Gun Distributor cuts off ALL sales to CA.

[Jhaydeno]

That's true. The anti gun whackos in that state will just look at it as a victory, namely because less guns coming into the state.

It's a victory until the PD they expect to protect them can no longer get weapons either.... Or they can't find qualified candidates that can shoot straight nor safely clear a firearm. They will end up with twelve pound triggers and 30 shots on a perp where they only hit 8 bystanders, like NYC.

[eagleclaw]

It's a victory until the PD they expect to protect them can no longer get weapons either.... Or they can't find qualified candidates that can shoot straight nor safely clear a firearm. They will end up with twelve pound triggers and 30 shots on a perp where they only hit 8 bystanders, like NYC.

That will never happen. Companies like Glock, Sig , S&W H&K etc. fight each other to get major police department contracts. There is no way they will stop selling their products to California police agencies to protest CA’s anti second amendment stance. If one of the major gun companies ever boycotted police departments the other companies will move in to take their place. The boycotting company could also suffer losses because other police department elsewhere will boycott them in retaliation . These departments might get the attitude of; “this gun company doesn’t sell guns to our brothers in law enforcement out in CA so we are not buying from them”. It is my belief that these major gun companies will not put the second amendment before their profit.

[j_h_smith]

That will never happen. Companies like Glock, Sig , S&W H&K etc. fight each other to get major police department contracts. There is no way they will stop selling their products to California police agencies to protest CA’s anti second amendment stance. If one of the major gun companies ever boycotted police departments the other companies will move in to take their place. The boycotting company could also suffer losses because other police department elsewhere will boycott them in retaliation . These departments might get the attitude of; “this gun company doesn’t sell guns to our brothers in law enforcement out in CA so we are not buying from them”. It is my belief that these major gun companies will not put the second amendment before their profit.

Barrett Firearms did it. Others can too. There will come a time that these firearm manufacturers will have to grow a set and stand up for what is right and decent. If NY government can use their power to close down the banking industry for firearm manufacturers and dealers, then the manufacturers need to start fighting back.

It's okay to go on the offensive. Something that the pro 2A community feels they can't do because it will hurt their public opinion. Well, I'm here to tell ya, that this is the easiest way to eat an elephant. Before too long, we're going to be wishing we did something. But it will be too late.

[Carson]

But isn't it a pay me now or pay me later type of situation? Keep allowing the state to chisel away at your profits (by making it almost impossible to sell to the public), then all you have left are the sales to those police departments. Do you think that those government sales are their main source of sales (income) or do the sales to private parties out shine police department sales?

Good points. The sales to LE are guaranteed, even at a lower profit. The PD's have to and are allowed to buy guns. Probably include long term parts and accessories contracts. The CA general public is limited and maybe at some point in time even totally prohibited. I don't know what percentage the breakdown between government sales and private parties are, but the LE sales are guaranteed.

[Jhaydeno]

That will never happen. Companies like Glock, Sig , S&W H&K etc. fight each other to get major police department contracts. There is no way they will stop selling their products to California police agencies to protest CA’s anti second amendment stance. If one of the major gun companies ever boycotted police departments the other companies will move in to take their place. The boycotting company could also suffer losses because other police department elsewhere will boycott them in retaliation . These departments might get the attitude of; “this gun company doesn’t sell guns to our brothers in law enforcement out in CA so we are not buying from them”. It is my belief that these major gun companies will not put the second amendment before their profit.

While that half of may statement may never come true, the latter half has already occurred: Big city departments have trouble finding applicants that know how to use firearms, much less can qualify at the range.

[buxbandit]

While that half of may statement may never come true, the latter half has already occurred: Big city departments have trouble finding applicants that know how to use firearms, much less can qualify at the range.

Data?
I've always been under the impression that the PD trained it's recruits, prior experience or not. At least that's what I've heard for the family members that are on the job.

[eagleclaw]

Data?
I've always been under the impression that the PD trained it's recruits, prior experience or not. At least that's what I've heard for the family members that are on the job.

I agree. Police departments are more interested in getting females and minorities to apply than those with past firearms training. Testing for police jobs will not even include any questions on the applicant's prior experience with firearms.

[Carson]

While that half of may statement may never come true, the latter half has already occurred: Big city departments have trouble finding applicants that know how to use firearms, much less can qualify at the range.

Data?
I've always been under the impression that the PD trained it's recruits, prior experience or not. At least that's what I've heard for the family members that are on the job.

I agree. Police departments are more interested in getting females and minorities to apply than those with past firearms training. Testing for police jobs will not even include any questions on the applicant's prior experience with firearms.

From the instructors I have spoken to, unless it was military, they would rather the recruits have no shooting experience. Less bad habits and unsafe procedures to break. I never shot a handgun before I entered the academy and with only one week state mandated and one week city training I graduated with a Distinguished Badge ( just under a perfect 100) and continued shooting very well because of training from some old Vietnam vets/Stakeout Cops. Now the recruits get six weeks training.

While firearms proficiency is important, being able to read and write and having a little commonsense is better suited for everyday patrol.

[Sgt.K]

While firearms proficiency is important, being able to read and write and having a little commonsense is better suited for everyday patrol.

But... but... but...

Cops are the only people trained well enough to carry guns in public. We are told this all the time.

Are you saying that cops don't actually shoot 100 rounds a week maintaining that proficiency?



You know, like we do...

[Carson]

But... but... but...

Cops are the only people trained well enough to carry guns in public. We are told this all the time.

Are you saying that cops don't actually shoot 100 rounds a week maintaining that proficiency?



You know, like we do...

You know the answer as well as I do. Except for SWAT/SERT/etc. officers who probably shoot daily, the run of the mill officers shoot when they are required to qualify and that’s it. I never bought into the whole Police and military should be the only ones carrying weapons. Most of the people I know in the military are in the “rear with the gear” and have never fired a weapon in self defense or otherwise. So you won’t get that argument from me.