises here, and me saying anything else would be functionally redundant.

  17. “There are several common sense,….”

    A stumble at the first hurdle. This “common sense” phrase is easily the most condescending approach that the antis take, and making matters worse, 100% of the time, everything that follows are either nonsensical claims or outright lies.

    • “Common Sense”

      ‘You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it does’

      As soon as I read ‘common sense’ this, ‘common sense’ that, I know they are full of it, and by ‘it’ I don’t mean ‘common sense’

  18. “Former U.S., Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman and New Yorkers Against Gun Violence Executive Director Leah Gunn Barrett (yes, that’s her name) reckon that “mayors and governors across America [should] use their collective purchasing power right now to stop the appalling carnage that, sadly, has come to define us as a nation.” ”

    N E W S F L A S H
    It’s not really all that common. The problem stems from the people in your precincts (in every meaning). IT’S BECOMING LESS AND LESS APPALLING. YOU BLAME GUNS – WE B L A M E YOU (you evil POS (D) bag).

  19. You want smart technology? Since many criminals fight with police and try to take their guns, require all police to be equipped only with smart guns. That will save the police and prove the technology.

    • I’m all for that. Gov. Cuomo could direct his State Police chief to require only “smart guns” for his state troopers today, if he wanted too. Doesn’t have to wait for anybody. State Sen. Loretta in NJ and her colleagues could pass a law requiring NJ state cops to use only “smart guns” anytime they want. So why don’t they?

      • I’m imagining a NYS Trooper conducting a felony stop: “Keep your hands where I can see them! Continue to keep them there, I’m waiting for my gun to sync with the wifi! If you don’t wait, I’ll throw it at you and it will really hurt!”

    • That might be fine but unless they can program them for multiple people on the force or in civilian purpose then it still won’t work.
      I want my partner to be able to use my firearm if I am incapacitated and his breaks– Partner as in my police partner or family partner- either has your back.
      If my wife can’t pick up my Gun and use it if I go down then it’s worthless.

  20. Better idea. Use the free enterprise system to reverse gun control. All manyfacters should refuse to sell guns to LE that are not available to the public. Just like Barrett

  21. No matter how you look at this, it shows you how stupid liberals are. Any company can spawn off a subsidiary or another company that only builds and sells products to a particular class of customers. It happens all the time. So for example, Sig Sauer could spawn off a company called Sig Sauer M&P Weapons. Sig Sauer M&P Weapons could buy the rights from Sig Sauer to build and sell the Sig Sauer 226. Heck, Sig Sauer M&P Weapons can pay Sig Sauer to have consultants come over to their new plant to help build guns. Both companies may have the same stock holders, but it is still two different companies. This kind of stuff happens all the time in other industries to help navigate around stupid laws…and it is perfectly legal.

  22. Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s Code of Conduct is a model for responsible practices.

    All I needed to read. Uh, The longest finger on my right hand comes to mind. And the Huffington Puffington post can pound sand.

    How many months/years have background checks been soaring.

    Obama is the best gun salesman of all time. And yes, Ronnie Barrett did good in CA. I don’t think he’s hurting from sales.

  23. Oh, Chucky did this? This is my shocked look.

    Never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake.

    /What we can hope for…

    Let’s hope they get a scooch further in this approach because … they’re right on the edge of career-ending lawsuits for everyone involved. Try this:

    “You know, we don’t actually discriminate against black folks, gays, cath-o-licks, jooooos, muslims … we just won’t do business with them. ‘Cause we don’t want their kind round here.”

    The infamous Jim Crow laws restricted mainly commerce and association, to enforce the biases of some folk by law, when many (perhaps most, depending on who you ask) of the actual business folk so restricted didn’t want that at all. It makes no sense to ban customers, colleagues, partners and suppliers from playing along for any reason other than incompetence. Enlisting more open-minded people to enforce your own biases … people notice, and don’t like it one bit.

    Please, keep doing this, Chucky. Do it harder. And make sure you get more photo-ops while you do.

  24. It will work because there are no other guns out if circulation. Yup.
    These F-Tards will never learn. Either that or they really are on the side of criminals and corrupt public officials/employees.
    I have mentioned more than once that NY pols and employees really love gun control because it makes their corruption a lot safer.
    Even big box national chains are not immune from extortion demands.
    A new store opened in NY state. Chief fire inspector comes in, finds and employee and says “I think I see violations. That patio set would look nice at my home on Florida. ” The employee only got yelled at for not calling the nearest store in Florida to deliver it rather than ship it down from NY.
    And that is why New York favors disarming the public. It has nothing to do with public safety.

  25. What about a counter list?

    Law enforcement (civilians) shall only carry firearms that are available to any other civilian.

    Officers must carry rubber bullets in firearms until they can pass qualification once a month.

    To qualify, they must be able to score higher than the civilians they “protect” or go back to rubber bullets until they improve their ability and must be able to score BETTER than all the people they protect. Not the average citizen that only shoots once a year.

    Armed guards for all civilian politicians (excluding only the president’s secret service protection) shall only carry civilian firearms and require the same qualification stsyem as law enforcement.

    What is good for the public should apply to the civilian law enforcement as well. Firearms, or any other equipment.

    I support law enforcement, but the public doesn’t like to see officers in cammo carrying loaded AR’s and sidearms knowing any of them could have a 2:18 hit ratio. We don’t know if the officer is able to protect us or not.

    We do know our dog might get shot for barking, and that a scared cop will spray and prey if threatened.

    That in my opinion is just as dangerous with a firearm as the bank robber or burglar they are supposed to protect us from.

    They are better off handing their firearm over to the recently retired combat vet than attempt to take arms away from these “civilians” and pretend they are better trained to protect them/us from harm.

    • +100.
      Police officers may not carry any magazine with a capacity greater than allowed by citizens. If hollow point bullets are banned in their jurisdiction for citizens, then they are also banned for police.
      Criminals don’t care what the law is. Criminals in CA and MA have all the 15, 17, 20, 30 round mags they want. Only the law abiding are limited to 10 round magazine. (7 bullets in NY)

  26. I’ve seen other online news articles loyal to the constitution call them “gun-ban advocates” not “gun-control advocates.” I think TTAG should use this as well – it’s more honest.

  27. I feel we should do the opposite. Refuse to sell guns to any government agency that does not allow access of those same exact guns to the people that that same government agency oversees.

    • Now we’re talking….

      Back when America still bore some resemblance to a civilized country, that’s essentially how things worked.

  28. Require manufacturers to sell military-purposed assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines only to governments, and not to civilians.

    Which group has killed more innocent people, government or civilians? Seems like only civilians should be trusted with guns.

  29. If they really wanted to do something about gun violence, they’d encourage FFLs not to sell to black people.

    I don’t think that would really fly…

    • So you’d deny the HUMAN RIGHT of self defense to people because of skin color? Wow. You are exemplifying a stereotype that people see about the gun rights movement that the masses, with amazingly good reason, hate.

      How about some facts so you can see who the real bad actors are:
      Blacks attack whites statistically rarely. They attack blacks 3:1 over all other races.

      Whites attack blacks statistically rarely. They attack whites (2:1) and non-hispanic, non-black minorities around 3:1 total.

      Hispanics don’t seem to show any racial preference in who they attack and do it at the same basic rate of violent attacks perpetrated per capita as blacks. They’re actually very democratic about their violent crime.

      Other minorities attack whites 2:1 over any other race.

      The really violent criminals are, by the numbers, hispanic. They’re (by the numbers) indiscriminate about who they attack and seem to attack everyone at fairly similar rates. Whites and Blacks mostly attack people of their own race and that would tend to make sense thanks to the natural segregation that happens to large populations with deep ethnic or racial divisions. Hispanics on the other hand are not seemingly happy to kill each other and seem to be much happier spreading the love outside their own neighborhoods.

      If you’re going to be a racist, at least pick the target of your anti-affection on the basis of some rational objective measure, not just that you don’t like Dindoo Nuffins in general.

      • meccastreisand
        The first gun control was against Blacks to keep them from having arms to combat the KKK racist and other racist inbreds;)
        By using racist comments, anti gun control people are cutting the throats of all of the NON racist gun owners by looking like nut cases intent on violence against Blacks.
        Get a Clue people – we want to keep our guns so STOP acting like Racist inbred 3rd grade rejects and Welcome as well as Support ALL Gun Owners– not just Whites.

        • Let me rephrase part of this rant lol
          All the Racist anti Gun control and
          All Legal Gun Owners.

          I got a little irritated about the BS Racist comments on here and didn’t proof read everything I wrote.

  30. Two bits of history on this issue:

    When California banned the Barrett Light 50, Ronnie Barrett told the LA Sheriff and other state LE agencies that the Light 50s they had sent to Barrett in Tennessee would not be returned to California – if they wanted them back, they could come to Tennessee to pick them up, because he wasn’t going to ship them to the police agencies if he couldn’t sell them to civilians. Then he developed the .416 Barrett so he could sell the same firearm legally in Calif.

    On March 17, 2000, Smith & Wesson’s British owners (Tomkins plc) made an agreement with US President Bill Clinton under which all authorized dealers and distributors of Smith & Wesson’s products had to abide by a “code of conduct” to eliminate the sale of firearms to prohibited persons, dealers had to agree to not allow children under 18 access, without an adult, to gun shops or sections of stores that contained firearms. They also agreed to require dealers to report all purchasers directly to the government, to bypass Congressional restrictions on a gun owner database. As expected, thousands of retailers and tens of thousands of firearms consumers boycotted Smith & Wesson.

    On 11 May 2001, Saf-T-Hammer Corporation (American owned firm in Arizona) acquired Smith & Wesson Corp. from Tomkins plc for $15 million, a fraction of the $112 million originally paid by Tomkins. Saf-T-Hammer assumed $30 million in debt, bringing the total purchase price to $45 million. Saf-T-Hammer, a manufacturer of firearms locks and other safety products, purchased the company with the intention of incorporating its line of security products into all Smith & Wesson firearms. The acquisition of Smith & Wesson was chiefly brokered by Saf-T-Hammer President Bob Scott, who had left Smith & Wesson in 1999 because of a disagreement with Tomkins’ policies. After the purchase, Scott became the president of Smith & Wesson to guide the 157-year-old company back to its former standing in the market.

    Th new American owners of S&W immediately told the Clintonistas to pound sand, and terminated the agreement. S&W has been a strong 2nd amendment supporter ever since, and they are continuously developing new stuff for the civilian market.

Leave a Reply

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