Larue's new policy regarding States with anti-2A legislation

[GriffonSec]

NEWS RELEASE:
02/08/2013 LEANDER, TX. (date corrected according to their FB page

Updated Policy for State and Local Agency Law Enforcement Sales:

Due to the recent and numerous new Anti-gun/Anti-2nd Amendment laws passed and/or pending across our country, LaRue Tactical has been forced to reconsider how we provide products to state and local agencies.

Effective today, in an effort to see that no legal mistakes are made by LaRue Tactical and/or its employees, we will apply all current State and Local Laws (as applied to civilians) to state and local law enforcement / government agencies. In other words, LaRue Tactical will limit all sales to what law-abiding citizens residing in their districts can purchase or possess.

State and local laws have always been a serious focus of this firm, and we are now dovetailing that focus with the constitutional rights of the residents covered in their different areas by the old and new regulations.

We realize this effort will have an impact on this firm's sales - and have decided the lost sales are less danger to this firm than potential lawsuits from erroneous shipments generated by something as simple as human error.

Thanks in advance for your understanding.

Mark LaRue

* * This policy does not apply to Military / Federal Agencies * *


I have to say that I'm in support of this, even though I'm not a huge Larue supporter. I've had several discussions with friends regarding "sanction" type actions by the Firearms Industry towards States pushing or passing anti 2A legislation.

I'm also a huge supporter of State and Local LEO's and the job they do as well. I think it's unfortunate that the LEO political heiarchy doesn't speak for the overwhelming majorty of LEO's that are pro-2A and don't want to see legislation of this type pass, much less be forced to enforce such legislation. I think actions such as this can "give voice" to those LEO's to put pressure on their leadership in a way they haven't had before. Aside from all of the recent announcements from Sheriff's nationwide that the majority of the American public believe that LEO are somewhat anti-2A and I know, and those of you that are current LEO's know, that's just not the case.

Personal opinion, I think more industry manufacturers should step up with the same stance.

This is not an anti LEO thread. PERIOD. It's meant as a rational discussion on how/if more policies such as this could have positive or negative effects.

[Paulo_Santos]

Doesn't surprise me. He's never really been pro Police unless you kissed his ass. That policy is stupid. I live in NJ and anytime I want to get any high capacity mags for work, I always had to send the company a copy of my ID. If I were to ever use those mags for personal use, it is on me, not where I bought them from.

[Popeye]

I have a question for the LEO's on this one. Is the reason you are upset because of the change in vendors policies due to legislation will now affect you. As it stands LEO's can just sit by on the sidelines and watch. Having a hard time wording this without sounding anti LEO which I am not. But sometimes if you don't "have a dog in this fight" you will not get involved. i think it is a good policy to put heat on legislators that there are consequences to bad legislation.

[GriffonSec]

Doesn't surprise me. He's never really been pro Police unless you kissed his ass. That policy is stupid. I live in NJ and anytime I want to get any high capacity mags for work, I always had to send the company a copy of my ID. If I were to ever use those mags for personal use, it is on me, not where I bought them from.


Paulo, I get that. Mark's "abrasiveness" has kept me from really messing with any of his product. Using potential "liablity" is a weak excuse, agreed. I meant this more as an overall approach is all.

[UWone77]

I have a question for the LEO's on this one. Is the reason you are upset because of the change in vendors policies due to legislation will now affect you. As it stands LEO's can just sit by on the sidelines and watch. Having a hard time wording this without sounding anti LEO which I am not. But sometimes if you don't "have a dog in this fight" you will not get involved. i think it is a good policy to put heat on legislators that there are consequences to bad legislation.

Interesting post. Completely misinformed about where LEO's stand or don't stand on the isssue, but still interesting.

[Paulo_Santos]

I have a question for the LEO's on this one. Is the reason you are upset because of the change in vendors policies due to legislation will now affect you. As it stands LEO's can just sit by on the sidelines and watch. Having a hard time wording this without sounding anti LEO which I am not. But sometimes if you don't "have a dog in this fight" you will not get involved. i think it is a good policy to put heat on legislators that there are consequences to bad legislation.

I live in NJ for most of my life. NJ has always had a ban on high capacity mags. I have to follow the rules just every other person in NJ when it pertains to my personally owned AR's. My AR has a fixed stock and a pinned muzzle brake. So this change in policy is nothing new to me. I don't agree with what Larue is doing. Us PoPo are not the enemy.

[Stickman]

This is not an anti LEO thread. PERIOD.



Bull, yes it is.

[csmith]

I don't see this as an assault on state/local LEO's. LEO's just happen to be one of the few firearm using entities in the state systems and so get hit with it. That said, I see tactics like this as nothing more than a smoke and mirrors approach. It solves nothing, alienates LEO's but makes the consumer feel like the company has their best interests in mind. If a manufacturer wanted to really make a difference they'd do this at the federal level, not state. Why won't anyone do that? Because not one company has the fortitude to give up that contract to actually make their stand. Colt, KAC, Remington, etc. that means you.

[Stickman]

I don't see this as an assault on state/local LEO's. LEO's just happen to be one of the few firearm using entities in the state systems and so get hit with it. That said, I see tactics like this as nothing more than a smoke and mirrors approach. It solves nothing, alienates LEO's but makes the consumer feel like the company has their best interests in mind. If a manufacturer wanted to really make a difference they'd do this at the federal level, not state. Why won't anyone do that? Because not one company has the fortitude to give up that contract to actually make their stand. Colt, KAC, Remington, etc. that means you.


Agreed, they are trying appear cool like Barrett, but to anyone with half a brain it reeks of nothing but cheap sensationalism to make a buck.

[UWone77]

To imply we are sitting on the sidelines unless we had a "dog in the fight" is ignorant. The post implied we are ok with the erosion of 2A rights unless it affected us.

To punish or attempt to punish the line officers on the street for the decisions made many many levels above them is not constructive.

[Creeky73]

so as I am not misunderstanding, I am assuming that the rules regarding hi-cap mags and what not do not apply to duty weapons anyway, correct? In other words, if NY has a 7 -round limit, there is no way that this applies to on-duty officers, correct? Which would lead me to assume that if a police dept is still allowed to use them, then they could be acquired through the dept you work for, correct? And therefore the products aren't actually being denied to you, just not being sold through Larue.

Or are we talking about what LEO's are able to acquire for their personal weapons when off-duty?

Do not take my questions as a statement of support for Larue or some anti-cop thing, I am just asking for particulars.

[Popeye]

Interesting post. Completely misinformed about where LEO's stand or don't stand on the isssue, but still interesting.

Then I stand corrected. Apparently getting the wrong messages. Never considered you as THE ENEMY I was a firefighter for 30 yrs so I have an idea what you guys are dealing with probably worse since I left. Thanks for giving me a heads up. I posted that over here because I knew I would get an honest response without and me and my relatives being flamed and no comments in reference to my mother. [:)]

[FortTom]

I'm just curious. First of all, the vast majority of all LEO's I've ever known , where and when the 2A subject came up, were or are Pro 2A. I've traded hanguns, FTF, etc (it's still legal here), and even got into some pretty heated "competitions" at the local ranges, for lunch, ammo, or a case of beer.

The curious part is, by Larue doing what he's doing, is he going after those LEO's city council's, Mayors, or assemblymen, or whatever type of local governemt, or is he just trying to make brownie points with a certain crowd of his civilian trade? If the latter is true, then it would seem senseless, since most firearm owners I've known in my life (I'm 55 and retired military), have a great deal of respect for LE0, and the whole thing would be absolutely counter productive, at least the way I see it. Larue will alienate that majority of civilian shooters who have utmost respect for our LEO's, and just be stepping on his own lizard.

There is a bit of truth, but please read this carefully. LEO's by default do get to set on the sidelines, no matter how much they may despise the anti's and their agenda. They will get the proper equipment, regardless of what civilians get, whether or not they like or approve of that at all.

I think this whole mess, leaves everyone walking on thin ice, as to what we say and do, and how we do it. But in summary, I truly think that Larue will not only alienate his LEO customers, but it will blow up in his face when he realizes that the vast majority in our sport, if we're civilians, will jump aboard the bandwagon to make sure that LE gets the tools they need, when they need it.

Lastly, as an aside, this doesn't suprise me. Larue was touted as a "golden god" for too long, and his over priced and over rated products, while very good, were not the tools of Valhalla. Screw him.:mad:

FT.

[Paulo_Santos]

so as I am not misunderstanding, I am assuming that the rules regarding hi-cap mags and what not do not apply to duty weapons anyway, correct? In other words, if NY has a 7 -round limit, there is no way that this applies to on-duty officers, correct? Which would lead me to assume that if a police dept is still allowed to use them, then they could be acquired through the dept you work for, correct? And therefore the products aren't actually being denied to you, just not being sold through Larue.

Or are we talking about what LEO's are able to acquire for their personal weapons when off-duty?

Do not take my questions as a statement of support for Larue or some anti-cop thing, I am just asking for particulars.

For duty use, we use whatever our chief or designee approves us to carry. For personally owned weapons, we have to follow the rules like everyone else. And don't think for one second that if we were to get caught with some illegal equipment that we wouldn't get jacked up for it. People love nothing more than to make examples out of us.

[Popeye]

To imply we are sitting on the sidelines unless we had a "dog in the fight" is ignorant. The post implied we are ok with the erosion of 2A rights unless it affected us.

To punish or attempt to punish the line officers on the street for the decisions made many many levels above them is not constructive.

I was not implying anything as I started the thread out it was a question and was NOT implying anything. There is a lot of garbage flying around the internet and apparently I read too much of it. I fully understand the Administration problem. Once they make Admin they undergo a transformation. Like I said in the post I wasn't sure how to word it. I spent 30 yrs. in a fire station and am not very eloquent.

[csmith]

The curious part is, by Larue doing what he's doing, is he going after those LEO's city council's, Mayors, or assemblymen, or whatever type of local governemt, or is he just trying to make brownie points with a certain crowd of his civilian trade? If the latter is true, then it would seem senseless, since most firearm owners I've known in my life (I'm 55 and retired military), have a great deal of respect for LE0, and the whole thing would be absolutely counter productive, at least the way I see it. Larue will alienate that majority of civilian shooters who have utmost respect for our LEO's, and just be stepping on his own lizard.

I believe, as I said above, these tactics are to gain favor with those citizens in the states where these rediculous laws are enacted. CA, NY and IL for example. The expected outcome is for the citizens of those states to look at a company and say "Oh cool, company XYZ won't sell to them if I can't have it. Awesome!" The problem with that is how much business does Larue even do with state/local firearm based organizations in those states? Probably not enough to make a dent. Again, smoke and mirrors.


There is a bit of truth, but please read this carefully. LEO's by default do get to set on the sidelines, no matter how much they may despise the anti's and their agenda. They will get the proper equipment, regardless of what civilians get, whether or not they like or approve of that at all.

The disparity is this, when that LEO removes his uniform he is a private citizen (to a degree). As Paulo has attested to, they are hit with the same laws as everyone else. Sure, they have the equipment local budgets will allow for. What about when they park the patrol car, take off the uniform and head home?


I think this whole mess, leaves everyone walking on thin ice, as to what we say and do, and how we do it. But in summary, I truly think that Larue will not only alienate his LEO customers, but it will blow up in his face when he realizes that the vast majority in our sport, if we're civilians, will jump aboard the bandwagon to make sure that LE gets the tools they need, when they need it.

Lastly, as an aside, this doesn't suprise me. Larue was touted as a "golden god" for too long, and his over priced and over rated products, while very good, were not the tools of Valhalla. Screw him.:mad:

FT.

If the section I made bold didn't affect his bottom line enough to make a change, this surely won't. I've never owned a Larue anything, but I also didn't need to sit in a Yugo before I knew not to drive one.

[Paulo_Santos]

I'm just curious. First of all, the vast majority of all LEO's I've ever known , where and when the 2A subject came up, were or are Pro 2A. I've traded hanguns, FTF, etc (it's still legal here), and even got into some pretty heated "competitions" at the local ranges, for lunch, ammo, or a case of beer.

The curious part is, by Larue doing what he's doing, is he going after those LEO's city council's, Mayors, or assemblymen, or whatever type of local governemt, or is he just trying to make brownie points with a certain crowd of his civilian trade? If the latter is true, then it would seem senseless, since most firearm owners I've known in my life (I'm 55 and retired military), have a great deal of respect for LE0, and the whole thing would be absolutely counter productive, at least the way I see it. Larue will alienate that majority of civilian shooters who have utmost respect for our LEO's, and just be stepping on his own lizard.

There is a bit of truth, but please read this carefully. LEO's by default do get to set on the sidelines, no matter how much they may despise the anti's and their agenda. They will get the proper equipment, regardless of what civilians get, whether or not they like or approve of that at all.

I think this whole mess, leaves everyone walking on thin ice, as to what we say and do, and how we do it. But in summary, I truly think that Larue will not only alienate his LEO customers, but it will blow up in his face when he realizes that the vast majority in our sport, if we're civilians, will jump aboard the bandwagon to make sure that LE gets the tools they need, when they need it.

Lastly, as an aside, this doesn't suprise me. Larue was touted as a "golden god" for too long, and his over priced and over rated products, while very good, were not the tools of Valhalla. Screw him.:mad:

FT.

All I can say is that we in no way shape or form sit on the sidelines and do nothing. Just think about this. When we are on duty, we carry what out chief approves. But when we retire, we have to sell everything that is no longer legal to carry. So we feel the same way that everyone does.

[csmith]

Just think about this. When we are on duty, we carry what out chief approves. But when we retire, we move to a free state.

Fixed that for you Paulo. [:D]

[Paulo_Santos]

Fixed that for you Paulo. [:D]

LOL. Nice one.

[GriffonSec]

Bull, yes it is.


Stick, I hope that's not directed at me. If it is, I'm sorry it came across that way. If you really knew me, you would know that's the complete opposite.

That said, regardless of Larue's personal feelings about LEO, or what motivates it, I meant to go at it more as an industry move. Every single LEO I've worked and trained with over the last 15 years feel alienated already because of the general public's view of them, regardless of their personal views. Mainstream media and LEO politicians at the top paint the guys on the street being anti-joe-citizen, anti-2A, anti whatever you want to put in here that LEO's get grief about.

How else does the LEO community get the word out that they are just as against what's going on as the everyday citizen aside from conversations and internet forums?

I meant this more to be a genuine question on whether or not an industry move like this (regardless of motivation) would be able to assist the LEO's on the street in giving pressure back at the higher ups. That's all. If not, what would?

[csmith]

This won't help them at all. How many Departments are running around with OBR's and PredatAR's? Get a major player to do the same and it'll help a hell of a lot more.

[GriffonSec]

csmith - That's the point I was after, not to validate Laure's personal feelings or motivations.

Take NY State. What would happen if Kimber and Remington pulled out? If Bushmaster "sanctioned" NY after being specifically named ( I say that, they're the contract AR provider for my local county) as examples?

The NY State Police 'heads' stood up and supported this law without reading any of it and screwed the retirees as well as their own officer's personal weapons. I'm willing to bet most street officers don't support the law, but who gets out front and speaks for them? Would a major "dry up" of product make things change faster?

[Creeky73]

ok again, to make sure I am not misunderstanding...

my initial read of this led me to believe that Larue was simply stating that they would not send items only approved for duty weapons, like hi-cap mags, to residential addresses, even if proof of LEO credentials could be supplied. Which left me wondering what all the hullabaloo was about, since it would be a minor inconvenience at worst for LEO to get their duty gear from someone/somewhere else.

but on second read, is Larue saying that they are not going to sell hi cap mags to police depts at all, unless they are in a state where everyone can have them? And using some b.s. line about making some kind of mistake that would bring lawsuits against them as the reason?

[Popeye]

I certainly misunderstood your status off duty. We technically were never off duty. By state law we were required to give aid when we saw a need. Failure to do so could get you in trouble. That also came in to play when a few were injured off duty giving aid. Interesting
Given the info you guys are talking about sounds more like he is grandstanding for publicity and sales
.
So not only is this legislation preventing civilian self defense it also handicaps your ability off duty to help if the need arose and your ability to protect your family and property.

[csmith]

csmith - That's the point I was after, not to validate Laure's personal feelings or motivations.

Take NY State. What would happen if Kimber and Remington pulled out? If Bushmaster "sanctioned" NY after being specifically named ( I say that, they're the contract AR provider for my local county) as examples?
I'm tracking. I said this in my second post, but it'll take more than this showmanship to make any change. The companies that don't have skin in the game (Larue, Spikes Tactical, Palmetto State, etc) can do this all they want. It's like Kia saying they will no longer supply HMMWV's to the military until (insert random action) happens. They don't make our vehicles, and likewise Larue doesn't provide LEO weapons on a large scale, if at all. The companies that do won't follow this action because they have money to lose and sadly that means more in this day and age than any belief.


The NY State Police 'heads' stood up and supported this law without reading any of it and screwed the retirees as well as their own officer's personal weapons.
Of course. To get to that level of leadership you owe. Maybe not favors or something along those lines, but you owe someone something. Lead that type of existence for long enough and you forget who you are and more importantly what really matters.


I'm willing to bet most street officers don't support the law, but who gets out front and speaks for them?
Nobody, and by design.


Would a major "dry up" of product make things change faster?
Absolutely, but it won't happen. Colt, Kimber, Glock, Beretta etc. all have too much of a bottom line to protect. Souls were sold long ago for the almighty dollar.

[Paulo_Santos]

I certainly misunderstood your status off duty. We technically were never off duty. By state law we were required to give aid when we saw a need. Failure to do so could get you in trouble. That also came in to play when a few were injured off duty giving aid. Interesting
Given the info you guys are talking about sounds more like he is grandstanding for publicity and sales
.
So not only is this legislation preventing civilian self defense it also handicaps your ability off duty to help if the need arose and your ability to protect your family and property.

When we are off duty, if we see a crime in progress, the only thing we are required to do is called 911 and be a good witness. The reason for that policy is that if we are not carrying our off duty handgun or if we are with our family, we are not going to confront a bad guy with a gun and put ourselves or our family in danger. If we get injured while getting involved in an incident while off duty, we are covered. Technically, we are on the job 24 hours a day, except when it comes to AR's. LOL.

[Popeye]

except when it comes to AR's

Their ignorance knows no bounds.

[Koshinn]

All I can say is that we in no way shape or form sit on the sidelines and do nothing. Just think about this. When we are on duty, we carry what out chief approves. But when we retire, we have to sell everything that is no longer legal to carry. So we feel the same way that everyone does.

I thought retired LE also got exemptions?

[Paulo_Santos]

I thought retired LE also got exemptions?

Nope. If we have a personally owned AR that is approved for duty use, when we retire, we have to convert it back to NJ compliant or sell it to a fellow officer.

It gets better. If I have an AR that is approved for duty use, in order to be allowed to take it to a private range for practice, I need a letter from my chief with me at all times, indicating that I am authorized to do so. And if I get my personally owned AR approved for duty use, in order to have a collapsible stock, flash hider, or any other "evil" things, my chief has to send a letter to the State Police so they could approve it and have it in file.

[Paulo_Santos]

Currently retired officers can apply to carry when they retire, but that is usually for when they obtain a job that requires them to carry. They still have to qualify twice a year with us. But they aren't carrying AR's. they are carrying handguns that everyone else carries.

[Koshinn]

Currently retired officers can apply to carry when they retire, but that is usually for when they obtain a job that requires them to carry. They still have to qualify twice a year with us. But they aren't carrying AR's. they are carrying handguns that everyone else carries.

Oh that's what I must have been thinking of. But when they say "retired" LEO they mean 20 yrs right? As opposed to simply "former" LEO which might have gotten out in, say, 5 years and would not qualify for the exemption.

[Paulo_Santos]

Oh that's what I must have been thinking of. But when they say "retired" LEO they mean 20 yrs right? As opposed to simply "former" LEO which might have gotten out in, say, 5 years and would not qualify for the exemption.

Yes, when they retire. In NJ, the minimum is 20 years, but most retire at 25.

[Paulo_Santos]

Most of you guys know that a lot of us staff members here are LE. I don't want anyone to think that we are being a-holes about this. Just look at it from our point of view. We get shit on by everyone when it comes to the gun laws. Politicians hate us because most of us are gun guys. Some gun owners hate us because they think we are some sheep and will come to their homes and take their gun and whatever other reasons that I don't even know. And now manufacturers are pulling this crap on us.

All that I ever ask for as a cop is to get treated like anyone else. I don't want any special treatment. For work, I want to be able to carry the best equipment so I can be better equipped to protect the people I swore to protect, and off duty, I wanna be able to have what every gun owner is allowed to have so I can protect myself and my family. I think the gun laws in NJ are retarded and I have never enforced them, but I don't violate them either (not worth losing my pension over it. I just learn to live with these retarded laws for now). Most of my co-workers feel exactly the same way.

This crap that Larue is pulling is only furthering the us vs them crap that is spreading throughout the gun industry. I fell gay/corny by saying this, but that old saying, "United we stand. Divided we fall" sure applies here.

[GriffonSec]

Paulo, I get that, I do. I apologize if my intent of the thread came across as me personally taking an anti LEO stance, and I can see where manufacturer restrictions can be construed as anti-LEO. I suppose my thought behind any manufacturer move would get attention to the overall problem all gun owners have much faster. Wasn't meant to support Larue's personal opinion. You make a good point with "Us vs Them".

Maybe I just didn't word it right, but I've thought about this quite a bit and wondered if MAJOR manufacturers did took this position if it would hinder further attempts at legislation, that's all. csmith caught on to where I meant to go with this.

[FortTom]

Most of you guys know that a lot of us staff members here are LE. I don't want anyone to think that we are being a-holes about this. Just look at it from our point of view. We get shit on by everyone when it comes to the gun laws. Politicians hate us because most of us are gun guys. Some gun owners hate us because they think we are some sheep and will come to their homes and take their gun and whatever other reasons that I don't even know. And now manufacturers are pulling this crap on us.



I think you're painting with a very wide brush, Paulo. I would bet that the vast majority of firearms owners would not think of cops as A-holes. Period. You don't get shit on by EVERYONE, when it comes to gun laws. In fact the only people that can "shit" on you are your local, state, and federal lawmakers. " Some gun owners "hate" you because they think we are some "sheep"?... Your words,...I don't think so, but I would thank your fellow union members, because there's never a shortage of 40 or 50 cops willing to stand behind some slobbering, lying politician using them for a photo op, in support of "gun control"....now called "gun violence control". Why don't you hash that out with your union brothers? Hell, after I retired from the military, and went to work as an engineer, the Union, where I worked last before retiring again, would have had their "union brothers" cards, if they pulled some crap like that. So that's a perception problem brought on by certain elements of LEO agencies, when they can have 50 dufus' willing to make a "stand" and show their support for the "liberal du juor", gun grabber, in a 30 second sound byte on television news. What, do they get overtime for it? Really, part of the problem that you, and I feel you went overboard in including just about anyone who's NOT LEO, as crapping on or hating cops, is partly the doings of cops. How do you think the shooting public is going to feel, when a small time shyster politico has 40 to 50 LEO's standing behind him/her, with an almost orgasmic glaze on their face during a gun grab stump speech?

I have fleeting thoughts of anger when I see this crap pulled by some cops, but I remind myself of my immediate surroundings, how good our LEO are about voicing their opinions for our rights. Hell, we even had a Sherriff from one county here in KY, make national news by stating that he would not inforce any restrictive rights that violated the 2Al, because of part of his oath to defend the Constitution.

A blanket statement about getting "shit on by everyone".....kind of irks people like myself who have nothing but respect for LEO's. Sorry, not trying to piss you off, just saying.... we're the ones who support you most, we are the ones, that, like in combat, get misty eye'd and say a prayer when we see on the nightly news when a cop gets shot and killed by some trash gang bang asswipe. We're the ones who take down the address that they give for dontations for the family or some other LEO sponsored aid for the family and kids of that cop, and send money.

FT.

[Paulo_Santos]

I think you're painting with a very wide brush, Paulo. I would bet that the vast majority of firearms owners would not think of cops as A-holes. Period. You don't get shit on by EVERYONE, when it comes to gun laws. In fact the only people that can "shit" on you are your local, state, and federal lawmakers. " Some gun owners "hate" you because they think we are some "sheep"?... Your words,...I don't think so, but I would thank your fellow union members, because there's never a shortage of 40 or 50 cops willing to stand behind some slobbering, lying politician using them for a photo op, in support of "gun control"....now called "gun violence control". Why don't you hash that out with your union brothers? Hell, after I retired from the military, and went to work as an engineer, the Union, where I worked last before retiring again, would have had their "union brothers" cards, if they pulled some crap like that. So that's a perception problem brought on by certain elements of LEO agencies, when they can have 50 dufus' willing to make a "stand" and show their support for the "liberal du juor", gun grabber, in a 30 second sound byte on television news. What, do they get overtime for it? Really, part of the problem that you, and I feel you wen't overboard in including just about anyone who's NOT LEO, as crapping on or hating cops, is partly the doings of cops. How do you think the shooting public is going to feel, when a small time shyster politico has 40 to 50 LEO's standing behind him/her, with an almost orgasmic glaze on their face during a gun grab stump speech?

I have fleeting thoughts of anger when I see this crap pulled by some cops, but I remind myself of my immediate surroundings, how good our LEO are about voicing their opinions for our rights. Hell, we even had a Sherriff from one county here in KY, make national news by stating that he would not inforce any restrictive rights that he deemed unconstitutional, because of part of his oath to defend the Constitution.

A blanket statement about getting "shit on by everyone".....kind of irks people like myself who have nothing but respect for LEO's. Sorry, not trying to piss you off, just saying....

FT.

Getting "shit on by everyone" meant getting shit on by some from all sides, not literally getting shit on by everyone. And I said "some gun owners". So I didn't throw out any blanket statements to all gun owners. It was directed at the "some" that actually do hate us. And I've been called a sheep and have seen other gun owners calling cops sheep on other sites that I won't bring up.

As far as cops posing behind politicians, you won't see me behind any politician, nor do I support that. We actually have laws in my department that forbid us from getting involved or be seen with any politician in photo ops or anything that would make it look like we are supporting any politician.

[Paulo_Santos]

Paulo, I get that, I do. I apologize if my intent of the thread came across as me personally taking an anti LEO stance, and I can see where manufacturer restrictions can be construed as anti-LEO. I suppose my thought behind any manufacturer move would get attention to the overall problem all gun owners have much faster. Wasn't meant to support Larue's personal opinion. You make a good point with "Us vs Them".

Maybe I just didn't word it right, but I've thought about this quite a bit and wondered if MAJOR manufacturers did took this position if it would hinder further attempts at legislation, that's all. csmith caught on to where I meant to go with this.

I understand where you were coming from. No worries.

[UWone77]

I was not implying anything as I started the thread out it was a question and was NOT implying anything. There is a lot of garbage flying around the internet and apparently I read too much of it. I fully understand the Administration problem. Once they make Admin they undergo a transformation. Like I said in the post I wasn't sure how to word it. I spent 30 yrs. in a fire station and am not very eloquent.

We do have something in common you know, we both wanted to be firefighters. [:D]

I think we can both agree we need to be on the same side of the 2A fight.