More in the Firearms Industry Should Follow Hornady’s New York Example

By David Codrea

USA – -( “Today, the State of New York did one of the most despicable acts ever perpetrated by any state by asking New York banks, financial institutions and insurance companies to stop doing business with the gun and ammo industry,” an April 23 press release by Steve Hornady, president of Hornady Manufacturing Company announced.

“While it may not make a difference to New York, Hornady will not knowingly allow our ammunition to be sold to the State of NY or any NY agencies,” Hornady pledged. “Their actions are a blatant and disgusting abuse of office and we won’t be associated with a government that acts like that. They should be ashamed.”

That is exactly the correct way to respond, and gun owners who agree should show it by making Hornady a preferred brand. It’s the best way to demonstrate that such leadership in appreciated form those who show it, and expected from those who do not.

It’s reminiscent of a 2002 letter Ronnie Barrett, President of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, sent to then-Chief William J. Bratton of the Los Angeles Police Department, about his company’s .50 caliber rifles.

“Your officer, speaking for the LAPD, endorsed the banning of this rifle and its ammunition,” Barret wrote, recounting how LAPD acted as stooges for a Violence Policy Center disinformation and smear campaign for the Los Angeles City Council.

“When I returned to my office from Los Angeles, I found an example of our need for mutual cooperation.” Barrett went on to explain. “Your department had sent one of your 82A1 rifles in to us for service.

“Please excuse my slow response on the repair service of the rifle,” he continued. “I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individuals to own firearms.”

It was not the only time Barrett has taken such a stance.

“Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers,” he wrote in 2005. “Therefore, since California’s passing of AB50, the state is not in compliance with the US Constitution’s 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we will not sell nor service any of our products to any government agency of the State of California.”

“If Hawaii or any state bans the sale of the .50-caliber rifle, we will immediately stop the sale and service of all Barrett products to that state’s government agencies,” Barrett wrote to Honolulu Police Department Chief Boisse Correa in 2008. “We will also welcome all small arms manufacturers to take the same action.”

And in 2013, Barrett declared the State of New York as well as individual elected officials supportive of bans ineligible for sales and service.

These are precisely the measures gun owner rights advocates should expect from manufacturers. If a state or city discriminates against the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, those we patronize should not be giving aid and comfort to the enemy – and how else would you characterize an oath-breaking totalitarian wannabe trying to establish and enforce a monopoly of violence?

We see continuous new efforts to squeeze gun companies and gun owners out of the marketplace, with bank discrimination, insurance denials, boycotts and the like. Yet there are millions of gun owners who consider themselves Second Amendment advocates, and it’s past time they put their economic clout to effective use.

This is something national and state gun groups could take the lead on, at least the ones not afraid to rock the boat. And it’s past time gun manufacturers stopped acting like neutral parties, willing to reap the benefits of RKBA activism as long as they don’t have to take a stand.

What are the prominent anti-gun state and municipal agencies? Who supplies them with their firepower? In many cases it’s easy enough to find out.

It’s not inappropriate to publicly ask those companies where they stand, and to favor, publicize and patronize those that stand with American gun owners.

%d bloggers like this: