TexasCHLforum.com

Ronnie Barrett did it...why won't S&W, Glock, and others?

If certain states and cities want to prohibit and essentially ban the 2A, do you think the manufacturers should come back with a 'No'? Even if one, say Glock, were to say thanks but no thanks, I think the statement would be resounding!

"Hello S&W? We need to order 100 sidearms for the Chicago Police Department..."

"We're not doing business with you as long as you continue your anti-2A tactics...find someone else.'

Thoughts?

Three words: The Almighty Dollar

Plus, most of these agencies don't buy direct from the manufacturer, but through a broker who could care less about anything but getting the sale.

The answer is money.

the "agencies" may buy through a broker, but the manufacturer does NOT have to make a particular design change just to meet the idiotic demands or certain states' gun laws. California regulations come to mind.


surv

cbr600 wrote:The answer is money.

Also what gun manufacturer wants to alienate LEOs? Even LEOs in an anti-gun place like Chicago (heck, ESPECIALLY those LEOs) need weapons and it's very easy for a police union and/or department to make a huge media/political stink about a particular gun maker that will get traction with many other LEOs nationwide.

For example: "ABC gunmaker refuses to sell guns to our police department and instead markets their cop killer weapons only to street thugs who disobey Chicago/Illinois law"

mr surveyor wrote:the "agencies" may buy through a broker, but the manufacturer does NOT have to make a particular design change just to meet the idiotic demands or certain states' gun laws. California regulations come to mind.


surv

That's a darn good point.

Because if Glock stops selling guns to a City/state then Kimber, Sig, Smith and Wesson just increased their market.
Now if you could get EVERY Gun maker to do it, go for it. But I can see the Police Union saying "These gun Manufactures are taking life saving tools from Police Officers!

marksiwel wrote:Because if Glock stops selling guns to a City/state then Kimber, Sig, Smith and Wesson just increased their market.
Now if you could get EVERY Gun maker to do it, go for it. But I can see the Police Union saying "These gun Manufactures are taking life saving tools from Police Officers!

let 'em buy off the limited "pre-ban" market like the ordinary citizens are required to do.

Even though I did buy one, S&W possibly lost more sales by adding the "hillary hole" on their revolvers than they would have lost by just refusing to meet California, and like minded state's demands.

marksiwel wrote:Because if Glock stops selling guns to a City/state then Kimber, Sig, Smith and Wesson just increased their market.
Now if you could get EVERY Gun maker to do it, go for it. But I can see the Police Union saying "These gun Manufactures are taking life saving tools from Police Officers!

But in the hands of citizens, they are nothing but evil murderous weapons.

mr surveyor wrote:the "agencies" may buy through a broker, but the manufacturer does NOT have to make a particular design change just to meet the idiotic demands or certain states' gun laws. California regulations come to mind.
surv

I may be missing something here, but I would think that manufacturers would indeed have to make such a design change if they want to sell in California.

Jim

57Coastie wrote:

mr surveyor wrote:the "agencies" may buy through a broker, but the manufacturer does NOT have to make a particular design change just to meet the idiotic demands or certain states' gun laws. California regulations come to mind.
surv

I may be missing something here, but I would think that manufacturers would indeed have to make such a design change if they want to sell in California.

Jim

Those regulations and restrictions are to conform with the idiotic California approved list of firearms for general public capability to be able to buy them. They have two sets of standards there. LEO's and FFL's can buy guns that are not on the approved list.

I was in a gun shop in California about 2 years ago and they had 2-3 cases full of guns that were not on the approved list, but up for sale to LEO's or FFL's. I talked with the shop owner and he said it was a real pain going through the list monthly, because a gun that may have been approved last month can be accidentally left off the list this month and you can't sell it any longer. The next month it would be back.

One odd thing was older weapons that may meet requirements but are no longer supported by the manufacturer may be removed from approved firearms list can not be sold to the general public. I believe I saw a couple of old revolvers like Ruger Security Six's and similar in the LEO/FFL only cases.

FWIW, I believe STI won't sell to CA, due to the cost-prohibitive nature of state gun laws.

Ropin wrote:FWIW, I believe STI won't sell to CA, due to the cost-prohibitive nature of state gun laws.

Yes, several manufacturers either don't sell or limit the models they make available to California non-LEO's. That is part of the reason so many guns go off the list or never even become available there. There is a large cost associated with certification, and it may not be worth it to a manufacturer to incur that cost unless they feel they can make it worth their while in sales of that weapon. I also believe they must re-certify older models of the gun every so often even if they haven't changed the design, so the manufacturer is not going to spend money on that old model unless they are still a really have a lot of them out there.