Home » Blogs » Mayors Against Illegal Guns Threaten Gun Buy Boycott Over Gun Control

Mayors Against Illegal Guns Threaten Gun Buy Boycott Over Gun Control

Robert Farago - comments No comments

"Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, center, speaks Jan. 10, 2013 during a Regional Gun Summit at The Depot Renaissance Minneapolis Hotel. Rybak on Wednesday said he wants to know if the companies that manufacture the guns and ammunition for the city's police officers also are lobbying against tighter gun laws." (MPR Photo/Jennifer Simonson)

“If we find out they’re not partners, and if we find out they’re working against us, then we all ought to have a conversation as taxpayers about whether our dollars should be used for people who are not working to reduce gun violence.” That’s the threat issued by Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak (above) against gun and ammo makers who don’t tow the line laid down by The Mayors Against Illegal Guns. minnesota.publicradio.org reports that “Rybak told members of the City Council’s Public Safety and Civil Rights Committee that he and mayors from approximately 60 cities are taking a closer look at the companies that manufacture the guns and ammunition that cities buy for police officers . . .

He said over the past eight years the city has spent nearly $800,000 on guns and ammunition. Rybak, who supports stricter gun control laws, wants to work with firearms manufacturers to reduce gun-related crime and violence. He wants to know if those companies also are lobbying against tighter gun laws . . .

Rybak did not propose specific changes to city laws or purchasing rules, but said any changes would have to be examined by the city attorney. There are city ordinances and state laws which regulate procurement of goods and services, according to City Attorney Susan Segal.

“The city can always set reasonable specifications for purchases that it’s making,” Segal said. “The question is what is included in those specifications.”

So this is how they do it, eh? Manipulate the levers of power to undermine the Constitution that they’re sworn to protect? Thugs. And it looks like the Gun-Grabber-in-Chief may be on board, as well.

Rybak said he mentioned this approach to President Barack Obama during a recent visit to Washington, DC. He said Obama and his staff were delighted by the idea.

Obama plans to speak in Minneapolis on Monday to promote his plan to reduce gun violence.

He wouldn’t dare, would he? Meanwhile, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) says Ryback’s threat looks awfully familiar . . .

This is a re-hash of the Clinton Administration threat, spearheaded by then-HUD Secretary and now governor of New York Andrew Cuomo, to do the same with federal agencies. Despite a successful court action by NSSF to counter the threat at the time, the idea was kicked up again in 2010 by disgraced former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who suggested that gun makers must cease and desist the sale of ALL semi-automatic firearms to escape this punishment.

The battle to defend and extend Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms continues.

Photo of author

Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the former publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

0 thoughts on “Mayors Against Illegal Guns Threaten Gun Buy Boycott Over Gun Control”

  1. Good, let them do it, more ammo for the rest of us. Then we boycott the companies that play along and see which ones go under first. I think the People of the Gun will keep arms manufactures in business better than government. Then we can watch these traitors fall into their own trap as their supply of arms and ammo dries up.

    Reply
  2. 800 grand over 8 years? Even a small gun shop has sold that much or more inventory in the past year.
    I hate to tell this doofus but he is chump change compared to the private sector.

    Reply
    • Not to mention that joe schmo pay’s full price while LEO contracts are typically heavily discounted. So, $800,000 in a LEO contract is probably $1.2 mil in civilian sales.

      Reply
  3. If firearms companies acted morally, they wouldn’t sell any guns to a government agency that a citizen living under that government could not buy, but capitalism is amoral.

    Reply
  4. Ok, you own gun company A. You might lose the 800,000 over eight year that the city gives you for goods and services. But how many millions of dollars from pissed off gun owners are you going to lose for knuckling under to the grabber mayors?

    All gun and ammo companies, look what’s happening to CTD for just price gouging and caving on EBR’s. Do you want that in your future?

    Let the cities that support this anti business arm twisting make their own guns and ammo. See how long they last without resupply.

    Reply
    • Let’s hope that manufacturers remember the Clinton era example of then British held S&W. I think there would be more swift and pronounced reaction today considering the changes in the internet over the years.

      Reply
  5. Rybak can eat it. We already refuse to sell to New York, including LEO purchases. We can add Minneapolis to the list quite easily.

    Reply
  6. If I were a gun or ammo manufacturer, I would simply refuse to sell to the MAIG city’s. Of course, I would also revoke the distributor rights of any distributor caught selling to those cities as well. Finally, any other city caught as a middle man for a MAIG city would be black listed as well.

    Reply
  7. Problem is he can’t prove anything he is doing reduces gun violence, so its a setup-to-fail scenario.

    I say the ammo companies should play hardball, as the market demand is on their side.

    Reply
  8. So this genius is advocating for business to work against their self interest and is advocating for potentially violating procurement laws. This guy is asking for trouble. Thanks for showing you are the scum you are.

    Reply
  9. I guess no one told them that police sales are a trivial part of most gun companies revenue. Not to mention police departments with their limited budgets try to nickle and dime manufacturers thereby reducing the profit margin. Gun companies make FAR more money selling their wares to individuals.

    I suspect most, if not all, gun companies will tell these 60 moronic mayors to go pound sand.

    Reply
  10. I think it would be poetic justice if the gun and ammo makers could come together and agree not to sell guns or ammo to those police departments that make public anti-gun statements. It would hopefully force them to shut their traps about politics and be the public servants they are supposed to be.

    Reply
  11. Gawdammut. I’ve been waiting for my purchase permit so I can pick up my FAL… and now they wanna make it illegal.

    It does bug me, considering how many people I know that have MSRs. Hell, my LGS has fifteen various AKs, and SKSs are a pretty common hunting rifle… then again, Fudds are also very common and I’ve gotten the “nobody needs blah-blah-blah and I only use bolt actions and blackpowder so you should too” lecture more times than I care to count.

    More phone calls and emails I suppose.

    Reply
  12. Did I get this right? They want to work with GUN MANUFACTURERS to REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE?

    I’m just an ordinary guy, but it seems to me they’re trying to work with the wrong people!

    How about doing something with CRIMINALS to reduce gun violence? You know, the ones who are COMMITTING IT?

    Reply
  13. Hey ABA- Let me say this in simple terms that your ilk are used to hearing:

    F*CK YOU, AND THE DISEASE RIDDEN WH*RE WHO BORE YOU.

    Reply
  14. I’m curious if the ABA had a vote of their 400,000 members to decide whether or not to send this letter. Any members of the ABA want to weigh in? Were you consulted?

    Reply
  15. HF-241 link was dead for me, but if I read that right they are talking confiscation. I’m not from Mn, but I would regard that as intolerable (as in “Intolerable Acts”).

    Reply
  16. My favorite part: “The availability of assault weapons and high-capacity clips should be limited to the U.S. military, the National Guard and law enforcement.” Yes! Why should millions of civilians be allowed to have weapons suitable for the militia? Events like Katrina, the L.A. Riots and high police response time are no excuse to allow law abiding citizens to successfully defend themselves or their property. DHS may have said the AR-15 is suitable for personal defense, but they are mistaken. It is a weapon of mass murder, suitable for hip shooting, not a precision rifle used for well aimed fire like my Drill Sergeant told me. (/Sarc off)

    Reply
  17. In the immortal words of Mark Twain, “first thing we should do is shoot all the lawyers.” Of course I’m not advocating violence, just that Mark Twain is funnier than me saying the lawyers can bite me.

    Reply
  18. According to the ABA Model Code of Ethics, “An attorney shall not act in a manner which reflects badly on the profession.” I think Laura just blew it.

    Reply
  19. The illegal gun running part does not apply to the Justice Department. For the ABA to take part in a political campaign agenda smacks of conflict of interest. That is just me. (This gotcha thing can be a little iffy).

    Reply
  20. “People killed per year by second-hand smoke: About 3000”. Uh, … does “about 3000” mean a number between zero and ten?

    I have a little bit of experience in medical research (37 years), and I’m calling bullshit! This is not the sort of morbidity/mortality that is amenable to diagnostic or statistical analysis. Hell, you can’t even prove statistically that smoking causes death! I’d ask what quack came up with this crap, but I’m sure it’s the quacks at CDC.

    Charlie

    Reply
  21. Let them buy their ammo and firearms from China. More US made for the rest of us. Or, simply disarm the police/security forces of the government, Fed, State, and Local. Gun Free Zones start with them, all you got to have is faith. Set an example dip-wad. Whose army do you have to have all that military weaponry to defend yourselves against?

    Reply
  22. I believe you could easily add motorcycles to that list. There is no *need* to own a motorcycle. The feeling of freedom, connection with the road, and wind in your face are entirely unnecessary. Good Lord, you could have men and women driving down canyon roads for the sheer enjoyment of it! I own two.

    Reply
  23. With the ABA coming out and stating an opinion like this, could one argue that ANY lawyer that is member already has a set belief against gun owners?

    I MEAN WHAT THE F*CK IS GOING ON HERE?!

    Reply
  24. FYI, the newly created (thanks in part to promotion by this blog) Second Amendment Bar Association (SABA) is diligently working on drafting its own position statement/petition. It goes without saying that SABA’s position is in start opposition to the ABA’s.

    Attorneys, paralegals and law students are encouraged to join by joining our forum. The group’s web site is now up and running at http://secondamendmentbarassociation.org/

    More to come!

    Reply
  25. Crud, I had a post, and I think it got eaten by the web….

    I’m not sure about drawing a close parallel to cars is appropriate here. Back when the Founding Fathers ran things, I’m pretty sure the roads more or less “just existed”. I’m sure there was some toll roads, but the roads were just public property. Run what you had on it. Today, not so much. Yes, you can still walk, but if you want to drive you have to have a license, pay taxes on the vehicle, pass inspections (most states), pay tax on the fuel, and on some roads pay a toll. There may be places where you can’t drive (sidewalks, one way streets, bike lanes).

    Now, you can own a car without a license, but you really can’t use one without a license. Yes, the bar is set low for the license, but it’s still basically required. Not only that, but new manufacture cars have a host of standards they must meet (safety, emissions) so you could say they have certain things banned, by law. And try tampering with the emissions systems (what is it, a $10k federal fine?).

    I’m not sure if we want to draw parallels here, as it seems to me that cars already have “common sense” control that isn’t too far from what is pitched for “common sense” gun control. Not 100% the same, but not that different.

    Reply
    • Humorous today, Madison’s last veto as president was to strike down a ‘internal improvements bill’ to provide federal money for roads and canals.

      He deemed it was unconstitutional.

      Those were the days.

      Reply
  26. The best misnomer regarding standard-cap mags I’ve heard is “jumbo-sized mega clips.”

    “The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up,” however, takes the cake.

    Reply
  27. I don’t see the general public’s ignorance—and the resulting support for civilian disarmament—as a conspiracy by left-leaning academics to undermine our way of life one pig-ignorant student at a time.

    Let’s do a little gedankenexperiment on this subject, shall we?

    If this really was a conspiracy by left-leaning academics to undermine our way of life one pig-ignorant student at a time, what would they do differently?

    Put aside your natural affinity for left-leaning academics for a minute. You know, the same ones who applauded 9/11, the same ones who declared that Western Studies was racist, the same ones who sided with every enemy this nation ever had, the same ones who invented deconstructionist theory… I can go on for pages here. Do you have it yet?

    Reply
  28. “And Shepherds we shall be

    For thee, my Lord, for thee.

    Power hath descended forth from Thy hand

    Our feet may swiftly carry out Thy commands.

    So we shall flow a river forth to Thee

    And teeming with souls shall it ever be.

    In Nomeni Patri Et Fili Spiritus Sancti.”

    Reply
  29. I live in NJ and purchased two long guns from my cousin in PA. I called the NJ State Police firearms division ahead of the transaction and was told the transaction did not have to go through an FFL. All we had to do was fill out an NJ “Certificate of Eligibility” (a form that formalizes the questions that must be answered during a long gun transaction). We each keep a copy and that’s it.

    The only time an FFL would be needed if the NJ resident was selling the guns to someone out of state.

    The situation seemed bizzare – a strict gun-law state allowed the “import” of a long gun via private sale without any required background check. The detective on the phone agreed that it was weird, but that’s the way the laws are written.

    The more I learn about gun laws, the more I realize our lawmakers have no idea what they are doing.

    Reply
  30. Further proof that many who study the law do so to find a way around it, and many who study the Constitution do so to learn its vulnerabilities. Obama and the ABA are both prime examples.

    Reply
  31. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I am ignorant. In fact, if you read the opinions of Supreme Court Justices, you will find most of them agree with my position, rather than yours.

    So next time you start writing that everyone who doesn’t agree with you doesn’t “understand and value the American political system”, feel free to consider that most people who have studied Constitutional law, gotten their degrees in it, worked their entire lives in it, and risen to the highest rank in the American judicial world, think you are a buffoon.

    Reply
  32. Colmes lost all credibility years ago. I have no idea why anyone keeps him on the air. He’s on the left side of every argument without elucidating any one stand he has taken with a legitimate historical anecdote or fact. He is a left leaning, whining, fear-ridden windbag who can’t even tell you what his Utopia looks like. Another “feeling” dictator…

    Reply
  33. Obummer must have had his mom jeans cinched pretty tight to pull that off. Of course this picture is photoshopped, you can’t see the telepromter.

    Reply
  34. Prof that the Kaliforian Gestapo wants to ban guns but in the end wants power to beat up there citizens and have power over all.

    Time to ban Kaliforians cops most of which are liberal jerks.

    Reply
  35. Makes my struggle in MN look rather tame, I must admit. So, we’ll work twice as hard. If memory serves, Kali started with simple registration of “assault weapons” several years ago…

    Reply

Leave a Comment