Magpul tries to influence Gun Magazine Ban in Colorado

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by viewfly, Apr 10, 2013.

  1. viewfly macrumors 65816

    viewfly

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #1
    Dear Magpul,

    I purchased five of your 4S field and Exec field cases last year. I liked them except for the flash problem and that there was some stretching over time. Eventually gave them up, but I convinced many on this forum to give your product a try.

    Not too keen on your new ones for the 5. So today I read this in the newspaper. So if you feel you can influence policy with 'your feet', well so can I. I will NEVER look at your phone cases again. NEVER.

    I know neighbors, children and adults, killed in Newtown, and the survivors. Hurt public safety? Read profit.

    Why pull the lives of your employees into this? Magazines of smaller loads are still magazines...but we don't need 30. 11 children escaped in Newtown when the killer fumbled changing his magazine....

    News source here.
    http://nyti.ms/XqiQ2O
     
  2. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #2
    Just as states have the ability to ban things arbitrarily, companies may move their factories. Frankly I think it's a fair move. If the state is going to ban such items, then the company shouldn't let the state benefit from it's products which it actively bans. Employees can relocate.
     
  3. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #3
    I somewhat agree.

    It's more of a public relations (PR) move though.

    If they really didn't like the direction the United States was heading on gun control, they'd leave the country. But then the majority of their profit and customers would go bye-bye. It's a political move.

    The main goal of a business is to profit.
     
  4. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #4
    So, do you also boycott other companies that try and influence laws and policy?:rolleyes: As a consumer you have every right to vote with your wallet. Companies have the same right.

    I support Magpul's decision to relocate if they choose to. I recently purchased 2 .223 30 round magazines from them in their Boulder Airlift.

    http://www.magpul.com/colorado
     
  5. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #5
    Sure, he has every right to vote with his wallet. He also has the right to voice his opinion about the company.
     
  6. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #6
    Of course he does. I never said he didn't.
     
  7. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #7
    You seemed angry that how dare he criticize a (conservative/gundamentalist) company.
     
  8. viewfly thread starter macrumors 65816

    viewfly

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #8
    Yes, this one is very sensitive. My point to Magpul is that if THEY feel the right to do so...then so can I, even if I've haven't looked at it before. It is their risk.

    Not all magazines are banned, just the larger capacity ones. So their point is purely political. They still have a business.

    And because the sales is banned in the home state, may not infer that manufacturing is banned.
     
  9. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #9
    Not angry, just wondering if he sends letters like this to other companies that try and influence laws. Surely you realize that Magpul is hardly the only company that tries to get laws passed in their favor.
     
  10. viewfly thread starter macrumors 65816

    viewfly

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #10
    It is really irrelevant to my point, because it is issue specific. But for this issue, if it is a company that I buy from or would consider buying and they give a lame reason like 'safety, yes I will make a post about it.

    It is my decision and I just wish to make others know. Magpul can do want they wish, it is their right, but I can refuse to buy from them and let others know. That is my right. There is no general rule that says everyone does it and therefore I should not.
     
  11. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #11
    Ok, you have made your point.
     
  12. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #12
    Honestly, Magpul doesn't make much money from iPhone cases, as they aren't a case company, so they couldn't care less.

    If that is how you feel, you probably should have researched Magpul before doing business with them, as their entire business was founded on accessories for STANAG magazines. They've since expanded into other weapon accessories, but that's their business - not iPhone cases.
     
  13. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #13
    Totally agree.

    Like I've said before, the only thing a magazine restriction means to your 2nd Amendment right, is that you'll have to reload a little more often.

    Get over it gun owners.
     
  14. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #14
    Arrogant much? :rolleyes:

    When it comes to AR-style, 30-round magazines are standard capacity as defined by the NATO STANAG. What you want is called reduced capacity.
     
  15. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #15
    Thanks for bringing this up OP, I looked into the iPhone5 cases that Magpul makes and they're right up my alley.

    Ordered 4 of them for me and my brothers!
     
  16. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #16
    Good. I support Magpul.

    When all we had were worn out, beat to hell USGI mags that barely worked while deployed (tax dollars at work), it was Magpul that sent us hundreds of PMAG's and kept us supplied with plenty of kit that was better than USGI.

    They've always taken good care of me as a civilian and as a soldier, and they will always have my business.
     
  17. viewfly thread starter macrumors 65816

    viewfly

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #17
    I knew who MagPul was before I bought from them. I have NO problem with gun ownership nor 2nd Amend rights that are interpreted correctly. I was in the US Air Force.

    But their stance is stupid here. No
    They won't go out of business because of iPhone cases nor smaller magazines either. In fact they will sell more.
     
  18. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #18
    What exactly is the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?
     
  19. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #19
    A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Second Amendment is not without limits and it does not give citizens the right to carry any weapon for any purpose whatsoever.

    So for example, banning AR-15s and other assault style rifles may very well be constitutional and within the Second Amendment.

    ----------

    They might see that as too much of an inconvenience. :rolleyes:
     
  20. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #20
    Those may be or may not be constitutional. SCOTUS has not ruled on it.
     
  21. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #21
    Probably the militia part.

    Please remember that the vote in District of Columbia v. Heller was 5-4. For want of one vote, things might be different. The following is an excerpt from Justice Steven's dissent.

    I found it quite fascinating.


     
  22. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #22
    Sure, why not.

    It's within bounds of their other rulings.
     
  23. bmt134 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2012
    #23
    You have a source for that?
     
  24. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #24
    I disagree completely - in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

    You manufacture a product that your home state says you can't sell there - "we don't want your product." The writing on their wall is clear; they aren't wanted in Colorado. Yet you claim their moving away is political? :confused:

    Clearly, the "correct" interpretation is whatever he agrees with.

    I say let them move. The people who buy their products - I'm talking magazines, not phone cases - will continue to buy them, and people who don't buy their products will continue to not buy them.
     
  25. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #25
    BTW, did you read my sourced [post #21] dissent of D.C. vs. Heller by Justice Stevens?

    I find it interesting that he goes to great lengths to examine the literal meaning of the 2nd Amendment ... something you'd think constitutional literalists would applaud.

    And I think he makes a great argument for seeing the amendment inextricably tied to militia service.

    When the court swings 5-4 to the liberal side, future firearms rulings may very well reflect the reasoning put forth in his dissenting opinion.
     

Share This Page