Armalite, when contacted to urge them to decline law-enforcement and government sales to states with tyrannical laws against guns sent this charming reply from a sales rep at Armalite:
Dear concerned gun owner,
First of all I would like to say thank you for filling my email with all this spam email.
Second, I am not sure where you got this blanket email from to send out as spam, but please stop it.
Third, The manufacture is not the one you need to convince.
You need to convince the law enforcement agencies and the common people about their mistake in electing these officials and have them removed. Again NOT the manufacture.
AR Stands for ArmaLite…
Master Armorer / Sales Rep.
P.O. Box 299
Geneseo, IL. 61254
Not only that, but their president released an “explanation” in which he refused to join the boycott, instead saying police officers’ lives are worth more than us lowly regular, everyday Americans. As such, Armalite will continue to supply their product to law enforcement officers who will enforce the ban on civilians owning America’s favorite rifle and hundreds of other modern firearms popular with the public for self-defense use.
One reader at The Truth About Guns, Kevin F., drafted a particularly well-written letter to Armalite’s president. Here’s the best part:
…I must agree with the message, if not the tone, of the private community. The only way to drag some change out of the LEO’s communities that are banned from possessing your products is too put them on equal footing. It’s all well and good to say you believe everyone should be able to own your rifles and that you sell to LEOs who believe the same, as they are fantastic products at a competitive price, but when that same LEO can still buy that rifle but the citizen he says should also be able to buy it cannot he essentially has no skin the fight. He can say, sincerely even, that he believes in the people’s right to own that firearm but at the end of the day he has no personal stake in the fight.. he already has his gun, he’s not denied his gun, it’s not his right’s he’s fighting for and that ultimately makes it not his fight, as sincerely as he might believe in the cause at the end of the day he has his gun, it’s not denied to him.
I understand that it is a dramatic move, that it will shift business and that it could potentially risk the life of an LEO by denying him or her a rifle. I completely understand that. But that is, sadly, the point we are at. Officers who believe in…