Wilson Joins No Sale Pledge

[JALLEN]

Wilson Combat Announces
Anti-Gun States, No-Sale Policy

Effective: February 28, 2013

Wilson Combat will no longer provide any products or services to any State Government imposing legislation that infringes on the second amendment rights of its law abiding citizens. This includes any Law Enforcement Department, Law Enforcement Officers, or any State Government Entity or Employee of such an entity. This also applies to any local municipality imposing such infringements.

States currently included in our No-Sale Policy are:

California
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Washington D.C.
The City of Chicago, Illinois

Wilson Combat will in NO way support the government of these states or their anti-gun agenda that only limits the rights of law-abiding citizens. Wilson Combat will continue to supply any product and/or service they can legally sell in these states to all non-government affiliated citizens.

Ryan Wilson,
Vice President

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=7b1 ... 88cd64a386

[SATX-Scrub]

Awesome!

[OldCannon]

This is such a no-brainer.

Say no to "Police Loopholes".

Still waiting for Colt, Ruger, S&W to join in. Probably gonna be a long wait.

[cheezit]

didnt know wilson was big in the LE market

[JALLEN]

didnt know wilson was big in the LE market

They might not be, but just the fact that they are restricting sales in those states to whatever civilians can buy, for example, here in CA 10 round magazines, pistol has to be on approved list, means the support is there. Glock would make a bigger splash, of course.

I suppose with a .45 1911, it isn't necessary to use Wilson magazines in your Wilson pistol, any will do.

[baldeagle]

They might not be, but just the fact that they are restricting sales in those states to whatever civilians can buy, for example, here in CA 10 round magazines, pistol has to be on approved list, means the support is there.

Read that again. They won't sell anything to government employees. They will sell legal items to civilians.

[blwill]

Good for them! Now to get the rest of them to cooperate.

[KC5AV]

They might not be, but just the fact that they are restricting sales in those states to whatever civilians can buy, for example, here in CA 10 round magazines, pistol has to be on approved list, means the support is there.

Read that again. They won't sell anything to government employees. They will sell legal items to civilians.

That's the way I read it, too. They are the only manufacturer I've seen take it that far. I wish others would join them.

[RoyGBiv]

Wilson?



(Sorry, couldn't resist... )

[VoiceofReason]

They might not be, but just the fact that they are restricting sales in those states to whatever civilians can buy, for example, here in CA 10 round magazines, pistol has to be on approved list, means the support is there.

Read that again. They won't sell anything to government employees. They will sell legal items to civilians.

That's the way I read it, too. They are the only manufacturer I've seen take it that far. I wish others would join them.

Someone start a petition where it will be seen. It is about time manufacturers stood up and supported us.

We need to show the manufacturers we will support those that do and not support those that don’t and actually do it.

[VoiceofReason]

Wilson Combat Announces
Anti-Gun States, No-Sale Policy

Effective: February 28, 2013

Wilson Combat will no longer provide any products or services to any State Government imposing legislation that infringes on the second amendment rights of its law abiding citizens. This includes any Law Enforcement Department, Law Enforcement Officers, or any State Government Entity or Employee of such an entity. This also applies to any local municipality imposing such infringements.

States currently included in our No-Sale Policy are:

California
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Washington D.C.
The City of Chicago, Illinois

Wilson Combat will in NO way support the government of these states or their anti-gun agenda that only limits the rights of law-abiding citizens. Wilson Combat will continue to supply any product and/or service they can legally sell in these states to all non-government affiliated citizens.

Ryan Wilson,
Vice President

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=7b1 ... 88cd64a386

Charles,
I would be interested to hear your opinion of the statements made by Jim Shepherd on the DownRange.TV site.

“For enthusiasts to threaten a company who won’t take the pledge is asking them to commit a crime for which they can lose their company,” the note read, “Choosing to not sell a state is one thing, announcing you are joining others is a conspiracy and is an illegal act.”

“That’s true. Anti-trust laws are written for the purpose of preventing companies from rigging anything from bids to prices. I think the note summarized that idea best: “I am afraid some in our industry don’t realize the risk they have undertaken.”

Conspiracy? Conspiracy to do what? “announcing you are joining others is a conspiracy and is an illegal act.”

Don’t you first need to have a law before you can have a conspiracy to violate it? ” The way this sounds a conspiracy in and of itself is a crime.

Has there ever been a business or group of businesses prosecuted for being part of a conspiracy to not sell something to the government?

I hope someone can clear this up for me.

[JALLEN]

Charles,
I would be interested to hear your opinion of the statements made by Jim Shepherd on the DownRange.TV site.

“For enthusiasts to threaten a company who won’t take the pledge is asking them to commit a crime for which they can lose their company,” the note read, “Choosing to not sell a state is one thing, announcing you are joining others is a conspiracy and is an illegal act.”

“That’s true. Anti-trust laws are written for the purpose of preventing companies from rigging anything from bids to prices. I think the note summarized that idea best: “I am afraid some in our industry don’t realize the risk they have undertaken.”

Conspiracy? Conspiracy to do what? “announcing you are joining others is a conspiracy and is an illegal act.”

Don’t you first need to have a law before you can have a conspiracy to violate it? ” The way this sounds a conspiracy in and of itself is a crime.

Has there ever been a business or group of businesses prosecuted for being part of a conspiracy to not sell something to the government?

I hope someone can clear this up for me.

A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more acting in concert to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act in an unlawful manner. That is not to say that all who act in a certain way are in a conspiracy. A great many businesses have business hours of 8 AM to 5 PM. Is that a conspiracy? Not necessarily. Even if it is, it is not unlawful, yet.

Restraint of trade is the main thrust of the anti-trust laws. If the firearms suppliers all got together and agreed that they would act in a particular way, that would attract scrutiny. If it just happened, the element of agreeing to act in concert would not be present. Refusing to sell based on discriminatory characteristics is illegal, of course, race, sex, national origin, etc.

If all the gas stations in town are charging $4.00 a gallon, that is probably OK, unless you can prove they were in cahoots somehow, other than just driving around and seeing their customers filling gas at the cheapest station. Someone would try to prove it by showing that it happened all the time, every day, as soon as one station changed the price the others all followed suit 99% of the time or something, the inference being that there was some sort of tacit agreement. I wouldn't be impressed by such a coincidence but many would, I suppose.

[VoiceofReason]

If manufacturers organized and agreed not to sell something to the government at any price, would that break any law (except in wartime of course)?

If it is not a crime, it could not be a conspiracy. This is just my thought. I don’t know if there is a law that would apply. But then there are a lot of things I don’t know.

[RX8er]

It looks like Magpul Just jumped in as well:

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

[Jumping Frog]

It looks like Magpul Just jumped in as well:

Magpul led the charge on this. I believe they were actually the first company to announce the no sales policy, and now dozens of other companies have followed suit.