Wilson Combat does the right thing!

[Noreaster]

I wish more companies would take this stance. My next purchase will be from Wilson Combat!

Wilson Combat Announces
Anti-Gun States, No-Sale Policy
Effective: February 28, 2013

Wilson Combat will no longer provide any products or services to any State Government imposing legislation that infringes on the second amendment rights of its law abiding citizens. This includes any Law Enforcement Department, Law Enforcement Officers, or any State Government Entity or Employee of such an entity. This also applies to any local municipality imposing such infringements.

States currently included in our No-Sale Policy are:
California
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Washington D.C.
The City of Chicago, Illinois
Wilson Combat will in NO way support the government of these states or their anti-gun agenda that only limits the rights of law-abiding citizens. Wilson Combat will continue to supply any product and/or service they can legally sell in these states to all non-government affiliated citizens.

Ryan Wilson,
Vice President

[JimDandy]

The sentiment is great but think about it. Are they going to require Cabelas et al to ask if the guy buying a magazine is a local LEO? So they're not going to get a contract from the City of Chicago for magazines. Do they have one now? Ever? Again, don't get me wrong, I enjoy the release, but my logical side wonders how much is sentiment, and how much is advertising.

[NWPilgrim]

Doesn't matter which it is in the grand scheme. It adds momentum to the movement. Every manufacturer that gets on board adds mass, and makes it easier for the next ones to throw their hand in with us citizens.

[JimDandy]

I'd say it matters a little. I can tell Ferrari that neither I, nor anyone in my neighborhood will buy their product, or sell it. They'll look at my neighborhood and laugh. I'll thank these companies for their sentiment, but I'll sit up and take notice when it's Colt, Remington, Smith and Wesson, etc.

[Water-Man]

No need to split hairs. At least they're doing something that most in their industry aren't.

[Tickling]

Again, don't get me wrong, I enjoy the release, but my logical side wonders how much is sentiment, and how much is advertising.

It doesn't matter. The more companies that do it, it eventually creates a snowball effect, until you get a company that does pinch the opposition.

Or we continue to collect small companies. Pretty soon there's only a few of the big companies. It's easier to boycott a handful of names.

[Fishing_Cabin]

Hmmm....I guess they will keep selling to feds then, since they are left out of the list. Unsure from their statement if they would support a Fed AWB but not a state one. Hmmm. I wonder how folks who supported (and those of us still trying to get them enacted) the various firearms freedoms acts in different states feel about that.

While I do use Wilson mags, I will say I probably wont be purchasing any more...

Originally Posted by Tickling

It doesn't matter. The more companies that do it, it eventually creates a snowball effect, until you get a company that does pinch the opposition.

The issue is, is that which level ban do you fear most? State or fed? Both have difficult records. When I look at companies picking and choosing, say, "No local/state sales, but Feds? No problem!" Or this product we will stand for protecting, but this other, (like NFA) is not worth a stand, so we keep selling to LE.

A company wants my respect/business? Great, either keep things open as they are now (like other business, Colt, FN, Glock, etc) by not choosing a side or do a complete ban on sales to anyone but, the public. This in-between bull crap is old...

Its one way, or the other. Unfortunately for Wilson, they picked the middle, by not halting sales to the feds too.

[Tickling]

The issue is, is that which level ban do you fear most? State or fed?

And what has the Federal government done yet that would justify not selling to say, the military? You're going to get bad press for refusing to sell to our soldiers, again what excuse would they have for banning them at this point?

The state's they are banning however, already have draconian laws in place.

[manta49]

Publicity stunt.

[cryogenic419]

I think that these companies standing up and saying something is better than sitting idle and watching the grass grow. While all the smaller companies may not have as much of an impact as the bigger companies, what they are doing is still important. Somebody mentioned the snowball effect...what do you think is happening? Now you have more and more companies joining up and holding the same line on any state government that refuses to allow civilians these items, the same courtesy will be extended to the states by these companies. Strength in numbers and solidarity.

[Fishing_Cabin]

The fed also had a ban too, thankfully with a sunset provision. We may at some point wind out with another fed ban at some point, not likely but still possible.

I know you keep tossing the military but the statement also left out? The fed LE in those same states...

[Tickling]

Or this product we will stand for protecting, but this other, (like NFA) is not worth a stand, so we keep selling to LE.

So how does Wilson Combat have a dog in the NFA fight? Last I checked, you can still buy all the NFA items you want..

Fully automatic weapons, at least modern production, aren't the issue at this point. Because then these companies would be banning EVERY state government. We want to make a specific stand and dragging NFA items into it just muddies the waters, because NO one is threatening NFA items.

You think civilians should have access to modern fully automatic firearms, and that's fine. But that isn't what this fight is about.

The fed also had a ban too, thankfully with a sunset provision. We may at some point wind out with another fed ban at some point, not likely but still possible.

I know you keep tossing the military but the statement also left out? The fed LE in those same states...

HAD a ban.

My point was, if you ban the feds, that means you ban the military. And that is bad press, which would have to warrant a GOOD reason. Which doesn't include an attack on current NFA laws that no one is asking for.

[Fishing_Cabin]

The point I am making is right now there are not only attacks on RKBA at state level, but also at fed level. AWB, mag restrictions, universal background checks, etc. While its true that the fed AWB is doubtful to get any traction, we may wind out with a fed universal background check.

I am against these at both the state and fed level. Which is why I take offense at the one sided stance against state action, but not against federal action.

I am not against keeping the military equipped with what they need to do their job, nor am I against keeping LE at the different levels (fed/state/local) equipped to do their job. What I am against is coming out against the state side like this, but not coming out against the fed side.

The NFA side is tied in to other companies that sell both semi and select fire, but, don't have a problem with the difference between public and LE sales between the two types. I already discussed this in another thread on similar topic though, so no reason to repeat.

The specific stand will fail though if folks keep tossing "but the military" out for emotion. I have already detailed that in another thread though on a similar topic though, so no need to repeat.

I guess we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on our views about stopping any future restrictions.

[Tickling]

I am against these at both the state and fed level. Which is why I take offense at the one sided stance against state action, but not against federal action.

Again, notice they are banning sales to states that have ALREADY infringed on the rights of their citizens and not say, Oregon or Colorado which has pending legislation that may or may not pass. The same principle would seem to apply to the Feds, when something occurs Federally, that will be the time to talk about "double-speak."

The specific stand will fail though if folks keep tossing "but the military" out for emotion. I have already detailed that in another thread though on a similar topic though, so no need to repeat.

I think you misunderstood me. I was in no way crying "but the military" for emotion. I was pointing out that OTHERS (even the antis) would do so. Hence requiring a better reason to ban the Feds than, "There is some proposed legislation that might pass."

[Fishing_Cabin]

We respectfully will have to agree to disagree.

[JimDandy]

Oregon or Colorado which has pending legislation

Probably just an oversight, but Denver has a ban... I assume oversight because they included Chicago.

[Tickling]

We respectfully will have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough

[MLeake]

Fishing Cabin,

Might I suggest that before you criticize Wilson Combat, you contact them and see if they would consider adding the Feds to their list? This may be less a matter of hypocrisy than one of somebody at Wilson not having thought about it.

[geetarman]

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but it seems to me that Wilson is not targeting the individual as much as purchase orders from governmental agencies in those states.

It might also extend to LEOs in those states who ask for an LEO discount at the LGS. They might be told to pay full retail.

I do applaud Wilson for publicly taking a stand. I use their products and like them.

[Musketeer]

I live in NY and appreciate any company, no matter how small, that makes a stand against my state's government.

I would love to see Cuomo's detail limited to nothing but second hand cap and ball revolvers but I will take what I can get.

[Fishing_Cabin]

Originally Posted by MLeake

Fishing Cabin,

Might I suggest that before you criticize Wilson Combat, you contact them and see if they would consider adding the Feds to their list? This may be less a matter of hypocrisy than one of somebody at Wilson not having thought about it.

I will attempt to call them the first of the week for clarification. Though the notice about the hold times longer then normal, and busy signals on their website, I will try to get through and see what they have to say.

My concern, and the reason why I am not happy with the stance (as written), is that after trying to support protections for RKBA at the state level, I feel its wrong to specifically call out no sales to local/state LE in the states affected with bans, but there is silence on selling to the feds there as well. Why should it be ok to sell to a fed in Ca, but not ok to sell to a state/local officer in Ca? Im speaking of fed as in USSS, BATF, FBI, DHS, etc type federal agencies, not the military.

Again, after supporting protections at state level, I have a problem with discontinuing sales to state/local, but yet empowering the feds by continuing sales to them if the feds in question are in the same state.

Your correct, MLeake, it may be a matter of oversight, instead of separating the two differently. I apologize that I was not more clear earlier.

I know many may not agree with my views, but fortunately we have that choice to have differing viewpoints.

[MLeake]

Fishing Cabin, I doubt that typical Federal agencies buy through local offices; I suspect they are more like the military, where contracts are awarded at HQ level, so I don't think there would be a way to halt sales to, say, ATF agents in Illinois.

I suspect that halting sales to Federal LE in any state really requires halting sales to Federal LE, period.

I don't know if Wilson Combat has thought about Feds or not. I'm just saying that it would probably be good to ask them if they do have any policy on the Feds, before deciding they are deliberately being hypocritical in their policy.

Also, if the Feds don't pass any legislation this session, and things remain as they were last year at the Federal level, would banning sales to Federal LE really be applicable?

[Double Naught Spy]

Wilson Combat will no longer provide any products or services to any State Government imposing legislation that infringes on the second amendment rights of its law abiding citizens

Interesting statement. Strangely, they still sell guns to some state governments when last I checked, every single one of them had some legislation that infringed on the 2nd amendment.

Of course, Wilson doesn't hold a lot of big government contracts and currently we are in a period where gun companies cannot keep up with demand, so there will be no net loss to Wilson in terms of profits, and they might actually do better given that they won't be losing profits to LEO discounts to those states. So financially this move behooves them as it does for publicity.