On Armalite

So Chris Over at Arma Borealis had an interesting exchange with Armalite. Go read the whole thing, but I’ll toss in some excepts.

ArmaLite is continuing a policy put into place when California first banned our rifles. That policy remains:

1. We will not sell to those states which deny it’s honorable citizens the right to own ArmaLite’s.

2. We do not halt sales to individual officers even in problematic states. I am a former Police Officer myself, and the staffer who stimulated the recent anger is a currently serving one. We are well familiar with the fact that most rifles serving Police Officers are purchased by the officers themselves, and that they shouldn’t be punished for the actions of their political elite.
We consider sales to those sate subdivisions which are not engaged or potentially engaged with disarming its citizens. DNR and Forestry Departments, for instance, sometimes serve in remote areas that conceal drug farms and their officers deserve good hardware.

3. We will not sell to those lower political subdivisions that deny their honorable citizens the right to own ArmaLite’s. Chicago, for instance, prohibits its citizens from owning ArmaLite’s within the city limits so we make no effort to sell into that city. We have many friends on the Chicago Police Department and have continued to sell to them individually.

Our observation is that most County Sheriffs disagree with banning sales of our rifles and many publicly refuse to enforce such laws. We sell to those departments and to their Deputies, but will not sell to those County departments headed by Sheriffs who would deny their citizens the same rights.

In short, Americans need not worry that ArmaLite is selling to those who betray them.

Now on one hand, it appears that Armalite is caving to the gun banners, they’ll still sell stuff to LEOs that can’t be owned by non-badged citizens. (Sorry, my life is just as precious as a cop’s!)

On the other hand they RESPONDED! And Responded in a twisty sort of way that makes them look like they support the boycott. So on one hand its a company acting shitty, on the other, it shows that the New York boycott is getting so much press that gun companies are having a hard to ignoring it.

I think overall this is signs that we’re winning!

Still the results are mixed, what do you all think?

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to On Armalite

  1. JD says:

    Sounds like we need to keep turning up the heat on these folks and they will come over to our side of things . . . . .

  2. Oddball says:

    Nope sorry, #2 stinks too much of “because only ones” to me. I’m sorry, but the only public reaction the president of the company should have had, if any, is publicly apologizing for the nature of the response of someone that is on his payroll as a public face of the company. I fail to see why his status as a former cop and the original responder’s status as a current cop has any relevance to the situation other than affirming solidarity with their brothers in blue.

    If Armalite wishes to continue to sell to police officers in states that have decided that the huddled masses can’t be trusted, that’s their prerogative. Frankly, the companies that have decided not to have made a bold statement that they may have to answer to share holders for. The best response from those that don’t wish to join in is to either ignore the emails in the first place or respond with a canned “thank you, we appreciate your opinion and will consider it in our future decisions” response.

  3. Murphy's Law says:

    Sorry, but I don’t have a problem with Armalite continuing it’s Individual Officer sale in the socialist states. The police officer is still the good guy who goes into harm’s way and he or she deserves the proper tools to do that. Many if not most police officers who are serious enough to buy their own rifle out of their own pocket are “gunnies” just like the rest of us and these are the ones who will likely stand with us come the bad times so why should we fight to keep them down just because they have badges and do a job that entails going head-to-head with bad guys? The slob minority of cops who hate us gun folk and who would gladly help round us and our guns up aren’t the sort to pony up and buy rifles like this anyway. Trust me–I know many of both.

    Also, keep in mind that it’s not Armalite that prohibits citizens in the same state from buying their product nor has Armalite ever endorsed those bans or pledged to honor them. But now it seems that some people allegedly on our side want to punish Armalite and hurt their business too? It’s time to pick our battles and our enemies, and I’d suggest that we not rush to alienate those who are still mostly on our side just over relatively minor points.

    Do what you will at the end of the day because we’re all free to choose our path, but I’m going to keep supporting Armalite with my business.

    • Bob S. says:

      Murphy,

      I’m mixed about their response but I would like to address your point about the LEO’s buying their own firearms.

      From my understanding that isn’t uncommon; right? While some departments issue shotguns or rifles; most require the officers to purchase their own. Either prior to being hired or through pay roll deduction for the pistols.

      So what happens to those firearms when the person stops being an LEO? Are they suddenly prohibited? Only if they quit or get fired, right?
      So many states, I know Texas does, writes exemptions into the law not just for current LEOs but ex – or retired ones also.

      What the boycott is trying to address is the two tiered status supported by so many LEOs. And putting pressure on the LEOs is an acceptable way to influence policy decisions; if they aren’t capable of buying what we are prohibited, they will make their opinions known. The unions and police associations carry a disproportionate amount of weight in state capitals.

      Yes, the majority of the cops are gunnies like us. And if they are, shouldn’t they stand with us and say “Hey, if my neighbor can’t own it — why should I be able to buy it?”

  4. Wraith says:

    If they’ll still sell to the Feds, they’re doing it wrong.

  5. BenC says:

    LEO’s are citizens and if the average citizen is not legally allowed to purchase or own it then the LEO should not either. That is not a minor point that is one of the major points and issues.

  6. lucusloc says:

    I give them a C-. Passing grade, but just barely. I will buy their stuff, but only if there is not a better company that has a similar product on offer. Same with CTD, they screwed up and are not trying really hard to get back onto good graces, and hopefully they will remember the lesson. Either way, there the last site I will look at, but I will look.

  7. Kristophr says:

    The people who responded to his email were all ex-cops working at Armalite.

    Fuck Armalite. Police are citizens like everyone else. Giving them special privileges is evil.

  8. Kermit says:

    As a current FedLEO, I’m of two minds about this.

    A) As I have no problem with non-LEOs owning even true “assault rifles,” not just scary looking “assault weapons,” I CAN’T have any problem with any company who keeps doing business with individual citizens. Armalite still sells to individuals (albeit “privileged” ones), while shutting out the departments. They have a responsibility, moral and fiscal, to the people that have invested hard-earned money into their company. Fine and dandy.

    B) On the other hand, that little shiny in my wallet should NOT indicate to ANYONE that I am a “privileged” person, only that I am paid to shoulder certain responsibilities. My department supplies M4s. I’m fine with this… or would be, if I could go out and purchase my own, without any shinies to indicate Only One Status. But I can’t, and that pisses me off to no end. As Kristopher so “eloquently” expressed, we’re citizens too, and should have no more, nor less, rights and freedoms than anyone else.

    So… On the one hand, I can’t truly condemn these companies for “working within the system,” yet I also cannot condone it. Condemning would offend my capitalist sensibilities, and condoning it would offend my inner libertarian, the one that constantly reminds me of my oath of office, and who and what I swore to defend in said oath.

    I don’t have a good solution, other than to applaud those companies that voluntarily take this kind of measure, free of pressure and full of principle, while at the same time nodding in grudging understanding of those companies that choose to make more profit, and not run such risks.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Great comment Kermit, I agree with you. Overall see the issue as “If we can’t sell to ALL your lawful citizens, we will sell to NONE of you”.

      Still I was pleased that such a response even happened at all. It means they’re all feeling the pressure.

      Also its always nice to hear logical and liberty-minded talk from LEOs from every level.
      I have contempt for those who abuse their power, but those who truly protect and serve are some of our finest citizens, and a key factor in any free society.

  9. Windy Wilson says:

    As we said in law school, paragraph 2, selling to individual cops the weapons they couldn’t buy as individual non-cops is the exception that swallowed the rule.
    This has too many words in it to be a real Ronnie Barret Moment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>