Boycott of gun sales to governmental agencies stomping on the second amendment. "Finally thank God

So here's an article from Drudge that specifies gun distributors refusing to sell to any state, county, or city agency, firearms if said state has passed recent legislation infringing on our second amendment rights. Being a resident of the worst state to date "New York" Thank Fracking God"

m.cnsnews.com...

Please keep it up. And hopefully we can get the ammo companies to follow suit!

reply to post by twohawks


ahahahahah I love it! but watch the response they will tax the hell out of gun powder making it so expensive only the government will be able to buy guns then these companies will fold and sell to government agency's as their American profit margin plummets just to keep the doors open

I did a search on line today of my local reps and a statewide synopsis of the recent "Safe" act that was passed and the majority of this state is against these recent draconian laws passed in the dead of night so to speak. Both my local Otsego county reps are Dem reps and both are female. That said here is a quote from one of them m.thedailystar.com...

Sorry it's not as much a quote as a link but you'll get the jest if you read it.

Keep in mind that New York legislatures are now deciding weather or not to pass legislation requiring citizens to pay, to the tune of 1200 to 2000 dollars a year for a Million dollar liability insurance policy simply to own Any firearm. Now tell me there not after our guns! If you think this is Bs just look it up. This is for real folks. No way in he'll I'm gonna pay insurance just to deer hunt next fall. $&ck them! Not Gonna happen.

reply to post by digital01anarchy


Midtown USA is in no way dependent on NY sales. Never gonna happen. Nor is CTD.

Taxing them out of reach of the average citizen would be an infringement, and hence unconstitutional, no? As would banning one gun or the other. That would be infringing/encroaching on the rights of the people. Some may say that you don’t need an AR15, but that is not the point. The point is that banning it would be an infringement. It would most likely signal the beginning of the end of the Second if it’s achieved. Once they have a precedent of outlawing one type of gun, what’s to stop them trying to outlaw another, say shotguns or handguns? Before you know it, the only legal guns would be spud and slug guns...

And I just saw the comment above regarding forcing owners to pay a very hefty liability insurance levy. That is also an infringement upon the average citizen and should therefore be illegal to implement.

www.forextv.com...
______beforeitsnews/politics/2013/02/crushing-ny-gun-bill-would-force-gun-owners-to-buy-1-million-in-liability-insurance-2495770.html

New York does seem to be the most aggressive in terms of gun laws and other liberty-snatching laws. Their leaders are also very outspoken on such issues.

reply to post by BlindBastards


Unfortunately the money from the city of NY generally speaks for the 99 percent of the rest of the state. Just the power of money speaking loudly. But there are those of us that are willing to stand up for our rights and offer opposition to these elite few.

reply to post by BlindBastards


Well NY banned them....it's a done deal.

Good thing, many counties are refusing to enforce, passing propositions. Thank god the county I am in didnt hesitate to tell the Gov. to shove it.

Now, luckily we also have someone with deep pockets who started a class action lawsuit.

See, there in lies the problem, they can pass these bans with the sweep of a pen constitutional or not. Then we the people have to find someone with enough money and pull to get it in front of the judiciary to challenge it.

I thought it was supposed to be the other way around.

Color me naive.

This has gone far beyond republican or democrat, this is " the voice of the people speaking" the very foundation with which this country was established. New York being one of those founding states. It saddens me to see such blatant disregard for those long established ideals played for with the blood of my forefathers and ancestors.

reply to post by timetothink


Well March 6th is the vote on wether or not to repeal this act in Otsego county, home of the baseball hall of fame, it doesn't get much more American than that. Hope to see you there.

reply to post by twohawks


Good luck with that vote, more counties than not are standing by the people and the constitution!

reply to post by timetothink

You don't have to be a resident to support us, your presence would be appreciated.

reply to post by twohawks


Who's in favor of a list that would be divided into two parts ? The first, white collar, upper class, geo political, political and Financial Elite Bankers and lobbyists. The second list would be strictly for those employed by a blue collar or contract occupation by the U.S. gov. by and large ?

The first list - RED

Second list - Blue

SnF OP !

Take a look at the list of companies on The Police Loophole website. If you own a firearm from one of these companies, send an email to them in support of their decision.

In my case, when I contacted Olympic Arms, I explained that I was happy to own one of their firearms and that after reading that they were taking a stand in support of my constitutional rights - that I am not proud to own it.

They need to know that their decision is appreciated by their customers.

As a Brit who Is pro US gun rights I'm going to yell 'yes' and do a little dance here at home.

"YES!" .......Dance.........................That feels better

I'm so glad this is spreading.

reply to post by digital01anarchy


A very astute comment that I hope does not come to pass. You are right though, there's always another way of accomplishing the objective. This is something TPTB are masters of, whether it's tax of either or both guns and ammo, or it's very expensive mandatory liability insurance. They've already 'gamed' these scenarios out for decades and will always have a response for any setback.

reply to post by BlindBastards


Insurance is based on number of insured versus number of incidents. If gun owners are as safe as they claim, the insurance would not be excessive, especially if every gun owner was required to have it, and I would not consider it an infringement, just common sense. After all, would you consider it an infringement that you have to pay money just to buy a weapon in the first place? We have to buy insurance for our cars; is that an infringement of our right to liberty? Guns are actually meant to kill, and accidents happen more frequently than many think; cars aren't meant to kill, and you would require insurance for cars and not for guns?

Concerning the kind of weapons allowed, I agree that everyone should be allowed their own nuclear weapon, or at least a few Stinger missiles for drones and anti-tank guns for armored troop carriers that may be sent after them. Otherwise, there is infringement and having lesser weapons to protect their liberty really isn't sufficient to actually work. Or maybe you don't agree that the neighbors across the street that don't like you and that have evaded their mental health tests should be allowed to have such things?

reply to post by sorgfelt

I've owned firearms for thirty years or better and never needed insurance. It's not like I'm driving my rifle down the during a rain storm or ICY conditions. Or shooting in the direction of other individuals that are shooting in my direction at the same time. It's nothing more than another business ploy to strip us of our hard earned dollars and limit access to the which is already guaranteed by the constitution. It doesn't say " guaranteed to only those who can afford it".

Personally I think the idea is ridiculous.

Originally posted by stutteringp0et
In my case, when I contacted Olympic Arms, I explained that I was happy to own one of their firearms and that after reading that they were taking a stand in support of my constitutional rights - that I am not proud to own it.

That's a dirty trick. I typed "now proud to own it" but somehow it is changed to "not"

not even a fatfinger can cause "now" to become "not"... I've been typing for almost 25 years at 60 wpm. I know my errors and always proofread. I typed "now" and it became "not" at a later time.

ahahahahah I love it! but watch the response they will tax the hell out of gun powder making it so expensive only the government will be able to buy guns then these companies will fold and sell to government agency's as their American profit margin plummets just to keep the doors open

reply to post by digital01anarchy


Yea as if the gov't can run such a facility. The attempt to put a new tax on gun powder would be a awesome fail. Already the gov't is screwing itself out of revenue by their self-serving actions. By banning such a long list og uns there goes potential sales tax revenue. By divesting pension funds from gun companies they are also losing monies that retirees will be wanting. Cutting off their nose to spite their face.

reply to post by twohawks


As of this morning 44 companies are on board, and this number is expected to double possibly by the end of this week. This is one situation where consumers can have a big impact. Back the companies that are taking a stand, and let the ones who haven't spoke up know it will affect their bottom line if they don't.