Utah Concealed Firearms & Training

Gunmakers threaten to boycott sales to states with gun laws

In the growing debate about gun control and the various laws proposed to restrict firearms and magazine capacity, some firearm manufacturers around the nation are threatening to pull back.

More than 70 U.S. companies, ranging from gun shops to gun machinists, are calling for an end to “the police loophole” through a reverse boycott to local and state governments that enact any legislation that infringes upon the Second Amendment.

The companies are publicly refusing to sell any weapons or gear to police where governments have banned the use by civilians.Gun

“There are some states, counties, cities, and municipalities in our great nation that fail to allow their citizens to fully exercise their right to keep and bear arms with restrictions such as magazine capacity or types of firearms that are widely available to citizens of other states, countries, cities, and municipalities,” the group’s website says. “However, these government entities do not place these restrictions upon their own employees, such as police officers.”

The group’s website says they are not against any government agency or individual, but are against gun control.

Idaho-based company Quality Arms joined the movement, saying the company has been under attack from “liberal minded individuals who feel we are the problem of today’s society.” The company says politicians have jumped on the bandwagon to bolster their egos and wish to “destroy the very existence as to how and why those laws came about.”

“We at Quality Arms are against any politician, law enforcement official, and any other organization who feel it is their right and purpose to destroy the freedoms and liberties of the citizens of this country,” the website says. “(We) will not supply any firearm or product, manufactured by us, or any other company nor will we warranty, repair, alter, or modify any firearm owned by any state, county or municipality who infringes on the right of its citizens to bear arms under the 2nd amendment (sic).”

Quality Arms builds semi-automatic sporting rifles used by civilians and law enforcement agencies. Proposed laws by the federal government and some state governments would prohibit many of the firearms the company makes.

Following the shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., Sen. Dianne Fienstein, D-Calif., reintroduced her Federal Assault Weapons Ban act, which would ban more than 150 firearms classified as “assault weapons.” The legislation also prohibits the sale or manufacture of any magazine that is capable of 10 rounds.

The bill, which many gun advocates say limits the rights allowed under the Second Amendment, is expected to be heard on the Senate floor this week.

Arizona-based company American Spirit Arms posted a YouTube video last week, saying the company is standing by their fellow manufacturers.

“American Spirit Arms will stand by our fellow manufacturers in the fight against gun control,” the video says. “As a firearm manufacturer, we’re participating in the stance of only selling firearms that law-abiding citizens can purchase in that state. American Spirit Arms asks for your support in our own campaign in the fight for gun rights.”

Also joining in the reverse boycott is Maine-based manufacturer York Arms, who is attacking a recent law passed by the state of New York. The law adds to the state’s existing ban on assault weapons, number of rounds allowed in magazines and strengthens mental illness rules.

“Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York. We have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York,” the York Arms website says. “We have halted sales of rifles, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, machine guns, and silencers to New York governmental agencies.”

Speaking to more than a thousand people at the Western Hunting and Conservation Expo in Salt Lake City Saturday, National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre urged those in attendance to contact their representatives in an effort to “protect” the rights granted under the Second Amendment.

“As we sit here tonight, we are now facing the single most devastating attack on the Second Amendment that this country has ever seen,” LaPierre said.

LaPierre criticized the recent laws addressed, adding that increased background checks will only limit the Second Amendment even more.

“Don’t you be fooled; there is nothing ‘universal’ nor ‘reasonable’ about (background checks),” LaPierre said. “This so-called background check is aimed at one thing: registering your guns. When another tragic ‘opportunity’ presents itself, that registry will be used to confiscate your guns.”

Although many states are currently addressing limits to gun control, the state of Utah is attempting to loosen their laws by allowing residents of the state to open or conceal carry without a permit. Under current state law, residents can open carry without a permit if the firearm is unloaded, but must obtain a concealed weapons permit if they choose to conceal their firearm.

Study: Majority of U.S. Public Distrusts Feds

The American people are overwhelmingly frustrated by the feds, with public trust in the institution near historic lows. To add to these troubling indicators, a new Pew Research Center study also finds that, for the first time, a majority of the U.S. public believes that the government threatens their “personal rights and freedoms.”

This latter finding is, perhaps, the most shocking, as 53 percent of Americans answered affirmatively when asked whether Washington poses a threat to these sentiments; 43 percent responded “no,” with an additional four percent claiming that they are unsure. When examining past trends, it is clear that there has been a great deal of growth in this arena.

Consider the Nov. 2001 proportions, in which only 30 percent answered “yes” to that same question and Aug. 2002, when only 32 percent did the same. Here’s a chart showcasing trends surrounding threats to personal rights and freedoms from 1995 through 2013:

Much of this change is partisan in nature. Take, for instance, the differences in trending data between Republicans and Democrats. Pew reports:

The growing view that the federal government threatens personal rights and freedoms has been led by conservative Republicans. Currently 76% of conservative Republicans say that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms and 54% describe the government as a “major” threat. Three years ago, 62% of conservative Republicans said the government was a threat to their freedom; 47% said it was a major threat.

By comparison, there has been little change in opinions among Democrats; 38% say the government poses a threat to personal rights and freedoms and just 16% view it as a major threat.

Trouble for the government doesn’t end here, though. With the ongoing debate over the contraceptive mandate and the perception that feds authorities are unfairly cracking down on gun rights, among other issues, trust and faith in the institution has waned. Shockingly, only 26 percent of respondents believe that Washington will do the right thing “just about always or most of the time.” On the flip side, the vast majority — 73 percent — say that the government can only be trusted sometimes or not at all.

See the fascinating demographic breakdowns, below:

Historically, the rise in distrust of the government and the decline in reliance is noteworthy. A stunning graphic assembled by Pew shows just how pronounced these phenomenon are when looking at data from 1958 through 2013.

In 1958, the proportions were essentially flipped when compared to the most recent findings, with 73 percent expressing trust in the government and 23 percent expressing distrust. Interestingly, data for 2001 shows an anomaly from the general pattern — a rise in trust and a decrease in skepticism. However, this can be explained when taking into account the impact that the Sept. 11 attacks had on the American populace.

Check out this shocking graphic, below (to experience the interactive nature of this graphic, complete with time-stamped events, click here):

With a lack of trust also comes a dissatisfaction with government. Considering the aforementioned findings, it’s no surprise that only 2-in-10 Americans are content with the federal government. Fifty-eight percent claim that they are frustrated, with 19 percent reporting anger. While discontent is certainly a reality, it should be noted that emotions about the government fluctuate depending upon political events and happenings.

Again, in Nov. 2001, just after the terror attacks, fewer people were angry and frustrated and more Americans counted themselves as “basically content.” At the time, there was a sense of national unity — the ideal that the U.S. was working collectively to move past the horrific tragedy.

The survey was conducted from Jan. 9-15 and included 1,502 adults. Confidence levels vary for different groups that were included in the study (view this information here).

WILL LAW ENFORCEMENT BE THERE FOR YOU?

Unfortunately, in today society this is rarely the case. Provided limited resources and funding, it is not often that the law enforcement will be there to protect you and your family. That is your responsibility and not that of the governments. Most confrontations are over in less then a minute, simply not enough time for you to call 911, provide the information, officers to be dispatched and have police officers respond. The Supreme Court has held that the government has no obligation to protect its citizens. Reference: Warren v. District of Columbia The 2nd amendment provides you with the tools to ensure each individual’s safety.police

In the early morning hours of Sunday, March 16, 1975, Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro who shared a room on the third floor of their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street Northwest in the District of Columbia, and Miriam Douglas, who shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter, were asleep. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas’ second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas’ screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.

Warren’s call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 0623 hours, and was recorded as a burglary-in-progress. At 0626, a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a “Code 2” assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as “Code 3.” Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 0633, five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas’ continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 0642 and recorded merely as “investigate the trouble;” it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. At knife point, Kent and Morse then forced all three women to accompany them to Kent’s apartment. For the next fourteen hours the captive women were raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.