The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - We have the upper hand with manufacturers

Fishing_Cabin · February 25, 2013, 01:17 PM

I would doubt that Beretta, and other international firearm companies really pick a side in this fight... It would not be popular for, say Beretta, to support certain things in the USA, say, like take a stand against registration (or whatever idea you have) and then sell the same firearms in another country with stricter laws for registration, just an example. Just my thoughts... Now could Beretta move out of Md due to cost cutting and avoiding future liability due to laws being considered? Of course.

Also, the close the police loophole thing, may get some traction, but IMO should be targeted directly at the state and fed agencies, instead of from state down to local, since its typically the states or feds that initiate the new laws. Its also odd, that after all these years, it is gaining traction. There has been a law enforcement loophole for years in one way or another, going back to 1968. Perhaps longer...

_________________

What's being argued right now:
AWB

Mag restrictions

Background checks

What's included in the law enforcement loophole:
Generally an exception for duty use for "assault weapons."

Generally an exception for duty use for standard, or "High" capacity mags.

Difference in background checks for a duty use firearm.

Ability for law enforcement to purchase by mail on letterhead from a distributor or manufacturer, without a local FFL dealer or distributor being involved.

An exception for duty use on post 86 full auto and select fire firearms.

Also there is the exception for the import restrictions such as those on the Glock 380's which are why they are sold to law enforcement only instead of direct import.

________________

With the above said, (I didn't include every exception for law enforcement, just a few big ones) its doubtful that the larger companies will hold to closing the "law enforcement loophole" since they have been enjoying the sales from such for years.

What would stop a company from saying that they will cut-off sales of say AR-15's to law enforcement, but then say "(Cough, Cough) Let us sell you some M-16's or M-4's instead?" That company could say they upheld their pledge not to sell so-called "assault weapons" to law enforcement, but they back door'd the NFA stuff in private. If pushed on the issue all the company would have to say was, "we kept our pledge to not sell assault weapons if a new law is passed on them, but there is not a new law on NFA firearms, so we sold them that, so it didn't violate our pledge."

Also, for this to be effective it would have to include restricting sales to the military. No, I am not against the military at all, but... The military and the feds have a system already in place to either gift or loan firearms, such as M-16's, etc. to local law enforcement, which also includes other firearms as well. So instead of law enforcement purchasing directly from a company, it would instead be getting more equipment from the feds/military, since that would be their source if every company cut-off law enforcement.

edit to add:

I'm not trying to sound all doom and gloom as far as this topic goes. Just trying to be realistic about things. We can debate "who buys more" all day long, and there will still be a select few companies that keep going after government contracts. As I mentioned already about the military long-term loaning firearms to law enforcement, it would be silly for FNH to give up the contract it just got for M-4's, because at some point, some of them would be given a long term loan to law enforcement, just as M-16's are loaned out to law enforcement today.

(Side note. If you want to read an article about it the new M4 contract. Link is below)
http://kitup.military.com/2013/02/ar...ntract-fn.html

What I am getting at is, this will become mostly just an obstacle to overcome for law enforcement, instead of a major problem. While I am glad to see the strong sales for firearms/ammo to the general public, and I really hope it continues, in the past its always come back down to a more reasonable level. There will always be at least a small handful of firearm companies who will go after government contracts, military, fed, state, and local. Even for the smallest law enforcement agencies, they would still be able to piggy-back on to a larger order in the future, just as some do now for firearms/ammo.

What am I doing to try to keep any new restrictions from coming forth? I'm working with those in law enforcement I know, and trying to win those few over who are on the edge...It may surprise some folks, but the majority of law enforcement here are very pro-gun. The main issue are the dept heads, which we all know has a good bit of politics in it, and as such, it may/may not represent the rank and file. We are all in this together. I just don't see a need to divide folks in to different sides.

February 25, 2013, 01:17 PM	#12
Fishing_Cabin Senior Member Join Date: February 10, 2010 Posts: 720	I would doubt that Beretta, and other international firearm companies really pick a side in this fight... It would not be popular for, say Beretta, to support certain things in the USA, say, like take a stand against registration (or whatever idea you have) and then sell the same firearms in another country with stricter laws for registration, just an example. Just my thoughts... Now could Beretta move out of Md due to cost cutting and avoiding future liability due to laws being considered? Of course. Also, the close the police loophole thing, may get some traction, but IMO should be targeted directly at the state and fed agencies, instead of from state down to local, since its typically the states or feds that initiate the new laws. Its also odd, that after all these years, it is gaining traction. There has been a law enforcement loophole for years in one way or another, going back to 1968. Perhaps longer... _________________ What's being argued right now: AWB Mag restrictions Background checks What's included in the law enforcement loophole: Generally an exception for duty use for "assault weapons." Generally an exception for duty use for standard, or "High" capacity mags. Difference in background checks for a duty use firearm. Ability for law enforcement to purchase by mail on letterhead from a distributor or manufacturer, without a local FFL dealer or distributor being involved. An exception for duty use on post 86 full auto and select fire firearms. Also there is the exception for the import restrictions such as those on the Glock 380's which are why they are sold to law enforcement only instead of direct import. ________________ With the above said, (I didn't include every exception for law enforcement, just a few big ones) its doubtful that the larger companies will hold to closing the "law enforcement loophole" since they have been enjoying the sales from such for years. What would stop a company from saying that they will cut-off sales of say AR-15's to law enforcement, but then say "(Cough, Cough) Let us sell you some M-16's or M-4's instead?" That company could say they upheld their pledge not to sell so-called "assault weapons" to law enforcement, but they back door'd the NFA stuff in private. If pushed on the issue all the company would have to say was, "we kept our pledge to not sell assault weapons if a new law is passed on them, but there is not a new law on NFA firearms, so we sold them that, so it didn't violate our pledge." Also, for this to be effective it would have to include restricting sales to the military. No, I am not against the military at all, but... The military and the feds have a system already in place to either gift or loan firearms, such as M-16's, etc. to local law enforcement, which also includes other firearms as well. So instead of law enforcement purchasing directly from a company, it would instead be getting more equipment from the feds/military, since that would be their source if every company cut-off law enforcement. edit to add: I'm not trying to sound all doom and gloom as far as this topic goes. Just trying to be realistic about things. We can debate "who buys more" all day long, and there will still be a select few companies that keep going after government contracts. As I mentioned already about the military long-term loaning firearms to law enforcement, it would be silly for FNH to give up the contract it just got for M-4's, because at some point, some of them would be given a long term loan to law enforcement, just as M-16's are loaned out to law enforcement today. (Side note. If you want to read an article about it the new M4 contract. Link is below) http://kitup.military.com/2013/02/ar...ntract-fn.html What I am getting at is, this will become mostly just an obstacle to overcome for law enforcement, instead of a major problem. While I am glad to see the strong sales for firearms/ammo to the general public, and I really hope it continues, in the past its always come back down to a more reasonable level. There will always be at least a small handful of firearm companies who will go after government contracts, military, fed, state, and local. Even for the smallest law enforcement agencies, they would still be able to piggy-back on to a larger order in the future, just as some do now for firearms/ammo. What am I doing to try to keep any new restrictions from coming forth? I'm working with those in law enforcement I know, and trying to win those few over who are on the edge...It may surprise some folks, but the majority of law enforcement here are very pro-gun. The main issue are the dept heads, which we all know has a good bit of politics in it, and as such, it may/may not represent the rank and file. We are all in this together. I just don't see a need to divide folks in to different sides. Last edited by Fishing_Cabin; February 25, 2013 at 03:28 PM.