bullying in New York State

Print This Post

Clark

Clark is an anarchocapitalist, a reader, and a man of mystery. He's not a neoreactionary, but he is Nrx-curious 'til graduation. All he wants for Christmas is for everyone involved in the police state to get a fair trial and a free hanging. Follow him at @clarkhat

116 Responses

  1. Bren says:

    What a tempest in a tea pot! I'm pretty sure Olympic products are sold thru resellers and NY state will buy them that way. Olympic gets to pander to tea partiers, the police in NYC get to pander to gun controlistas (very popular in NY state). Win-win for all.

  2. Waldo says:

    Where's the link to what the cop said? Difficult for me to agree with your outrage at what someone said without knowing what they said.

  3. Shane says:

    This is starting well.

  4. Jeremy says:

    Look, if all the good gun companies refuse to do business with the government, the government will just end up with made-in-China guns that were borrowed on a bond…
    oh wait… this could work well…

  5. Frank says:

    Link requested by Waldo-
    http://www.ncgunblog.com/new-york-boycott/

    This is great stuff. Personally, I love voting with my dollar, and you can bet that I'll be voting for the manufacturers that take this stand.

  6. naught_for_naught says:

    "Divinely given Rights."

    Really? Divinely given? He's far too humble. Those rights were "given" largely a the point of musket barrel sometime during the "Age of Enlightenment."

    But how is this any smarter than the Chick-fil-a boycott, other than this would be Chick-fil-a refusing to sell their delicious chicken sandwiches to the government of Chicago because they dislike their politics?

    Actually, I have a better question. Speaking as a capital-C capitalist, how does a new, one-man, California-based startup, with no experience, inventory or infrastructure, submit a proposal to supply arms to those 35,000 under served heroes?

    This is why kickstarter is so cool.

  7. Dan Weber says:

    If it's illegal for the government to have guns, only illegal governments will have guns.

  8. Xenocles says:

    Arguably it's the illegal governments that need them the most.

  9. Grifter says:

    It seems kind of weird to me that they singled out cops and EMS, then covered everyone else under "State employee"

  10. Grandy says:

    Actually, I have a better question. Speaking as a capital-C capitalist, how does a new, one-man, California-based startup, with no experience, inventory or infrastructure, submit a proposal to supply arms to those 35,000 under served heroes?

    We certainly wouldn't want to deprive them of a chance to repress any minorities.

  11. En Passant says:

    They did two things: 1) they said hurtful things, and 2) they refused to carry on voluntary commerce with the oppressed.

    I hope all their paperwork is in perfect order and in a safe place, and they have retained a small army of lawyers.

    The only thing more petty, vicious and conscience-free than ambitious government officials are butthurt ambitious government officials.

  12. EJG says:

    I have no idea why the NY police even responded to this, except to register that they feel butthurt – many other companies will certainly sell them AR-15-type arms, possibly at a significant additional markup (but hey, the prices I saw at a gun show last weekend were already remarkable)

    While Olympic Arms is certainly being a little self-righteous, it is their right…I would categorize the police response as "whining"…

  13. naught_for_naught says:

    @Grandy — A champion of the downtrodden while making phat stacks? B-o-o-o-nanza!

  14. Jon says:

    I don't see any direct or indirect quotes from Biasotti on the page Frank links to, and I can't find any hits for his name on npr.org, either. I'm with Waldo: Without something firmer to go on, I can't share Clark's outrage.

  15. Mike G. says:

    I believe Clark's point was that New York law enforcement are a bunch of whiny whiners.

  16. Frank says:

    Waldo wrote:
    I don't see any direct or indirect quotes from Biasotti on the page Frank links to
    That's because I didn't read your post correctly. My apologies.

  17. mojo says:

    "Hey Ma! Lookit me! I'm bullying an entire state government!"

  18. zaq.hack says:

    This is fantastic. I love it. There's a lot of cynicism in the comments, so far, but this is a perfect illustration of how crazy a gun ban is.

  19. matw2 says:

    Being British I assumed that Olympic Arms was a pub. I presume I'm mistaken, though police getting up in arms about not being able to drink where they want seems just as likely.

  20. James Pollock says:

    Won't sell to the state? Sounds like a good reason to pull their state business license…

    (My favorite part of the press release is how they're going to make it illegal to have legal weapons.)

  21. naught_for_naught says:

    Won't sell to the state? Sounds like a good reason to pull their state business license

    I think it was exactly this sentiment that provoked the colonials to revolt — the state big-footing commerce, determining what it will buy and who it will sell to too. It is a revolting thought, right?

  22. Shelby says:

    I heard Biasotti's make those comments last night on NPR, and had my best laugh in weeks. Bullied! It was the perfect follow-on to previous posts here.

  23. Zack says:

    @Bren: I believe that'll be less effective and less likely than you think; resellers typically purchase enough for resale to customers, but the magnitude we're talking about (thousands of people) would require massive purchase orders. There's a pretty good chance olympic would notice such an escalation by one of its reselling customers, and would investigate… and refuse to complete the transaction.

  24. VPJ says:

    No link to Biasotti's alleged complaining about the boycott. There is a link given in the comments, but it just tracks companies joining the boycott of NY govt. Is there a link to what Biasotti said or are we just supposed to use our imaginations?

  25. aczarnowski says:

    He said, she said, potato, tomato.

    I applaud companies taking this track. Seeing companies move out of NY and other states that restrict their products, e.g. MagPul in CO, would be even better. Getting bit hitters like S&W and Glock on this bandwagon would be even bestest [sic].

    Well done Olympic (and Barrett, Larue, Templar Custom, EFI and others).

  26. Delvan says:

    No results in google for Biasotti & "olympic arms" other than this post & exact copies of this post. No results for Biasotti searching on NPR's site, but their search engine doesn't seem very robost: there are no results for my name either, even though I've been on NPR as well (and have a working link to the article that's still there).

  27. machintelligence says:

    Getting new firearms might not be much of an issue, but factory service and repair parts for their existing weapons could be. Does anyone have an estimate of how many Olympic Arms guns are in use by NY officers? Are they also going to refuse to honor warranties?

  28. James Pollock says:

    When I apply some analysis to Olympic's press release, it really seems like granstanding to me, particularly so if they weren't likely to win bids to supply weapons to NY and its various sub-entities anyway. The downside, they lose whatever sales to the state that they might have been able to make. The upside, all the private potential customers leaping to their defense (as happened recently in my home state when a baker refused to sell a cake to be used in a same-gender wedding, or earlier in the Chick-fil-A brouhaha.)

    I look forward to the PR battle when NY decides to take whatever they need from Olympic Arms by eminent domain.

  29. SD Wheeler says:

    It appears James Pollock is a supporter of the bullied police. James, this is how you make a tyrant pay for their mistakes. NY can't do a damn thing to Olympic Arms. It's kind of a long way from NY to Washington state. Eminent domain doesn't apply.

  30. MattS says:

    Anyone have any information on where the named agencies buy their guns and ammo?

  31. George William Herbert says:

    This has happened before. LAPD had an unfortunate oops with a number of its firearms vendors when they were part of the major driving force behind the California state ban on .50 caliber rifles. Barrett Arms and a number of other manufacturers dropped all support, repairs, and warranty coverage on their products that the LAPD owned. Including quite a large number of LAPD Barrett manufactured .50 caliber sniper rifles.

    The SWAT team had a fit, yelled at attorneys and Barrett, and tried changing guns to other manufacturers eventually.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/836082/posts

    I can't confirm it's still in effect, but knowing Barrett…

  32. Rob says:

    I can't confirm it's still in effect, but knowing Barrett…

    Pretty sure it still is.

    As mentioned above, there are a half-dozen other companies also refusing to sell arms to NY police departments. The civilian firearm market is far larger than the police one, and gun owners are not very forgiving to manufacturers that cross them while rewarding to those that support them. Not selling to ny.gov is a pretty good business decision for most firearm manufacturers.

  33. Zack says:

    Eurgh. I try to stand up for the police (not in the sense of excusing what they do wrong, but in that I don't believe police misconduct happens anywhere near as often as people believe it does), and stuff like this happens. This Biasotti opens his mouth and makes me doubt myself.

    Although I guess I understand now why people from the north have such a bad opinion of cops; with some rough math, and whatever statistics I was able to find about the number of cops, using Popehat's numbers, NY comes in at roughly 9.5 policemen per 1000 people, which is something like four times the national average of 2.1 http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes333051.htm

    So a big part of the reason why people in New York and the Northeast and California see a lot more of cop corruption… just because there are more cops out there.

    In urban areas, actually, the problem might be concentration. NYC on its wikipedia page claims 40,000 officers and a quick google search says NYC is 470 square miles, meaning you have roughly 85 officers per square mile of territory.
    For Los Angeles, that number is 25 officers PSM.
    For San Francisco, that's 13 officers PSM.
    For Orlando that's 9 officers PSM.
    Nationally, the average would be something like 0.5-1 PSM, if you assume only a quarter or half of the U.S.'s contiguous (Not alaska or hawaii) land area is populated. Even if you assume only a tenth of U.S. land area is populated, it comes out to 2.5 per square mile, which is still less than any of the cities listed.

    (For a representative example from my home state, Charleston SC clocks in at roughly 4, which is about the state average.)

    So NY might appear to have a lot of bad cops just because you have a lot of them per square mile.

    Also, a lot of the states where I've heard the most complaints about cop corruption- New York, California, New Jersey, Florida- are also the states with the highest paid cops. In my opinon, this is probably due to a very strong union presence in those states, which would weaken the department's ability to prune bad officers. The only state among those that is right-to-work is Florida, which would tend to support the premise.

    Just a couple of thoughts on the subject. I can of course be wrong; this was just the result of a bit of googling and calculating. But that's my personal theory, at least: concentration, overpopulation, and unionization of police are the causes for a negative view of police in certain states.

    But yeah, this guy Biasotti? Complaining about police being bullied? Not helpful, not sensible, not right.

  34. Neil says:

    I still can not find any link to the statement made by Biasotti. Any clues?

  35. James Pollock says:

    "It appears James Pollock is a supporter of the bullied police. "
    Not really.
    I'm just not a supporter of the put-upon private industry that started this pissing contest, and wondering how absurd it will get. I was really hoping for "never mind the government coming for my guns, now they're coming for my gun factories!"

  36. Ariel says:

    The State doesn't bully. It only upholds order; whatever it decides that is and however it decides to do it. It is still just order. It isn't bullying by definition. It is always rational and with the highest morality included.

    Sexting is an obvious example. Those 13-16 year-old adults who sent pictures of their genitalia are obviously child pornographers. I won't even go into the 13-16 year old adults who distributed that child pornography to other 13-16 year old adults. Just thinking of what they did to the children is enough to make me call for a new law with some child's name.

    Shakespeare and the state of Denmark. Pick a subject…

  37. Rob says:

    I'm just not a supporter of the put-upon private industry that started this pissing contest, and wondering how absurd it will get

    Err…what?

    NY started this by outlawing the gun manufacturer's products in the state of New York. I think it's perfectly acceptable for the gun manufacturers to then refuse to sell to NY police officers, who may or may not be exempted from the ban (did they ever get around to "fixing" that? God, I hope not).

  38. James Pope says:

    Then it must be perfectly rational for New York State to make a ban of guns in the civilian market from these manufacturers, to make political coalitions with other states to enforce further bans, to fine manufacturers whose products end up in New York regardless of the ban because of online weapons sales, and to generally be an ass in response. Right? If civilian manufacturers are reasonable in attempting to bring economic pressure on the government to engender a political response, then a political response promoting an economic response in return must be the correct action.

  39. Rob says:

    Then it must be perfectly rational for New York State to make a ban of guns in the civilian market from these manufacturers, to make political coalitions with other states to enforce further bans, to fine manufacturers whose products end up in New York regardless of the ban because of online weapons sales, and to generally be an ass in response. Right? If civilian manufacturers are reasonable in attempting to bring economic pressure on the government to engender a political response, then a political response promoting an economic response in return must be the correct action.

    Given that NY's actions already likely infringe on the 2nd Amendment, and further firearms restrictions would simply make it worse, no, it wouldn't.

    But I'm curious: What would you have the gun makers do? Do you think they should just continue selling to NY police officers, who (depending on whether or not they've passed an exemption, as the original bill did not have one) will either have a hypocritical exemption or will be equipping themselves with illegal weapons? Do you think they should just roll over and take it? Why should they do that?

  40. marco73 says:

    So a private enterprise won't do business with the government, when said government wants to restrict who the business can sell to, just as long as the business continues to sell to the government?

    Sounds similar to the situation in 2003 with the Ford Crown Vic Police Interceptor. Seems quite a few police departments were part of a class action lawsuit about the dangerous design of the gas tank on Crown Vics.

    I won't go into the merits of the suit or the outcomes; I do believe that Ford did settle with some of the individual officers injured, although I don't believe that Ford ever admitted any defect existed.

    Ford said, OK, of you are going to sue us, then we won't sell you any more cars. Who the heck was Ford to say that to the government? Some police departments tried to sue Ford to force them to sell cars to the police departments. They actually went to trial, but the judge sided with Ford and said no sale.

    So police departments then dropped out of the suits so they could buy more Crown Vics, before production ceased.

  41. Owen says:

    @James Pope:

    And if private parties were protesting against certain speech by the government of New York, it would be perfectly rational and right for New York to then ban or punish their protest?

    The answer is NO, and the reason is rather simple. Say it with me now: private action is NOT THE SAME as government action.

  42. rudytbone says:

    Now if we can get ammunition companies to stop selling the them, and also put language barring re-sale of ammunition to NY governments in their contracts…..

  43. MattS says:

    "and also put language barring re-sale of ammunition to NY governments in their contracts"

    There is a reason why law enforcement agencies by ammo by contract directly from the manufacturers. No retailer and even most wholesalers don't keep enough stock to fill LEA's orders. IF NY LEAs tried to set up a straw buyer the manufacturers would notice imediately.

  44. James Pollock says:

    "NY started this by outlawing the gun manufacturer's products in the state of New York."
    Some of the manufacturer's products. What's a capitalist supposed to do if the market for their product dries up? Switch to manufacturing a product that does sell. But what if the reason it isn't selling is obstructionist regulators? Hire a lobbyist.

    "I think it's perfectly acceptable for the gun manufacturers to then refuse to sell to NY police officers"
    OK. Um, why do they need a press release to do that?

  45. Fox2! says:

    James Pope,

    That's called a "Bill of Attainder," and is specifically prohibited by the US Constitution, in Article 1, Section 9 (for the federal government) and Article 1, Section 10 (for the states).

    Which could be cause for impeachment and disqualification from holding further office, as well as setting one up for civil action under 42 USC 1963.

  46. Rob says:

    Some of the manufacturer's products. What's a capitalist supposed to do if the market for their product dries up? Switch to manufacturing a product that does sell. But what if the reason it isn't selling is obstructionist regulators? Hire a lobbyist.

    More like the majority of the manufacturer's products. Olympic Arms specializes in AR-15s and AR-15 accessories, most of which have been banned in NY. In any case, you failed to realize that they've pretty much done all of those things.

    So, why is refusing to sell to NY police departments unacceptable? Do you think all people who are upset about something their government did should stick to letter writing and adjusting their lives to fit the onerous new restrictions, and give up all other forms of protest? I take it you think drum circles and sign waving go over the line too, eh?

    OK. Um, why do they need a press release to do that?

    There's this new thing called Public Relations. Giving NY the finger helps the company convey the message that they're siding with the majority of their customers, who are civilians rather than police.

  47. Megadan2 says:

    > I'm just not a supporter of the put-upon private
    > industry that started this pissing contest…

    No that isn't it at all. The people in these arms manufacturing companies are PEOPLE that have kids, brothers, cousins and friends. LEAs have started dribbling their urine on them like an old timer with a prostate problem and these Men know whats coming. So they're jumping right to the end-game.

    To quote Orson Scott Card: "This would not have a happy ending. So Ender decided he'd rather not be the unhappiest at the end."

    I too prefer difficult freedom to easy slavery.

  48. A Critic says:

    "Some of the manufacturer's products. What's a capitalist supposed to do if the market for their product dries up? "

    Uh, the market didn't "dry up" – it was largely banned in a critical step towards the total prohibition of all citizen ownership of arms. There is no reason to sanction their own victimization.

    I hope this starts a trend – no arms manufacturer should arm the criminals in power at any level of government.

  49. James Pollock says:

    Rob:
    "More like the majority of the manufacturer's products. Olympic Arms specializes in AR-15s and AR-15 accessories, most of which have been banned in NY."
    Then they need different products.

    "So, why is refusing to sell to NY police departments unacceptable?"
    I give up. Why is it unacceptable to sell to NY police departments?

    "Giving NY the finger helps the company convey the message that they're siding with the majority of their customers, who are civilians rather than police."
    So you agree that this press release is just a cynical attempt to drum up sales, rather than an actual attempt to change the public policy of the state of NY?

    A critic:
    What's a capitalist supposed to do if the market for their product dries up? "
    Uh, the market didn't "dry up"
    What do you call it when you can hardly make any sales of your product?

    "it was largely banned in a critical step towards the total prohibition of all citizen ownership of arms"
    I find this conclusion worthy of ridicule, functionally equivalent to a claim that requiring emissions controls on automobiles is a critical step towards the total prohibition of all citizen ownership of motor vehicles.

  50. James Pollock says:

    "The people in these arms manufacturing companies are PEOPLE"
    What a remarkable observation.

  51. princessartemis says:

    I find this conclusion worthy of ridicule, functionally equivalent to a claim that requiring emissions controls on automobiles is a critical step towards the total prohibition of all citizen ownership of motor vehicles.

    Looks more functionally equivalent to banning Denalis, any automobile with more than two doors, any vehicle with more than an approved number of horsepower, and any vehicle with red paint.

  52. Rick H. says:

    >>Uh, the market didn't "dry up"

    James Pollock:
    >What do you call it when you can hardly make any sales of your product?

    You seem to be confused about what a "market" is. Government rules affect markets, but they are merely an artificial barrier of violence between willing buyers and sellers.

    Likening new anti-gun laws to "the market" is like the military labeling a bombing campaign a form of "severe weather."

  53. James Pollock says:

    "Looks more functionally equivalent to banning Denalis, any automobile with more than two doors, any vehicle with more than an approved number of horsepower, and any vehicle with red paint."
    To-may-to, to-mah-to.

  54. James Pollock says:

    "You seem to be confused about what a "market" is. Government rules affect markets, but they are merely an artificial barrier of violence between willing buyers and sellers."
    OK. The "market" for semi-automatic rifles of specific styles is being "affected" by "an artificial barrier of violence between willing buyers and sellers", which seems likely to "dry up" the number of "sales" of those "rifles" in the "market area" of NY.

    Markets change for lots of reasons (some good, some bad) and businesses have to adapt to the changing business climate, which includes the regulatory climate.

  55. Rob says:

    Then they need different products.

    No, they don't. They specialize in that because that's what sells in an unrestricted market. Olympic Arms, like any other AR-15 manufacturer, is likely backordered several months or years in advance at this point. And single state isn't a big enough market to justify the expense of retooling and a complete change in strategy just to keep selling there.

    So you agree that this press release is just a cynical attempt to drum up sales, rather than an actual attempt to change the public policy of the state of NY?

    Jesus you're dense. Yes, it has a side effect of increasing sales, but it also places pressure on NY politicians to rescind their ban and helps to rally voters to kick out anti-gun politicians. What would be the point of NOT publicly announcing that they won't sell to NY police departments?

    Like I asked earlier, do you think that people should stick to writing to their reps and that other forms of more visible protest are illegitimate or somehow cynical ploys?

  56. different Jess says:

    So you agree that this press release is just a cynical attempt to drum up sales, rather than an actual attempt to change the public policy of the state of NY?

    What's wrong with that? Presumably you'd complain more if the opposite were the case. Then we'd be hearing that "corporations aren't people" and "corporate lobbyists shouldn't interfere with public decisions" etc.

  57. J says:

    I am highly entertained by the comments section, but probably shouldn't contribute if I don't want to get into violent arguments. Still, I have to point out this little gem again:

    "I hope this starts a trend – no arms manufacturer should arm the criminals in power at any level of government."

    Is this satire or an honest opinion?

  58. JTodd says:

    I and others still cannot find the source of comments made by Chief Michael Biasotti on NPR. Does anyone have a link?

  59. James Pollock says:

    " They specialize in that because that's what sells in an unrestricted market."
    So they're like drug dealers?

    "Olympic Arms, like any other AR-15 manufacturer, is likely backordered several months or years in advance at this point."
    Then why do they care what's happening in NY? I mean, it's one thing if you have excess capacity and the regulators are closing off potential markets, but if you can't service the customers you already have, why would you care?

    "And single state isn't a big enough market to justify the expense of retooling and a complete change in strategy just to keep selling there."
    Then walking away from the market seems entirely reasonable.

    "Jesus you're dense."
    Jesus, you're denser. Seriously.

    "it has a side effect of increasing sales"
    No it doesn't. At least, not if you're being truthful that they're already selling their entire manufacturing capacity and taking backorders.

    "it also places pressure on NY politicians to rescind their ban"
    Not really.

    "and helps to rally voters to kick out anti-gun politicians."
    Probably not. The pro-gun voters presumably are already aware of what's happening in Albany, and there weren't enough of them to keep this from happening in the first place; now… how do voters in YOUR state feel about pressure applied by out-of-staters?
    If anything, I bet it will harden the position of gun-control advocacy in NY.

    "Like I asked earlier, do you think that people should stick to writing to their reps and that other forms of more visible protest are illegitimate or somehow cynical ploys?"
    This question still has nothing at all to do with anything I said. IF people wants laws to change THEN they should stick to things that are likely to achieve that end. This is not in any way likely to change the state of affairs in NY.

  60. James Pollock says:

    "Presumably you'd complain more if the opposite were the case."
    Where does that presumption come from? What with me saying more or less exactly the opposite, I mean (http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/15/bullying-in-new-york-state/comment-page-2/#comment-986817 ).

  61. Daniel says:

    Honestly, my primary concern, and the one that seems to go over a lot of peoples heads is that the NYPD doesn't get a lot of money. Removing the ability for them to purchase guns feels less like making a stand against the government and more screwing over the people they're supposed to be protecting. The police didn't ban the weapons and the civilians didn't ban the weapons but they're the ones that will be impacted if the NYPD can't replace weapons or afford necessary parts thanks to the markup this will cause.

    Second amendment chest thumping is all well and good, whatever I'm not going to get into that. But as someone who lived in New York most of my life, saw SWAT teams take action and has been in situations where police weapons saved lives this is almost stupifiying concerning. So basically what I'm taking from this press release and this comments thread is be sure to vote when your dollar especially when it prospectively gets you killed. Because God said we should be able to own guns.

    Uh…

  62. Rob says:

    So they're like drug dealers?

    Uh, what? Do you exist to make idiotic nonsequiters?

    Then why do they care what's happening in NY? I mean, it's one thing if you have excess capacity and the regulators are closing off potential markets, but if you can't service the customers you already have, why would you care?

    Two reasons: One, the owners actually believe in that whole freedom thing, and two, failing to put up a fight could lead to similar laws being passed in other states.

    Jesus, you're denser. Seriously.

    You can't even come up with good comebacks. Arguing with you is just no fun. Might as well argue with a fencepost.

    Not really.

    Yeah, really. If arms manufacturers won't sell to the police state, the police state will have no teeth. That puts pressure on the legislatures to appease the arms dealers.

    Probably not. The pro-gun voters presumably are already aware of what's happening in Albany, and there weren't enough of them to keep this from happening in the first place; now… how do voters in YOUR state feel about pressure applied by out-of-staters?
    If anything, I bet it will harden the position of gun-control advocacy in NY.

    You really don't understand this issue, do you?

    The law was rushed through the legislature, precisely because if any light was shined on it, pro-gunners would have probably been able to stop it. They violated New York law to pass it (NY law requires three days for public input before passing a law; they introduced and passed the law in one). It was so rushed that they even forgot to exempt their police officers from it. There is a great deal of outrage from a large portion of the populace on how this was handled; the majority did not agree with the law, and many were pissed off they didn't have the opportunity to call their reps about it.

    There is no grass roots movement for gun control, but there is one for gun rights. In that mixture, Olympic Arms and the other companies taking similar measures are doing far more good than harm.

  63. Rob says:

    The police didn't ban the weapons

    No, but their commissioners were pushing for the ban, while at the same time requesting an exemption. Keep in mind, the mindset behind banning these firearms, despite the fact they're used in only a miniscule number of murders (less than one percent), was that they're "weapons of war that aren't useful for self defense or hunting". So, if they're only useful for war, why do the police want them? Who are they at war with? In our society police officers do not act as shock troops; they're only authorized to use lethal force in defense of themselves and others. So if these guns are useless for defense, why should the police have them?

    Of course, they aren't useless for self defense or hunting, and they function extremely well in both of those roles. Which is why the police want them. But the police chiefs were pushing for the ban for us proles anyway. You lie down with a dog and you shouldn't be surprised when you wake up with a few fleas.

  64. James Pollock says:

    "So they're like drug dealers?
    Uh, what? Do you exist to make idiotic nonsequiters?"
    No, non-sequiturs are unrelated things. Here we have two things which are similar. In one case (gun manufacturers), we have poor, downtrodden capitalists looking to sell their products to willing buyers, but interfered with by government regulators (the NY legislature) who just get in the way. On the other hand, we have poor, downtrodden capitalists (drug dealers) looking to sell their products to willing buyers, but interfered with by government regulators (the NY legislature) who just get in the way. Totally unrelated only to the truly dense.

    "You can't even come up with good comebacks."
    I could, but you wouldn't understand them. They'd just be nonsequiturs to you.

    "Yeah, really. If arms manufacturers won't sell to the police state, the police state will have no teeth. That puts pressure on the legislatures to appease the arms dealers."
    The poor police state will just have to get by with the thousands and thousands of guns it already has. Since most cops don't even use rifles, they won't miss them.
    Care to make a wager? You win if the NY legislature backs down, citing inability to purchase rifles. I win if the people in NY continue to ignore the opinions of people outside NY.

    "You really don't understand this issue, do you?"
    Let's see. I said that A) the pro-gun voters were already aware of what happened, and B) they weren't able to stop this from happening. You respond that I obviously don't understand the issue, because A) the pro-gun voters are aware of what happened, and B) they weren't able to stop this from happening.
    Now, there are a couple of ways of responding. First, if, as you say, the proper procedures for making this law were not followed, then a lawsuit seeking its invalidation would be successful. Second, if, as you say, the pro-gun voters outnumber the gun-control voters, then they'll be able to get gun-control laws overturned through the normal political process. (Note that neither of these methods require grandstanding; they assume that the either the law or the majority are on the side of the pro-gun crowd.)

    I'm a centrist; responsible people should be able to purchase, own, carry, and use firearms within regulated limits; the point of gun control legislation should be to keep firearms out of the hands of irresponsible people; the debate is over how much the regulations designed for the second should be allowed to interfere with the first. It's up to the states to balance these. NY has chosen a balance not to your liking. If you don't live in NY, then I gently suggest not going to NY. If you do, then I suggest the political process, and if that fails, moving to a state that strikes a different balance, and if that isn't feasible, then yes, I suggest getting used to it. You know what? I'll have to do the same with all of the states that don't pick the exact balance of gun freedom or regulations that I'd prefer. I bet lots of them fail to even seek my input, much less act on it. I'll get over it.

    "There is no grass roots movement for gun control, but there is one for gun rights."
    That depends entirely on where you are standing (and more importantly, how you define "gun control"). If gun control had no consituency, then there wouldn't be any legislative effort behind it.

    The continuum as I see it consists of a very small "gun nut" end, who believe that every person has an unlimited right to the weaponry of their choice. From there, you shade into the mainstream, where you have people who believe that people should be able to buy guns if they want, unless there's a really good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to (say, a history of shooting people, or other criminal background). This group accepts some limits, but doesn't want them to burden responsible people like themselves. Then there's the other side of the divide, which thinks that people should be able to buy guns if they want, unless there's a really good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to (say, a history of mental illness). This group expects limits, and is willing to let those limits affect responsible people a little. From there, you get into the other fringe, where people think that guns should be restricted by default, so that only people who can prove a need to have one can get one.
    With that as a guide, it seems to me that the vast majority of Americans favor "gun control" but they mean different wildly things by it. If you stay close to the mainstream, where most of the people really are, I think you find that there's agreement that most people should be able to buy a gun, and that there should be limits placed on people who won't (or can't) be responsible with them (for whatever reason). The difference lies in whether it's preferable to err on the side of responsible people getting the weapon they want (even if some irresponsible people get ahold of a gun), or preferable to err on the side of keeping irresponsible people from getting ahold of a gun (even if some responsible people face limitations on getting the weapon they want.)

  65. Megadan2 says:

    I love this discussion and that it is no longer "civil." When important issues like personal freedoms vs. the government are at stake, I say fuck civility. (Since the government is more than happy to bend you over, given the chance.)

    But James Pollock, please do not believe your 895 word post will be diligently read between runs to our respective chessboards while puffing on a pipe. Look up "tl;dr" for a hint.

    Now, we all need to shuffle off to the next WH drone policy presser and learn more about their disposition matrix. Every box of which, I've been heartily reassured, reads "Free flowers and bunnies!"

  66. Delvan says:

    …and always comes the spiral.

  67. James Pollock says:

    "But James Pollock, please do not believe your 895 word post will be diligently read between runs to our respective chessboards while puffing on a pipe. Look up "tl;dr" for a hint."
    Ah, you found the time to count them all. That's so nice of you!

    "Now, we all need to shuffle off to the next WH drone policy presser and learn more about their disposition matrix."
    Oddly enough, I cut the drone discussion out because the post was already way to long.

  68. Clark says:

    @Megadan2:

    > I love this discussion and that it is no longer "civil." When important issues like personal freedoms vs. the government are at stake, I say fuck civility. (Since the government is more than happy to bend you over, given the chance.)

    What he said.

  69. Lago says:

    @Pollock: "'Looks more functionally equivalent to banning Denalis, any automobile with more than two doors, any vehicle with more than an approved number of horsepower, and any vehicle with red paint.'
    To-may-to, to-mah-to."

    wow, well that sailed right over your head.

  70. James Pollock says:

    "wow, well that sailed right over your head."
    That's one interpretation. Here's the correct one.

    ""'Looks more functionally equivalent to banning Denalis, any automobile with more than two doors, any vehicle with more than an approved number of horsepower, and any vehicle with red paint.'"
    NASCAR has done most of these things. Are we to assume, then, that NASCAR is opposed to private ownership of motor vehicles?

    The logical fallacy is that A, being the first step to Z, implies that anyone who does A wants to achieve Z. This is, as I noted before, worthy of ridicule.
    Now, the alternative presented by the above scenario, is that A, B, and C being necessary steps to achieve Z, implies that anyone who does A, B, and C wants to achieve Z. This is not a new and better argument; it's just as stupid.
    Let me give you other examples of the same flawed reasoning.
    1) Before you can go to the mall and shoot dozens of innocent people, you must first exist your house. Therefore, I'll assume that every time you step out of your house, you're planning to go to the mall and shoot dozens of innocent people.
    2) Before you can go to the mall and shoot dozens of innocent people, you must first obtain a firearm. Therefore, I'll assume that if you attempt to obtain a firearm, you are planning to go to the mall and shoot dozens of innocent people.
    3) Before the government can complete a plan of totally disarming the populace, it must first take away all their semi-automatic AR-15 rifles. Therefore, if the government is trying to take away AR-15 rifles, it must be planning to completely disarm the public.
    4) Before the government can complete a plan of totally disarming the populace, it must first take away all their AR-15 rifles, large capacity magazines, and armor-piercing ammunition. Therefore, if the government makes AR-15 rifles, large capacity magazines, and arrmor-piercing ammunition illegal, it must be planning to completely disarm the public.

    See? These arguments are all logically the same, they're all flawed, to-may-to, to-mah-to… no difference.
    Have a nice day.

    I summarized this as noted above.
    Something went by someone's head, but it wasn't me.

  71. Shane says:

    @Daniel,
    This is a typical ploy of the big gov't types … say that you are cutting spending for the few things that are legitimate or semi-legitimate areas of gov't to distract from the appalling amounts of pork that is being handed out in other areas. Some of the crazier states (you know which ones) will actually pull the funds, or redirect them. But make no mistake these are the actions of the ELECTED politicians of those states. If politicians where really concerned about lives …

  72. SPQR says:

    Good for Olympic Arms. Barrett did something similar with refusing to service their .50 BMG rifles owned by state agencies after California's ban.

  73. princessartemis says:

    For what it's worth, James Pollock, NASCAR isn't a state government. What I was saying wasn't that the effort to ban AR-15's was a prelude to banning all guns, but that a ban isn't the same as a regulation.

  74. James Pollock says:

    "For what it's worth, James Pollock, NASCAR isn't a state government."
    Of course it isn't. It's a religious institution.
    … but who says that ONLY state governments can be opposed to the private ownership of motor vehicles?

    "What I was saying wasn't that the effort to ban AR-15's was a prelude to banning all guns, but that a ban isn't the same as a regulation."
    Depends on the big picture.
    For example, regulation of air pollution might include no limitations on some emissions, limited amounts of some emissions, and flat bans on some emissions. For example, an automobile may emit an unlimited amount of water vapor, only a limited amount of carbon monoxide, and no hydrogen cyanide.
    Regulation of motor vehicles bans vehicles over a certain weight from operating on public roadways, and vehicles over a certain width or length must follow a boatload of special procedures (pilot cars, markings, restricted hours of operation and limited choice of path) while ordinary passenger vehicles, although certainly not unregulated, are far less regulated than oversize vehicles.
    Or drugs… many are legally sold over-the-counter to anyone who can pay; some are sold only by prescription, and some are not sold legally at all.

    Working back upthread, the original claim was that a ban on specific models of rifle is a "a critical step towards the total prohibition of all citizen ownership of arms", which it is… but the argument that a total prohibition of all citizen ownership of arms" is therefore forthcoming or to be expected is, as I stated then, an idea worth of ridicule.

    Just like a claim that since my local DMV considers the Abrams M1 MBT not-street-legal, they're against BOTH private ownership of arms AND private ownership of motor vehicles, since an Abrams M1 MBT is both. What road rage? Me? Nah.

  75. princessartemis says:

    Big picture, yeah, an emission regulation can have bans involved, but they still aren't the same thing. I'd consider requiring all firearms to have safeties to be more in line with an emissions regulation.

    Somewhat related, as I could see "7 rounds only" more in the relm of regulation, it's not entirely clear whether or not New York's recent gun control law now bans this little guy: S&W 317, which is so light it nearly floats on its own. I've read that some people have called law enforcement in New York for clarification on eight round revolvers and even they don't know for sure.

  76. JR says:

    How about equating the new gun law to imposing limitations on street fx or other cosmetic changes and gas tanks that can hold more than 10 gallons while banning ownership of a Lamborghini?

  77. James Pollock says:

    Gun regulation has included at least one outright ban for a very long time… felons are prohibited from possessing them.

  78. MattS says:

    @James Pollock

    Felons lose many of their rights, not just 2A rights. In most states they can't vote either.

  79. SPQR says:

    Pollock, you keep thinking that repeating the phrase "an idea worthy of ridicule" is an argument.

    Its not.

    Slippery slope arguments are perfectly valid in the context of gun control measures, not least because of the historical precedents. Add in to that the fact that a current proposal in Washington state includes mandatory home inspections by police of owners of prohibited weapons, and there is much to ridicule – but not of gun rights advocates' arguments.

  80. James Pollock says:

    "Felons lose many of their rights, not just 2A rights. In most states they can't vote either."
    Actually, in most states they can; only a few states still restrict felons who've completed their sentences from voting. In fact, there's a couple that let current inmates vote.

    "Pollock, you keep thinking that repeating the phrase "an idea worthy of ridicule" is an argument."
    No, I keep thinking it's an opinion. A fairly well-supported one.

    "Slippery slope arguments are perfectly valid in the context of gun control measures, not least because of the historical precedents."
    To which historical precedents do you refer? I'm having a little trouble thinking up American cases where the government outlawed specific weapons, and that was then followed by an attempt to end private ownership of firearms.

    "there is much to ridicule – but not of gun rights advocates' arguments."
    Only a partisan would say that. There are perfectly good, common-sense arguments for private ownership of guns. Stick to those. When you wade out into conspiracy-theory-land, you look the fool to the non-partisan, whether you go full-on tinfoil hat or not.
    (I'm sorry if this comes as news to you.)

  81. Texan99 says:

    tw;dr

  82. SPQR says:

    Pollock, the combination strawman and moving of the goalpost is not exactly a new rhetorical trick. Nor the innuendo disguised ad hominem.

  83. James Pollock says:

    "Pollock, the combination strawman and moving of the goalpost is not exactly a new rhetorical trick. Nor the innuendo disguised ad hominem."

    If the truth hurts, don't look in the mirror.
    Arguing the conspiracy theory that any gun control measure at all is a sign of the government's intent to completely disarm the public is paranoid fantasy not based on reality. Because of this, this argument won't win over any centrists, while the gun control nuts will laugh right in your face.
    But… it's your face. Proceed.

  84. James Pollock says:

    P.S. still waiting on those precedents you mentioned.

  85. oldnumberseven says:

    I thought this post was going to be about the NYPD and their stop & frisk campaigns.

  86. Jim says:

    Pollock is kickin some libertarian ass!

  87. James Pollock says:

    This has gotten off-track.
    Let's have fun with the irony of the situation, from Olympic Arms' perspective:
    Problem: We don't like it when people tell other people they can't have the weapons they want.
    Solution: We're going to tell other people they can't have the weapons they want.

  88. JR says:

    In what way is A forcing B not to interact with C the same as B deciding not to interact with A?

  89. princessartemis says:

    That's better than having Olympic Arms continue to arm the people forcibly reducing their own customer base.

    I sell things from time to time. You bet your ass I would refuse to sell to people who ban everyone else but them from buying my products. I'd rather not do any business at all than to do business with such a people. Other people feel differently. That's no irony or moral failing.

  90. James Pollock says:

    "That's better than having Olympic Arms continue to arm the people forcibly reducing their own customer base."
    In this situation, they ARE the people forcibly reducing their own customer base.

    P.S. the target I was aiming for there was "irony", not "moral failing".

  91. Ecurb says:

    I can't believe I read that entire thread. What was that pollock even arguing about?

  92. James Pollock says:

    "I can't believe I read that entire thread. What was that pollock even arguing about?"

    I don't believe you read it, either.

  93. JR says:
    "That's better than having Olympic Arms continue to arm the people forcibly reducing their own customer base."

    In this situation, they ARE the people forcibly reducing their own customer base.

    James Pollock, are you referring to irony in the sense of a company exercising the freedom to not associate commercially with a government preventing it from similar association with its citizens?

    I am not able to understand how you can equate external regulation with internal policy. Both actions may result in a reduction of market, but one is the result of coercion and therefore someone else's fault.

  94. princessartemis says:

    In this situation, they ARE the people forcibly reducing their own customer base.

    Whatever you say, dude, whatever you say :)

  95. George William Herbert says:

    James –

    Can you, starting from zero, please restate your argument for why Olympic Arms' stance here might be immoral, unethical, or otherwise unfortunate?

    You're having a lot of fun lampooning but have not clearly articulated why you feel it's wrong.

  96. James Pollock says:

    "Can you, starting from zero, please restate your argument for why Olympic Arms' stance here might be immoral, unethical, or otherwise unfortunate?"

    Sure. Olympic Arms' position is neither immoral, nor unethical, nor otherwise unfortunate. It is, however, grandstanding… a show made to entertain rather than to accomplish any particular goal or objective. (More correctly, it won't accomplish the goals they stated/implied in their press release. It's real goal, to drum up sales amongst people feeling put upon by the government, is probably working just fine.)

  97. James Pollock says:

    Let's play reductio ad absurdum.

    Why Olympic Arms is acting against the interests of NY gun fanciers.

    Suppose that Olympic Arms stands firm… making a point is worth more than the money they'd make selling weapons to various NY agencies. What's more, a groundswell of support inspires other arms manufacturers and wholesalers to join in boycotting NY state agencies. Nobody will sell rifles to NY state agencies. Now what? I hope I don't have to point out that the likelihood that the state caves in is very low. So, stalemate. Now what?
    For a while, of course, the state will operate just fine on its existing stockpile, shuffling inventory around as needed. Eventually, though, they'll need replacement rifles and parts. They might be able to get these by obtaining them from other public agencies (other states and the feds) but if the boycott stays firm, other states won't want to help NY very much for fear of finding themselves boycotted as well. This is where it gets messy. The state lacks the power to compel out-of-state manufacters and vendors to sell to them. So, they'll have only one place to turn… individuals who live in NY who privately own these rifles. They'll have to use eminent domain to take them, and pay the fair market price for them, but yeah, they DO have the power to compel NY residents to sell to them.

    Thus, Olympic Arms has taken the first step towards actually forcing the NY state government to seize the privately-owned rifles of NY residents.

  98. James Pollock says:

    For you conspiracy theory fans, this proves that Olympic Arms is actually IN ON THE PLAN for the government to seize all the privately-owned firearms. You should definitely boycott them for participating in this insidious plot…

  99. George William Herbert says:

    Two responses;

    One, I think the "grandstanding" / "principled stand" dividing line is one of perspective.

    Two, I think the reducto ad absurdum flies in the face of logic and common sense, and does not help your case here.

    At a practical level, it fails in that the ultimate "emergency source" for firearms for US law enforcement agencies is used DOD weapons surplused off. They are not preferred by anyone – they're used and not new – but if a hypothetical industrywide embargo on sales to NY State law enforcement entities were to happen, NY could slurp up the steady supply of used M-16 rifles and M-4 carbines that the DOD emits and meet their minimum needs.

    Nobody expects that actions like this would disarm the police. It's some combination of PR grandstanding (your terms) and ethical non-participation in what's perceived as an immoral or corrupt behavior (what I'll term "our terms" though I don't want to include by reference any implication of blanket agreement with the totality of discussion that came before).

    If push came to shove, the US government has and continues to operate armories capable of small arms production, and states could set up the same. For 35,000 officers, and say a 10 year lifespan for firearms, NYC would need roughly 3,500 new guns a year, or 10 per weekday. That is low end of current AR-15 type manufacturers annual run rate, but was mid-range 5-10 years ago, so plenty of shops are running that level of activity as an independent business. I imagine it would cost NY more to run their own shop than commercial entities find efficiencies in doing, but that's up to them, and they'd control the production chain then.

    DOD and states could just do this at any time. The reason they stopped doing it and have generally encouraged civilian arms production is that the vast majority of features on modern AR-15/M-16/M-4 type weapons other than the basic operating cycle and configuration are recent innovations that came out of commercial R&D and independent inventors. The plain Vietnam-era M-16 is a very poor stunted cousin compared to the carbines the NYPD currently uses for SWAT situations. And the DOD and law enforcement agency armorers are entirely aware of that. They could shut that off and freeze innovation out, but they found it remarkably useful over the last 10 or so years.

  100. James Pollock says:

    "I think the "grandstanding" / "principled stand" dividing line is one of perspective."
    Well, I only have one perspective, and it came up on "grandstanding", based on the (admittedly sharply limited) information available to me. For example, how many rifles were they selling to NY BEFORE their "grandstanding/principled stand"… the lower the number, the more strongly I'm going to hold on to my grandstanding conclusion.

    "I think the reducto ad absurdum flies in the face of logic and common sense"
    You don't get any bonus points for noticing that the argument is absurd when I started off by saying that the argument was going to be absurd.

    However, I'm not sure I follow you on the number of rifles they actually need: 35,000 cops = 35,000 rifles?

    You also missed one of the main flaws: Although NY lacks jurisdiction to use eminent domain against out-of-NY-state arms producers, the federal government does not. (Of course, in that scenario the arms manufacturers could make a REALLY principled stand and shutter the factories rather than comply, cutting off supply throughout all 50 states. However, then any of the manufacturers that are public corporations would face shareholder revolt, the unity of the arms manufacturers would be broken, and we could move on to the question of whether or not the second amendment permits private ownership of armed unmanned aerial vehicles, and under what circumstances taking out the neighbor's yappy dog is justified.

  101. George William Herbert says:

    James wrote in part:
    However, I'm not sure I follow you on the number of rifles they actually need: 35,000 cops = 35,000 rifles?

    That's the first pass. For pistols, that's at least true – most officers have either a pistol (that they use both on and off duty) or separate duty and off-duty firearms, often off-duty guns they purchased themselves (or sometimes with a department allowance) that are smaller and easier to carry concealed when off duty.

    For shotguns / rifles / etc. the employment depends on the agency. In some cases, such as the California Highway Patrol, every patrol car that rolls out every shift has a shotgun and a AR-15 pattern rifle in a locked ready rack up front, plus the officer's handgun. That said, I don't know specifically how the CHP allocate the shotguns and rifles.

    Those could be in a per-station pool, checked out at beginning of shift, in which case the stock would need to be however many maximum officers you'd expect driving around in the largest shift (plus some spares for maintenance duty, etc). Or they could be allocated on a per-officer basis, in which case it's one per total officer in force plus some spares at each station in case of failures, etc.

    Regarding the NYPD, they have a wiki site: http://nypd.wikia.com/wiki/NYPD_Weapons

    …which conveniently lists the weapon types, and that the special types are for special units, but the question is what qualifies as special. Like everyone else they seem to put a shotgun in most if not all patrol cars. Many agencies are replacing or supplementing those shotguns with AR-15 / M-16 / M-4 type weapons as normal patrol car equipment.

    The actual answer could well be some fraction of that 35,000 theoretical weapons required. Even if it was 3500 – with a presumed annual purchase requirement of around 350 new weapons – it would still be in the range that a very small manufacturer's volume would match. If you go through the historical BATF firearms manufacture statistics by manufacturer ID and by weapon type data, and know which manufacturers were only making AR-15 type rifles of some flavor, there are some one-person shops that consisted of a guy (or couple of guys or gals), and a CNC milling machine, and produced a hundred or few hundred rifles some years. So the possibility of the NYPD setting up its own production armory even at 100, 300, 1000 rifles a year remains credible and possible, even if the circumstances leading up to it would be absurd and unlikely.

  102. James Pollock says:

    "the possibility of the NYPD setting up its own production armory even at 100, 300, 1000 rifles a year remains credible and possible"

    Not as likely as some entrepreneurial guy setting up a business to meet demand, or of some other large manufacturer failing to take a principled stand, and taking the money instead (particularly if they already have requirements contracts in place with one or more of the affected agencies.) That's the thing about principled stands… not everybody has the same principles.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, Olympic Arms has pissed away any chance it had of getting its lobbyists heard in Albany, and PROBABLY adversely affected the reception to any lobbyist(s) representing anything vaguely pro-gun (to the extent that anyone in NY pays attention to anything that doesn't happen in NY, anyway.)
    To a lesser extent, they may have kicked up a little bit of opposition from people who don't really care one way or the other about gun laws, but don't like out-of-staters trying to influence local issues (again, to the extent that anyone in NY pays any attention to things that happen outside of NY).
    So, I think that this kerfuffle will be good, in at least the short term, for Olympic Arms; I think it will be bad, but only slightly, in the long run for residents of NY who prefer less gun restrictions.

  103. Ecurb says:

    You spent HOW long arguing about such a trivial issue? Do you really have nothing better to do with your time?

  104. James Pollock says:

    "You spent HOW long arguing about such a trivial issue? Do you really have nothing better to do with your time?"
    You mean the unmanned aerial vehicle/yappy dog thing? I feel very strongly about that particular issue…

  105. TMLutas says:

    The breakdown of societal trust has a lot of people arming up. Modern sporting rifles such as Olympic Arms sell are generally on long backorders. So is ammunition. Some of those orders are fluff, people who want a rifle and will buy the first that comes available in the class they are seeking and thus are placing multiple orders across many manufacturers. If you want those people's business, you have to have a shorter backorder list than anybody else so your orders go through. One way to do that is to stiff some of your customers, reducing your backorder line.

    So, who to stiff? Oh, I know…

  106. MattS says:

    James Pollock,

    " For example, how many rifles were they selling to NY BEFORE their "grandstanding/principled stand"… the lower the number, the more strongly I'm going to hold on to my grandstanding conclusion."

    The real question for impact is not how many of OA's rifles go to NY agencies but what percentage of those agencies weapons are comming from OA now. Shortly after this article was posted I tried to do a Google search for a list of the companies that currently supply weapons to NYPD, unfortunately I came up blank.

  107. James Pollock says:

    "The real question for impact is not how many of OA's rifles go to NY agencies but what percentage of those agencies weapons are comming from OA now."
    I disagree. As I explained before, if they weren't going to sell very many rifles to NY agencies, then the cost of telling them to piss off is low. If they weren't going to sell them ANY, then the opportunity to grandstand has no downside; it's all upside for OA. Attempting to read between the lines, I don't think OA had a big share of the NY state agency market, because if they had, it would have been in the press release, to show how much they were giving up to make a point (of course, it could be that they just didn't think of putting that in, or they have some kind of confidentiality agreement, or whatever… this isn't the only interpretation or conclusive evidence, by any means.)

    Additionally, people who think you've taken a principled stand are very brand-loyal; they'll remain your customers for a long time. Whereas state agencies buy from the lowest bidder; very little brand loyalty.

  108. MattS says:

    James Pollock,

    True if not much of OA's Production goes to NY agencies the cost to OA is low.

    However, if a large percentage of the AR type rifles owned / purchased by NY agencies come from OA the impact of their action is high no matter how little it costs them.

    There are a relatively small number of companies that make these types of rifles.

  109. James Pollock says:

    "However, if a large percentage of the AR type rifles owned / purchased by NY agencies come from OA the impact of their action is high no matter how little it costs them.
    There are a relatively small number of companies that make these types of rifles."
    But… they only need one. Oh, there might be a little inconvenience in having to address the orders to a different place, but not enough to affect the legislature (who, of course, don't actually BUY rifles… that's an executive action (or, in the case of NYPD, not even a state function at all.)) Symbolic effect to supporters? Huge. Actual effect on the NY legislature? Nil. Possibly less than nil.

  110. Daniel says:

    @Shane:

    Boy did I get sidetracked and never respond to this. I know what you're saying and I do agree. However I tend to look at things from a more practical aspect – do we punish the people for the decisions of the officials? That's, to me, heading down a really wacky route that I'd never be able to agree with.

    @Rob:
    Weapons of War, yes. They most certainly are. But even if they're not used very often the situation comes up where, in police hands, those weapons save lives. I personally know people who were killed in drive-by shootings via pistol but I still don't believe we should get rid of pistols as I'm pretty pro-gun. But I honestly see no reason why citizens seem to think they need weapons like this. Why do we, the random civilians, seem to believe that if we can't own a weapon the policing forces shouldn't be able to? That logic is so… I don't even know how to say it without being flagrantly insulting. When police are taking action against people it can sometimes be akin to a small war so why don't I want them to have the best weapons and body armor they can have? Do I believe that every person should have easy access to the weapons that they do so they can have an awesome final showdown with the cops when they snap? Not really, no.

    It's not about them not being useful for defense it's a matter of levels of conflict. If a random jackwad breaks into your house and needs ventilating then a pistol will do that fine. Or a shotgun if you're feeling punchy. But do you often find yourself in situations where you need to disable a large number of hopped up crackheads that only a semi-automatic weapon will allow you to deal with? If so I wonder what "defense" these people need them for. Besides defending their bunkers during the apocalypse apparently.

  111. Michael Biasotti says:

    I am the police chief shown and mentioned in this article, This article is unbelievable! I have never appeared on NPR! the photo is from a press conference taken several years ago and pertained to a multiple rape arrest. I support the rights allotted under the second amendment. Weapons purchased for law enforcement are done under state bid, large quantities at greatly reduced prices, ones that small companies could never compete with! So much for Popehat's credibility. For God's sake at least try to be a little accurate! Lets see if this gets posted

  112. Michael Biasotti says:

    Next time when you want to post my opinion, try asking me what it is first! I never said anything attributed to me in this article even if it is done sarcastically!

  1. February 15, 2013

    […] Bullying in New York State – Clark, Popehat […]

  2. February 17, 2013

    […] the relentless overuse of the epithet "bullying" gets on his (and my) nerves [Popehat; Clark at Popehat on New York police chiefs who feel bullied because someone won't sell them […]

  3. February 18, 2013

    […] (author unknown) New York City has 35000 troops under arms. Mayor Bloomberg has called it The seventh biggest army […]