The National Conference of Democratic Mayors wants more gun control and they are frustrated that, because of gun owners like you who vote, they cannot achieve it through legislation.
So … they have a backup plan. They are going to use taxpayer dollars, in the form of contracts to supply law enforcement agencies, to threaten manufacturers who do not voluntarily enact their draconian proposals.
And they are not trying to hide their agenda. Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, who leads the group, proudly announced the details of the plan after the NCDM meeting in January.
“When we were lobbying on Capitol Hill, it became clear that our goal of trying to pass laws that make it easier to make our communities safe was going to be opposed by the gun and ammunition manufacturers. We recognize as mayors, we help fund that, because we are one of the largest purchasers of guns and ammunition in the country.
So at the Democratic mayors meeting last night, we agreed that we would all go back to our communities, gather information from our police chiefs and procurement officers about how many guns and how much ammunition we purchase, bring that in from the Democratic mayors so that we have a common list of how much money we’re spending, what purchases are pending and who we’re buying from. [This data will then be handed over to New York Mayor Bloomberg’s anti-gun group in order for the manufacturers to be rated.]
Then we’re going to do everything we can as mayors to use … the collective buying power of many millions of dollars in guns and ammunition, to support those who will support common-sense laws and oppose those who are fighting us in Congress.”
Let me summarize that for you. These Democratic mayors are going to punish those who exercise their constitutional right to petition the government. And they will use YOUR tax dollars to conduct this attack on the shooting sports industry.
However, this plan might just backfire on the cities these mayors represent. Let’s do a little math. According to the ATF, in 2012 American consumers (not including government purchases) purchased almost 19 MILLION firearms. If we use a conservative average of $500 per transaction, that is 9.5 BILLION dollars worth of sales to consumers. And that number doesn’t even take accessories and ammunition into account.
So if you were the CEO of a company that sells firearms in America and you had the choice to anger those who bought 9.5 BILLION dollars worth of guns or face a possible boycott from those who bought a couple millions dollars worth, which would you choose?
There is precedent. It took years and a change in ownership for Smith & Wesson to recover from the consumer anger that was directed against them when they caved into similar demands by the Clinton Administration.
In fact, manufacturers should consider going all-in and completely refusing to sell to local and state government in those states that enact draconian laws. In this too there is precedent. When California moved to ban the 50 caliber rifles that Barrett Manufacturing pioneered, company CEO Ronnie Barrett told California’s government agencies to go elsewhere with their business.
“Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers. Therefore, since California’s passing of AB50, the state is not in compliance with the US Constitution’s 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we will not sell nor service any of our products to any government agency of the State of California.”
If every manufacturer in the country were to band together and do the same it would have an immediate and devastating impact. It’s time the gun industry adopted the tactics of those who would destroy it.
After all, those mayors certainly want the men guarding them and THEIR families to be armed. It is just YOUR family that is disposable.
Wonder what happened to “of the people, by the people, for the people?” As long as the government agrees with “the people,” you’re fine. When they don’t…. look out!
Excellent blog. I remember the Smith & Wesson ire well and would have to get over my own hurdles to carry one again. You made my day, John.
Most gun enthusists did not know what was behind Smith & wesson bowing down to clinton. S&W is a small company by most standards, in fact all of the small arms manufactures in America if combined would not make the fortune 500. S&W (a publicly traded company) has been owned by several different companies. At the time they were held by a British company. S&W comprised less than 3% of the parent companys assets. Clinton was pushing to hold firearms manufactures liable for firearms involved in murder. Owning S&W the parent company decided that they would comply to clinton’s restrictions and sold S&W as soon as they could because they were afraid that their small investment could endanger the parent co. if laws were passed to sue firearms mfg So carry a S&W proudly
Hey Sarge, you got a source for that statistic? “…all of the small arms manufactures in America if combined would not make the fortune 500.” That’s a great argument to use against the gun gwabbers who claim greed motivates the dreaded “gun industry.” I Googled it, the closest I found is this from 2005:
“Added all together, the nation’s gun manufacturers don’t even make the Fortune 500 list.” Source: “U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s Floor Statement On S. 397” Posted on July 27, 2005
Barrett has it right. If the cities don’t want to do business, don’t do business with them. They’re going to have a real hard time finding parts for their existing rocks of weapons, aren’t they?
What are they going to shoot? Sooner or later, they’re going to have to re-supply their ammo dumps. Now they’ll have to pay retail.
I doubt any gun or ammo manufacturer has a lack of business and needs to do business with municipalities that vilify those companies. I hope this backfires on those mayors when they can’t find any company willing to do business with them.
Pingback: Democratic mayors attempt to enact gun control via economic threats | OpenCarry.org
The time has never been better. Manufacturers are running at full capacity, no inventory on hand, and many with serious backlogs. Who is the primary consumer of these guns? The American public is.
Should the SAAMI, NSSF and PGRA band together and members refuse to sell to municipalities that do not support the 2 Amendment and the people’s RKBA, it could well accomplish in short order what may take years for court cases to produce.
Such a united front would be cataclysmic to the antis. Am I holding my breath….no, but even a few getting on board with this could have a major impact.
Wouldn’t that be amazing?
The power of the purchasing dollar is strongest when your side has more dollars & more passion AND there is a possibility that you won’t buy the product anyway or can divide the manufacturers. I don’t see those possibilities being a reality, since municipalities cannot do without firearms.
The Hobbs Act, named after Congressman Sam Hobbs (D-AL) and codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1951, is a U.S. federal law enacted in 1946 that prohibits actual, attempted, or contemplated robbery or extortion affecting interstate or foreign commerce. Section 1951 also proscribes conspiracy to commit robbery or extortion without reference to the conspiracy statute at 18 U.S.C. § 371.
Although the Hobbs Act was enacted as a statute to combat racketeering in labor-management disputes, the statute is frequently used in connection with cases involving public corruption, commercial disputes, and corruption directed at members of labor unions.
The Hobbs Act criminalizes both robbery and extortion. Whereas robbery is the taking of another’s property without his or her consent, “traditional” extortion occurs when a person wrongfully uses force, the threat of force, or fear to obtain a recognized property right from another person without that person’s consent.
In interpreting the Hobbs Act, the Supreme Court has held that the statute employs the fullest extent of federal authority under the Commerce Clause. Thus, the lower federal courts have recognized that an actual effect on commerce is sufficient to satisfy the federal jurisdictional element even if it is slight or de minimis.
Pingback: Democratic Mayors Economic Threat On Guns Could Backfire | Gunalizer
[We recognize as mayors, we help fund that, because we are one of the largest purchasers of guns and ammunition in the country.]
Total federal, state, and local LEOs = 800,000*
GAO report: CHLs = 8,000,000 (LEOs x 10)
Gunowners = 80,000,000 (LEOs x 100)
Manufacturers are going to miss 1% of the market?
* And that’s ALL LEOs, not just the ones Democratic mayors control.
It never ceases to amaze me, that politicians from the top and going down the ladder; can come up with ideas that just classifies them as stupid and downright dangerous. I, for one, would love to see the average citizenry ban together and push through laws that would make it easier to “recall” and get the idiots out of ofice that would even consider participating in harming their communities. Even more so, the ones that don’t work for their constituents or country. To threaten manufacturers or even the citizenry, is treasonous and should be dealt with swiftly.
Pingback: “Bits & Pieces – Gun Control Reaction” Feb. 26th, 2013 | jeff-goodall