X-Products magazine (courtesy xproducts.com)

After cnn.com reported that the owner of X-Products would not be averse to a licensing scheme for purchase/possession of its “high capacity” ammunition magazines, TTAG checked the company’s website and called X-Products for clarification. We weren’t successful. Since the comments went viral, others have been more successful at contacting X-Products. TTAG reader G. Anderson received this reply to an email to the company . . .

Greg,

First and Foremost our company does not believe in licensing or restricting the sale of High Cap.

Mr Malarkey was interviewed about several items in a long discussion during Shot Show and CNN has taken two very out of context answers to multiple questions. Then they broke them up and spliced it into something that cleverly seems to favor some kind of support for their premise.

Mr Malarkey regrets having ever discussed/interviewed with CNN at all, and will not do so in the future. This is clearly not a position X Products believes is rational or viable.

We support the 2nd amendment rights of all citizens and are already saddled with bans of our products in multiple states now, we would not support any further limitations.

Dewey Akers
VP of Sales & Operations

In addition, TTAG reader Derek elicited this statement on from Mr. Malarkey himself on X-Products Instagram account.

Just so you guys know my side of the story, the quote below is completely out of context and not what I said at all. The interview I had was 30 minutes long and I was asked a variety of questions and they just took bits and pieces from the segment. The only thing I said was I would consider a step licensing law where we had access to everything… But it was the only thing I’d consider as a middle ground if there were no other options, I didn’t agree that we need licensing. That’s down right nuts, I’m a magazine manufacture, it would be detrimental to my business, I already lived through through the 1994-2004 ban , I like you don’t want to go through it again. You’ve got to remember this is mainstream media, they manipulate the story to fit they’re agenda. Heck they didn’t even quote our company’s location properly. Let me know if have any other questions and pleas feel free to share my response.

We look forward to talking to Mr. Malarkey for further clarification. We’re in touch with CNN reporter Aaron Smith who says he was not contacted by Mr. Malarkey. He’s considering making a statement on the accuracy of his piece.

At this point, Mr. Smith stands by the text, which remains as originally published at CNN. There is no mention of the controversy on X-Products’ website.

Recommended For You

77 Responses to X-Products: We Did NOT Tell CNN We Support “High-Cap” Magazine Licensing

  1. Never talk to the press. They are not on your side and will only use what they get against you.

    They are the enemy, do not engage.

    • I respectfully disagree. We need people to talk to the media. They must be people who can be strong and resolute defenders of the 2nd Amendment, and who possess the skills to communicate clearly and coherently.

      If CNN viewers never hear our side of the issue explained to them, how can we ever hope to convert them to our position? If readers of the New York Times never read an Opinion article in support of the natural, civil, and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, where else might they hear our voice? It’s not like they’ll accidentally stumble upon TTAG website while reading Gawker and Salon.

      If what Mr. Malarkey is saying is accurate, I applaud him for attempting to advocate for our cause. The fault lies with the lack of journalistic integrity on the part of the CNN reporters for deliberately twisting his words to misrepresent his true opinion.

      • “If CNN viewers never hear our side of the issue explained to them, how can we ever hope to convert them to our position?”

        What makes you think the CCN viewers (all two of them) will hear our side of the issue, regardless how our side behaves in the interviews.

        Shoot. That’s the ENTIRE point of this story. CNN lied. They misrepresented what was said, how it was said, the context of when it was said.

        This is not the first time. There’s a pattern of such crap.

        CNN has zero interest in any truth at all, much less telling a truthful story about guns. CNN has an agenda. Period. Full Stop. No ifs, ands, ors or butts.

        • The problem with only one person or group doing all the talking and preaching is that, without evidence to the contrary, people tend to believe what they are told. This means that remaining silent is not a viable course of action. But neither is talking to known media groups, as their agenda is quite clear. So, what do you do when someone reports your words deliberately out of context for their own gain? You report it yourself. A Pro-2A media group that isn’t immediately driven across the political divide deep into red territory would be a breath of fresh air.

      • I appreciate the premise you are making, however we must deal with reality.

        The assault media will always and only work to their advantage, and they have money, experience and direction. All they are doing is looking for content to use in furthering the cause of anti 2a, and will play dirty to get what they want. Anything we give them will be used to the anti 2a cause, or it will not be used. That’s how they roll.

        Speaking generally, we will lose when engaging with these people – it seems prudent to decline to provide them with any content, any opportunity to use our own words against us.

        This is a problem as there is a need to get good information out to the public, I agree. But this will never go out on the assault media channels. CNN viewers will never see a reasoned and unbiased item – they have lots of tools in place to see to this, you can try and fight them, you will lose.

        Sure, if you find unbiased channels to use, this makes more sense (local news, talk shows and the like), but even then the odds are against you.

        Money and power has control of the media, and they know how to beat you at the game. Engaging with them is a losing proposition.

        Don’t talk to them at all, ever, that’s my advice and at least what I will choose to do myself.

        • No one needs 2 N’s in their acronym. It’s just common sense; only networks that don’t have high N-capacity names should be allowed to exist. For the children.

      • When the news comes to you, it’s probably not in your best interests to talk to them. That doesn’t mean you stop seeking positive publicity. It’s the difference between a witch hunt and a press conference.

    • I disagree. Malarkey very much is on their side, he merely had the stones to think he wouldn’t be caught.

      He’s exposed his views more than once, and in more than one platform. Not buying the walkback at all.

        • I recall reading another foot-in-mouth from him, but I can’t remember which platform. I don’t have a link and his name doesn’t make for easy googling.

          So feel free to discount that post. I can’t support it at the moment.

      • This is absolutely absurd. We are arguing whether or not a manufacturer of extended capacity magazines supports legislation restricting the purchase of extended capacity magazines. This is like arguing over a vaccine manufacturer supporting mandatory vaccinations.

        The media lies, twists words, and makes things up every minute of every day, and yet some of you are falling over yourselves to take CNN of all freaking sources at face value in order to eat a gun company alive. How could so many people be this freaking gullible? If something is unearthed that shows a legitimate, uncut piece of footage or other first hand source demonstrating that the owners or proprietors of this company truly want their own product restricted, I will believe it. Until then I am applying Occam’s Razor and taking the most logical assumption, which is that CNN editors are lying scumbags.

        Shame on so many of you for falling for this.

        • You’re completely missing the point. The gun community isn’t the audience CNN is after, it’s the uninformed and/or fence sitters that can be influence by their anti-gun narrative. Malarkey’s mistake was buying into the premise of “high capacity” to begin with. It’s a false premise.

        • The way I’ve read the original statement, it was along the lines of “if you really think those magazines are that bad, let’s have a licensing scheme instead of banning them outright”.

          That position makes sense, especially if you believe that a ban is likely (e.g. in a particular state).

        • His mistake is buying into the premise. When did you stop beating your wife? Would you rather be hung by the neck or shot to death? It’s a false premise. “There is no such thing as a “high capacity” magazine. Some have more capacity than others depending on the design of the firearm.” That’s the answer that invalidates the premise.

        • @Kevin

          Theres no evidence he DID fall for the high capacity argument. Here’s most likely what happened:

          Reporter: What are the biggest hurdles to your business?

          Malarkey: Well certain states consider our products to be high capacity magazines and ban or restrict them, so…

          Reporter: For the non firearm audience, what is a high capacity magazine?

          Malarkey: The legal definition of a high capacity magazine is any magazine that holds more than ten rounds, although most rifles are designed with a standard capacity of 30 and most handguns are designed to hold 15 to 20 rounds.

          Days later an editor says ‘hey take that middle part of his quote and put it into the video’. Boom, instant bad quote.

          Until and unless I see someone from their company come out and state ‘We are on board with the California legal definition of a high cap mag.’ or some equivalent then I am presuming their innocence, especially given the source.

        • Vhyrus, you can “suppose” or “imagine” whatever line of questioning you like. It doesn’t matter. He bought the premise hook line and sinker and fed them what they were looking for. That’s on him, not CNN. I’ve worked with the press for years. What he did was a rookie mistake. He needs to just admit it.

      • Not really, yes this is technically one form of media, but in terms of volume compared to CNN is like comparing a drop of water to the ocean.

        Well maybe not literally that ratio, but you get my point. 🙂

    • You can engage the media, but you’ve got to have a media relations person ready to yell “fu*k, fu*k, fu*k” the minute your spokesperson get off the leash.

    • There is nothing wrong with talking to the press. Just get it on tape. It helps prevent out of context theater.

      • Bingo!! And when they lie or twist the truth call them hard on; lots easier now with the Internet.

  2. Why would anyone in their right mind speak to anybody from that rag News Agency CNN??? Anybody that talks with those types of people deserve what they get there one sided they have no respect for the gun owner and community or Manufacturing community And they should be banned from promoting their shows on TV cause of such full of bullshit!

  3. Mmm hmm.

    Mr. Malarkey got caught saying stupid stuff. It’s pretty rare the media makes things up out of whole cloth.

    Two comments from the Guns Save Life story on this. I wish I could say they were my own thoughts put in writing:

    JAS on February 29, 2016 at 7:25 pm (Edit)

    First, James Malarkey, and then Dewey Akers? Is this actually a story out of the Onion?
    What a crew!

    Hank on March 1, 2016 at 10:14 am

    Hey Dewey: Don’t piss on us and call it dew, okay?

    Mr. Dumbass Malarkey ran his pie hole and said some unbelievably stupid things. And now, because we don’t like spending our money on gun companies that advocate for gun control measures, we’re not buying anymore of your overpriced, jacked-up feces. Why don’t you merge with Troy Industries. You guys would be right at home. While you’re at it, you can hire Jody Weis to train, Lon Horiuchi to be your “half-minute of nursing mother” spokesperson and Mr. Zumbo to write your press releases.

    Jackasses, all of ‘em.

    • “It’s pretty rare the media makes things up out of whole cloth”
      Sadly, this is not the case. I have had newspapers literally quote me at an event I did not even attend, and one went so far as to correctly note that I did not speak at another event, but then quoted me as what I would have said if I had spoken. They both did print a retraction, behind a pay wall.
      There is zero integrity left in the mainstream media. I have, repeatedly, seem multiple news outlets make up events and quotes completely on their own, not based in any reality.

  4. Mr Malarkey: “see this yellow flower? It’s beautiful. I like yellow flowers”

    CNN article: “Mr Malarkey is quoted as stating his stern disapproval of red flowers, and supports Congress in their efforts to ban red flower marriage.”

    • Mr. Malarkey is on video saying, “A high capacity magazine is anything over 10 rounds.” He wasn’t misquoted. He was stupid enough to buy into a false premise, “high capacity magazines” in his zeal to sell his product.

      • Like it or not, that is the legal definition of the term “high-capacity magazine” in most states that have restrictions on them.

        And outside of the realm of the law, the term “high-capacity magazine” has as much meaning as “assault weapon” – i.e. none.

        • You’re making my point for me. You don’t concede a false premise. You don’t validate the legal definition of “high capacity” or “assault style weapon”. The answer to the question is “There are no so called “high capacity” magazines. Firearms allow for varying capacities depending on their design.” Likewise, “There are no so called “assault style” weapons. They are semi-automatic rifles that are in common use for hunting, competition, and recreational shooting.”

        • So what? That doesn’t mean the legal definition is correct. Both “high capacity magazine” and “assault weapon” very much have meaning outside of their legal context in terms of talking about them in general and shaping the public debate. The whole point is that what “the law” says is wrong.

          If a reporter asks a pro-gun person about “assault weapons,” the person is not supposed to just reason that since legally there are “assault weapons,” that therefore they should speak of “assault weapons” as an actual thing. No, what they should point out is how the term is a political construct and the stupidity of such laws. Same with so-called “high-capacity” magazines.

          IN FACT, that different states have different definitions of “high-capacity” magazine all the more shows what nonsense the term is. Some label it anything over 15 rounds, some anything over 10, New York tried labeling it anything over 7, then tried limiting people to having 10 round magazines only loaded at home with 7 rounds, etc…

  5. Even the glorified news media is not exempt from being sued over misrepresentation of a conversation. Facts are not subject to reconstruction.

    • Tell that to the judge in the George Zimmerman case who said NBC wasn’t liable for cutting and pasting sections of conversation with ill intent because he’s a “public figure”.

  6. Annnd there’s the walkback, we talked about in the original post.

    I’m sure he was taken out of context, and his words turned around. That’s to be expected, what is he,12? Never seen the press before? That said….

    He said he supported licensing. AGAIN. There’s no ifs, ands or buts. He said that there’s some reality he’s comfortable with where licensing is involved.

    Nice backpedal. Same fail.

  7. Here is an update on my end,
    Since I was told to make him aware of any further questions, I promptly asked if there was any way we could get the full interview for context. I was up front and told him that I did not see any circumstances under which it was appropriate to answer any question in that way. To me the only reason for that comment to appear to come out of the mouth of a true second amendment advocate was if CNN spliced sentences together (which now seems to be his defense) After asking that question, not only was that question deleted but so was my initial request for comment as well as the response that is quoted in the story above. Until I see that entire tape and get some cander, I will not be purchasing anything from X-Products. At best, they are trying to hide a story that shows they made the mistake of trusting CNN and that Mr. Malarkey is not very well spoken. At worst, Mr . Malarkey was accurately represented by the CNN piece and is a statist anti-gunner who only wants our money and thinks we all belong on a watchlist. The more they dodge this story the more I am inclined to believe the latter.

    • The more they dodge this story the more I am inclined to believe the latter.”

      I believed the latter the first time this came up. The current attempts to recast and sweep under the rug are (amateur) damage control. He’s been caught and now he will try to hope to contain the problem, until something bigger and newer comes along. Obviously, it doesn’t work that way for business, and he just threw more gas on the fire.

      I’d like extra butter on my popcorn please…

    • Agreed on seeing the unedited footage. It wouldn’t surprise me if this goes a little of both ways. I think a defamation suit and a subpena for the unedited footage are in order if what he’s saying is the truth.

      Beside that, recording yourself is a good bet. Not only that but DO NOT TALK TO CNN OR NYT. EVER. why give them content to make profit when they’re going to demonize you.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcPx8yb2zv0

      DO NOT FORGET THIS.

  8. One rule when talking with the media impressed upon me by my photojournalist uncle. Always get your own tape. Record every interview you do. Let them know you are recording. This gives you the ability to exert pressure if they quote out of context. In my experience it also forces them to behave and not quote out of context.

    Don

    • I think this is an excellent idea. I had a similar thought, but using as pressure at the start to keep things honest is a good idea. Though, if they should be underhanded, I know the media would never do that but, then release the full interview and show them as the slugs they are.

  9. I realize it’s the internet, but for the love of all that is good and holy:

    Their vs. they’re vs. there

    Learn it.

  10. Reporter: “Sir do you have a driver’s license?” Gun guy:”Why yes I do, why do you ask?”

    Article headline:”Gun guy advocates licensing!”

  11. Hey it’s CNN – Commie News Network. I believe about 10% of what’s shown on there. Just another USG mouthpiece. Sort of like all those “news” interviews where the subject says something (in response to a question that is not heard) and then they show the interviewer just looking thoughtful and nodding. I think the movie “Anchorman” is more true to life at the networks than anyone knows. Now time for some Jazz flute! I’m headed off to go vote in the dog and pony show we call the Electiksions. Anybody but Billery for Prez!!!

  12. Rule 1: NEVER talk to the press. The press works from a preconceived idea of the article they want to write, like, guns are bad, or kill people or whatever. They then go out and do interviews or research to make the story. It reminds me of the Dan Rather story RE George W Bush and the Air Force reserve. The letter was quite obviously written on a modern word processor not a type writer. Rather, couldn’t even see this as he was too sold on his story to change. He ran off the cliff like a liberal lemming and did in his career. It is always the same with the press. So NEVER talk to the press is ALWAYS the best solution as you will NEVER get your story across, only their interpretation of your story, which would include editing what you said to say something you did not say.

    Rule 2: NEVER vary from Rule 1.

  13. Having been on both sides of the mic, I find it credible that an editor edited Smith’s story, especially as Smith doesn’t recall speaking with Malarkey. I have also been misquoted to the point of my words not even resembling what I originally said.

    By all means, POTG, talk to the media, but ask to answer questions by email instead of off the cuff. That way, you have a record of how you answered, and you can think out your words. We can’t not talk to the media, people. Don’t get so easily discouraged.

    And I’ll say it again — even if Malarkey said something heretical, he is not the ultimate enemy. Let’s stop pissing on our allies, or at least piss on them less and keep some in reserve. I’m worn out trying to convince lovers of liberty to go out and vote even if none of the choices meet their standards of philosophical purity.

    • As much as I didn’t like Malarkey’s quote, I was equally annoyed by one of his reps in that CNN video who said that a mag which holds anything over 10 rounds is high capacity. I expect gun grabbing Democrats from NJ to say something that stupid. I didn’t think a magazine manufacturer would agree with that.

      • Simple question: if someone asked you “what is the legal definition of a high capacity magazine in California?” Would you not answer the same way as Mr Malarkey? If someone then played your answer back with no context, would it look exactly the same way that it did to us in the video?

        • It was actually Malarkey who said that in the video. They filmed it at a shooting range. X products is based in OR, but I’m not sure if that’s where the video was shot. He could have said something like a ‘standard’ capacity magazine is 30 rounds, but he didn’t. And sure, we could even argue about that. But the tone of the entire CNN article proclaims that anything over 10 rounds is high cap (meaning it’s bad and should be banned). And one of the first things in that video is Malarkey reinforcing this leftist nonsense. I don’t know if they duped him. But he could have avoided saying that anything over 10 rounds is high cap. But I see your point.

  14. ” , , ,The only thing I said was I would consider a step licensing law where we had access to everything…”

    Stupid, stupid, stupid, Malarkey. Basically you’re talking about being only a little bit pregnant. Although you obviously weren’t, CNN was smart enough to pick up on what you’d said and rather adroitly shoved you’re own words down your throat. You screwed the pooch, dude. You’re right up there with the too-clever-by-half guy in New Jersey who thought it would be cool to try to market a “smart gun” in the middle of a gun-control movement. You may make a good magazine but you’re political sense absolutely sucks. No doubt about it, you damaged the cause.

  15. This is the first I’ve heard of this as I haven’t followed closely. But I doubt they would want licensing for high capacity magazines. To purposely hurt their bottom line is not something a business would want, and licensing would do that. It sounds like what he was saying would he would prefer licensing over a complete ban on high cap mags. That doesn’t mean he prefers licensing.

    And who would pay hundreds of dollars for a magazine to hold an extra 20 rounds? Really? You can get a 40 round Magpul for about $20.

    This is a lesson of you have to be very careful what you say, so that it can’t be taken out of context.

    • It sounds like what he was saying … he would prefer licensing over a complete ban on high cap mags. That doesn’t mean he prefers licensing.

      Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!! That is the answer that, by far and away, makes the most sense.

      • You’re missing the point. You, like Malarkey, are buying into the false premise of “high capacity” magazines. When did you stop beating your wife? Which would prefer, death by hanging or firing squad? Don’t validate a false premise.

        • There’s nothing wrong with the words “high capacity”. If a 30 round mag is the standard capacity for an AR-15 platform (which by most accounts is the standard magazine supplied with most guns), then a 100 round capacity mag is high, 3.33 times higher, than a standard capacity. It’s not wrong to use, its simply a descriptor of the ammo holding capacity of a magazine.

        • You’re wrong. The original M16 was supplied with 20 round capacity magazines. Now, do you understand the fallacy of “high capacity”? It’s an arbitrary number.

    • Don’t know what Malarkey did or didn’t say, But, it would NOT be the first time a manufacturer figured a (controlled market) was better than No market. see Smith and Wesson and (Bill) Ruger and white house / congress deals back in the 1980’s

  16. On the recent TTaG post “Random Thoughts About Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Gun Control”, commenter Eye-roller complained that, “He’s [Trump] already vowed to change the laws so it’s easier to sue ‘journalists’ for slander.”

    Maybe this post highlights exactly the sort of thing for which Trump wants journalists to be accountable. I know I want “journalists” to be accountable for garbage like this.

    • If the guy was misrepresented, he can sue for slander under existing laws.

      If he actually said it but “didn’t mean it”, it’s not the journalist’s problem, nor should it be.

  17. Maybe it’s out of context or maybe he’s being like that one gun shop who wanted to sell the “smart” gun and he’s just lying to keep from going out of business due to the backlash. Without having prior knowledge of them, I can’t say which.

  18. I dropped a line to Malarkey at the X Products website and received no response. I left a civil post on X Products Facebook page and…….. was banned after receiving the boilerplate, “I was a victim” claim noted in this article. He said what he said. A full mea culpa would serve better than his current tactics.

    Malarkey needs to get out in front of this and stop playing the victim. Either he is inexperienced in dealing with the press and in his zeal to promote his product willingly walked into supporting the CNN narrative or he’s willing to surrender your civil rights in fear of losing business to legislation. It could be either case, or both.

  19. So Malarky may (or may not) have advocated for licensing of “hi cap” magazines. Here’s what a firearms icon said about that:

    “The best way to address the firepower concern is . . . to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining ‘assault rifle’ and ‘semi-automatic rifles’ is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item.”

    — Bill Ruger

    Yeah, our hero Bill Ruger advocated for a ban (not licensing) on so-called hi caps

    Because nobody needs more than 15 rounds. Yeah, Ruger said that too.

    • Bill Ruger was a notorious Fudd. Look at how well his company is doing now that he isn’t holding them back from making MSRs and self defense handguns.

    • Ruger’s reputation and his company’s sales suffered because of his suck-up policy. He was a Fudd incarnate.

  20. CNN took his words out of context to further the “90% of gun owners want more gun control” meme.

    Not surprised.

  21. One has to wonder about the veracity of his statement. If what he says is true, I would think some sort of legal action would be near pending, because X Products business WILL suffer.

    No one is going to believe the guy until the journo publishes a retraction, and based on what he said any retraction is a statement that the interview was cut and spliced to manipulate and misrepresent.

  22. I’m reminded of the lyrics to “Get me gone” by Fort Minor

    “After that I made it a rule
    I only do e-mail responses to print interviews
    Because these people love to put a twist to your words
    To infer that you said something fucking absurd”

  23. CNN probably supplied Malarky the same earpiece that Trump was given. Obviously they both did not hear the questions correctly:)

  24. I call BS, from the comments he has made here and elsewhere he very clearly said that in some certain circumstances and with certain conditions he would be ok with some sort of licensing system… You don’t get to say shit like that and then get mad when they infer something else. He world license should have never crossed your mouth, it did and gun owners are mad because it is yet another example where a gun company makes a stupid decision and then get embarrassed and tries to backpedal when it backfires on them.

    The media don’t want to be your friends, stop trying to be theirs. You walked into a very poorly hidden ambush and are now mad because you said something stupid and got caught. Accepting license (regardless of how careful you set up the conditions) = infringement regardless of context. Assuming this wasn’t some Freudian slip, and that you aren’t just mad that we (gun owners) found out, you still should have known better. That lack of judgment is good enough reason to buy my overpriced AR accessories from someone else. Cheers!

  25. Been hinted at above, but I’ll go ahead and say it right out: I would be a lot more inclined to believe the “they took it out of context” defense if some effort were made to supply the missing, exculpatory “context”. I’m not seeing any such effort from X-Products here.

  26. I will give them the benifit of the doubt. I would not put it past the media to do something like this… That said I would be looking into filing a defamation law suit against the media for something like this. Can you say trade libel? 🙂

  27. I’m still not seeing where Mr. Malarkey(is that REALLY your name?) didn’t say what he said. AND-NBC-avoid anything owned by NBC. Simple…

  28. My problem is I can’t believe anything CNN says. Remember their faked story about semiautomatic “assault weapons” that featured full auto machine guns?

Leave a Reply

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