13
Some gun makers try to keep their guns out of police hands
A few weeks ago, New York State passed a new gun law, restricting what kind of guns New Yorkers can own. Now, some gun manufacturers say they won't do business with the State of New York.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
A few weeks ago, New York State passed a new gun law, restricting what kind of guns New Yorkers can own. That upset a lot of people, including gun manufacturers, and a few of them have taken the matter into their own hands.
“It just didn’t make sense to us,” Brian Schuetz says. He co-owns Olympic Arms, a company that specializes in AR-15s -- a firearm that is now illegal in New York State.
“If a citizen, you know, can’t own it, I don’t understand the reasoning why the law enforcement community should have it.”
From now on, they won’t be able to have any Olympic Arms guns. Schuetz says the manufacturer won’t do business with the State of New York.
LaRue Tactical made the same decision. So did a company called EFI, which makes long-range precision rifles.
According to its president, Melinda Meador, there shouldn’t be exceptions for a police officer or a sheriff.
“If I can’t sell it to a member of the public, I’m not selling it to him,” she says.
EFI added New York to a list that already includes Washington, D.C., Chicago, and California -- places that also have strict gun laws.
Meador estimates government sales account for about ten percent of her business.
“To tell you the truth, Dave, we’re not worried about it,” John Grebert says. He is the executive director of the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police, a group that supported the new gun law in New York State.
But, he adds, “I think it’s pretty unfortunate that any business thinks they can bully us.”
Because people in law enforcement deal with criminals every days, Grebert thinks they have, “a greater right” to weapons, "to deal with potentially violent situations.” And Grebert says he’s confident police will still have access to the equipment they need “to get the job done right.”
Pages
There should not be any exceptions for law enforcement, television or movie productions, etc. from the legal restrictions which affect law abiding civilians. Please note that the police in New York state are civilian police forces and not the military. The military is a whole other deal when it comes to gun laws. On the other hand the police are civilians and should conform to the same laws that the citizens should follow.
If New York wants to correct the stupid mistake of limiting magazines to seven rounds for the police, then correct the mistake that is harming law abiding citizens at the same time.
In the end, these draconian gun laws may have another impact on the state of New York. Remington might decide to relocate their gun manufacturing business in a more friendly state, such as Pennsylvania.
I don't see why NY would care. After all, the theory is that if you ban it, then no one will have it, right? So if they ban all guns, no one will have guns, and they can carry billy clubs like Bobbies in the UK?
If you're saying that's absurd, then maybe you ought to think about how useful those gun-bans are. If the guns are going to be there anyway, in the hands of criminals who mean to use them to do harm anyway, how is the ban going to affect that?
Not to mention, the perception from outside NY is that you're more likely to be shot by the cop in NY than anyone else. In my opinion, far safer for the general public to have 'assault weapons' than the police. They don't seem to be able to use their sidearms responsibly.
Unless firing over a hundred rounds at an unarmed man and hiting him only 20 times is responsible.
Your argument is the rough equivalent of saying if there hadn't been poor kids, no one would have gotten molested/raped at Penn State, so ban poor kids. You can't keep the poor kids from existing or being around. You're not going to stop the criminal who will prey on the poor kids by making it illegal to prey on poor kids (hint, it's already illegal), and your motivation in protecting Penn State from being known as Pedo state is misplaced in it's intention.
Not having a gun didn't stop this:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/14/china-knife-attack-school....
22 kindergarden age kids stabbed. What's to stop someone from using a bomb, or a chemical, or an SUV?
Take the emotion out of this issue and use your head. Ineffective bans on tools won't alleviate the problems that come about from not treating the mentally ill adequately, from stigmatizing them, or from not protecting our children. If an armed guard can hold off (not even necessarily kill) an attacker until police can arrive, that's all that's needed. But you'd rather change society and subject us all to more violent crime in a crusade to prevent something your changes wouldn't prevent, when a simple solution is already at hand and available.
Stop and think.
I don't want to take this discussion off of the primary topic, but I think it is a good idea to point out that there are different opinions in the LEO community on whether non-sworn citizens should be armed.
The chiefs, commissioners, and other often politically appointed members of top level management tend to have one view of this issue. They are asked to speak at Presidential press conferences and such to explain how guns don't make anyone safer.
The officers and deputies out on the streets and among the people tend to have a very different view. They carry a gun to protect themselves and they personally see the aftermath of criminal acts against those poor folks who chose not to, or weren't allowed to do the same.
But those guys aren't welcome at the press conferences. Putting them in front of a TV camera wouldn't advance the correct message.
Dear avid listener: see the first post, by Sam1911. Read again, if still you don't understand, repeat. Again, till u get it.
See, most violent crime is over by time LEO's arrive. Ask them, don't take my word for it. Oh, gee... I am one, so I might know just a little about it. We're city employees, so don't ask my crew, ask the sheriff's department. Takes longer for our county bros. and sisters to respond to crime in progress.
Please don't respond and speak for PD's and LEO's till you ask the folks who protect you how they feel.
I'd much rather have trained citizenry able to thwart and stop a threat to their loved ones, property or castle, than arrive too late, or have to take a rape victim to the ER... when it presenting arms, racking a shotgun, or the sight of an AR would have been a deterrent.
You anti gunners, anti self defense, anti freedom of others rights, please take moment to think .... you do not have the superiority of what is best for others. Live and let live, let people make the choice for themselves. If Joe Q. Public wants an AR 15 to defend his/her castle, let em. The perp who sighs a homeowner or victim bust out a concealed gun deters the bad guys, same with homeowners during invasion of home. The AR Or AK toting homeowner will seldom have to do more than hold their weapon at the ready position, but there is no substitute for training.
If you ask LEO's, they will tell you, allow people to be armed, trained and able to have firepower if need be, because help may or may not make it. See Sandy Hook as a tragic, sad, example.
Please, I pray, allow others to do as they wish, absorb that tolerance is a two way street, tolerate gun owners, they may save you before we get there. CCW citizens are far greater than we are.
Finally, talk with police, ask them if only LEOs should have full capacity magazines. Bettin that 4 outta 5 say no!
Btw, full capacity to me, means 30 in an AR. HIGH capacity are the 60 and 100 jobbers...
I'm ranting here, but let us be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath on each other.
With blessings,
-DD.
Remember who the real "first responder" is. The American homeowner and citizen. YOU will be the man (or woman) on the scene when violence happens. Not the Police officer. The police will come later, record evidence, and assess blame, but that may not be in time to help you. If the police need weapons to defend themselves, then it makes undeniable sense that the citizen -- who will actually face the violence on his or her own -- must be able to avail themselves of exactly those same weapons.
Thanks to these companies for making it absolutely clear that they are on the side of the criminals and hate our police. Cops shouldn't have the weapons to deal with mass murderers? This is the language of people who profit from murder and then profit from the fear it engenders. What they don't tell people is that the ones most likely to murder you are your family and friends armed because the gun industry keeps encouraging their paranoia.
I find your comment rather crass. I don't believe that these companies side with criminals but side with law abiding citizens. If these firearms are such a danger to the community, why do law enforcement have a need for them? I wholeheartedly support the efforts of these companies and I will give them my business for standing against criminals. Even the ones that willfully violate the Constitution through passage of illegal laws.
Pages
