Tag Archives: gun ban

by

Gun Companies Boycotting Law Enforcement In Anti-Gun States Grow by More Than 700% in One Week

This unprecedented opposition to limiting gun sales to The People is astonishing and so good to see. The statements these gun manufacturers/sellers have made are VERY good. (see below)

Who would have thought they’d turn around and restrict sales to LEOs? It’s an impressive counter, don’t you think? There are many peaceful ways to make our stand against tyranny and more are revealed every week it seems.

February 25, 2013

The list of companies that have decided to stop selling firearms and ammunition to law enforcement agencies, in states that are hostile to the Second Amendment and putting forth gun control legislation, is growing and has grown more than seven times the number that I informed you about one week ago today.

Previously I listed the following companies:

Now the list has expanded to include:

Jeffrey Norton, of Norton Firearms, issued a statement on the company’s website:

Norton Firearms, Inc. is a strong defender of the US Constitution, not only the 2nd amendment. We believe that a government that restricts it Citizens from executing their Constitutional Rights is no longer a government for the people or by the people. It is our policy not to sell our products or services to any organization that tries to diminish the rights given to us by our US Constitution and our Creator. If you are a government agency with a policy of restricting our Constitutional Rights we ask that you take our tax dollars and spend it somewhere else. I am sure there is some profiteering communist foreign company that will be glad to take our dollars for their gain. We will only sell to law abiding Citizens and those agencies that truly support and will defend The US Constitution.

Others, like Kiss Tactical, posted to their Facebook page:

On Saturday I refused to sell a AR-15 rifle to a police officer from California. He came into my shop and wanted to buy his duty gun in AZ because the same gun in his home state would cost him more.

I told him that I would not sell him the gun even though he had his department letter saying he was able to buy it. I told him that if the gun was not legal for law abiding men and women in CA I would not sell it to him. After he told me that “civilians don’t need them type of guns,” I asked to leave my shop. He stomped out mad.

I have made a decision to not sell to any gun to police department that are not legal for civilians. We build custom AR-15 and have sold more then a few to cops in a few states. I am not sure how this will effect us but as we grow and our name gets out there more we will not change this policy.

Following New York’s gun control laws, Steve Adelmann, of Citizen Arms, made the following statement on the home page of his company’s website:

”Due to legal, ethical and moral concerns, Citizen Arms offers only those custom firearms that are legal for all lawful citizens of a given state to possess, regardless of law enforcement status. LE personnel living in states where citizens must have restrictive features will only receive like product support from Citizen Arms.

We’re very appreciative of the sacrifices made by the law enforcement community but we’re even more appreciative of the right guaranteed to all law-abiding US citizens by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution: ‘A well regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’”

If you know of other companies that are joining in this protest against attacks by tyrannical Federal and State governments, please click on the “Contact” button at the top of the page and send me a link to the company’s statement and I’ll add it to the growing list. Please consider supporting companies like these as they value freedom and the responsibility we have to both keep and bear arms.

Firearms Policy Coalition offers a digital option for those wishing to send an email encouraging companies to get on board with this movement.

Ronnie Barrett posted the following letter at the company’s Facebook page:

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

UPDATE: Phil Flack of P.F. Custom Guns in Asheville, N.C. sent me this message:

Effective immediately, P. F. Custom Guns will not sell to or support in anyway Government agencies in states where their elected Officials are destroying our Constitution and American way of life for the citizens of their state. While we are all shocked at recent tragic events in our nation and we send heartfelt prayers for the Families of the victims. Knee jerk reactions from purely political opportunist, in my mind, just a slap in the face to these Families. These same politicians should be apologizing for their past actions of not allowing free citizens the God given right to defend themselves, their homes and certainly their children. This is NOT the Country that I put on a uniform to defend. I will not stand by or continue to support any State Government or their agencies or sub-divisions that do not fully support our Constitution.

UPDATE: George Pouliotte of Ammodump International LLC wrote to tell me that his company has been refusing to sell firearms to states hostile to the guns and gun owners since 1989. “This is not new to my company”, he wrote.

UPDATE: Thunder Beast Arms is on board as well. Their stated policy reads:

Due to the recent attacks against lawful civilian firearms ownership and use, Thunder Beast Arms Corporation is adopting a policy of equal treatment for government entity sales and commercial sales.

Effective immediately, we will not sell to any state or any of its political subdivisions in which a law-abiding resident could not legally obtain, possess, or use the same firearm, silencer, or accessory due to laws in that state or political subdivision. To put it simply, if you can’t have it, they can’t have it.

UPDATE: GWACS Armory put out this statement via their Facebook page:

GWACS Armory will NOT sell or transfer any GWACS CAV-15 (full-auto or semi-auto) to any Law Enforcement Agency or other Department or Agency within the borders and jurisdiction of any State that passes laws to specifically restrict the rights of law abiding citizens to buy and own guns produced by GWACS Armory for their private security and legal use…

UPDATE: Antares Arms states quite simply on their front page:

Be Advised: We refuse to recognize law enforcement exemptions on gun control.

If a product that we sell is not legal for a law-abiding private citizen to own in a jurisdiction, we will not sell that product to a law-enforcement agency in that jurisdiction.

UPDATE: One reader of Freedom Outpost sent me this email, demonstrating that Climags.com is supporting the boycott as well. According to Climags Frequently Asked Questions:

Q. Why was my Order Cancelled?

A. Typically it is because the items you ordered are not legal in either the place where it is being shipped to or your billing address. Please double check our High Capacity Laws page. We do NOT make exceptions for Military or Law Enforcement, if you want to possess these items please get involved with your local politics. If your order is cancelled you will be issued a refund and emailed a reason for the cancellation.

UPDATE: Freedom Outpost’s own Tom Wise with Amendment Arms, sent me this email in regards to his company’s policy. He told me I could quote him on it:

Definitely. First, our FAQ makes clear that we do not recognize a federal government which does not recognize legal contracts. Second, my article “Pro-Gun Advocates are Just Paranoid” provides the necessary logic that if police in New York carry weapons which the citizenry is prohibited from owning, the police are either breaking the law or they’re not citizens but part of an unequal elite.

Oddly, this is the charge Marx leveled against capitalist society, that the police are there to defend wealth. Very true, but the Leftists merely seize the “means of protection” (to coin a phrase) and utilize it against those who created it!

In a nutshell, we will not sell the Joshua Mk5 or any other weapon to this federal government administration, because we believe them to be corrupt, conniving, and working in concert to disassemble liberty. We will not sell our weaponry to New York law enforcement.

We will require California law enforcement to have a bullet button and 10-round magazine, just like their citizens. We will not sell to any law enforcement in any state which we know has a bill or proposal on the table to limit or exclude our weaponry. We do this to make the philosophical point, and to keep the odds even.

Source

by

Local Sheriffs Obliged to Protect Americans’ Guns

A high-profile former sheriff who once sued the U.S. government over its gun regulations – and won – says it’s the local sheriff who will have to defend Americans when and if the feds start banning and confiscating guns.

Richard Mack, a former sheriff in Graham County, Ariz., joined with then-Ravalli County Sheriff Jay Printz in a lawsuit against Washington when Bill Clinton demanded sheriffs enforce provisions of the Brady Bill gun-control law.

He won. And since then he’s been at the front of a movement that highlights the responsibility of local sheriffs.

Now, as Washington gears up to consider imperious plans to limit guns, require fingerprinting and registration, impose additional taxes and fees, ban particular features or functions outright, and even confiscate weapons of self-defense, Mack has told WND that there’s hope remaining in local law enforcement.

It’s not complicated, he said.

“Gun control is illegal, and it’s against the Constitution,” he said. “What people don’t realize is that the Second Amendment was designed to protect us from the power of the federal government.”

He said he would expect sheriffs across the country to defend the rights of ordinary Americans.

“I hope and pray America’s sheriffs won’t allow any more gun control,” Mack said. “The sheriffs need to be united in letting the federal government know that we’re not going to allow it.

“In the ’90s when I was the sheriff of Graham County, Ariz., we worked with other sheriffs and stopped two or three Brady Bills,” he recalled, a fight that he’s been detailing in seminars with sheriffs.

He said the office is critical, as it’s not only in law enforcement, but also is elected directly by the people.

“Out of 200 sheriffs with whom I’ve met, I’ve only had one give me a wishy-washy answer. That one said he would try to take the federal government to court,” Mack said. “Most of them have said they would lay down their lives first rather than allow any more federal control. They also said they would do everything they could to stop gun control and gun confiscation.”

Alan Stang at News With Views wrote about another battle Mack encountered while sheriff. A bridge had washed out and parents were driving children 26 miles to school, which physically was located only half a mile across a river.

The county decided the fix the bridge and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers warned that an environmental study alone would take 10 years. Mack promised to provide protection for the workers, and said he’d call out a posse if needed.

The bridge was built.

Stang wrote about other close encounter between sheriffs and the feds:

Find out who is working to aid Barack Obama in the destruction of the 2nd Amendment, in “America Disarmed.”

“In 1997, in Nye County, Nev., federal agents arrived to seize cattle that belonged to rancher Wayne Hage. The sheriff gave them a choice: skedaddle or be arrested. They skedaddled. … In Idaho, a 74-year-old rancher shot an endangered gray wolf which had killed one of his calves. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sent three armed agents to serve a warrant. Lemhi County Sheriff Brett Barslou said that was ‘inappropriate, heavy-handed and dangerously close to excessive force.’ More than 500 people turned out for a rally in the small towns of Challis and Salmon to support the sheriff and the rancher and to tell the federal government to back off.”

Mack, who’s written “The Magic of Gun Control,” said if there is an actual specific plan to start taking Americans’ weapons, he expects a response.
“If the federal government wants to start a new Civil War, all they need to do is go ahead with gun confiscation,” Mack said.

Just a day earlier, WND reported that Firearms Coalition Executive Director Jeff Knox said Second Amendment supporters aren’t planning negotiations with Obama over gun control.

“We are not going to back down. We are not going to give in. And we are not going to concede one more inch,” Knox said.

He was responding to questions about America’s response to plans like those from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to demand gun registration, bans and fingerprinting in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut.

“Unfortunately, the president and other anti-rights politicians are not doing anything to keep what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary from happening again,” he said. “Instead they are going after law-abiding gun owners and targeting commonly owned firearms and ammunition feeding devices. Their proposed restrictions on these items would have had no impact on what happened at Sandy Hook, and, if passed, would not stop the next craven murderer from wreaking just as much havoc and destruction.”

Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt shares Mack’s opinion.

“The county sheriffs need to act and make new deputies to stop federal authority in the counties,” Pratt told WND. “This is a defensible idea. He can deputize people to serve since they are the ones who voted for him to represent them. A lot of citizens would stand up for their Second Amendment rights if they were protected by the sheriff.”

He cited a move that already is surging among states to adopt laws and use the Tenth Amendment to curb federal activity. The Tenth Amendment simply reserves to the states and the people all responsibilities not specifically assigned to Washington in the Constitution.

Pratt noted the move that over the past few years has seen eight states adopt laws that exempt firearms made, sold and kept in the state from federal oversight. The federal government has taken the issue to court, where it remains at this point.

“A number of states are passing laws that use the Tenth Amendment to curb federal control. Their law says that if a gun is made in the state and sold in the state, that the federal government has no control over it,” Pratt said.

He provided additional examples of what already has resulted from sheriffs’ disputes with the feds.

“In Elkhart County, Ind., there was a farmer who produced raw milk. The Department of Justice was investigating the farmer and was trying to shut down the farm,” Pratt said. “Elkhart County Sheriff Brad Rogers defended the farmer by saying that without a warrant signed by a judge and without probable cause, they had no jurisdiction to investigate the farmer within his jurisdiction of Elkhart County.”

“Rogers said that if they didn’t leave, he would arrest them. The DoJ threatened to arrest him, but Rogers sent his deputies to defend the farmer,” Pratt said. “The feds have had to back off.”

He also said local officials in New Mexico burned trees from a small parcel of federal land to halt a raging forest fire.

“The sheriff is the chief officer in the county even on federal land if the land is in the county,” Pratt said.

But Washington is not idle. Barack Obama said he will put the weight of his office behind gun control, and Feinstein even has proposed a federal gun buyback program that has been endorsed by about 40 members of Congress.

Feinstein’s dedication to eliminating the Second Amendment is unquestioned.

The California Democrat was one of sponsors of the so-called “Brady Bill,” the 1995 “assault weapons” ban. Faced with the limitations placed in the version that was making its way through Congress, Feinstein said, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up every gun in America, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

Mack, who is also the founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, said Feinstein is a “polimagician,” a political leader who believes his or her policies will work magic for their constituents.

“They think they’re special and better than everyone else. Feinstein’s [own] concealed carry permit is the product of this elitist attitude,” Mack said. He said Congress and Obama simply are loading their political agenda onto the backs of the victims of Sandy Hook.

He said gun control through history produces one result: “Genocide.” Pratt warned that Washington’s strategy will accomplish nothing but creating vast new ranks of felons in America.

“A lot of Americans spend an awful lot of money on these guns. I don’t think there will be very many who will willingly accept $200 for a gun that they paid $500 to $1,000 for,” Pratt said.

The last two major gun rights cases that went before the U.S. Supreme Court were decided in favor of gun rights, and as a followup the Second Amendment Foundation has been taking on local and state restrictions.

Read more…