Several Major Gun Manufacturers Refusing Business With Law Enforcement In New York

Originally posted by TFCJay
I think it is great and I applaud the manufacturers doing this, but I wonder, won't the other gun companies just "see a hole and fill it"?

First let me state that I applaud these companies for their actions in this matter.

As for other gun companies seeing a hole and filling it, no I do not see that happening in mass.
My reasoning is simple, who buys more weapons and ammo per capita, Law Enforcement or Civilians?
These manufacturers are, at least partially, defending their bottom line as well as the 2nd Amendment.

I hate what this state has become and am getting out as soon as financial health lets me.

Let it burn.

reply to post by smarterthanyou


Running is Not the answer... Stand Up! Join We The People make your voice heard to help us and Take back OUR State!! Albany State Capital Thursday February 28, 2013.

I noticed that the corporate mainstream media actually reported that Remington in upstate NY is considering leaving to more friendly territory and it's a shame that NY (mis)leadership has decided to focus on firearm prohibition instead of job creation and keeping murderers in jail where they belong instead of letting them out to kill again and again not to mention the problem of mental illness, the gross overprescription of psychotropic drugs, and violence in media like never before.
IMPEACH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE BEAUROCRATS IMMEDIATELY and that goes for every level of gov't!

Originally posted by lnfideI
To me anyhow, the above long winded post sounds like it came from the mouth of a government shill.

yeah it sounds like conspiracy because you can't read - I had already written my thoughts on this and posted them here in full instead of rewriting them. A link to my website where I posted it which is extremely pro 2a was posted as well.

Originally posted by circuitsports
this is my official response to this that will appear on tacticsplus.com later today



Every day the anti gun / pro gun battle rages I see people taking increasingly extreme stances on these issues (like everything else in politics). However its the behavior of some in the pro gun community that is starting to look like cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Today as one instance of that I see a report that Olympic Arms will no longer sell to law enforcement in New York state. And that Cheaper than Dirt will not sell any products to law enforcement that can't be sold to civilians.

In both cases there is a question about what actual effect it would have on their current business with law enforcement. As well as the possibility of being a publicity stunt to both repair damages to their brands like CTD's price gouging of items like PMAG's or possibly in Olympics case trying to gain back some brand recognition. But aside from that possibility both statements are ludicrous.

Selling less firearms does nothing good for anyone in this instance, it just reduces a companies viability and negatively effects the supply side contractors jobs and revenue as well. For what?

Law enforcement doesn't make the rules, it enforces them. And for every Olympic there is 10 others like H&K that could case less. Cops will still get their guns. Just at a higher cost to tax payers. And Politicians could care less, they will just increase taxes to cover them if need be. Or the Defense Department through DHS will just buy it for them. And they certainly aren't shy about wasting spending large amounts of tax payer money on military grade weaponry for law enforcement.

And now today I am hearing about Comcast no longer allowing firearms related advertising on its new purchase of NBC properties. The first thing I see is endless remarks about people switching to some other random service or worse yet none at all. Obviously turning off ones access to local news stations reporting on these very issues is a genius move. Also reducing viewership of several key firearms related channels like Sportsman or Outdoors does what exactly?

It hurts the very companies and industry that you are trying to promote. Reducing their viability which reduces there advertising capability which reduces there sponsors viability which reduces the number of firearms centric companies, which reduces the resistance to new laws. Which when coupled to a less informed society makes it very easy to control the message. The most striking example of this is CNN's anti guns polls designed to legitimize opinions and programming as if it was an unbiased representation of the nation as a whole. History Channel alone has done more for the growth of firearms through Sons of Guns than most organizations. Despite the complaints from people who think they could have somehow built a better TV show mousetrap.

I will get some critics especially for that last statement. But chances are if you interact with enough people on both sides you can see it's effects on people who had no idea those types of weapons were legal and now wish to exercise the rights they weren't before even aware of. The NRA should make that show a center piece since the statistics show it's more engaging than they often are.

If people want to change their reality they can't ignore and bankrupt the message. It's too big and persistent for that. They have to change it.

If you are a company thinking about turning of your support to law enforcement you are just hurting your cause. Instead of losing that counter issue revenue, recycle it into pro message funding. You are not hurting or swaying the people that need to be swayed by doing anything less.

If you are reading this and you aren't an NRA member, membership.nrahq.org... . You will get 10 bux off and you can join the largest and most active organization for legal and actual change in this country. And for the critics of the NRA who think X organization does more for them because they are "truer" to the message. Don't get me started on what is the definition of perfection. I will instead simply remind everyone of a very simple and basic concept that I think embodies this current climate.

United we stand, divided we fall

edit on 21-2-2013 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)

Gun manufacturers are in no danger at all from losing business that is a fact. The move they made is smart first they probably had a discount deal worked out with them the state can say goodbye to that and 2nd if you go to any gun store or manufacturer they are all swamped with orders. All the shops near me are backlogged with up to or more than 1500 orders for AR platforms.

The only thing gun legislation has done is increased sales across the country. Gun manufacturers are in no danger of losing sales that is one business model in our country that has security.

Your facts are lies.

They are lies because you claim them as facts but you have no factual basis for those claims, which makes them lies.

I've spent time talking with many gun manufacturers and they do a considerable business with LE and their profit margins are generally higher, not lower because they often sell direct while most gun stores buy through a middle man distributor.

Also they sell upper end rifles that are not available to the public ranging from fa sub guns to precision bolt action rifles. The profit margin on these generally far exceed a rack grade commercial ar15. And many of the suppliers for these parts like precision barrels are often different than the contractors who produce ar15 parts.

Companies like S&W have teams of people who work with LE dirrectly on these contracts.

Also if you didn't know LE and MIL tend to be very loyal customers so when they transfer home the often buy similar products and more importantly generate a high level of extra exposure to new shooters. One of my friends just bought his 3 kids STAG ar's because thats what his dept supplies him with at work.

reply to post by circuitsports


Before you accuse people of lying you should back up your claims or you come off as a liar yourself.

Gun sales are up across the country. Every single gun shop in 4 cities here are back logged with over 1500 orders for ARs and the guy I shoot with was telling me their department(police) bought 450 m-16 at a price of $400 each so your facts are unsubstantiated. I tend to trust people I know more than people who spew crap on the internet but you are welcome to your opinion but that is all I see it as (your opinion)

Please get a clue about etiquette on these forms imo yours is poor. You should also using the reply feature when posting.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Having seen the purchase orders for the LEA I was with, I will say this.

Departments with 150+ officers, will get a discount on each firearm, but they are ordering 200 firearms at a time.
So, the profit margin is lower, but the sale is in bulk.

Kind of a you are both correct, but both wrong.

The larger the order, the more of a discount on each firearm.

But, on smaller orders, with specialized firearms, the manufacture is usually selling at retail.
That is mainly due to the manufacture being one of 2 in the country available to make "x" firearm.

reply to post by macman


Thanks I knew they get a discount in bulk I just didn’t like being called a liar. Poor form. I thought it was implied that I was taking in bulk however maybe I should have been clear about that. Another purchase they made for Seminole county was for 85 M-16 a1s I am not sure where they got them but they only paid 50 dollars each I think it must have been government military surplus but damn I wish I had a full auto license.

What is this the second time we havnt argues on an issue. The world must be in shock.

Originally posted by Grimpachi

What is this the second time we havnt argues on an issue. The world must be in shock.

Yeah, no kidding.

Th world is going weird.

reply to post by newcovenant

More proof the NRA is "gun manufacturers & lobby." My family is in NY, most of them Republicans and they have their own guns but I want their law enforcement armed. I'm sure they do too. Why don't these gun manufacturers think of who they end up hurting when they make these knee jerk reactions.

I don't think it's a "knee jerk" reaction when the state is basically saying they can't have any private customers in an entire state.