Magpul

[F-Trooper05]

Seriously???

With all the other efforts the company has made pro-2A including the very real -- and expensive -- threat of moving its entire operation to help Colorado gun owners, you're willing to throw them completely under the bus for this one issue?

That's certainly your right, but you do a disservice by pretending that the company has done NOTHING to support the Second Amendment.

I applaud Magpul for threatening to pull out of CO. But I don't applaud them for selling guns directly to anti-gun LEA's (if that's what they are in fact doing. No one has answered that question for me yet.) Just because they might move the location from CO (and I emphasize 'might') doesn't give them a pass. If continuing to sell to ban state LEA's is no biggie, then why are we so proud of BCM and LaRue?

LAV summed it up best earlier today:

I believe the real question at hand is if say the extremely anti gun Chief of Police for Chicago wanted to equip his officers with AR's and Magpul mags and he went directly to Magpul to purchase what would they say? I am all for supporting individual officers who support us - I don't think anyone ever said anything against that- but doing business directly with an agency whose leadership that is antigun is the real question

I hear where Magpul is coming from but I think that is the area of lingering doubt - to me at least

[Shellback]

From FB.

REGARDING LEO SALES
March 1st, 2013

Back in 1990, when I was deployed in Desert Shield and Desert Storm as a Marine grunt, some companies prioritized me items for my M16 for shipping that I purchased with my own funds. After getting out and forming Magpul in 1999, I established the same priority policy for Military and Law Enforcement, due to the requirements of their profession.

The same policy has been in place for 13 years now and has never been an issue until a few days ago. I do not support the idea that individual police officers should be punished for the actions of their elected officials. That said, I understand the concerns that some have with Law Enforcement officers getting special treatment while at the same time denouncing second amendment rights to another citizen in the same state.

With the fight in Colorado right now we do not have time to implement a new program, so I have suspended all LE sales to ban states until we can implement a system wherein any Law Enforcement Officer buying for duty use will have to promise to uphold their oath to the US Constitution - specifically the second and fourteenth amendments - as it applies to all citizens.

Richard Fitzpatrick
President/CEO - Founder
Magpul Industries

[TGS]

With the fight in Colorado right now we do not have time to implement a new program, so I have suspended all LE sales to ban states until we can implement a system wherein any Law Enforcement Officer buying for duty use will have to promise to uphold their oath to the US Constitution - specifically the second and fourteenth amendments - as it applies to all citizens.

Richard Fitzpatrick
President/CEO - Founder
Magpul Industries

IDK.......if I was a LEO, I'd be pretty pissed off if everyone I met felt I needed to prove myself to them simply because they chose to not pursue LE as a career.

It's not like LEOs are f'ing criminals that are untrustworthy and need to a repay a debt to society. whiskey tango foxtrot.

[JAD]

It's not like LEOs are f'ing criminals that are untrustworthy and need to a repay a debt to society. whiskey tango foxtrot.

IDKE. If you're an enforcer of unconstitutional laws you're certainly not doing anyone any favors. Up to you as an individual LEO to decide whether you're comfortable with your state's definition of constitutionality. I think it's reasonable for a company to say, "if you are employed by these states and municipalities, which we believe to have laws that might require you to enforce an unconstitutionality, we want to make sure you're plugged in before we sell you stuff." That's not crazy, to me.

[joshs]

How is selling 30 round mags to agencies that are going to arrest people for owning 30 round mags supporting gun rights?

Because they will get the magazines either way. I would rather the business go to a pro-gun rights manufacturer than one that has no interest in protecting gun rights. If company A or company B could sell magazines to New York police departments and X% of funds made on the sales by company A will later go to protecting gun rights, but 0% of funds from sales of company B will be spent on defending gun rights, I would much rather company A make the sales.

[ToddG]

What I see is a lot of people on the internet making demands of "someone else's company" that they would not make of their own employer.

Does your (generic "your") employer allow you to carry a loaded gun at work? If not, how do you tolerate working for such an anti-2A company while simultaneously complaining that a company like Magpul which has demonstrably supported 2A rights isn't doing enough? Quit your job to make a statement and then I'll be impressed. All the people demanding that Magpul do more and more to make a political statement while they do nothing more than sit on their butts complaining to the internet is just getting old.

Do I applaud companies like BCM and LaRue for taking the stand they have? Absolutely. Will I denounce every other company in the industry just because they won't take that same stand? No, I will not.

How is it fair to denounce Magpul (a company that has actively and publicly fought for 2A rights in Colorado) but still be OK with Glock and Smith, Winchester and Remington, and all the other huge companies that haven't even hinted at joining the so-called "NY boycott?"

As caleb pointed out, we can be our own worst enemies sometimes. All this hue and cry of "not enough, Magpul!" has led them to this silly -- and I guarantee short lived -- policy of demanding LEOs to "swear to uphold their oath" ... a policy which will simply annoy the often pro-2A LEOs. Seriously, do you think even someone like Mayor Bloomberg would so much as blink before signing a form promising to uphold his oath to the Constitution? The whole thing is ridiculous political puppetry and it's a shame Magpul is being dragged into it after risking so much for the 2A fight.

[David Armstrong]

+1. I've been around long enough to hear the screams to boycott S&W, Remington, Colt, Ruger, Glock and pretty much everone else at one time or another because they "weren't on our side." Heck, I run across gunners who complain about the NRA really not supporting gun owners and gun rights. Like Todd and Caleb have both pointed out, maybe we should try to focus on the 90+% good stuff that happens instead of getting all worked up about the >10% bad stuff. Sometimes it seems pro-gun folks are their own worst enemy.

[JAD]

Except the S&W boycott *worked.* It's one of the best examples of effective consumer activism I'm aware of.

It was, however, over a much clearer and repugnant action on Smith's part (and Ruger's, and the Ruger boycott was much less effective).

This thing is getting grossly overblown. Ronnie Barrett had a neat idea with respect to California, and it's kind of neat that some companies have echoed it, but a) it won't be effective unless a major like S&W or GLOCK joins the fray, and they won't; and b) I don't think Barrett's actions had impact in Cali and I don't think this will do anything in NY.

I do applaud the companies who are trying. I think that what MP did in CO and what Beretta (!?!) appears to be doing in MD are the only really effective actions I've seen taken, and the piling - on of MP in the last couple of days has been pretty disgusting.

[jetfire]

Except the S&W boycott *worked.* It's one of the best examples of effective consumer activism I'm aware of.

I'm curious to know what what measure you use to determine that the S&W boycott "worked".

[Tamara]

I'm curious to know what what measure you use to determine that the S&W boycott "worked".

Because the guys at Safe-T-Hammer (who, IIRC, had counseled Tompkins against signing the HUD deal) wound up able to buy the company for pocket change?

Seriously, Tompkins shot themselves in the foot with that deal. They thought they'd be making the company more valuable by getting it out from under the threat of pending litigation and instead they took such a sales hit that the company sold for a final price that could be raised by a half-competent Kickstarter.