Olympic Arms Stops All Sales to NY LEOs

[tombogan03884]

Dunno about that. If Sig, Glock and Berretta were to stop selling guns and mags to NY LEOs....That would leave them issuing what? Its the ammo makers that need to follow suite as well. Winchester, Federal and Remington, sure they make a lot on LEO sales, but they wouldn't be cutting off the supplies to all states. Just  make an example out of NY. They make far more selling to the civilian and military markets and those would be uneffected.

HK them Nazi SOB's hate civilians .
Ve must have ordnung !

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/18/nine-states-proposing-montana-like-law-challenging-federal-reach-on-gun-rights/



States across the country are trying to protect gun ownership from the long arm of Washington by proposing bills declaring that firearms made and kept within their borders are not subject to federal restrictions.

Nine states have proposed such legislation since President Obama and fellow Democrats in the Senate began trying to tighten federal gun laws in the wake of several mass shootings that occurred within months of each other.

“There’s a lot of momentum,” Montana activist Gary Marbut told FoxNews.com on Monday.

Marbut was behind the original Firearms Freedom Act, which says the Commerce Clause allowing Congress to regulate inter-state commerce does not apply to the in-state manufacturing, selling and ownership of firearms. Montana passed the bill in 2009.

Since then, a host of other states have tried to pass copycat legislation. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Washington have proposed such legislation since January -- following the Dec. 14, 2012, shooting in which 20 first-graders and six adults were killed inside a Newtown, Conn., elementary school.

However, Montana's legislation is hardly settled law. Shortly after the law passed in his state, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives wrote Marbut to say federal law still supersedes.

Marbut acknowledges he wrote the legislation to set up a legal challenge and “roll back a half a century of bad precedent.”

The bill is scheduled to finally get its day in court when the Ninth Circuit begins oral arguments March 4. Marbut expects to lose in the liberal-leaning court, which includes San Francisco, Seattle and Portland, Ore. But he thinks such a decision will put him in a better position to appeal to the country’s highest court.

“The mood of the country is right for the Supreme Court to consider what I think is a great mistake,” said Marbut.

Marbut, a shooting-range supplier, says existing big-name gun manufacturers are “not players” in the case because they have a nationwide market regulated by federal law. However, small upstart companies including gunsmiths and mom-and-pop operations would likely be able to make and sell guns within states, if the courts rule in his favor.

“Making firearms is not rocket science,” Marbut said.

The proposals have gotten plenty of pushback. State Democratic Rep. Robyn Driscoll criticized the Montana legislature for passing the law at the time, telling The Wall Street Journal a couple years ago that  lawmakers wouldn’t support funding for education or women’s clinics but passed “this blatantly unconstitutional bill to pay for a Supreme Court fight.” 

Montana passed the law at a time when gun control still was not widely discussed on Capitol Hill. Now, Obama and Senate Democrats have proposed legislation that essentially calls for a universal background check for potential gun buyers and re-instituting a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. 

While the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocacy groups have mounted their opposition based largely on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, Marbut is focused on the 10th Amendment that focuses more on the limits of federal power.   

Eight states including Montana, Arizona, Alaska and Tennessee have passed similar legislation, while 17 have had bills proposed but not passed in prior sessions.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/18/nine-states-proposing-montana-like-law-challenging-federal-reach-on-gun-rights/#ixzz2LMCbPht1

[PegLeg45]

Count Double Star in also:

Effective Immediately!!
Due to the recent changes in 2nd Amendment laws that are pending or currently enforced by states across the country, the J&T Family of Companies which includes J&T Distributing, DoubleStar Corp., Ace Limited, and the DoubleStar Training Academy has been forced to reassess our policies regarding government and law enforcement sales. Effective immediately, the J&T Family of Companies will be joining other manufacturers and distributors by ceasing sales of regulated items in states that have altered the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

The JTFOC will no longer sell prohibited items to law enforcement agencies or any government agencies in states, counties, cities, and municipalities that have enacted restrictive gun control laws against their law abiding citizens. We hope other companies will join us with their support. We applaud those already involved with this effort to protect our 2nd Amendment rights.

-Be Victorious

http://www.star15.com/

[PegLeg45]

Ronnie Barrett issues statement against New York, to mirror his long-time stance in California:


The date says 2012, but it was posted less than 10 minutes ago on Barrett's FB page. I suspect it was just a minor oversight.

A STATEMENT FROM RONNIE BARRETT:

Barrett’s Position Regarding the Assault on Liberty
February 20, 2012

Barrett opposes those who are illegally disarming the American public from their efficient arms and creating superior armed elitist government agencies.

Elected state officials of New York, having been sworn to protect our Constitution, have instead committed an offense against it and their citizens by stripping inalienable rights duly protected and guaranteed under the Second Amendment. By their deliberate and sinister actions, these officials now cause their state and local policing agencies to enforce these unconstitutional and illegal so called “laws”.

By current law, Barrett cannot be an accomplice with any lawbreaker, therefore, cannot and will not service or sell to New York government agencies. Barrett also applies this stance to the individual elected official who, as a matter of public record, has voted for or created regulation that violates the constitutional rights of their citizens. This is an expansion of our 2002 ban against the California government due to their second amendment infringements, and shall apply to any future violators.

In the course of world history there have been officials that strip inalienable rights from the people that were given to all by our Creator. Most of these officials inevitably come to trial, some do not.

Intentionally violating constitutional rights by officials that have sworn to uphold them should have severe prison sentences.

With the clear vision of horrible events in history repeating itself, all manufacturers of firearms or related equipment remaining in partnership with such violators should have a respectable fear of being found with the guilty on their day of trial.

During this era of assault on liberty, Barrett will remain steadfast in our efforts to serve law-abiding citizens of all fifty states, and stands together with you in the struggles we will fight and win.

Ronnie Barrett
Chairman and CEO

https://www.facebook.com/barrett.net


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152600568235038&set=a.370014790037.361087.269478890037&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf

[Solus]

Ronnie Barrett stands tall.

And he has laid it at the feet of all all manufacturers of firearms or related equipment remaining in partnership with such violators should have a respectable fear of being found with the guilty on their day of trial.

[Jrlobo]

I'm waiting for companies that have supplied weapons denied to citizens to "recall" them for safety purposes...public safety of course. I wonder if that is legal...just as they do for automobiles? In this way, the company could substitute a legal weapon for one that is recalled and just charge "shipping and handling"! They could then resell those original weapons to authorities in states where the weapons are declared safe for public use. Just another crazy thought as "public safety" frequently is cited in the legislation used to deny sales to citizens.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

I'm waiting for companies that have supplied weapons denied to citizens to "recall" them for safety purposes...public safety of course. I wonder if that is legal...just as they do for automobiles? In this way, the company could substitute a legal weapon for one that is recalled and just charge "shipping and handling"! They could then resell those original weapons to authorities in states where the weapons are declared safe for public use. Just another crazy thought as "public safety" frequently is cited in the legislation used to deny sales to citizens.

First letter

Dear XXX Dept,
  It has come to our attention that there is a potential problem with your XXX firearms.
This problem may effect all makes and models. For the safety of your personal please return all items immediately.

Second letter,
We are sorry to inform you that your fire arms, having been banned in your state may not be returned since our legal advisers warn us that such shipments could be a violation of Federal law regarding shipment of controlled material.
We apologize for the inconvenience.

I love it ! !   

[fightingquaker13]

First letter

Dear XXX Dept,
  It has come to our attention that there is a potential problem with your XXX firearms.
This problem may effect all makes and models. For the safety of your personal please return all items immediately.

Second letter,
We are sorry to inform you that your fire arms, having been banned in your state may not be returned since our legal advisers warn us that such shipments could be a violation of Federal law regarding shipment of controlled material.
We apologize for the inconvenience.

I love it ! !   

You laugh, but Glock did it. Following the 1994 AWB, they offered LEO agencies a two for one trade in of used mags for new ones as a "customer appreciation gesture". Pretty much every one jumped on it as "hey, free new mags". They then turned around and sold all those rarely fired pre-ban hi-cps on the civilian market at like new prices. Way to go Gaston! Perfection indeed!

[Ichiban]

Looks like Armalite is trying to play both sides of the fence.

http://www.bob-owens.com/2013/02/armalite-tries-to-play-both-sides-of-the-developing-gun-war/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BobOwens+%28Bob+Owens%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

In other words, Armalite is trying to play both ends against the middle. They want to say they are on-board with the boycott (sort of) to placate gun owners, but they aren’t; they’re still going to continue selling to individual police officers… just not to the departments.

Armalite will sell to every individual officer in the department that wants an AR-15, but they won’t sell to the department’s official purchasing agent. Wink-wink, nudge-nudge.

[SIG229DAK]

That puts Armalite  on the same "Never Buy From" list as Cheaper than Dirt for me. 

[twyacht]

That puts Armalite  on the same "Never Buy From" list as Cheaper than Dirt for me. 

They (Armalite has doubled down),

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/daniel-zimmerman/armalite-doubles-down-on-sales-to-ban-state-leos/

ArmaLite Doubles Down on Sales to Ban State LEOs
Posted on February 21, 2013 by Dan Zimmerman   

TTAG just received the following statement from ArmaLite president Mark Westrom:

ArmaLite Continues Support to Law Enforcement Officers

Beginning last week ArmaLite was subjected to a flurry of inquiries about whether ArmaLite would refuse to sell its firearms in New York State in reaction to the legislature’s surprise passage of the worst firearm regulations in the country.  In an unannounced move the legislature passed a law that bans possession of many firearms and renders virtually all rifle and pistol magazines illegal.  That little detail alone leaves their owners either in violation of the law or holders of single-shot rifles and pistols.  It was a dictatorial act of one-party rule . . .

I advised that I had established a policy almost two decades ago that held that ArmaLite would not sell to a state government that denied ownership of firearms to the honorable citizens of the state.

But I advised that I would, (as during the earlier “Assault Weapon Ban” by the way) continue to sell to individual Police officers and to Sheriff’s and other departments that support private ownership.

We have been contacted by a group of respondents opposing the purchase of rifles by Police officers and supportive law enforcement organizations in New York. Wholesale abandonment of even the good law enforcement officers of New York state has become a litmus test for some and cannot be in the interest of gun owners or manufacturers.

But that’s no more proper than the cries of those who would take away the rights of gun owners, and disregards the fact that the majority of Police officers are themselves gun owners. Many of them frequent AR15.com.

When I was a Police officer I was required to purchase my own pistol, rifle, and shotgun. The same is true of many Police officers today. We at ArmaLite observe that the majority of our rifles now used by Police officers were purchased by the officers themselves. I will not abandon them because of the actions of their State legislators. I will support them to the extent allowed by law.

I appreciate the support of those thoughtful citizens that understand the principle of avoiding dealings with political institutions and leaders who would violate our Second Amendment rights while supporting the rank and file and the good officials who support us all.