Gun Companies Boycott New York.

[Armistead]

http://offgridsurvival.com/guncompanies-boycottnewyork/


"Barrett Firearms, LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, Extreme Firepower Inc, Templar Custom and York Arms have all stopped selling firearms to all New York law enforcement and government agencies. A number of them are also starting to call for an industry wide boycott on any state who bans civilian ownership. The boycott is in response to New York’s latest efforts to strip the American public’s 2nd amendment rights."

Not only that, they will refuse to sell parts, repair or honor warranty

"If companies like Glock, Smith & Wesson and SIG Sauer join the fight, we may actually see some of these States start to back off." Rumors are Glock is going to join the ban, we shall see.

[Platapus]

Refusing to sell I can understand. But refusing to honor an existing warranty may be illegal.

I do like this response

Effective today, in an effort to see that no legal mistakes are made by LaRue Tactical and/or its employees, we will apply all current State and Local Laws (as applied to civilians) to state and local law enforcement / government agencies.
In other words, LaRue Tactical will limit all sales to what law-abiding citizens residing in their districts can purchase or possess.

[Stealhead]

Most firearms manufactures already make California legal versions of their firearms that are banned there (look at the Colt catalog) it is not very hard to make a 7 round magazine you simply put a stopper to take up 3 more rounds in a 10 round magazine.(CA limit is 10 rounds)

In fact if I owned a firearm company I'd make a design meet the requirements of New York and charge a higher price for it then I get sales that the companies that refuse to sell wont make I smell a business opportunity.I bet you Colt is already making New York compliant AR-15s or tooling up to do so.

http://www.coltsmfg.com/Catalog/Colt...antRifles.aspx

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Refusing to sell I can understand. But refusing to honor an existing warranty may be illegal.

I do like this response

[/I][/B]



[/INDENT]

Could be a battle, but if the gun is deemed illegal, maybe the warranty is no longer valid.

Course the criminals will have no problem getting all the weapons they need.

[yubba]

If we could only get the guns out of the hands of the police, if we could only save one criminals life,, instead of filling him full of holes..I got the fix for gun violence, you make it easier to get a good paying job and be able to keep it than to committ a crime...I'm from New York I can't believe the mess that state is in,, from what,, I gather there is a movement that folks are buying goods and services across state lines so not too pay New York sales taxes, you vote every day with your dollars,, vote wisely....

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Refusing to sell I can understand. But refusing to honor an existing warranty may be illegal.

I do like this response

[/I][/B]



[/INDENT]

Noboby above the law, I like that too! ha

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by yubba

If we could only get the guns out of the hands of the police, if we could only save one criminals life,, instead of filling him full of holes..I got the fix for gun violence, you make it easier to get a good paying job and be able to keep it than to committ a crime...I'm from New York I can't believe the mess that state is in,, from what,, I gather there is a movement that folks are buying goods and services across state lines so not too pay New York sales taxes, you vote every day with your dollars,, vote wisely....

Yep, lot's of guns and cigarettes coming across state lines.

What a strange topic.
Looks like those arms manufacturers are shooting themselves in the foot, though on further insection they are just announcing some meaningles advertising/politcal spin for people to parrot.
If you look at it then apart from the silly bit which would open the firms to legal action for breach of contract the statement from LaRue actually says they are going to stop ...no legal sales at all to any state

[Betonov]

I wish I was a gun producer. If the rest are boycotting there'd be no competition for me

[Wolferz]

You can always go the other route ...
Get a 3d printer and print your own clips, recievers or any other component except the barrel and the springs. The code is available.

If the assault on our freedoms doesn't end soon, we're all going to need an assault rifle.

[Mork_417]

My childhood dream is coming true at long last... I'm going to rule the world with my Dennis the Menace slingshot!

[Ducimus]

A couple more links on the same:
http://www.examiner.com/article/olym...n-restrictions

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...ian-standards/


And... Ill just leave this here:

[Molon Labe]

I think this is great from a strategic communications standpoint, especially if Glock or one of the other major manufacturers joins in. No matter what, the "boycott" will never be effective in applying pressure on New York or any other state to get them to change the law. But, it helps control the dominant narrative.

Right now, you have two (or three) competing narratives in the gun control issue. One can be summarized as:

""Assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines are dangerous weapons of war that no civilian needs to own. Laws banning these will make our streets (and schools) safer and will not violate the rights of hunters and sportsmen." You hear this in the media whenever a pol talks about not needing 30 rounds to hunt deer, or how a law has exemptions for hunting weapons.

The other narrative I'll summarize as "The right to bear arms isn't about hunting, but about protection. The police and citizens face the same threats--armed criminals--and if the police have determined that semiautomatic rifles and magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds are the best weapons to protect the citizens from criminals, then they are also the best weapons for citizens to use to protect themselves from criminals."

(The third would be the constitutional balance-of-power argument, which I personally find the most persuasive, but it's not something that is going to win over swing voters)

Anyway, the reason I like this boycott is because it connects to the second narrative in a way that is likely to get media attention. The more companies that join in, the more attention this gets, and the more the second narrative gets out there in the public consciousness. Especially if someone like Glock joins in, because at that point, police will be bitching to the media directly, and it will be hard to ignore.

[Armistead]

I think it's funny that we say law enforcement only needs assault type weapons, but why do they need them? The answer is simple, criminals use them, so much so that police forces were being outgunned. If they police feel they're being outgunned by criminals, I'll take their word for it and keep my AR to defend myself.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

I think this is great from a strategic communications standpoint, especially if Glock or one of the other major manufacturers joins in. No matter what, the "boycott" will never be effective in applying pressure on New York or any other state to get them to change the law. But, it helps control the dominant narrative.
.

Well, led by the NRA, gun manufacturers that don't join in will suffer. Gun owners in mass will take their business to those who boycott. Don't know how true, but 1000's are posting at different sites to not buy personal weapons of any type for those that sell to New York.

Yep, in the end, not gonna be much concern, someone will sell a gun, but it will become costly.