View Full Version : What if firearm manufacturers did this?
Just wondering aloud...
What if the gun and magazine manufacturers sold guns and magazines with a legal, binding restriction that they cannot be used by any governmental agency in an area where the guns and magazines cannot be legally possessed by ordinary citizens. With a contractual incentive (say, a cool million dollars per contractual violation) to stay within the bounds of the contract. If you buy, you agree to the contract.
This contractual obligation would have to be durable and transfer with the firearm no matter how many times it’s sold (I hate to add stamped text on the firearm, but that would do it).
I think you’d see magazine bans and firearm restrictions vanish overnight, because the police would have to get on our side if they want their toys.
Either that, or one heck of a lot of firearm companies are going vanish if a civilian ban on firearms materializes and they can only sell to the government, which is a drop in the bucket of sales.
Seems to me such a move made immediately would be in the firearm industry's best interest.
O2
Great-Kazoo
03-10-2016, 10:29
DUPE ;)
https://www.ar-15.co/threads/154918-What-if-firearm-manufacturers-did-this
hurley842002
03-10-2016, 10:36
I think it's dumb, but just thinking aloud.
Yhea, something really went sideways in the browser when I posted. If possible keep this one, I fixed up the spacing.
newracer
03-10-2016, 10:56
Too much money involved to do that.
Why? Who would this benefit?
Why? Who would this benefit?
>>a lot of firearm companies are going vanish if a civilian ban on firearms materializes and they can only sell to the government, which is a drop in the bucket of sales.
If a complete US ban on firearms ownership ever happens the firearms industry worldwide would implode. So long term the companies would benefit versus going out of business. So it's in their own self-interest.
With citizens reaping a secondary benefit in that if the police want the toys, the citizens have to be able to own and buy the toys as well.
O2
Zundfolge
03-10-2016, 11:16
If a complete US ban on firearms ownership ever happens the firearms industry worldwide would implode.
If there is ever a complete ban on firearms in the US a lot of other bad things will have happened first so no the firearms industry wouldn't implode, we'd just return to the old "State Run Armory" model and the Fed.Gov would just nationalize the segments of the firearms industry it needs to arm its Junta.
The idea is completely unenforceable.
The idea is completely unenforceable.
I normally don't reply to assertions without a reason behind them, but why?
O2
Who is going to enforce that? Not the government.
If there is ever a complete ban on firearms in the US a lot of other bad things will have happened first so no the firearms industry wouldn't implode, we'd just return to the old "State Run Armory" model and the Fed.Gov would just nationalize the segments of the firearms industry it needs to arm its Junta.
...which would destroy a company's bottom like, which shareholders don't want to happen. Shareholders like a good bottom line, so companies like to protect it. This is a way.
And citizens win too.
O2
Who is going to enforce that? Not the government.
It's a breach of contract. The company sues. It's a civil, not a criminal matter.
Again, it's in their best interest to perpetuate their business model as it exists today.
O2
Zundfolge
03-10-2016, 11:53
If there is ever a complete ban on firearms in the US a lot of other bad things will have happened first so no the firearms industry wouldn't implode, we'd just return to the old "State Run Armory" model and the Fed.Gov would just nationalize the segments of the firearms industry it needs to arm its Junta.
...which would destroy a company's bottom like, which shareholders don't want to happen. Shareholders like a good bottom line, so companies like to protect it. This is a way.
And citizens win too.
O2
You're missing one of my major points. The point at which there is a total firearms ban in the US is long after we've descended into outright Marxist or Fascist Dictatorship, so all "industry" will be the property of The State so there are no more shareholders (they were dragged from their homes in the middle of the night and executed years before) and no "bottom line" to protect.
You're missing one of my major points. The point at which there is a total firearms ban in the US is long after we've descended into outright Marxist or Fascist Dictatorship, so all "industry" will be the property of The State so there are no more shareholders (they were dragged from their homes in the middle of the night and executed years before) and no "bottom line" to protect.
And you're missing my ONLY point. This may avoid that from happening. [but not holding my breath]
O2
Zundfolge
03-10-2016, 12:22
To your original point, considering how few people actually read EULAs for software they install, I imagine that if any firearms manufacturer were to require governments to sign agreements not allowing them to use any of their products that are banned from citizens would 1) just get ignored (and law suits would fall flat since you have to ask government for permission to sue government*). and 2) there would be firearm companies that would gladly sell guns to the most evil regimes ... I seriously doubt that Norbert Scheuch (for example) gives a damn about the rights of American civilians.
But there will always be a few good guys in the industry like Ronnie Barrett that will stop supporting evil regimes.
*ETA Also if you buy a product from a third party you may not be beholden to agreements that third party made with the mfgr, so it would be the middlemen sued ... not sure how successful it would be. But for that matter I return to point 2, there are too many companies that would put their bottom line ahead of politics. Especially foreign owned companies like HK, Beretta, FN and Glock.
newracer
03-10-2016, 12:24
Barrett already does this. They won't sell their rifles to states where they are banned.
It wouldn't make a difference unless all the manufacturers got together and they all agreed to do it.
Barrett already does this. They won't sell their rifles to states where they are banned.
Yes, kinda. BMU A dealer can buy Barrett rifles and then sell to CA. My proposal will stop this practice via contractual agreement.
It wouldn't make a difference unless all the manufacturers got together and they all agreed to do it.
Absolutely correct. What I hope is that the manufacturers soon realize that the vast majority of their companies' profits are based on citizen, not government sales and they better start standing behind us and soon or they will collapse. This is a possible way for them to stand behind us and protect their sales.
O2
newracer
03-10-2016, 12:40
I think there is more in government sales than you realize.
I think there is more in government sales than you realize.
Perhaps, care to share?
O2
newracer
03-10-2016, 12:48
Last year Colt was awarded a $212M contract for M4 rifles.
Zundfolge
03-10-2016, 13:08
Yes, kinda. BMU A dealer can buy Barrett rifles and then sell to CA. My proposal will stop this practice via contractual agreement.
I don't think such a thing is possible. You could have a wholesaler sign an agreement with a manufacturer to not sell to certain agencies, but the instant they sell it to a dealer the dealer can do whatever they want. If you have everyone along the line sign the agreement the best you could do to most of the hands the gun goes through along the way is just end your agreement with the next one in line cutting off their supply. But you can't hold the wholesaler responsible for what the dealer does. Sure you could sue everyone along the line but then you'd be spending more money on lawyers than you're making in sales.
This is difficult enough when it comes to the firearms themselves (where licensed dealers are a requirement) but when it comes to accessories like magazines, you lose control of the sales the instant someone with a pickup truck shows up at a wholesaler and buys a couple pallets of mags to sell at gun shows and on the internet and what not.
At best you can do what Ronnie Barrett did which is refuse to do direct sales to agencies in states with bad laws and refuse to do factory service on said guns (making sales to such agencies a clause in the warranty that makes it null and void).
I also think its unrealistic to think that you can get all manufacturers to cut off the supply of arms to these bad governments. And it will only work if ALL manufacturers do it.
Last year Colt was awarded a $212M contract for M4 rifles.
If Obama declared martial law tomorrow and started executing Republicans and other dissidents, Colt would be the first company in line with contract proposals for the captive bolt pistols.
spqrzilla
03-10-2016, 13:26
It's a breach of contract. The company sues. It's a civil, not a criminal matter.
Again, it's in their best interest to perpetuate their business model as it exists today.
O2
And the courts won't enforce such a contract provision.
Last year Colt was awarded a $212M contract for M4 rifles.
So taking a nice, round number that a citizen's new firearm costs about $500, 212 million is less than 500,000 firearms. About 1.75 million firearms were sold to citizens in 2015, based on BGCs. 3 dollars for every M4 dollar in the contract. And that's one year. Colt's contract is for 5 years (2105-2020). So make it 15 citizen dollars for every M4 dollar.
15:1. That's why the manufacturers should be sweating bullets. As I've said before, the industry would implode if a ban was enacted.
O2
And the courts won't enforce such a contract provision.
Like they won't enforce mineral rights? That's a binding restriction that passes from each owner to the next, just like my proposal.
(Just one example)
O2
spqrzilla
03-10-2016, 13:38
Like they won't enforce mineral rights? That's a binding restriction that passes from each owner to the next, just like my proposal.
(Just one example)
O2
There is a principle in contract law that renders void a contract provision that is "contrary to public policy". Courts would find any contract provision that purported to forbid sale to the government as such.
Question for the OP:
So if I'm employed by a local LE agency, and I own my own duty rifle, and provide my own personally owned PMAGs, would I be in violation of this? Even if I purchased most of them prior to the law going into effect?
Question for the OP:
So if I'm employed by a local LE agency, and I own my own duty rifle, and provide my own personally owned PMAGs, would I be in violation of this? Even if I purchased most of them prior to the law going into effect?
If they were a configuration that could not be purchased or possessed by citizens and you used them as part of your official LE agency duties, yes.
Part of this proposal nullifies the LEO carve outs that are so prevalent today. It'll level the playing field instead; right now we're second class citizens because of those carve-outs.
O2
Zundfolge
03-10-2016, 13:47
There is a principle in contract law that renders void a contract provision that is "contrary to public policy". Courts would find any contract provision that purported to forbid sale to the government as such.
Furthermore there is a principle in contract law that renders void a contract provision that would purport to bind a third party. Again, manufacturer can stipulate in their contract that Wholesaler not sell to certain parties, but the retailer that bought from them would not be held to those terms.
newracer
03-10-2016, 13:48
So taking a nice, round number that a citizen's new firearm costs about $500, 212 million is less than 500,000 firearms. About 1.75 million firearms were sold to citizens in 2015, based on BGCs. 3 dollars for every M4 dollar in the contract. And that's one year. Colt's contract is for 5 years (2105-2020). So make it 15 citizen dollars for every M4 dollar.
15:1. That's why the manufacturers should be sweating bullets. As I've said before, the industry would implode if a ban was enacted.
O2
That's not a fair comparison. The Colt contract is one contract for one type of firearm. The 1.75 million BGCs were for new and used firearms of all types.
A fair comparison would be how much did Colt sell to government vs private.
Furthermore there is a principle in contract law that renders void a contract provision that would purport to bind a third party. Again, manufacturer can require Wholesaler not to sell to certain parties, but the retailer would not be held to those terms.
In the SCUBA industry retailers are bound by contractual conditions.
And mineral rights are perpetual.
O2
A fair comparison would be how much did Colt sell to government vs private.
...and that's not a fair comparison because Colt's hubris keeps them on the very edge of bankruptcy except for government bailouts, in the form of contracts. :)
O2
Zundfolge
03-10-2016, 13:59
In the SCUBA industry retailers are bound by contractual conditions.
Can you expound on this a bit more? How does the SCUBA industry control retailers (and beyond that the secondary market)?
And mineral rights are perpetual.
I don't see how this is applicable here. We're not talking about a piece of non-moving, deeded property (unless you're suggesting gun registration in order to allow manufacturers to control the retail and secondary markets, in which case your plan does more harm than good).
Can you expound on this a bit more? How does the SCUBA industry control retailers (and beyond that the secondary market)?
Most manufacturers prohibit their retailers from online sales.
I don't see how this is applicable here. We're not talking about a piece of non-moving, deeded property (unless you're suggesting gun registration in order to allow manufacturers to control the retail and secondary markets, in which case your plan does more harm than good).
Heck no, following the lead of "For LEO use only" printing on mags, "Restrictions on governmental agencies may be in effect" (give me a break here, I just came up with that off the top of my head). Would be an indelible warning for any agency wishing to buy or use the firearm that they perhaps are bound by contractual limitations.
O2
spqrzilla
03-10-2016, 15:02
"For LEO use only" printed on a magazine became meaningless once the 1994 AWB expired.
"For LEO use only" printed on a magazine became meaningless once the 1994 AWB expired.
Yup, I think everyone knows that. I used that only as an example of verbiage engraved on an item.
O2
Cocaine is a hell of a drug..
Rucker61
03-10-2016, 17:24
That's not a fair comparison. The Colt contract is one contract for one type of firearm. The 1.75 million BGCs were for new and used firearms of all types.
A fair comparison would be how much did Colt sell to government vs private.
There were 23 million NICS checks in 2015, 8 million for permits and about 15 million for purchases.
There were 23 million NICS checks in 2015, 8 million for permits and about 15 million for purchases.
I was using a reasonable number for NEW firearms. Hard to determine with "universal" BGCs in the mix.
O2
Cocaine is a hell of a drug..
+1
But crack
If a complete US ban on firearms ownership ever happens the firearms industry worldwide would implode.
Um, no. Not even close. Worldwide it would not even be a blip on the proverbial radar.
By giving manufacturers the power to determine who is allowed to use their product, you're also creating a direct nexus that would finally allow victims to directly sure manufacturers. This is a two way street and one lane is much larger than the other. We can talk about what is good for the companies' bottom line all day long, but the moment they start getting sued by victims AND shelling out to sue government agencies at the same time, then it really is game over.
Honey Badger282.8
03-10-2016, 20:17
This is kind of the other side of the coin that some anti-gun legislators have used. They've floated the idea that no MIL/LEO contracts will go to any company that doesn't agree to their restrictions like a "assault weapon" sales self ban.
Aloha_Shooter
03-10-2016, 20:30
Boycotts and reverse boycotts only work if you can cut off trade. There's some power when Barrett says it won't sell to anti-gun police departments or sheriff's offices because there are precious few precision .50-cal rifle manufacturers. Assume you get all the big manufacturers to go along with what you propose and end up refusing to sell to a ton of police departments and government agencies ... you have to figure some small manufacturer is going to pursue the dollars hanging out there. Beyond that you have the impossibility of enforcing the clause through a legal system owned by the very people who now reinterpret the Constitution and laws however they feel, including such whoppers as to claim the Second Amendment doesn't protect an individual right to bear arms, the First Amendment doesn't protect a freedom to practice religion, etc.
Zundfolge
03-12-2016, 16:19
There's some power when Barrett says it won't sell to anti-gun police departments or sheriff's offices because there are precious few precision .50-cal rifle manufacturers.
Also he hasn't prevented a single police department or Sheriff's office that he doesn't approve of that really wants one from buying one of his rifles. They just buy them with the understanding that they won't be getting any service from Barrett, but there's nothing to stop a dealer from selling them to LAPD (for example).
Zundfolge
03-12-2016, 20:18
I really wish people knew the true status of our judicial system/government. Our freedom is a farce.
We no longer live in a Republic (really haven't in a long time). We live in a Judicial Oligarchy overseeing an Administrative State. Unaccountable judges and unelected bureaucrats run everything.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.