What if firearm manufacturers did this?

[newracer]

Last year Colt was awarded a $212M contract for M4 rifles.

[Zundfolge]

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]

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.

[O2HeN2]

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

[O2HeN2]

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]

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.

[Ronin13]

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?

[O2HeN2]

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]

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]

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.