Firearms Companies Restricting Sales To Government Agencies In Areas That Restrict Gun Rights

Cnsnews reports that a growing number of firearm and firearm-related companies have stated they will no longer sell items to states, counties, cities and municipalities that restrict their citizens’ rights to own them.

According to “The Police Loophole,” 34 companies have joined in publicly stating that governments who seek to restrict Second Amendment rights will themselves be restricted from purchasing the items they seek to limit or ban.

Extreme Firepower Inc., located in Inwood, WV has had a longstanding policy that states: “The Federal Government and several states have enacted gun control laws that restrict the public from owning and possessing certain types of firearms. If a product that we manufacture is not legal for a private citizen to own in a jurisdiction, we will not sell that product to a law-enforcement in that jurisdiction.”

York Arms, located in Buxton, ME released a statement following new legislation in New York: “Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York. We have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York.”

Several other Arms Companies have followed suit with similar statements. Click on the link to read.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/firearms-companies-restricting-sales-government-agencies-areas

35 thoughts on “Firearms Companies Restricting Sales To Government Agencies In Areas That Restrict Gun Rights”

  1. These aren’t real arms companies. These are hicks that buy and sell guns. Who cares? Again, the Republican party is digging in their toilets to find anything, anything, that supports their view.

  2. Kavips
    “These aren’t real arms companies. These are hicks that buy and sell guns.”

    You would say most anything minimize the idiocy of the IIO (Idiot in office), Including, claiming everybody that is manufacturing weapons are hicks that buy and sell guns. The fact stands that these are gun manufacturers and they’ve decided that Obama will not violate the Second Amendment and have taken action to help enforce that fact.

  3. Kavips

    Bravo Company USA states:
    “The people at Bravo Company USA and BCM support responsible private individuals having access to the same tools of civilian Law Enforcement to affect the same ends…As such Bravo Company’s policy is that law enforcement officials and departments will be restricted to the same type of products available to responsible private individuals of that same city or state.”

  4. If someone exits a market, someone else will enter that same market if there is money to be made. Capitalism recognizes opportunity created by the vacuum and will quickly fill the void. If I were in that kind of business, I would be congratulating these manufacturers/dealers for standing by their principles, while I am gearing up to support our first responders.

  5. A quick search validates my point. Bravo Company is a hick outfit selling guns. There are 45 million such outfits across the country. The viewpoint of a single one, does not matter.

    As mentioned earlier, sifting through toilets to find any good reference for the Republican point of view, only diminishes the credibility of the party because all one can remember, is that they were caught sifting thru toilets.

  6. Kavips
    “A quick search validates my point. Bravo Company is a hick outfit selling guns.”

    Just what defines a hick outfit; I find that you are a small-time hick blogger with your own blogsite and you are out to make a name for yourself by being a socialist Obama apologist.
    Since I’ve branded that it is so, means that forever you are a small-time hick blogger without any other attributes. You have no recourse.

    I guess that has to be OK with you!!

  7. Dave

    I doesn’t matter if these companies are big or small, they have a voice and the trend is, that they are beginning to act as one to defend our Second Amendment rights. That someone less ethical will eventually fill the gap is a given and everybody with a brain know that.
    Just as third world African countries need arms to slaughter their citizens “en masse” someone will supply those weapons for cash on delivery. If the USW refuses the Russians will be glad to step in. The world will always have to deal with immorality and the capitalist system moves on.
    I must point it out but it doesn’t make it right.

  8. If you follow the links, you’ll find Delmarva Shooting Supply on the list of 34 companies adhering to this policy.

  9. “The world will always have to deal with immorality and the capitalist system moves on. I must point it out but it doesn’t make it right.”

    Well Don, that certainly is true, and your opinion notwithstanding, it doesn’t make what these dealers are doing right either. Despite whether they get touted as the new patriots, they are pointless because they are sellers and reverse boycotts are ultimately silly because the people they won’t sell to have other choices. You celebrate them. That’s your choice, but the first responders will get their necessary equipment because other dealers will be more than happy to sell to them. The far right continues to become increasing irrelevant. Vocal for sure, but irrelevant nonetheless.

  10. Dave
    ” That’s your choice, but the first responders will get their necessary equipment because other dealers will be more than happy to sell to them.”

    The Tea Party movement has been greatly reinvigorated by Rove’s rantings and his declaration of war on that wing of the party. He has done them a great favor and I hope he keeps it up. There is nothing like having a powerful adversary to incite people to fight and move forward with their cause.
    Keep on with you contrite attitude and I’ll keep my political ideology and we’ll both be content.
    Even if nobody sold arms to the “first responders” they would do what criminals do; they would simply buy from the black market and since they are the law, there would be no arrests. Get real Dave, nobody expects them to go unarmed.

  11. Despite whether they get touted as the new patriots, they are pointless because they are sellers and reverse boycotts are ultimately silly because the people they won’t sell to have other choices.

    It makes you wonder exactly where DHS* is ordering their billions of rounds from. Are you sticking with your official story that it doesn’t matter how much ammo they’re ordering if it’s all to be delivered in the next five years?

    That’s your choice, but the first responders will get their necessary equipment…

    Especially when they already have the same type of equipment at home due to forming their own decentralized networks. The freedom to connect and all that… RIP Aaron Swartz. And if more first responders figure out what went on with respect to first responders vs. the ruling class on 9/11, there’s no guarantee that the ruling class and the banksters that own them will always be kept safe in the police state that they’re trying to build now.

  12. The Tea Party movement has been greatly reinvigorated by Rove’s rantings and his declaration of war on that wing of the party. He has done them a great favor and I hope he keeps it up.

    There’s your problem, though. You can’t join Red team hoping to change its color later.

    It’s a world where perceptions are reality and power is all that matters. E.g.:

    We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do. –Karl Rove

    I guess you have to give it to them with pulling off 9/11 and “creating new realities,” etc. But that’s always the way things look in a world where the manipulation of perceptions is reality, right up until that moment you find yourself being detained without trial, water boarded or assassinated without trial for war crimes and so on.

  13. If you follow the links, you’ll find Delmarva Shooting Supply on the list of 34 companies adhering to this policy.

    Side note… they sell sniper rifles.

    “This item is presently out of stock.” Figures.

    What is in stock, these days?

    You know, things would be a lot simpler if people would just work together to arrest some banksters and send them to jail with the horribly harmful people that use marijuana (cough) to pay their “debt to society.”

    But it looks like that’s not happening based on the best entertainment and entertainer and chief that money can buy for now. Right when you need an angry black man as president interested in wealth redistribution in reality, too… oh well. People probably shouldn’t be looking to a central figure in the central government to somehow miraculously correct the situation and the central banksters that finance it all anyway.

  14. @mynym “Are you sticking with your official story that it doesn’t matter how much ammo they’re ordering if it’s all to be delivered in the next five years?”

    What I explained to you was what strategic sourcing contracts are and that the DHS contract was did not order or take delivery of that number of rounds. The contract merely allows to order a maximum number of rounds. And firearms experts will tell you that vast quantities of rounds are fired on ranges.

    Listen, let me break it down for you in simple way. You go to BJ’s or COSTCO and you buy soap, or paper towels or what have you. You buy large quantities cause you get a price break but you have to buy in bulk. Same thing here, except that DHS did not order that much ammo. They merely have a contract vehicle in place to facilitate ordering without having to let a new contract for each order.

    Now, come on there is much juicier secret stuff going on in the government, without resorting to glomming on to the bullets DHS did not order. You really need to be selective about your conspiracies. You simply cannot adopt every single conspiracy that comes along! You should have some standards for gosh sakes!

  15. Dave on February 24, 2013 at 10:44 said: “If someone exits a market, someone else will enter that same market if there is money to be made.”

    So you admit that (you already knew that) gun control will fail. Criminals will be able to get guns. The only people you might be able to disarm is honest people.

    If you knew that principle, Dave, then you already knew that gun control is a farce.

    Dave, what happened to your commitment to facts and logic? Shouldn’t you be offended and upset about the complete absurdity of gun control legislation, how it is doomed to fail?

    Here’s the thing: The only thing that will work is SIN CONTROL. You cannot control human beings by imposing laws on inanimate objects.

    There is evil in the world. You have to get the evil out of people. You cannot legislate inanimate objects.

  16. It’s amazing how people will chase their tail, running around in circles, and never stop to ask why they are doing it.

  17. “gun control will fail.”

    Define the term “gun control” Stop using generic meaningless slogans. You support keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, do you not? Is that a form of gun control? So you support that which you believe will fail?

    Blathering generalities in an attempt to prove a point of logic (which has become evident you are not qualified to do employing either inductive or deductive reasoning) is ultimately a fruitless exercise. In this case your ultimate solution to anything dealing with guns, is more guns. There are approximately 300,000,000 guns in this country and your belief is that 300,000,000 is an inadequate number to achieve the results you desire. You want more. While you may not be able to discern the lack of logic (or the application of your own argument) as to why that will not work, most other people can.

    Regardless, I celebrate and advocate your thoughts. You are sort of my poster boy for the state of the GOP. When someone asks what is wrong with the GOP today, I point to you. You are just like the current GOP leadership on sequestration. The hardest hit states will be red states, because they are the one’s that gobble up the greater share of federal dollars. So keep it up. Your patterings are exactly what I and others who are actively pursuing the demise of the GOP want.

  18. kavips – concerning Hicks outfits and Bravo Co.

    kavips, You are an idiot. no further comment necessary

  19. Now, come on there is much juicier secret stuff going on in the government, without resorting to glomming on to the bullets DHS did not order.

    I don’t agree that DHS should exist in the first place. All the resources used to establish it by dual citizen scum should have been devoted to prosecuting the other criminals in the military industrial complex responsible for 9/11, as far as I’m concerned.

    You really need to be selective about your conspiracies.

    An agency that shouldn’t even exist conspiring to place orders for way too much ammo (while entertaining themselves by shooting zombies) is a documented fact.

    You simply cannot adopt every single conspiracy that comes along!

    Do you accept the official conspiracy theory with respect to 9/11? If so, then why were many of the hijackers found alive?

    Even the cover stories for official “Here’s an almost perfectly preserved passport I just found on the sidewalk or somethin’! Watch out, it’s a Muslim!!!!” conspiracy theories are usually stupid. E.g.:

    If we accept this explanation, which the BBC could have offered, we might conclude that the premature announcement of the collapse by the news media adds nothing to what we have already established, namely, that Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management had spread the word several hours in advance that WTC 7 was going to collapse.
    Even with that interpretation, however, the premature announcements were not insignificant, because they revealed in a dramatic and memorable fashion the fact that someone knew in advance that Building 7 was going to collapse. This is important because, given the salient facts—that WTC 7 had not been hit by a plane, that no steel-framed high-rise building had ever collapsed because of fire alone, that WTC 7 had fires on only a few floors, and that some of the other still-standing WTC buildings had suffered far worse damage—there should have been no reason to expect WTC 7 to collapse.
    (The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False by David Ray Griffin: 114-116)

  20. Looks like even wide eyed lemmings recognized at least one part of the pattern of corruption above them:Giuliani Gets Exposed As Fraud by Firefighters

    But they can’t put it all together. It’s all just too much to take in. Not that I blame people, I guess. Kind of ironic that the masses were supposed to blame Muslims, yet not quite blame them… just those in Iraq, etc.

    Watch some old press conferences and pay attention to the parts where Guiliani steps back and lets Bernard Kerik (Secretary of Homeland Security nominee (cough)… and now convicted felon) talk instead of answering questions himself.

    There again, I’m not sure why they even bothered to conspire in that way. It’s not as if the military industrial media was going to demand a thorough investigation. That was left to the family members. Because entertainment and the mainstream media aside…. no one cares about you half as much as your family, friends and neighbors at a local level.

  21. TO Dave on February 26, 2013 at 07:56 — Those who are proposing to pass legislation (which will violate the US Constitution by the way) have the burden of defining what they want to propose and enact.

    But you admit that it wont’ work. Whatever restrictions liberals want to enact will simply be circumvented.

    It’s an old trick to try to shift the burden to the other side. I am not the one clamoring to “do something.” So if you want to “do something” you are the one with the burfden of defining it and defending it.

    You admit that any restriction won’t work because those who want to get guns, and who are willing to break the law, will find a way to get one.

    The only thing that you can do is limit the number of honest, law-abiding people who can defend themselves.

  22. Jon Moseley on February 26, 2013 at 00:00 said: “You cannot control human beings by imposing laws on inanimate objects. “

    Inanimate objects like booby traps ? Inanimate objects that are regulated by the FDA ?

  23. “It’s an old trick to try to shift the burden to the other side. I am not the one clamoring to “do something.” So if you want to “do something” you are the one with the burfden of defining it and defending it.”

    You employ the term “gun control.” You have an obligation to define the terms you use. I don’t employ those terms and I did not use the term in any comment on this thread, except to quote you. Go ahead, do a control F, search for each of my comments and see if I used the term.

    See, you used it. I quoted you. Now would you care to define it?

    I don’t use the term simply because if it ever held any meaning, that meaning has long since been lost to 2nd Amendment hysteria – yep, hysteria with everything the word implies.

    I advocate keeping weapons out of the hands of whack jobs and folks who can’t seem to figure out how to determine whether a weapon is loaded, or the ones who leave a loaded weapon pointed in their general direction so they can get shot by their dog who jumps on it (guns don’t shoot people. dogs shoot people). If you can’t see the logic for keeping deadly weapons out of the hands of raving lunatics and simpletons, then you have just validated your status as poster boy.

  24. Dave on March 1, 2013 at 22:11 said:

    “It’s an old trick to try to shift the burden to the other side. I am not the one clamoring to “do something.” So if you want to “do something” you are the one with the burfden of defining it and defending it.”

    You employ the term “gun control.” You have an obligation to define the terms you use

    Nice try. Keep beating that dead horse and maybe it will jump up and run around.

    Those who use the same old tactics jjust can’t handle it when people are on to them and their tactics aren’t working any more. They become befuddled, frustrated, and confused.

    You and your merry band are proposing that the law be changed to restrict gun ownership in violation of the Second Amendment.

    You also admit that it won’t accomplish anything because in the market place people will find a way around it and criminals will get guns any way.

    So you admit that you want to sacrifice the US Constitution for an empty gesture that won’t accomplish what you propose as the goal.

    When challenged on the core reality, of course you thrash about and flounder like a fish on the dock and want to talk about the definition of words.

    They’re “your” words (your side of the argument).

    But more important is the desperate attempt to shift attention AWAY from the fact that your argument makes no sense.

    Your side’s proposal will never accomplish the goal that you are hanging out as the reason for it.

    But to hide from that reality and throw dust in the air, the modus operandi is to quibble about side issues.

  25. Dave on March 1, 2013 at 22:11 said: “I advocate keeping weapons out of the hands of … [doesn't change the arguiment]”

    And yet you admit that you WON’T keep weapons out of the hands of [anyone] but they will find a way to get them anyway.

    You turn around and scoff at the idea that restrictions will keep people from getting what they want in the market place.

    You impliedly admit that you always knew that and that your advocacy is for what you know to be a false and empty gesture.

    You know that what you propose will fail, yet you want to trample upon the rights of law-abiding citizens for what you admit is a false and empty gesture.

    Moreover, you demonstrate the liberal malfunction of confusing DESIRE with a workable PLAN.

    I desire to have a $2 million yacht. Don’t confuse a wish with a PLAN.

    Liberals think that stating a goal is the same as having a plan.

  26. “You and your merry band are proposing that the law be changed to restrict gun ownership in violation of the Second Amendment.”

    The nation already infringes on the rights of citizens by deny ownership to the mentally ill. Do you support that or not? Quit slip slidin around!

  27. The only thing that you can do is limit the number of honest, law-abiding people who can defend themselves.

    Law abiding citizens living in an increasingly lawless police $tate owned by criminal banksters… a state of the union based on images/”perceptions as reality” and marketing in the corporate/military industrial media and not constituted on words/law or any conception of justice. That’s what you get with semi-literate, ignorant masses… it would seem.

    Remember what Rove said, “We’re an empire. So we’re creating reality now.” Etc. (Oh, really? Be careful with doing away with the rule of law and the ancient traditions of common law rooted in wisdom. Because someone else may come along and invent some “perceptions as reality” in which you should be detained, tortured or assassinated without trial.)

    Anyway, you’re still interested in being a law abiding citizen in this crap? Why?

    It’s like the NSA whistle blower said. The ruling class doesn’t need you to break any laws or abide by them, if you’re targeted then they’ll invent the laws that you’ve broken. E.g…. Aaron Swartz. Or you could compare the arts and crafts of Occupy that they get arrested by the police $tate for vs. the LIBOR “scandal”/crime and all the other actions of the banksters. As one satirist noted, maybe if Occupy tricked the banksters into drawing on the side walk or using a public rest room too much then they’d finally be able to arrest one of them for a “crime.” (Meanwhile, Jamie Dimon is flashing his cuff links that Obama Inc. gave him with the fricking Presidential Seal of approval on them. One would think that America was pretty much totally just a fictional work of satire at this point, yet it’s all too real!)

  28. Dave on March 2, 2013 at 08:23 said: “The nation already infringes on the rights of citizens by deny ownership to the mentally ill. Do you support that or not?”

    First, what do you mean by “mentally ill?” This is tremendously vague and ambiguous. The vast majority of people who are under some care or concern are NOT remotely a danger in any way.

    The vast majority of people who might be dragged within the vast net of the “mentally ill” offer no danger whatsoever of any violence and should not be restricted from owning or keeping a weapon.

    Again, Dave, you imagine yourself to be driven by factds and logic, but people are ASSUMING a lot of things about someone called “mentally ill.”

    Second, someone has to be ADJUDICATED to be unable to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Should there be a blanket category? Hell no, absolutely not. This is another part of the problem. If someone has been formally evaluated and adjudicated incompetent, they can be restricted, and then only as long as the disability lasts. If they recover, they are allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

    THe way gun regulation nuts talk about it, if someone decides “I think you’re crazy” instantly you can’t buy a gun.

    So with the Newton, CT, shooting. If I’m not mistaken Adam Lanza had never been declared mentally incompetent. So he would not have been denied a gun.

    Third, DOES IT WORK? If a regualtion won’t work, then no I don’t support it.

    I cannot support a restriction that will burden other people and/or create make-work for the government, costs, and complication IF IT WON’T WORK.

    If the mentally ill will just find some other way to get a gun, WHY DO YOU WANT A REGULATION that won’t work?

    Now, tell us, Dave, WHY do you want regulations on the books that won’t do any good?

  29. Dave
    “The nation already infringes on the rights of citizens by deny ownership to the mentally ill. Do you support that or not? Quit slip slidin around!”

    Well Dave, we’d just as soon that your president didn’t further infringe on any of our civil rights. Only if you don’t mind! LOL

Comments are closed.