So firearms companies are screwing cops..

Discussion in 'Cop Talk' started by FiremanMike, Feb 18, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Depends on where you are. In a ban state? Refuse to comply, like Sheriffs around the country have. Refuse to obey the law like the citizens of the ban states have. Refuse to play their little anti-2A game. Stand together and they can't hurt you.

    In a state that isn't wrapped up in this crap? Vote with your wallet. Don't patronize them at all. Cancel your hunting trips, your sightseeing trips, your purchases from companies in their borders.

    Admittedly, those of us in the non-ban states don't have to put as much skin in the game - finding other places to vacation, hunt, etc. is much less invasive than refusing to obey or enforce laws, but we were also smart enough to not elect politicians who passed this crap in the first place, so I'd say our preventative actions count for a lot.

    Also, 115. :wavey:

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
    #741 John Rambo, Mar 3, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2013
  2. Did the officers not enforce, what we consider, an unconstitutional law when they put the heabeus grabus on that former snake eater in ny state? They certainly had the discretion to do so. The former SFer may have had an attitude that rubbed the arresting officer the wrong way, I don't know. But relying on promise of a politician is like not saving for retirement because to play the powerball.

  3. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    And it wouldn't be a danger for any on duty police for many years EVEN IF 100% of every supplier on Earth refused to sell to those areas. (an impossibility). Other out of state or federal law enforcement would make sure those guys are going to get what they need on the job.

    The danger has been greatly overstated.

    The only law enforcement officers inconvenienced will be the guys that have not already stocked up for personal "at home" use. And all they will have to do is look around a little harder for a supplier. They will not have to get rid of, destroy or turn in what they already have. They are much better off than their neighbors.
  4. lawman800

    lawman800 Juris Glocktor

    <---- Behind enemy lines for decades
  5. Looks like the final tally is around 118.

    The notable names: LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, Spike's Tactical, Barrett Firearms, CMMG Inc, SRT Arms, Stoner Arms, Wilson Combat, Magpul
  6. Mayhem like Me

    Mayhem like Me Semper Paratus

    That is not completely true.
    I know of many agencies that do not issue patrol rifles but allow them to be carried, so there are new officers in ban states that won't be able to buy anytime soon.

    So to say that they will only be inconvenienced for their home collection would not be true.

    I also support the manufacturers doing what they can, I find it completely self serving and two faced by the way, I see no cancellation of federal or military contracts.....
  7. txleapd

    txleapd Hook 'Em Up

    So how do the supporters of this move by these companies feel about them refusing to sell to cops who are in agencies where their head (Chief/Sheriff) have refused to enforce these laws?

    That really doesn't seem right, does it?

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  8. Roering

    Roering Sorting nuts

    Good point. I haven't heard any firearms companies make that delineation yet.
  9. The North Hollywood shootout had a major PD that was armed with 9MM and .38's, a few had shotguns in their cars. They faced fully armored badguys with illegal full auto 7.62's that penitrated the officers body armor and cars.

    There are many smaller PD's that could get caught in the same situation. Being in Texas, some county deputies know that back up can be 20-40 minutes away, on a ranch, where the bad guys can have anything and everything.

    Not everyone has the money to buy their own equipment, not every PD has money buy fancy stuff. If the Military were to have a PD budget, most soldiers would desert and not face the enemy so poorly equiped. But soldiers get close to the best equipment and get to work in the size of hundreds to thousands at a time. That lone deputy, should be as well equiped. The citizens, I could care less as they dont tend to help out that often.
  10. txleapd

    txleapd Hook 'Em Up

    I doubt you will.

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  11. ...that is not completely true.

    Any LEO that wants one and is allowed to have one can simply go to a store in another state and buy it. If he lacks the mental creativity to figure out something that simple...he shouldn't be a LEO anyway (IMHO).
  12. txleapd

    txleapd Hook 'Em Up

    Some states require a permit to buy a firearm, and you can only obtain a permit if you are a resident.

    Aside from that, I don't know if I would condone transporting a banned firearm, or components, across state lines and into a banned state. Regardless of who's doing it.

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  13. txleapd

    txleapd Hook 'Em Up

    I believe Wilson Combat has, so your argument is invalid.

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  14. That's a crappy attitude just like the company's who are doing the arbitrary ban of sales to LEOs.
    I can tell you that if I was asked I would help out the locals even unarmed if necessary. even if it was just to watch there back when they needed it... but the problem there is liability I could not help because I am not opata trained to ride along and help.
    I would be glad to give up one day a week of my free time if it would help. But there's no way that would be allowed. To many lawyers.
  15. Mayhem like Me

    Mayhem like Me Semper Paratus

    Really that wold be against the many states
  16. RussP


    I am not a LEO, so my mental creativity is probably at the level where you need to explain how a LEO living in NY could do that.

  17. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)


    Soldiers and most other government employees get what the lowest bidder that barely scrapes by on the specs can offer. That's not to say it's crap by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not the "Best".

    I take a little offense at your attitude of Civilians. I'm sincerely hoping I am just misreading what you were trying to say there. There are good civilians and bad civilians. There are good Soldiers and bad Soldiers. There are good cops and bad cops. Don't be so quick to write a whole group off of your "helpful" list.

    If you have a problem with civilians not jumping in to help, there are reasons for that. Blame the judicial system. Prior to learning about this case, I always thought that I would automatically jump in to help an officer in need without a second thought, after reading it, I probably would, but would probably regret it later. It's never to hard to do the right thing, but it looks like you better be ready to give up everything you've worked for in your life to do it from time to time.

    Something I learned a long time ago, is that amateurs study tactics and strategy, professional warriors study logistics.

    Every PD in New York has things that civilians won't be able to have. 30 round mags etc. There is nothing that any of these suppliers are doing that will change that. None of these suppliers are going to take back what has already been sold to a customer. The State of NY is going to require that civilians lose their magazines that hold more than 7 rounds. Of course the crooks won't be turning theirs in. I have a problem with that.

    Every police officer that had a 30 round rifle magazine last month, will still have it in 6 months. They will still have all of the 15 round pistol mags they have today too. If a single small PD put out a request to any other out of state law enforcement agency that they needed a fully automatic M4 or a 15 round G22 Magazine, they will get it. Period. Tell me that no other LEO agency would not find a way to get those guys what they needed..... It's time to stop the emotion and look at reality.

    In other words, as I have been trying to point out repeatedly, this move by suppliers is a political one. In the end, it will have no effect on any on the job LEO, period. Zip, Zero, Nada darn thing.

    Now, the police officer trying to buy a magazine for his off duty use, or a retired LEO trying to buy a regular capacity magazine might have some trouble finding one, but what the heck, he's still doing much better than his neighbor, who isn't even allowed to keep the one that came with his gun.

    I'm not seeing the need for sympathy here. :dunno:
    #757 Cavalry Doc, Mar 7, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2013
  18. txleapd

    txleapd Hook 'Em Up

  19. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)


    A brand new officer hired tomorrow, will still be able to buy what he needs. Not every supplier is going to go along with this protest. Also, I'd imagine that there are plenty of officers that would buy one for a fellow officer in a neighboring state, and then sell it to the NYS officer for a dollar and FFL costs. It's only a "straw purchase" if the intended recipient is not legally allowed to own the weapon.

    Believe me when I tell you honestly that I believe that on the Job NYS LEO's will find a way to get what they need. There are too many people in other states that will not let them do without.

    Now, off the job or retired? I don't see any reason that they need anything more than their neighbor the plumber needs.

    The moment that we start supporting a "some animals are more equal than others" mentality, the worse we will all suffer in the end.

    Even in Kosovo, where chaos reigned initially, anarchy prevailed, we learned very quickly that it was preferable to allow any regular civilian to own small arms including fully auto AK-47's and below. If you disarm one group, that group suddenly turned up dead.

    I lived off FOB in Kosovo, and still supported that policy. They were not Americans, but it was their land.

    I'm just a regular civilian now, except at Lowe's and Home Depot, where I get a 10% discount, but I think I have a right to own an AR .308 platform. I think it's perfectly OK for me to have 30 round mags for my only scary black rifle, even though I only own 19 & 20 round mags. I do have a few 25 round mags for the ruger 10-22. So what? :dunno: I'm sane, I'm a stand up guy, and I pay my taxes. I surely don't think LEO's should have less than I do, and wouldn't even consider that they would, unless they think that I should have less than they do. Then I might not care as much.
    #759 Cavalry Doc, Mar 7, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2013
  20. Federal law only requires that handguns be purchased from/through a dealer in the state you reside in. Long guns (shotguns/rifles) can be purchased from outside of your "home state". I can legally purchase long guns while in another state (unless it is a state like NC, that requires "permits" to purchase firearms) and take them home with me.

    Bear in mind, my response was directly pertaining to this post from Mayhem like Me:
    If the LEO can legally purchase/own a patrol rifle in their home state, they can legally purchase it elsewhere and take it back with them. Granted, NY passed a law that made ownership of such things illegal for EVERYONE...including LEO's. So my response is based on the assumption that they will have amended the law to allow LEO's to buy them for themselves...otherwise no dept would have a policy such as the one Mayhem put forth.
    #760 dosei, Mar 7, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2013

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page