Moms Demand Action Infiltrate NJ Police Procurement Process

“New Jersey’s second-largest city is adopting a novel approach to gun control by requiring weapons-makers bidding on municipal contracts to answer questions about their positions on gun safety issues,” the AP reports. “Jersey City Mayor [and Marine] Steven Fulop says he wants municipalities to use their purchasing power to influence America’s gun-safety conversation. The bid specification going out Wednesday — for roughly $200,000 worth of guns and $150,000 in ammunition — includes six questions measuring vendors’ gun safety record. One asks whether the manufacturer would commit to preventing its weapons from appearing in violent video games. Another asks what the company does to combat illegal gun trafficking.” Here are all six questions, via the Mayor’s editorial at . . .

Jersey City will be asking all bidders the following six socially responsible questions:

– What do you do to combat illegal gun trafficking and illegal gun crime?
– Do you manufacturer and sell assault weapons for civilian use?
– Do you agree not to sell certain models of firearms for civilian use?
– Are you requiring your dealers to conduct background checks?
– Do you fund research related to gun violence and smart gun technology?
– Will you commit to prohibiting your brand name from being used in violent video games?

God knows how Jersey City’s gonna weight the answers. But we know to whose tune they’re dancing. The AP reveals that . . .

Mandi Perlmutter, who leads the New Jersey chapter of the national gun-safety group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, met with Fulop to develop the idea. She called it conversation-changing.

“This is an enormous step forward for New Jersey and an example for mayors across the country,” she said.

Kim Russell, a spokeswoman for the national Moms Demand Action group, founded in the days after the Newtown massacre, said no other city has gone at the problem the way Jersey City has. The closest other local governments have come, she said, is selling investments in companies that support gun manufacturing.

So Jersey City is ready, willing and able to sacrifice officer and public safety on the altar of political correctness. And Moms Demand Action call gun rights advocates bullies. Go figure.

Meanwhile, the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Lawrence Keane says manufacturers will refuse to answer the “gun safety” questions. More’s the pity, but I think he’s wrong. Especially if MDA forces other municipalities to follow suit.


  1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Wouldn’t it be funny if no one returned bids?

    Or at least if all the bids were returned with those questions unanswered.

    1. avatar Mike says:

      That is what needs to happen. No bids. Let MDA supply them with stern looks and good thoughts.

      1. avatar John L. says:

        And assault rolling pins.

        1. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

          High Capacity hair curlers.

      2. avatar Jon R. says:

        Nerf guns.

    2. avatar Ken says:

      That’s the correct response. Submit no bids. Nooo body.

    3. avatar Michael C says:

      It would be even funnier if the gun makers developed their own questionnaire to gauge law enforcement departments positions and policies regarded gun rights and crime prevention and started requiring police departments to fill them out and return them prior to contract negotiations.

      1. avatar chuck (hates nj) says:

        This +1

      2. avatar Andy says:

        +1, Need a “like” button

      3. avatar L1A1Rocker says:

        Excellent idea!

      4. avatar dwb says:

        this. +100000

      5. avatar Bruce L. says:

        They should include training requirements to allow the police to use the guns, like at least 50 rounds a week on the range.

      6. avatar anonymous says:

        Josie the Outlaw: Message To Police

        6:15 “The only moral and rational answer is this: If something will be wrong for you to do without a badge, then you shouldn’t do it with one, either. The idea that uniforms and legislation can give you special rights is both false and horribly dangerous. Nearly every large scale injustice in history was committed by people who wrongly imagined that their position of authority made it OK for them to do things that other people had no right to do.” 6:40

      7. avatar LongPurple says:

        Turnabout is fair play.

    4. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

      No response would certainly be best, although they’d probably be accused of collusion.

      Short of that, either no responses to the questions or “not your concern” as a response would be preferred.

      1. avatar B says:

        I like the counter-questionaire idea. Have all the manufacturers send them their own questions to see if they can in good conscience arm the NJ police. “Does the Jersey City police support the 2nd amendment as an individual right to keep and bear arms?” “Will the Jersey City police enforce unlawful legislation through use of force?” “What is the 4th amendment?” “You see dog. What do?”

      2. avatar TTACer says:

        No bids is not collusion. If they all set extrodinairly high bids then it might be, although they could all argue that they arrived at their pricing independently.

        1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

          Or, they point to the legal analysis and possible ramifications of the questionairre in future litigations as requiring higher cost for the contract.

      3. avatar LongPurple says:

        The local term used is “nunya”, meaning “none of your business”.

    5. avatar Hal says:

      I’m sure Coonan will get in line to tool up an Antigun pd

  2. avatar 505markf says:

    $200K in guns, $150K in ammo. Sourced from manufacturers. I bet the manufacturers simply refuse to bid. There is simply insufficient upside to counter the low margins. if they dance to Jersey City’s tune, other cities will join the crusade and the ball will be rolling. Then their non-LEO customers – that means US – will then raise a considerable stink and we can bring a great deal more to bear with any boycott than gun-grabbers can because, well, we actually buy the things and they do not.

    This will be interesting to track.

    1. avatar FFL Dealer says:

      This is correct. A $200k gun order in this climate won’t get some manufacturers out of bed, much less return a phone call.

    2. avatar IdahoPete says:

      And most gun manufacturers remember what happened to the then-British owned Smith&Wesson when it cooperated with the anti-gun policies of the Clinton Administration and the state of Massachusetts: Americans stopped buying S&Ws, resulting in the Brit owners (Thompkins, Ltd., I think) taking a HUGE bath when they resold the company to a small gun related business in Arizona. The new owners IMMEDIATELY repudiated all prior agreements with the Clintonistas, and spent the next few years regaining the trust of American customers.

  3. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    They should ask the same when they procure cars. They need to send a questionaire to Ford and Dodge asking them these questions when looking to buy new cruisers…

    “What are you going to do combat the illegal car trade and chop shops?”

    “What are you stances on how to reduce drunk driving or people using your product to mow down civilians on a sidewalk?”

    “Do you support universal background checks for all car purchasers since the car is essentially a 2 ton rolling death machine?”.

    If Ford or Dodge does not answer, they should procure their new cruisers from Mini or Fiat.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      ^ This !!!!!

    2. avatar Ing says:

      Mini because they’re too small to cause much damage, Fiat because a car that won’t run won’t hurt anyone?

      1. avatar Will says:

        Today’s Mini is a far cry from the old Morris Mini of yesteryear. Today’s Mini is a BMW product (and, so I’ve heard, the “donated” chassis of the FWD 1 series, when they’re finally put to market) which is larger and heavier than the old Minis. the Fiat 500 (Only model in the States, apparently distro’d by Chrysler) is also a bit more robust than the originals. Both the Mini and the Fiat are a capable killing machine in the hands of those who are unable to drive safely or are intent on playing a real-life game of carmageddon or death race.

  4. Maybe all New Jersey governmental units should destroy all of their firearms, THEN there would be no chance of them being used for EVIL. Lead by example. Think of the children!

  5. avatar Rich says:

    Didn’t we already go through this once when Cuomo was over at HUD?

  6. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    In my business, most of my work is subcontract work, if a client insisted I not work for other clients he’s going to have to make it well worth my while. Very well. And I’m just a small guy who can only take on so much work. If I were in the gun manufacturers’/distributors’ shoes, I’d answer the questions honestly and then double my bid. Not a wise use of taxpayer money, insisting it get’s spent on companies that support the restrictions of the taxpayers’ constitutional rights.

  7. avatar Joel says:

    Steven, Steven, Steven, this is not what I want my old hometown to be known for.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Aren’t they BFFs with Corey Booker?

  8. avatar Lauderdale Vet says:

    Those who do conform, I will not buy their hardware.

    Plenty of fish in the sea.

  9. avatar Parnell says:

    So, if the vendor’s answers are not PC will JC’s police go around unarmed? This is as stupid as Bloomberg’s suggestion that cities boycott Glock which supplied the NYPD’s duty weapons.

    1. avatar JW says:

      Pretty sure some lawyer will eat this up as a violation of privacy rights and anti discrimination.

  10. avatar jp says:

    Sooooooo you lose a couple hundred thousand in no bids or potentially millions in licencing agreements from video games? Sounds like new jersey is gonna be stuck with old guns and bad ammo to me.

  11. avatar Pascal says:

    Option 1 – No bids and let them deal with buying no guns

    Option 2 – Bid and win and loose all respect and money from gun owners.

    The choices are very simple. We can choose to spend our money elsewhere. Given the rabid sales of civilian arms, its our millions versus a paltry 200K and lifetime of lost civilian sales.

    1. avatar John L. says:

      Option 3 – hold a gun “buyback” using someone else’s cash, and then hire an additional 10-20 armorers to deal with the resulting mismash of department issued weapons.

    2. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      Option 4. A manufacturer bids answering the questions with a simple, “This manufacturer complies with all federal and state firearms laws.” IF the contract is awarded to another manufacturer, lodge a protest tying up the contract award in court for years preventing the department from purchasing any weapons or ammo at all during the protest/court time.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        I think this is the most sensible and likely outcome. Of course, raise the bid to MSRP. No discount for stupid if it raises my overhead to answer meaningless questions.

  12. avatar dwb says:

    Any manufacturer who answers these questions will see a drop in sales that will dwarf the $350k contract by at least an order of magnitude, like S&W did when they sold out in the late 1990s. S&W sales dropped 40%.

    No company who sells to the civilian market will take the risk. Some startup wannabe company might bid, but will the LEO risk their lives on untested crappy guns to please MDA?

    P.S. I love how Shannon tWatts makes it out like she invented the idea. She was covering for dirty filthy scoundrel executives when the idea was hatched in the Clinton admin.

  13. avatar CK in CA says:

    They should return bids asking if the municipalities will uphold the 2A.

    1. avatar ChuckN says:

      In addition, I’d like to see them insist that no firearm will be
      shipped unless every officer receiving one qualifies as Expert.
      Also every officer must pass a written test explaining in detail
      the function and operation of every part of their sidearm.
      (These alone would probably kill most contracts, especially
      with urban depts.)

  14. avatar JaxD says:

    CTD will supply themm

  15. avatar M J Johnson says:

    So…Jersey City doesn’t want their LEO’s to have guns and ammo if it’s gonna sing to MDA’s tune.

  16. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    With these requirements I say no firearm or ammo manufacturer should bid on it, and in fact refuse to sell to them flat out.

  17. avatar MattG says:

    All of the major manufacturers know this will cost them big time if they cave to this, especially for such a relatively small contract. As others have pointed out, S&W’s business was nearly ruined by agreeing to the Clinton’s demands. They’ll probably end up with those new armatix .22 LR “smart guns”. Then the union will raise a stink that they want Glocks or Sigs and .22 is insufficient for police work, and this will all go away real quick.

  18. avatar William Burke says:

    How’s about all the makers REFUSE TO SELL TO POLICE until the police tell Moms in Favor of the Police State BACK THE HELL OFF?

  19. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    and no one has thought of letting the fraternal order of police and the local police union know that their members’ lives are pawns in Bloomberg’s and Shannon (my former Sunshine) Watts’ little game? I can’t believe they will let this fly.

    1. avatar JeffR says:

      Welcome back.

    2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Don’t know where you’ve been, but welcome back.

    3. avatar Jus Bill says:


  20. avatar Accur81 says:

    There isn’t much insensitive to sell out and “claim the moral high ground” if there is insufficient financial motivation to do so.

  21. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I am surprised that no one keyed on the fact that Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop is a former marine … a former marine that apparently supports vast infringement of our Second Amendment rights in violation of his oath of military duty as well as his oath of office of mayor. What a disgrace.

    1. avatar Salty Bear says:

      Just goes to show there IS such thing as an ex-Marine.

      1. avatar Will says:

        Or why there should be.

  22. avatar Templar says:

    I would definitely trust my life with armaments judged by their political correctness rather than other benchmarks

  23. avatar Hannibal says:

    I’m sorry, I thought the procurement bidding process was put in place to get reliable products at a competitive cost… not be a political litmus test. I wonder if this would run afoul of any laws about the bidding process….

    Forget it jake, it’s jersey.

    1. avatar mirgc says:

      That was my thought as well. I treads very close to that line.

  24. avatar Allbaniaaaaa says:

    I cannot wait to move to PA holy shit fuck this state.

    1. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

      As a fellow resident of NJ, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

  25. avatar Thomas Paine says:

    When a state determines which companies will prosper and which will not because of political and social views…………..i think that is called FASCISM…….for the record.

    1. avatar Darkstar says:

      Pretty much what I was thinking. Very, very frightening development.

  26. avatar rawmade says:

    Lol the big video game licensing probably pay more than the 200k weapon contract. …cant imagine thatd be a good choice

  27. avatar Thomas Paine says:

    here’s the questions. Totally asinine if you ask me.

    – What do you do to combat illegal gun trafficking and illegal gun crime?
    Ask the ATF about Fast and Furious.
    – Do you manufacturer and sell assault weapons for civilian use?
    We sell Modern Sporting Rifles
    – Do you agree not to sell certain models of firearms for civilian use?
    FOPA requires it.
    – Are you requiring your dealers to conduct background checks?
    Lookup Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act.
    – Do you fund research related to gun violence and smart gun technology?
    I donated to Wikipedia yesterday.
    – Will you commit to prohibiting your brand name from being used in violent video games?
    Is this a video game?

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      On the assault weapons question, the appropriate answer should be, “There is no such thing as an assault weapon.”

      1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

        The appropriate response is- ‘Assault weapon’ is a legal term not a technical description. Its definition varies widely between jursdictions and in fact is completely undefined in most areas of the United States.

        This manufacturer complies with all federal firearms and state firearms laws.

    2. avatar OldBenTurninginGrave says:

      Of course, not a single question about gun safety in the lot. Just answer, “We couldn’t find the gun safety questions, I think you must have put in a gun control questionnaire by mistake.”

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      I think the manufacturers should just answer the questions–who cares if the answers are PC or not?

      1.What do you do to combat gun trafficking?
      We comply with all federal, state and local laws with respect to our sales to our distributors.
      2.- Do you manufacturer and sell assault weapons for civilian use?
      We sell Modern Sporting Rifles to civilians [or if you are Glock, We do not manufacture rifles.]
      3.Do you agree not to sell certain models of firearms for civilian use?
      We comply with all federal laws with respect to the sale of firearms to dealers. We do not sell firearms to individuals.
      4. Are you requiring your dealers to conduct background checks?
      Our dealers are independent businesses, not our agents. Federally licensed firearms dealers are required to comply with federal, state and local laws with respect to background checks.
      5. Do you fund research related to gun violence and smart gun technology?
      6. Will you commit to prohibiting your brand name from being used in violent video games?

      Unless they declare that compliance with their social agenda is necessary to be a “qualified bidder, it really doesn’t matter what the answers are. If NJ is like any other public entity, it will be required to accept the lowest bid from a qualified bidder–and if al manufacturers are not “qualified”, well then I guess they’ll just have to do with what they’ve got already–or blow it ot their a**es.

      1. avatar 16V says:

        Don’t try to actually do this the way it should be done….

      2. avatar Keith in TX says:

        2.- Do you manufacturer and sell assault weapons for civilian use?
        Define assault weapons.

        A – Semi auto AR-15 designed for civilian use.
        B – 7,000 Select-fire firearms suitable for personal defense, aka PDW personal defense weapons ordered by the Department of Homeland Security.

        Why is a semi-automatic AR-15 “designed for civilian use” considered an “assault weapon” when “select-fire firearms” are considered suitable for personal defense by the Department of Homeland Security?

        Why are 30 round magazines considered “hi-capacity” in the hands of US citizens when they are considered “standard capacity” by the military and the DHS?
        Why the double standards?

        “Weapons of war have no place on our streets”
        -Well Known Clown with the initials BO

        America is upside down, inside out and backwards from the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
        They’re spinning in their graves at a rate that contributes to global warming.

      3. avatar styrgwillidar says:

        Question 2, again, ‘Assault Weapon’ is a legal term, not a technical term, and as such its definition varies widely within the United States. In fact, it lacks any agreed upon non-legal meaning in most jurisdictions in the United States.

        I would answer the entire questionairre with one line: This manufacture complies with all federal and state firearms laws.

      4. avatar H.R. says:

        Glock doesn’t sell the model 18 to civilians. H&K doesn’t sell the MP5K to civilians. I think a lot of manufacturers – pretty any that makes real military hardware – could get around this just by playing technicalities.

  28. avatar Doug says:

    Thugs With Jugs, that is all they are, no more.

  29. avatar New Chris says:

    They are just trying to ascertain these companies loyalty to the party. You wouldn’t want the dangerous influence of dissidents to get a foot hold in the great leap forward.

  30. avatar Ralph says:

    Anyone who thinks that firearms manufacturers won’t sell us out in a New York Jersey minute is delusional.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Don’t trust ’em as far as I can throw ’em… The people, not the guns, I can actually throw those pretty far.

  31. avatar Jay says:

    If only all of the gun and ammo manufacturers would refuse to sell to these municipalities…

  32. avatar Kyle says:

    Any firearms manufacturer that goes with these questions should get boycotted. That will get the message across real fast and kill the ability of other municipalities to do this.

  33. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    400 million people in the untied states. 40% of which own and purchase firearms and ammunition. In some cases multiple firearms.

    Less than 1 million LEOs. Purchasing a service sidearm and maybe a rifle every 2-5 years?

    I hope the gun manufacturers know who is buttering their bread and act accordingly. Not selling to agencies that adopt this tactic would be a start.

  34. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

    The manufacturers will only stand firm if the shooting public make sure they know the price they will pay if they cave.

  35. avatar Dave s says:

    suggest the manufactures submit 2 bids, one w/o questions and one with answers for 1.5X the no question bid. then they take out an ad and ask the taxpayers which one they want.

    Recalls can happen most anywhere and misuse of tax funds is cause.

  36. avatar Bova says:

    $150,000 in ammunition? Sweet Jesus…

    Lets just assume that ammo is 50 cents a pop. That means they are buying 300,000 rounds of ammo. I can’t see one city really needing that much ammo. Even if we consider it at a buck a shot, that is 150,000 rounds of ammo. Where is all that ammo being used, or is it just being used for like 5 years?

    1. avatar Thomas Paine says:

      there’s like 900 cops on the force. that comes to like 500 pistol rounds each. The problems is that these departments get new sidearms every 2 years, when the usable life of one is much much longer.

  37. avatar Defens says:

    The manufacturers should only sell bastardized, totally PC guns to this type of city – complete with bullet buttons or 5 round fixed mags, 20 lb triggers, thumbhole stocks – the works.

  38. avatar Drew says:

    I predict NJ departments will be sporting some spiffy new HKs in the near future.

    1. avatar Sammy says:

      Before or after a snotty post on their web site demeaning civilians?

  39. avatar Blackbird says:

    Just heard on the news today, that now in New Jersey, you purchase a BB gun, it MUST BE REGISTERED. IMHO all, it’s time for us to take our country back. This is absolutely insane now!!!!! I live down here in Maryjaneland, and it’s getting ridiculous here too!!!!

  40. avatar Kerry says:

    You are all completely missing the long term here.

    MDA gets all guns banned
    Nobody has guns
    Cops don’t need guns

    Since if nobody is armed, cops won’t need firearms. Utopia at last!!!

    1. avatar Sammy says:

      That Jurassic Park logic still is anti 2A.

  41. avatar Phil says:

    Let them have Hi-Points!

  42. avatar Keith in TX says:

    $350K is peanuts not worthy of answering any questions.
    If questions are to be asked it should be from the gun and ammo manufactures.
    Let them go without ammo, they can use the BB and air soft guns they took from the citizens being those are such deadly weapons.

    1. avatar Sammy says:

      Zactly how I feel ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

  43. avatar savaze says:

    Maybe the legal thugs will be out of business, because they can’t find a pro gun control weapon manufacturer…

  44. avatar Cubby123 says:

    I like CK in Ca s answer,Will they uphold the 2nd Amendment!
    No gunmakers should do business with NJ municipalities.If they want play game let them beg for guns or get them from MDA!

  45. avatar Chris says:

    We will end up seeing a credit to each officer to get their own pistol at retail price their choice from a list of approved which will result in higher taxes to pay for it if no one bids.

    Gun manufacturers make out better.

  46. avatar Aharon says:

    “This is an enormous step forward for New Jersey and an example for mayors across the country,” she said.

    This is yet the latest proof that some people should remain in the home barefoot and pregnant, and why the Nineteenth Amendment was, overall, a bad idea.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Jeez! Don’t encourage them to spawn.

  47. avatar Larry says:

    I wonder if they ask vehicle vendors about their stance on traffic safety laws ? I say ask away. Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

  48. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    If government employees must be armed, second hand Ravens, Cobras, and Jennings would be perfect.

  49. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Oh my.

    So when does this become suppression of speech, restraint of trade and interference in the political process? Also, what’s it take to achieve standing for the lawsuit? This is simply a minority opinion using power of office to implement something they couldn’t win at the ballot box.

    I think the game is for a vendor to answer the questionnaire as snarky as possible. Then sue and FIOA once the first contract is awarded. The suit is the lottery – you probably won’t win, but if you do it changes the game. BUT just doing it pushes them back.

    An effective 2A political op would be gearing up to do exactly this, while they build the marketing campaign it’ll feed. Unless some operative is right now war-dialing every potential vendor to find a plaintiff, our 2A advocacy pros are incompetent & need to be replaced.

  50. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    If they have to use these tactics – back door requirements on acquisitions to get what they can’t at the ballot box – clearly they’re losing the argument … probably because their argument is nonsense. (Hammer that point. Hammer it again and again. They just blew up their own claims to legitimacy.)

    Worse (for them) this “not part of the RFQ, but we’re going to *consider* some things” violates about a kajillion oversight, regulation and good government laws. Everybody involved in this on the govt. side is in the felony corruption zone, with the influencers suborning this or that. Let the prosecutions begin!!!

    Answering those obnoxious questions as an exercises I realized two things.

    – This is an end-run around standing political and administrative processes. Duh, I know. It just became crystal clear. They’re doing this because they want to get their way, and can’t via the ballot box. Problem is they’re subverting acquisition processes to advance their agenda – that’s over the line. The game is to call them on it – cheating to get what they can’t get legitimately.

    – Massive sunshine, oversight, govt. contracting and similar laws and regulations exist to counteract exactly this kind of undue influence, advancing an agenda outside the ballot box, and coopting govt spending and authority to buy off constituencies. Invoke that. You’ll probably never get a prosecution, prosecutors being part of the same cabal, but you’ll likely inspire some off the record advice to knock it off at risk of losing their cover.

    So, yes, ding them on the 2A and trade BS. Then dirty them up with bad government / cronyism charges. A suit or corruption prosecution would be wonderful. Agitating for one is almost as good as actually getting one – now the oversight folks look dirty, too. BUT, along with every other move, deliver the real poke, every time: “They only use these tactics, because they’re losing at the ballot box. Clearly their claims of a mandate are nonsense, probably because what they’ve been proposing is nonsense.”

  51. avatar General Zod says:

    Conversation (n):

    1. An informal talk involving two people or a small group of people : the act of talking in an informal way

    2. Something that is similar to a spoken conversation

    Funny. Merriam-Webster’s doesn’t define “conversation” as “An emotion-driven, intellectually dishonest effort to erode and eliminate certain Constitutionally protected rights held by US citizens.” I think MDA is using that word incorrectly. A conversation involves the exchange of ideas, not one side in hysterics screeching their false information and demanding to get their way no matter what.

  52. avatar Culpeper Kid says:

    Fantastic! Absolutely! How about “Will you commit to prohibiting your brand name from being used in violent films or TV shows?”.

  53. avatar JR says:

    The potential bidders should not answer the questions and for go the possible sale of guns and ammo to Jersey city. Let the police throw the bullets at the criminals, and maybe they should be just as disarmed as the citizens of New Jersey.

  54. avatar ShaunL says:

    “Do you agree not to sell certain models of firearms for civilian use?”

    I’d like to know when the police became “not civilians”? The actual definition seems to have changed over the years to exclude police and firefighters from the term civilian.

  55. avatar MichaelB says:

    Here are the responses, if one were to so answer them:
    – What do you do to combat illegal gun trafficking and illegal gun crime?
    Produce products to assist and protect law enforcement and citizens.

    – Do you manufacturer and sell assault weapons for civilian use?
    No. [Assault weapons is a made-up term.]

    – Do you agree not to sell certain models of firearms for civilian use?
    No. Legally prohibited in the United States by the NFA of 1934 and 1968.

    – Are you requiring your dealers to conduct background checks?
    No. Dealers are required to by US law as a condition of their Federal Firearms License.

    – Do you fund research related to gun violence and smart gun technology?
    Yes. [through taxes and fees charged by the gov’t]

    – Will you commit to prohibiting your brand name from being used in violent video games?

  56. avatar Jus Bill says:

    I predict their quotes will come from:
    – Mattel toys (a special run)
    – The BATFE
    – Beppo the Dwarf. From a warehouse on the docks.

  57. avatar crzapy says:

    Now we sit back and see if gun manufacturers have long enough memories to remember the bath every other gun manufacturer has taken when they opposed the 2nd amendment.

    The gun buying public has a longer memory than most other segments of the population.

    Plus if a manufacturer caves to this survey they are basically admitting to selling a dangerous product and open themselves up to lawsuits.

  58. avatar crzapy says:

    If I was in the business of making guns, I would provide a video of their questionnaire being used as hygienic paper in the restroom at the plant.

    I would then send them a box with said questionnaire, my employees having used the paper to illustrate what I think of their methodology.

  59. avatar Jonesy says:

    I’d love to see everyone just not bid. No one should have to answer those questions. It is a load of BS.

  60. avatar Will says:

    – What do you do to combat illegal gun trafficking and illegal gun crime?
    We value our license to manufacture firearms and their accessories. We follow all federal and state regulations as to the transport and sale of our products. We follow all federal and state regulation as to the marking (serial numbers) of firearms. Dealers are required by federal and state regulation to conduct background checks on all sales. Short of direct orders from BATFE, we follow all requirements to prevent gun trafficking and illegal gun crime.

    – Do you manufacturer and sell assault weapons for civilian use?
    We value our license to manufacture firearms and their accessories. Our products that we distribute follow all local, state and federal regulations that apply. The term “Assault Weapons” does not have a static or concrete definition that is universally recognized. If you are referring to “full-auto” weapons, we are prohibited by federal law to sell full-auto weapons for civilian use.

    – Do you agree not to sell certain models of firearms for civilian use?
    We value our license to manufacture firearms and their accessories. Our products that we distribute follow all local, state and federal regulations that apply. We are legally prohibited by federal and state law to sell certain models of firearms for civilian use.

    – Are you requiring your dealers to conduct background checks?
    We value our license to manufacture firearms and their accessories. Our products that we distribute follow all local, state and federal regulations that apply. As per federal and state regulations, all dealers are required to perform background checks on those individuals who purchase firearms.

    – Do you fund research related to gun violence and smart gun technology?
    All research has concluded that no level of technology will abolish violence. [For those that do have them:] As to smart-gun technology, we are in need of field testing our latest models of smart-guns. Are you willing to field test them? [This also would allow for a higher price tag as these smart-guns would not be regular production units.]

    – Will you commit to prohibiting your brand name from being used in violent video games?
    Do you have the funds to replace the lost licensing revenue, and will you commit to replacing that lost revenue on an annual basis?

Write a Comment

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

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