Previous Post
Next Post has an up-to-date list of the 70 firearms industry companies who’ve pledged not to sell products to law enforcement officers in New York state. [Make the jump for the complete run-down.] The boycott is a reaction to the Empire State’s SAFE Act—a woefully unconstitutional package of civilian disarmament measures, including limiting ammunition magazines to seven rounds and banning the sale or transfer (except out of state) of all modern sporting rifles. Two big question: when will the big boys (Smith & Wesson, Glock and SIG) announce their intentions? And if they don’t join the movement, will consumers boycott the non-boycotters? I bet yes. Watch this space . . .

New York Boycott Participants:

  1. LaRue Tactical  2-8-13
  2. Olympic Arms 2-12-13
  3. Extreme Firepower Inc, LLC (Per EFI, policy is several years old)
  4. Templar Custom 2-13-13
  5. York Arms 2-13-13
  6. Cheaper Than Dirt 2-15-13
  7. Bullwater Enterprises 2-16-13
  8. West Fork Armory 2-16-13
  9. Smith Enterprise 2-17-13
  10. Alex Arms 2-17-13
  11. Spike’s Tactical 2-18-13
  12. Quality Arms Idaho 2-19-13
  13. Liberty Suppressors 2-19-13
  14. Doublestar Corp 2-19-13 (Includes J&T Distributing & Ace LTD)
  15. American Spirit Arms 2-19-13 (complete with a video!)
  16. Trident Armory 2-17-13 (reported to me 2-20-13)
  17. Head Down Products 2-20-13
  18. J&G Sales 2-20-13
  19. Barrett Firearms 2-20-13
  20. Exile Machine 2-20-13
  21. Tier One Arms 2-15-13 (reported to me 2-20-13)
  22. Bravo Company USA 2-20-13
  23. Primary Weapons Systems 2-21-13 (read my blog post on PWS)
  24. Crusader Weaponry 2-20-13
  25. Top Gun Supply 2-21-13
  26. Kiss Tactical 2-21-13
  27. Clark Fork Tactical 2-21-13
  28. OFA Tactical 2-17-13 (reported to me 2-21-13)
  29. One Source Tactical 2-21-13 (Scroll down to shipping restrictions)
  30. Templar Tactical Arms 2-12-13 (reported 2-21-13)
  31. NEMO Arms 2-21-13 (check out their photo!)
  32. Old Grouch’s Military Surplus 1-15-13 (NOT a typo!)
  33. Big Horn Armory 2-22-13
  34. Midway USA 2-22-13
  35. CMMG Inc 2-22-13
  36. Rocky Top Tactical 2-22-13
  37. Badger Peak 2-22-13
  38. Controlled Chaos Arms 2-22-13
  39. SRT Arms 2-22-13
  40. Norton Firearms 2-22-13
  41. Umlaut Industries 2-22-13
  42. Predator Intelligence 2-2-13 (Read comments)
  43. Citizen Arms 2-23-13 (At the bottom of the page)
  44. Evolution Weaponry 2-17-13
  45. Chaos Arms 2-23-13
  46. Warbirds Custom Guns 2-23-13 (Scroll to the bottom)
  47. JBTAC 2-23-13
  48. Stoner Arms 2-22-13
  49. Ammoclip (Date of policy unknown)
  50. 3 Rivers Precision 2-22-13
  51. 2A Firearms 2-22-13
  52. Lanco Tactical 2-22-13
  53. Predator Tactical 2-23-13
  54. Arrowhead Shooting Sports 2-23-13
  55. Boise Tactical 2-23-13
  56. Huntertown Arms 2-23-13
  57. Lauer Custom Weaponry 2-22-13 (PDF) (Makers of DuraCoat)
  58. 556 Tactical 2-23-13
  59. Iron Goat Guns 2-16-13
  60. Dead Bang Guns (Date of policy unknown)
  61. Southern Appalachian Arms 2-15-13
  62. Thunder Beast Arms (2-22-13)
  63. Delmarva Shooting Supply 2-23-13
  64. OJ’s Gun Shop 2-23-13
  65. OCS Guns 2-23-13
  66. Progressive Micro Devices (Special case, non gun manufacturer. Read my post)
  67. Semper Fi Arms 2-22-13
  68. Climags (date of policy unknown. Scroll down to “Why was my order cancelled?”)
  69. Southwest Shooting Authority 2-8-13
  70. Csspecs Magazines 2-24-13
  71. LWRCI 2-15-13

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Logically speaking, how many of these companies actually sell to LEOs? I mean, i’ve effectively boycotted Cuba my whole life. AND illegal methamphetamine manufacturers. I’m proud of myself.

    Just sayin; I think it’s an awesome political statement. But will the companies that actually sell to LEOs finally cave? I guess the consumer will decide. ah, capitalism.

    • CMMG, Barrett, LaRue, Olympic, Spikes, ASA, and Bravo Company have all had Law Enforcement contracts. Barrett has an active contract with the federal government for M107A1 rifles as well … A contract they earned after they boycotted California and Hawai’i.

      Most of these are small shops though, and they all make the bulk of their sales to civilian consumers …

      I get what you’re saying. The ones that have committed to banning sales to LE and government are ones that do the bulk of their sales to civilians. Naturally. I doubt very much that Glock, or Colt, or Remington, etc. would do so.

    • It might be more than you think. Many smaller departments
      don’t contract out for their firearms but tell their officers
      to get a sidearm and rifle or shotgun, then reimburse them.
      In departments that do this, it’s not uncommon to see
      sigs, glocks, kimbers, SA, Wilsons in one room. Although
      most tend to get something similar. There’s an even wider
      range in ARs and shotguns.

  2. Publicly traded companies may not have the option to do this without approval by their shareholders. So, don’t assume they’re bad guys if they can’t jump on the bandwagon.

    • Not to mention they already have contracts including parts and spares contracts and if one pulls out and the other’s don’t, then they will have an issue the next time it comes to bidding for contracts.

      I agree with Thomas Paine above, nice political statement, but it has no meat.

      Consumer’s will not boycott either, not going to happen.

      The only fly in the ointment that could come about is Taurus. They are big and have no skin in the LEO game. If they plan to be purely consumer, they could say something and take some business away from the other guys provided they also have products in the pipeline that are equal to the other products (which I believe they do not at this time)

    • A quick vote of their board members would fix that, though. I don’t think a majority of the shareholders would mind considering all the crazy anti-gunners have pulled all of their money from any firearms manufacturers now. Even if it meant a drop in revenue and a drop in stock prices in the immediate aftermath of the announcement, don’t you think that all of us who would appreciate the sentiment would then reward the companies with future sales? I would for sure.

    • Not true. They have to fulfill existing contracts, but the elected board can commit to such an exercise without direct shareholder approval; just as our elected officials can force ridiculous laws on us. Their authority to make these decisions is already granted by the electors.

      • I’m not sure Leo, that if someone is doing something illegal that you must honor your contract with them. ny took an ugly stick to laws it would seem & they shouldn’t expect help or support from anyone except grabber in chief, Randy

    • The corporate officers can threaten to resign, if they are really invested in private gun ownership.

  3. I have a hard time imagining a situation where Ruger or S&W would boycott any sales that they are legally allowed to conduct. They are publicly traded companies. If they turned away any business whatsoever, stockholders could potentially have grounds to sue them for not working in their best interests. Their responsibility is to make the stock holders money.

    I suppose you could try to make an argument that the long term market is at risk of going away if a stand is not made, however it raises the question if lobbying efforts can still make an impact if they continue to make money from all possible sales opportunities.

    • How well did Smith & Wesson’s agreement with the Clinton administration of March 2000 serve their shareholders’ best interest? Yeah. Some people probably really took a financial bath there.

      In this case, heading the way the band is marching is probably a good idea. And it will definitely earn brand loyalty versus any other large company that doesn’t.

      • You’re right, but S&W and others may decide to go the way that Glock USA did before the 1994 ban, and say nothing about the new restrictions, yet prepare to profit from them as much as possible.

  4. “Two big question: when will the big boys (Smith & Wesson, Glock and SIG) announce their intentions? And if they don’t join the movement, will consumers boycott the non-boycotters?”

    They won’t. And no, they won’t, at least not in any measurable numbers or with measurable impact.

  5. I followed the Nemo Arms link to see the pic. Ended up on their site checking out all their rifles…. holy sheit… I’m all hot and bothered.

  6. publicly traded companies would probably have to amend their Code of Ethics bylaws with a shareholder vote. I don’t see any of that happening, as most shareholders of firearms companies are NOT firearms owners. Vanguard mutual funds owns the largest percentage of S+W, for example.

  7. Where are the ammunition manufacturers is this boycott? Stop selling ammo and magazines to the Feds and States that violate the 2A rights of it’s citizens.

  8. We’ve had protests at state capitols. We’ve flooded our elected officials with mail and phone calls and emails.

    Now, let’s remind the gun companies who they work for. Us. I propose that the first full week in April, we People of the Gun boycott all gun related products for the entire 7 days. Not one gun purchase, not one round of ammo, not one bottle of oil.

    And if that doesn’t wake the companies up we’ll do longer boycotts. It’s for their own good. If the grabbers get their way most of these companies will dry up and blow away with only the G as a customer base.

  9. Smith & Wesson was nearly driven out of business by consumer boycott when their British owners bowed down to the Clinton administration. If you don’t know who your friends are, you’ll certainly learn who your enemies are.

  10. So, just for an update, how many of these companies likewise boycott California? Seems to me CA. has been down this road already, for quite some time. I know Barrett excludes CA (but this was only prompted by it’s .50 cal ban, not the AW ban, purchase limitations, CC policy, “unsafe” pistol laws, or magazine limits).

    Is NJ next?

    Just curious. Just looking for some consistency and less posturing.

  11. While S&W is a public company and has a responsibility to build shareholder value, boycotting NY is not a shareholder-level decision. It’s an executive-level decision, and one that Smith is likely to make if it is faced with a consumer boycott like the one that almost sunk the company in 2000.

    British ownership spent $112 million to buy S&W, and sold it for $15 million cash and the assumption of $30 millon in debt. The backlash caused a sales drop of more than 40% and forced two plant closures. I doubt that the current shareholders would like the same to happen to them.

  12. What percentage of these companies profits are from LE sales? What percentage of profits are from consumer sales? The commercial market DWARFS the LE market for most of these products.

    I would be hard pressed to find a company like Ruger or S&W in which commercial sales profits did not dwarf LE sales profits. (I just read Rugers latest 10-K and they don’t break it down, but the largest sales were all to distributors, none of which were greater than 15% of their business).

    Isn’t it in the best interest of most of these companies who profit most from commercial sales to avoid angering their consumer base? This is as true for public companies as privately held ones.

    As I posted before, the overwhelming profits for Glock are via commercial sales, and they do not profit from LE sales other than as a “marketing” expense.

    So can we stop thinking of ourselves as the peons here instead of the giants?

  13. thank you for clearing up that nonsense about PWS.

    What happened was there were a group of readers (primarily from that only read the first page of PWS, which was devoid of PWS’ response, and automatically drew to the wrong conclusion (which was based off of FACEBOOK to begin with)

    anyways. utter idiocy.

  14. Here is where WE, as a purchasing block, may make a difference. Regardless of which non-boycotting companies there are, I will not buy a firearm/anything from them.

    I will be acquiring my next pistol/rifle from the vendors on the list. Sure, it might not mean much from one consumer…but from a significant demographic group?

  15. Anyone wishing to boycott S&W, Glock, Sig, etc…please let me know. I will give you my address and pay for shipping on any of thier evil products you wish to get out of your gun safes…:)

    Oh, and don’t forget your FN’s too…since they will be making evil black rifles for the very same oppressive government that doesn’t want you to have that very same rifle…

    I respect and will consider first companies that publicly support the 2A for my personal business. I even respect the ones that publicly announce their intention in the other direction, at least they have the guts to say it. The quiet giants…while I’m not going to throw away my products from them, they will be bottom of the list for my future business.

    Hopefully, capitalism and the free market will work to our advantage and persuade businesses to do the right thing and not support/sell to a government that won’t allow sales to it’s citizens.

  16. This is a great start and i hope it continues. But until S&W, Ruger, Colt, Remington show up on this list will anyone (media) take notice?

  17. I highly doubt Smith & Wesson will join this list anytime soon, though it would be great if I was wrong. I’m sure some of our younger and/or new gun aficionados may not remember the deal Smith made with the Clinton Administration. They betrayed their loyal customers and everyone else that supported the 2nd Ammendment. It has taken me a long time to even consider purchasing a Smith & Wesson product. That may sound harsh by some or perhaps an over-reaction. Sorry but I take my 2nd Ammendmnt rights very seriously.

  18. What about California? Guys… Seriously. Cut off LAPD, and watch the policies change… We have some of the most draconian laws because of DiFi’s insanity.

    A little help here…

  19. Im ganna go on a limb here and say something that has been bugging me. Im tired of people complaining that these boycotts dont matter because none of them have government or LEO contracts. WHO CARES!? If none of these companies backed us, you same people would still complain that no manufacturers/distributors are on our side. Maybe they arent big name companies to the government, we need all the support we can get so stop whining! Besides, financially most of these companies can probably make better contrabutions to Pro-2A causes than most of us.

  20. Should get the automotive companies and other business and services, not just firearms but to remind people that they can and will take everything they can from the people…Just like they did soda pop and other foods…If we let them they will take everything that they can to control the people on this planet….

  21. If you’ve bought a gun from one of the non-boycott manufacturers, contact them NOW. Politely but clearly, let them know that any future purchases you make from them will depend on how they respond to this clear threat to the Second Amendment.

  22. This is not the 1994 AWB — this is different, serious, and pursued by a presidential administration that has no hesitation whatever in trampling the constitution.

    Bill Clinton’s presidency was bad, yes, but nothing close to the scale of abuses BHO & gang casually do every day.

  23. Don’t assume your emails won’t make a difference, you never know. I wrote companies whose products I own (Rock River, Ruger, Springfield Armory) encouraging them to join the growing list of manufacturers and distributors who are members in the boycott.

  24. Why is LWRC on that list, I can’t find a single statement by Darren or anyone else for that matter supporting a boycott.

    LWRC does a crap ton of LEO sales, if they take this up that would be a big deal to me…

    • I just looked, and I can’t find anything either. TTAG’s list matches ncgunblog’s line for line up to that point.

  25. I grabbed Smith-Wesson’s 2012 annual report to look for a breakdown in income categories and could not find it. The annual report is here:

    I did however find an interesting note to the income statements which says the ALL of the sales increases for 2012 (20.4%) were in consumer sales:

    “2012 Highlights

    Our fiscal 2012 net sales of $412.0 million represented a increase of 20.4% from our fiscal 2011 net sales. Firearm sales accounted for 95.6% of our total net sales for fiscal 2012. Income from continuing operations for fiscal 2012 was $26.4 million, or $0.40 per fully diluted share, compared with income from continuing operations of $8.1 million, or $0.13 per fully diluted share, for fiscal 2011. Our operating results for fiscal 2012 were affected by numerous factors, including the following:

    • A 20.4% increase in net sales resulted from higher order intake and increased production capacity to meet the large consumer demand for our polymer handguns and modern sporting rifles. That increase also was driven by generally higher consumer demand for firearms in 2012. We have accumulated a backlog of $439.0 million at April 30, 2012. We continue to look for opportunities to address that backlog by further increasing our production capacity through additional capital spending and outsourcing. “

Comments are closed.