The Federal Government and several states have enacted gun control laws that restrict the public from owning and possessing certain types of firearms. Law-enforcement agencies are typically exempt from these restrictions. EFI, LLC does not recognize law-enforcement exemptions to local, state, and federal gun control laws. If a product that we manufacture is not legal for a private citizen to own in a jurisdiction, we will not sell that product to a law-enforcement agency in that jurisdiction.
Never heard of them and most likely just another P/R stunt, I would guess their L/E sales are close to nothing revenue wise so for them nothing is lost by jumping on the no L/E sales band wagon.
Would you rather see a trend of gun companies supporting AWB’s? They may not be big, but if enough companies can band together maybe we can change some damn minds.
Hellyeah! I hope Noveske, BCM, DD, & everyone else gives the higher ups a big middle finger for their actions. Imagine if cops were screaming for thier rights like the rest of us are? Might be a game changer.
How are you still stuck there in that narrow-minded place? Maybe start a self-interest group so we can separate the faithful from the not so faithful because this gets a little troubling.
We are either on the same side or we aren’t. And probably most importantly now; No pain no gain.
Narrow-minded, I can say the same about a few here. You have your opinion and I have mine but I will never agree with restricting equipment for active on duty police officers. Now I’m not saying off-duty or retired police should have any additional gun rights then the general population but on duty officers should not be restricted.
Well I really don’t want to call anyone narrow-minded but at this point things may have to get a little tight for everyone until the job is done. I know you have a higher chance of armed conflict than I do and that you could be called to a scene where you are outnumbered and outgunned, but we still have a higher collective obligation.
Glock is not going to. They are very pro LEO and we spend a lot of money with them. I stop selling to LEO’s anywhere. I asked Glock about getting them to sponsor the three gun match I host. They would only do it if it was a LEO event and my match is open to the public. However GLock did sponsor the LEO only three gun shoot that I helped with. (designed the stages for)
Also if companies were truly doing this out of the interest to the people they would not sell guns over seas where control is far stricter. But Larue and others would jump on a big contract for the British SAS or similar I am sure.
Pat
And the AWB is _____? That’s right; a “symbolic gesture” (at best). Nobody in D.C. seems to want to confront a problem when a “symbolic gesture” is so much simpler.
(note: satire ON) But, but, won’t the streets be soooo much safer once we take away those EEEvil guns? Why we could even do as the English do and DISARM the LE! Now no one will have to fear the police since they won’t be armed. And we know the criminals wouldn’t dare to arm themselves with guns (that’d be illegal!). We’ll all be safe and happy now. (satire OFF)
I agree that on duty LEO should not be restricted. I think we ALL agree on that point. However, anti-gun forces (including some prominent LEO’s) have been using emotional arguments in favor of gun control for decades. What you’re seeing here is that tactic bearing fruit in the opposite direction. A government (and its enforcement units) that does not trust its citizens with arms, is not to be trusted with them either. It cannot have it both ways. To do so is hypocritical and self-righteous. This is very much a matter of “you keep your nose out of our business, and we’ll keep our nose out of yours”. If either side is entitled to use this argument, it’s The People, not the government.
Maybe these actions taken by a few of the companies in the firearm related industries won’t make much difference for now but it’s a start and a breathe of fresh air. We’re slowly fighting back. Who would have thought a year ago that all those companies would have pulled out of that huge outdoor/sportsman’s show in PA in response to that restriction on ARs? Who would have thought that Magpul would make the statement that they would rather move than not be able to sell their magazines to citizens of CO in response to HB 1224?
Now we have more and more companies taking a very public stand. Realizing that they’ll likely take a hit, big or small, in their pocketbooks, they are still willing to put it on the line. I applaud them for that spark that set’s things in motion. This is what a grassroots movement is all about. They do work, not all the time, but they sometimes do. And this is one sometime we all need to be positive about. The naysayers can say all they want, it’s their prerogative. As usual, they’re just the “sidelines type of people”. They never really get into the game.
Oh I almost forgot. To paraphrase Larry Vickers, “If you’re not in the NRA, you need to take a fucking piss test!”
Colt, FN and Bushmaster making such a statement would be a big coup as they are what most local agencies purchase. Either on .mil orders (colt/fn) or department wide (bushy).
So what I’m getting out of some of you here is,
“The second does not apply to citizens, ONLY to LE/Govt.”! After all, the LE should be allowed AW’s, while on “DUTY”. Thus making them superior to the citizens, causing the imbalances of checks and balance? Trust your Govt. just like the Native Americans, who were here FIRST, were told to do? How’d that work out for them?
