Top Menu

Opinion: Is Stopping Ammo Sales To Anti-Gun Governments The Right Answer?

What follows in my opinion and a letter to gun and ammo makers who supply anti-gun governments:

Many gun and ammo manufacturers are so in love with government money they would never think about not supplying anti-gun governments with the guns and ammo police officers need.

Well, not all of them are shills in the pocket of the anti gun community, some, like Hornady, are willing to flip the proverbial bird to anti gun governments like New York with a show of force the rest of our beloved ammo and gun manufacturers should jump to follow.

Those of you who follow suit will reap benefits for years to come, after all, us gun loving, 2A fanatics are usually willing to show support for those who have freedom in mind with their decisions. And, the gun forums I follow still strongly remember each and every time a  “pro-gun” company supported the anti gunners, perceived or otherwise.

We need to do something that will hurt the anti-gun community so badly that they have no choice but to give in to us. If Hornady is willing to stand up and fight, shouldn't everyone follow? If we made it nearly impossible for them to buy the ammunition certain governments want to tax, wouldn't that help?

If Colt was unwilling to sell and service AR-15s from places like California, surely California would start paying attention. After all, they have a duty to their citizens and it cannot be done right without the proper tools. No, I don't want to put police officers in harms way, but something has to be done.

But, I digress …

Then again, Colt has a habit of only servicing government contracts, which is one of the reasons they are in the financial position they're in these days.

They need government money. And, so does Remington, Winchester, and the rest.

So while we have a potential solution on our hands, it won't go anywhere because not enough companies will stand up to refuse them product. Furthermore, there will almost definitely be those laying in the wait, like a starving cougar ready to pounce and throw it's malnourished body on whatever meat walks by … skunk, possum, or badly diseased cow, a cougar, or failing gun company, will do whatever is needed to survive.

So, those money-hungry companies will pick up any slack because they need the money or risk going out of business. Those companies in financial turmoil will assuredly bail out those unserviced governments. And, the better companies, like Hornady and Barrett, with their stellar levels of testicular fortitude will have to settle knowing they did the right thing for our Constitution and freedom.

I urge you to stand and fight, to not give in for money, and maybe even back your competition. Aren't we all one big, happy Second Amendment-loving family willing to fight for our freedoms?

For those of you who will give in, how does it make you feel to know that you will put your company and making money over We the People and the freedoms that provide you with the opportunity to make that money? If you give in and continue to sell anti-gun governments gun supplies, I hope you sleep well at night.

Sleep well knowing that I purposely went to the local gun store after my dental appointment yesterday to buy a few boxes of Hornady Critical Defense FTX .38 Special self-defense ammo, and that I'll never buy your stuff, again.

Don't stand for money, stand for freedom. Help us make it hurt these anti gun governments where it will hurt the most … stop selling them what they need in an effort to force them to come to the table. I can all but guarantee that any company who gives in or continues to service these anti-gunners will not only not get any of my money, but will have a rough go at it because I'll do my best to make your life as difficult as I can going forward.

And, if you haven't noticed, our audience is growing. I, personally, have taken a stand. Won't you join me?

, , ,

28 Responses to Opinion: Is Stopping Ammo Sales To Anti-Gun Governments The Right Answer?

  1. Riley Bowman May 3, 2018 at 4:07 pm #

    I certainly appreciate this viewpoint. I don’t blame you or anyone else that takes this position of refusing to sell firearm or ammunition-related products to government entities and agencies that implement very clearly defined anti-gun policies.

    However, and we talked about this on Tuesday’s Concealed Carry Podcast episode (just published–Episode #221: Banks, State Governments and Ammo Companies), I have one major concern about this type of boycott. I am not saying to NOT consider having some sort of industry boycott against hostile governments, just that IF we were to go down this path, this needs to be taken into consideration.

    By and large, most law enforcement officers are supporters of the 2nd Amendment. They are also often not paid terribly well considering the great personal risks they often endure in their efforts to “serve and protect.” I am concerned that a refusal by ammunition companies to sell quality defensive ammo to government agencies would negatively impact the guys and gals on the streets. Either their agency would be forced to look elsewhere for ammunition leading to them acquiring ammunition that is sub-par or not live up to the level of expectation that is necessary when depending upon for saving officers’ and others’ lives.

    The alternative consequence could be agencies may be forced to no longer purchase ammunition for their officers and instead put that burden on the officers which could mean the cost of that being borne by the officers instead of the agency where it should lie. Individual officers may also not be as knowledgeable about the various ammunition options available and inadvertently make purchases of again sub-par or underperforming ammunition.

    Once again, I completely understand the sentiment and the anger. What the State of New York has done is inexcusable. I will support any effort to bring attention to the issue and, if possible, effect change with regards to these government policies. I just think we really need to think this through as to the other potential unforeseen consequences that might hurt those that we do not wish to harm.

    • JOHN T. FOX May 10, 2018 at 3:59 pm #

      USE THEIR TACTICS AGAINST THEM AND THEY MAY HAVE AN EPIPHANIE! ANTI-GUN POLICE DEPTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO BUY A “RIGHT TO PURCHASE LICENCE FROM THE COMPANY”. THIS IS HOW A FEE/TAX COULD BE IMPOSED ON A STATE OR LOCAL GOVT. IT WOULD ALSO SPUR MORE PROFIT FOR THE COMPANY. IF A GOVT WANTS TO BUY GUNS, AMMO, OR ACCESSORIES THEN THEY MUST PURCHASE A LICENCE THAT COSTS $1,000,000 FOR A CALENDAR YEAR.

      • Matt May 11, 2018 at 12:56 pm #

        And WHO do you think is going to pay for that John….where do those departments get their money from John….taxpayers…

    • Yogi May 10, 2018 at 6:06 pm #

      Nice cop out Riley

    • Liberate80 May 11, 2018 at 12:22 pm #

      Sorry Riley, but they are ones enforcing unconstitutional laws. Let them suffer.

    • Mike Douglas May 11, 2018 at 7:48 pm #

      And who do you think ends up paying that 1 million dollar fee, us taxpayers thats who

  2. Nathaniel Sauerwin May 8, 2018 at 4:12 am #

    Yes stop supporting a tigun government not fair they can carry and we the people cannot dont even allow them guns until we the people can carry without consequences

    • JOHN T. FOX May 10, 2018 at 4:00 pm #

      READ MY COMMENT ABOVE.

  3. Raymond E. Blomberg May 8, 2018 at 7:44 am #

    It is great to see some sanity in this area. Keep up the good work & continue to expand your effort.

  4. gary May 8, 2018 at 12:24 pm #

    I totally would back this type of boycott, please provide a detailed list of companies that are still selling to anti gun governments and I will make sure my friends and family don’t support these companies!!!

    • Herb May 10, 2018 at 6:20 pm #

      I also would like a list of these companies,The only way to get them to listen to “We The People” is to hit them in the pocket book.

  5. Harding Dies, LT, SS, SC, USNR (Ret) May 8, 2018 at 2:44 pm #

    Two Items. To Riley’s concerns, I know I’d gladly help fund a police officer’s ammo supply and as an NRA Instructor, make sure he’s at the top of his game. And I know that across this country, gun loving citizens would step up to do the same so that NO OFFICER would be in jeopardy. Also, we could start to really apply pressure to our local governments unlike they’ve ever seen before – but we need to start NOW!

  6. Randy May 9, 2018 at 12:16 am #

    If the Gun and ammo companies would refuse to sell to LE anything not available to the general public these ridiculous laws would go away. I live in California, I’m left handed, and it boggles my mind that I can’t buy a Gen 4 Glock because it is “unsafe” for me to use but LE can buy them all day long. I have a CCW and I can’t buy a Glock 43 but LE can. This is the only way other than the courts to beat back the anti gunners. Even if we get favorable courts it will take many years for these unconstitutional laws to be revoked.

  7. David F. Lanphere Sr. May 9, 2018 at 8:11 am #

    This is a problem for sure, but at the same time these individual governments must be taught to understand we have a Constitution for a reason. If individual police officers are in need of assistance, the NRA has been there for them for many years. Then again, disarming leftist “storm troopers”, is always a good thing. I am pretty sure that those officers who are following the Constitution they took an oath to preserve and protect, will be able to find work with an agency that does the same. When certain leftist run governments are unable to provide the services they are bound by law to provide, then they may discover the error of their ways, and return to the actual law of the land. Yes, there may be learning pains, but these illegal governments must be reminded what kind of government we are supposed to have and just who the “sovereign persons” are in this equation.

  8. Timothy Toroian May 9, 2018 at 4:36 pm #

    I wouldn’t put law enforcement in jeopardy but if anti-gun STATE governments could be forced to get into the ammunition manufacturing business for their police departments it would be funny as hell. Let them find out how much effort it takes to produce a product with a no failure rate. It would be even funnier if New Jersey had to produce hollow point ammo for their departments. I would continue to service LE arms but perhaps do a Barrett but if you outlaw it I ain’t gonna fix it for you.

  9. Andie May 10, 2018 at 1:04 pm #

    Stopping ammo sales and equipment servicing to such illegal state and local government entities would likely not be the burden on the officers as claimed here. A big player on any market, Walmart for example, has the economy of scale working for them. If departments had to have officers get their own ammo and reimburse them after, they loose that economy of scale. This alone would hit the departments and state governments on the budget bottom line. The presence and absence of such big players in the ammo market would definitely be noticed. Remember the .22 cal. national shortage about five years ago? That was supposedly caused by massive inter-federal agency contracts taking first right to production capacity.

    I’m all for this kind of boycott. We all need to get behind this and not let those principled companies die for doing the right thing. A boycott like this needs to be coordinated among as many suppliers as possible to present a more united front. We, the patrons of these principled companies also need to coordinate support to make up for the shortfall. All we have to do is stock up! Get together with family, friends and neighbors and buy ammo by the pallet load. Get that economy of scale working for us instead. Buy it cheap and stack it deep!

  10. Dave H in 08225 May 10, 2018 at 5:45 pm #

    This gets way too complicated, way too fast. A boycott by the manufacturers can’t stop the government agencies from getting the ammo they want, any more than laws can stop criminals from getting the guns they want. If the agencies can’t deal directly with the makers, they will walk into a large retailer and offer the store a contract. Then the maker has to cut off the store, which comes back and bites the 2A-supporting consumer (who helped instigate the boycott) in the ass.

    The legal point has already been made that interfering with ammo supply is de-facto infringement of 2A, because it infringes the ability to USE what is constitutionally owned and carried. What we have to do is use the courts to force the legislatures to stop infringing the right to keep and bear.

    • Joshua Gillem May 10, 2018 at 6:09 pm #

      Good points Dave. Thanks for the comment.

      Josh

  11. don comfort May 10, 2018 at 6:04 pm #

    I am glad you mentioned Colt. They are located in one of the most Anti Gun States. They are very Cozy with the State Government.They pay untold amounts to the State of Connecticut in Taxes every year enabling the Governor to fuel his Anti Gun Agenda. I for one have in the past and will in the future boycott Colt as long as they remain in Connecticut !
    .

  12. Michael Vick May 10, 2018 at 7:24 pm #

    Absolutely!!! OR HELL YES!!!

  13. Leo R. Lindquist May 11, 2018 at 11:28 am #

    I saw a politically correct rewrite of the Second Amendment Thursday. It read: A well-regulated population (militia) being necessary to the security of a police (free) state, the right of the government (people) to register (keep) and ban (bear) arms shall not be infringed. History is on our side, so don’t elect any public official who will not openly stand up for the Second Amendment as the Founding Fathers intended. You should cringe any time you see a politician who stands up for the Second Amendment, for hunting purposes. Where is the word “hunting” in that amendment? And PLEASE, do some serious historical and legal reading so you can defend yourself in court. Understand the power of jury lawlessness/nullification, the most important power you have to override unconstitutional laws.Promote the militia in each state as the Founders intended. Keep your powder dry and pray that you never have to use it.

  14. Sgt. L. Bjergo May 11, 2018 at 1:15 pm #

    I beleve this to be a very good solution. Iwatched a movie a LONG time ago, called “The Deadly Tower.” It was about a crazed sniper who started shooting students from a high tower ar a university in Texas. After police responded,and the news networks picked it up DOZENS OF ARMED CITIZENS arrived to assist the Police in taking down this maniac! “A Well Armed Militia.” I believe that if our police have a difficulty, they can rely on this “Well Armed Militia” for assistance. (As long as the anti-gun government doesn’t prosecute them for “Brandishing Weapons,” (Like the “People’s Republic of California”!) ) For example: The Hollywood Shootout. The Police were badly outgunned, and at a serious disadvantage. All that would have been need to end this disaster would have been a marksman with a 50 cal. BUT, this weapon IS ILLEGAL in CA.! How many lives could have been saved if these criminals were taken out by one shot each?
    A famous quote from history, “For the first time, a civilized nation has Full Gun Registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into history!” The anti-gunners expect us to belive this! This quote is from a speech by Adolph Hitler, 1938. (See what gun control did for Germany?)

  15. Darryl May 11, 2018 at 2:11 pm #

    As opposed to a boycott, how about a surcharge? The money could be used to finance efforts to bring those types of governments into a more 2nd Amendment way of thinking.

  16. ALLAN MCCOLLUM May 11, 2018 at 2:55 pm #

    Yes! And yes again.

    It’s about time we constitutional conservatives make a stand and fight. Talk is cheap…I’ll support Hornady and buy nothing but. Period!

  17. MD VICK May 11, 2018 at 5:34 pm #

    If every company that makes or sells ANYTHING the state of NY needs or wants and they cannot find ANYONE willing to do business with them I am certain things will change when this hits the voters…

  18. Greg May 11, 2018 at 5:42 pm #

    While I agree that Hornady’s move will at least catch the attention of New York State government, it will not make much impact because as a voting block state LE aren’t enough, BUT if manufacturers like Remington Ammunition, Winchester, Speer, Hornady, Smith and Wesson, Colt, etc. stopped selling anything to the corporate big box stores like, L.L.Bean, Dick’s, Field and Stream, etc. it will be felt in the buying public and that my friends is who elect our state governments. Basically don’t sell to any retail outlet that infringes in any manner on our Second Amendment rights. When ammo and firearms dry up on big box store shelves, where will we turn to…the little guy. This is a twofold benefit, first we hurt the “bad actors” and second we give our business to those who should have had it all along, the small gunshops.

  19. John May 12, 2018 at 9:14 am #

    How about starting a page that keeps track of companies that sell weapons, ammo, etc. to agencies of any level of government, so that their potential customers are aware and may opt to direct their business elsewhere.

  20. Robert we Locklear May 12, 2018 at 9:39 am #

    I want to thank you for informing us about companies that are saying no to anti-gun government. I would like to know if you have a list of companies that are doing the same thing.Cound you give us a list. Horndy is the only ammo I’m buying

Leave a Reply