View Full Version : LaRue's Dirty Little Secret
I realize a previous thread was closed on this issue. I can only hope this one will remain open, providing contributors to the discussion strive to maintain the intelligent exchange of ideas rather than inflammatory attacks and infighting.
For the record, I'm a 24 year LEO and good customer of LaRue Tactical. Being from a very pro-gun state, I can get pretty much anything I want, but LaRue's recent decision to force customers to adhere to their respective states' restrictions on firearms and magazine purchases seems disingenuous.
http://soldiersystems.net/2013/02/08/larue-tactical-issues-new-sales-policy-for-state-and-local-agencies/
Look, I want private citizens to be armed with the best hardware too, but this new policy hurts individual LEOs from ban states; for example, a cop from CA cannot purchase a PredatAR™ 5.56 for duty use because his state prohibits it.
MEANWHILE ... LaRue's fine print (their dirty little secret) makes it clear they're not willing to go all the way and CEASE SALES TO FEDERAL AGENCIES. And of course the inconvenient truth is, individual states, nuthouses like New York notwithstanding, are not the real threat to the 2nd Amendment, the federal gov't is. So put your money where your mouth is, I say. Have the courage of your convictions, and go all the way.
A little Google-Fu will provide all the proof one needs to see LaRue is sleeping with the lucrative enemy whilst turning their backs on individual peace officers.
https://twitter.com/Lion_of_Gray/status/300273580523003904
I for one am done with LaRue. They make exceptional kit, but I have my principles too, and they've been violated by their new policy.
jdavis6576
02-09-13, 10:17
Thread locked in 5...4...3...
Name ONE federal agency that buys or authorizes for use LaRue rifles. You can't, there aren't any.
So much for your dirty little secret.
Respectfully sir, if you click on those links via the twitter url, you'll see 10 OBR .308 Wins were sold last fall to the DEA. That was a near $40K contract. It's all public information on the .gov procurement site.
whats good for the citizen is good for the leo sorry I am happy they have halted sales to leo's in ban states.
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=aed071b4eeb201387a7390566ab9d32e&tab=core&_cview=1
Voodoo_Man
02-09-13, 10:23
Name ONE federal agency that buys or authorizes for use LaRue rifles. You can't, there aren't any.
So much for your dirty little secret.
Do not jump to conclusions on topics you may not be able to google.
whats good for the citizen is good for the leo sorry I am happy they have halted sales to leo's in ban states.
It's not individual states that threaten our 2nd Amendment rights. It's the feds. So, all I ask is for LaRue to be consistent.
Sell to everyone, citizens included, or sell to no one.
FBO.gov bids involving Austin Precision Products (LaRue's old operating name) (https://www.google.com/search?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbo.gov+AUSTIN+PRECISION+PRODUCTS&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS490US490&oq=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbo.gov+AUSTIN+PRECISION+PRODUCTS&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
FBO.gov bids involving LaRue Tactical (https://www.google.com/search?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbo.gov+AUSTIN+PRECISION+PRODUCTS&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS490US490&oq=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbo.gov+AUSTIN+PRECISION+PRODUCTS&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS490US490&sclient=psy-ab&q=https:%2F%2Fwww.fbo.gov+LARUE+TACTICAL&oq=https:%2F%2Fwww.fbo.gov+LARUE+TACTICAL&gs_l=serp.3...70871.74823.0.75154.16.16.0.0.0.0.234.1811.9j4j3.16.0.les%3B..1.0...1c.1.2.serp.CsUqg3lxGuU&pbx=1&fp=1&biw=1024&bih=655&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&cad=b&sei=PXkWUfH4IOiM2gXWrYDgDA)
It's not individual states that threaten our 2nd Amendment rights. It's the feds. So, all I ask is for LaRue to be consistent.
Sell to everyone, citizens included, or sell to no one.
It wasn't a political decision, it was an economic one. The federal law is consistent and easier to understand than keeping up with 50 states and dc. If it was a political move, they would have advertised it as such.
1) there are fed agencies/groups that use Larue. I have shot with them.
2) The inexplicable complications of trying to sort assorted States laws and regulations are not a factor when selling directly to the US Gov.
3) Nothing disingenuous about no individual sales. There have been numerous instances of individual "ban states" LE individuals fudging paperwork, to several companies, and receiving firearms illegitimately. From a liability standpoint this is undue exposure. Puts the company and it's employees at risk.
It's not individual states that threaten our 2nd Amendment rights. It's the feds.
Really? Are you sure that's a truthful statement?
Take a few minutes to marinade on the last month and a half before you get back to me.
It wasn't a political decision, it was an economic one. The federal law is consistent and easier to understand than keeping up with 50 states and dc. If it was a political move, they would have advertised it as such.C'mon brother, all that verbiage about LaRue personnel making clerical or shipping mistakes and causing the company liability is obvious satire. Read between the lines. And read the small print.
Sell to everyone. Or sell to no one.
They're guilty of situational ethics.
It's not individual states that threaten our 2nd Amendment rights. It's the feds. So, all I ask is for LaRue to be consistent.
Sell to everyone, citizens included, or sell to no one.
Thats not going to happen unfortunately
Really? Are you sure that's a truthful statement?
Take a few minutes to marinade on the last month and a half before you get back to me.Royal, I'm on your side. And I'm not oblivious to what's going on at the state level in some areas of the country (if you read my first post carefully, you'll see I broached this subject).
Wouldn't you agree Washington is the real threat here?
1) there are fed agencies/groups that use Larue. I have shot with them.
2) The inexplicable complications of trying to sort assorted States laws and regulations are not a factor when selling directly to the US Gov.
3) Nothing disingenuous about no individual sales. There have been numerous instances of individual "ban states" LE fudging paperwork, to several companies, and receiving firearms illegitimately. From a liability standpoint this is undue exposure. Puts the company and it's employees at risk.Does LaRue manufacturer any rifles that can be sold to the feds but local LE agencies cannot possess? I think the answer to that is no. So, why not continue to sell to individual officers once sworn status is proven?
That LaRue continues to do BIG business with the federal gov't rubs me the wrong way. At least say no to fed LE agencies while continuing to supply our warfighters overseas.
.02
Do not jump to conclusions on topics you may not be able to google.
My apologies, I am shocked by the size and scope of the above mentioned rifle order. I don't know how I could have missed it.
Really? Are you sure that's a truthful statement?
Take a few minutes to marinade on the last month and a half before you get back to me.
Exactly. Individual states are destroying the 2nd amendment rights to thunderous applause.
FBO.gov bids involving Austin Precision Products (LaRue's old operating name) (https://www.google.com/search?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbo.gov+AUSTIN+PRECISION+PRODUCTS&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS490US490&oq=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbo.gov+AUSTIN+PRECISION+PRODUCTS&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
FBO.gov bids involving LaRue Tactical (https://www.google.com/search?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbo.gov+AUSTIN+PRECISION+PRODUCTS&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS490US490&oq=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbo.gov+AUSTIN+PRECISION+PRODUCTS&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS490US490&sclient=psy-ab&q=https:%2F%2Fwww.fbo.gov+LARUE+TACTICAL&oq=https:%2F%2Fwww.fbo.gov+LARUE+TACTICAL&gs_l=serp.3...70871.74823.0.75154.16.16.0.0.0.0.234.1811.9j4j3.16.0.les%3B..1.0...1c.1.2.serp.CsUqg3lxGuU&pbx=1&fp=1&biw=1024&bih=655&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&cad=b&sei=PXkWUfH4IOiM2gXWrYDgDA)
Please explain how the sales of mounts and target systems weigh into this discussion?
I think Washington is the threat, but going through state channels may have some traction. If you've got state agencies that start putting pressure on state legislators, backed by civilian constituents, that pressure should work it's way up to those US legislators coming from those states.
For example, squeeze out CA LEOs in addition to CA citizens, maybe they will think twice about supporting Sen Feinstein.
MEANWHILE ... LaRue's fine print (their dirty little secret) makes it clear they're not willing to go all the way and CEASE SALES TO FEDERAL AGENCIES. And of course the inconvenient truth is, individual states, nuthouses like New York notwithstanding, are not the real threat to the 2nd Amendment, the federal gov't is. So put your money where your mouth is, I say. Have the courage of your convictions, and go all the way.
I disagree. Federal gun control legislation appears to be dead in the water for the moment - there is no assault weapon or magazine ban. There ARE such restrictions in at least a few states. In the meantime, we and advance of that agenda wherein previously firearm-friendly states like Colorado and Minnesota are imminently facing firearms bans similar or identical to New York. IMHO, the states are the very best chance Obama has of implementing his onerous gun control agenda for the Brave New World he's trying to create.
Larue's policy is not unique. Barrett does the same thing. I perceive that these companies are strong 2nd Amendment supporters, which makes sense, and have the courage of their convictions even though it costs them sales.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
02-09-13, 10:40
As a former Marine and a current LEO, I support Larue in this wholeheartedly. I only wish it applied to FLEA and MIL as well.
Current Fed law allows citizens to purchase LaRue products. Why punish them? Particular individual states restrict that right. As a former Californian, I applaud LaRue's decision. I wish more would do so, particularily when some companies go a step further and restrict sales of unrestricted items they produce to ban states.
Royal, I'm on your side. And I'm not oblivious to what's going on at the state level in some areas of the country (if you read my first post carefully, you'll see I broached this subject).
Wouldn't you agree Washington is the real threat here?
Specifically the Supreme Court is the real threat for failing to incorporate the 2A to the states, and next by failing to take a case that holds that there is an individual right to bear arms, and that arms include everything that our National Guard soldiers have available to them on duty.
Exactly. Individual states are destroying the 2nd amendment rights to thunderous applause.See my previous acknowledgement on this matter. Still, I fear Obama a lot more than I do my state's unicam!
Please explain how the sales of mounts and target systems weigh into this discussion?Wasn't trying to make that case, only providing a link to a broad FBO.gov search. I accept your apology ref the link I provided to the purchase of those OBRs by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Wouldn't you agree Washington is the real threat here?
"a" threat? yes. "the real threat"? no. You don't think Cuomo's successes in NY haven't created momentum for others to make attempts at following suit? Have you seen the recent news coming out of Colorado? Minnesota? But this is neither here nor there really.
See Dano5326's points again, they are but several factors combined with the ethical viewpoints of a business owner. There's no secret here.
ColtSeavers
02-09-13, 10:42
This thread is a joke in more ways than one.
I think Washington is the threat, but going through state channels may have some traction. If you've got state agencies that start putting pressure on state legislators, backed by civilian constituents, that pressure should work it's way up to those US legislators coming from those states.
For example, squeeze out CA LEOs in addition to CA citizens, maybe they will think twice about supporting Sen Feinstein.The local chiefs, most of them anyway, will always support Di-Fi and her kind. They are for the most part political animals, not cops.
Sheriffs are a refreshingly different breed, thank God.
1) there are fed agencies/groups that use Larue. I have shot with them.
2) The inexplicable complications of trying to sort assorted States laws and regulations are not a factor when selling directly to the US Gov.
3) Nothing disingenuous about no individual sales. There have been numerous instances of individual "ban states" LE individuals fudging paperwork, to several companies, and receiving firearms illegitimately. From a liability standpoint this is undue exposure. Puts the company and it's employees at risk.
Here is the issue, in a nutshell. Sounds like a solid decision, to me. I suspect that some very powerful police unions and fraternities could have made real, and tangible, differences in the choices that lawmakers made in their policy writing. I believe they still can. Maybe Barrett's, and LaRue's decision will assist in clearing their minds on the issue.
As a former Marine and a current LEO, I support Larue in this wholeheartedly. I only wish it applied to FLEA and MIL as well.I could live with that. At least it would be consistent.
It's not individual states that threaten our 2nd Amendment rights. It's the feds. So, all I ask is for LaRue to be consistent.
Sell to everyone, citizens included, or sell to no one.
Tell that to the members from NY, CA, IL, HI, CT, MA, D.C.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.