FirstSpear TV

LaRue Tactical Issues New Sales Policy for State and Local Agencies

Earlier today, LaRue Tactical issued this press release.

02/08/2013 LEANDER, TX.

Updated Policy for State and Local Agency Law Enforcement Sales:

Due to the recent and numerous new Anti-gun/Anti-2nd Amendment laws passed and/or pending across our country, LaRue Tactical has been forced to reconsider how we provide products to state and local agencies.

Effective today, in an effort to see that no legal mistakes are made by LaRue Tactical and/or its employees, we will apply all current State and Local Laws (as applied to civilians) to state and local law enforcement / government agencies. In other words, LaRue Tactical will limit all sales to what law-abiding citizens residing in their districts can purchase or possess.

State and local laws have always been a serious focus of this firm, and we are now dovetailing that focus with the constitutional rights of the residents covered in their different areas by the old and new regulations.

We realize this effort will have an impact on this firm’s sales – and have decided the lost sales are less danger to this firm than potential lawsuits from erroneous shipments generated by something as simple as human error.

Thanks in advance for your understanding.

Mark LaRue

* * This policy does not apply to Military / Federal Agencies * *


212 Responses to “LaRue Tactical Issues New Sales Policy for State and Local Agencies”

  1. Bill says:

    I F’ing love LaRue and Texas! I needed that smile today.

  2. veteran says:

    I LOVE LT!!!

    If I cant have it, neither can you!!!!

    May more manufacturers take a principled stand like this!

    • RogerRabbit says:

      Oh but we can in California as LEO 🙂

      Sorry Vet, your misguided belief that this stick it to LEO mentality is good in anyway is ignorant. Any restrictions is bad in my book. LEO, Mil or civi. I am all for citizens being armed. Of course if your some gun-hating liberal any restrictions for anyone to purchase firearms is applauded. Thanks for joining the other side…

      • veteran says:

        Hey Roger, this is not a stick it mentality approach in any way. You sir do not understand my point at all if this is why you believe I support it.

        The LEO’s are not above the law and they must follow what I and any other law abiding civilian does. PURE AND SIMPLE…

  3. DDearborn says:


    Straight up one of the most Patriot actions I have ever seen made by a company ever. God bless America land that I love.

  4. Anonymous says:


    Take a look at the bottom line though. This policy does not apply to military or federal agencies. Now, I’m all for this, BUT one of the biggest encroachments of our 2nd Amendment is coming from federal agencies. So, how does this really protect our 2nd Amendment rights?


    • veteran says:

      It’s a huge step in the right direction. We will never address Federal issues unless we first fix the state and local agency constitutional deficiencies.

      I do agree with you though…

      • Anonymous says:


        I too agree with your comment. I just did not know and wanted to make sure, people kept reading all the way down to the bottom. I believe as you have stated, we have to protect our local interests as well as watch out for the federal interests. Believe me when I say, I love this great country of ours, it saddens me that we have let scoundrels into office who are either destroying this great nation or are just being the ‘useful idiots’ to those who are doing the damage. It has given me hope here in the last few months that the sheeple are waking up and taking action, we just need to keep up the momentum. As I am sure a lot of us here on this site can attest to, once you lose that momentum, you are in serious trouble of losing the fight.

  5. Bluedevil says:

    This is a great start. But, I wish it were for federal and military too. Im sure it has something to do with excisting contracts they have with .gov but all the firearms they ship to the fed’s and military break the same boundry that selling to local and state agencies. Im hesistant to lump military into the aformentioned comment of mine but if you dont think the fed’s cant get “military” weapons from the “military” then Ive got some ocean front property to sell you in arizona. This was a step in the right direction but the 2nd Amendment calls for We The People to be armed with the same type of weapons that the “government” have! In today’s time and age that means we should have the same access to all the tech and updates that have made our military great. What I’m trying to say is if, god forbid, this country erupts into some type of civil war and the skirmish’s start and the current Fed’s get hit a couple times what do you think they are going to do? They are going to declare martial law and use the Feds(read DHS) and the Military to squash any resistance, what ever that may be called.

    I commend LaRue for this big step but they need to keep the momentem going!

  6. droneboy says:

    Baby step in the right direction.

  7. Blue Line says:

    So if I want to purchase mags, stocks or a whole rifle as a duty weapon, but live in a state with asshats in the big house I can’t have a Larue? How is this supporting Law Enforcement?

    • Rob says:

      Maybe those asshats will listen to the police because they certainly won’t listen to lowly serfs.

    • Matt says:

      Do your part and let your asshats know the cost of their actions.

      A member of the blue line sends.

    • Rob says:

      It is all so damned silly. Like if law enforcement is exempt from magazine capacity limits, does that apply to them while off duty? I think larue is making a statement about double standards, and it in itself is ridiculous because of their exemption of fed and mil while sticking it to police. I’m not a LaKool-Aid drinker and this reaffirms my decision to choose other products. All except the dillo and bumperstickers they can keep the rest.

      • veteran says:

        They are a business and have many contracts with Fed/Mil agencies and as of now, the fed and mil have not taken any action toward taking our rights. (yet)

        I think they are doing the right thing as they are matching force with force. All we have seen as of now is state and local action to infringe on our rights. As such LT’s actions have followed suit…

        I hope they and every other manufacturer decides to do the same and if/when it becomes a bigger issue than it is now they resolve to hold true to WE THE PEOPLE and tell the elitist pigs to kiss off!

    • J ay Dub says:

      Hopefully no LE suffer harm as a result of this. The guys who make the laws don’t give a sh*t about what the LE on the street thinks.

    • AD says:

      I don’t guess it is. It is supporting citizens.

  8. jellydonut says:

    They didn’t go as far as Barrett did with California, but still a good step to take.

  9. Mick says:

    So, let me get this right, since it’s the federal government, Executive and Legislative Branch, that is pressing all the 2nd Amendment issues on us at the state level, which we in LE absolutely don’t agree with, why a double standard extended to our friends at the federal level? I guess LaRue tactical really doesn’t understand the needs of the guy who protects the citizens on a daily basis 24/7.

    • Juan says:

      Because they’re punishing you since you work for the State and it’s States that are passing gun laws, not the Feds. Just loadly blame Obama and they might sell you something.

      • Mick says:

        Actually, i work at the local level. Further more, what about the need for a short barrel suppressed rifle that we need while responding to an active shooter. I thought the need to protect and serve coincides with having the propper equipment to get the job done. If you are not in LE at the local level you would not understand. Go ride with a local LE officer a few nights and figure it out. As I stated thanks LT, for lumping in all LE with a minority of misinformed legilators that have about as much sense as you did with this move.

        • Jordan says:

          Explain how LEOs need a suppressor? I am a soldier, please tell me more heroic tales of your dangerous job. Speeding tickets and drunks most cops never clear leather with their side arm.

          • RogerRabbit says:

            Most of us in blue are former Mil and unfortunately you show you have no idea about what being a Cop is about. Speeding tickets and drunks? get real… more like gangsters and drugdealers. Grow up.

          • LAPD Pro-2nd Ammendment says:

            Oh, because your sanctimonious ass was the only one in the sandbox! You’re probably a REMF hump, by the way your running your cock-sucker!!Back to your basement and video games douche-bag!

          • Jimmy-crack-corn says:

            Jordan sits around in his basement watching Cops in his skivvies, masturbating to old episodes of Bevis and Butthead. That retard wouldn’t know a day of Police work, or a step in anger outside the FOB, if it banged him in that ass all night! this whole thing from LT smacks of cowardice. You are singling out LEO’s,. but holding on to your GSA contracts? That’s bullshit! Like it’s been stated here by some….fuck LT, and anyone who supports this is a boot licking suck up, in the tank too.

          • veteran says:

            AND Jimmy should not be an LEO as well….

        • SGT Rock says:

          Politics are supposed to be trickle up, not trickle down. It starts w/the few who are willing to take a stand and embolden the masses to start a groundswell and enact change.

          • veteran says:


            Get your fellow LEO’s to start voicing their “opinion” and quit bitching how you are in the same boat as us.

        • ConstitutionalVet says:

          I believe that you missed this whole paragraph:

          “Effective today, in an effort to see that no legal mistakes are made by LaRue Tactical and/or its employees, we will apply all current State and Local Laws (as applied to civilians) to state and local law enforcement / government agencies. In other words, LaRue Tactical will limit all sales to what law-abiding citizens residing in their districts can purchase or possess.”

          They are not targeting ALL local LE agencies, just those agencies that fall under new legislation passed by individual states that infringes upon the 2nd Amendment.

          Live in an area this will affect? Don’t like the policy? Contact your chain of command/sheriff/state police and start making action happen to over rule recent legislation. Don’t get upset at this company for reading the last four words of the 2nd Amendment: “shall not be infringed”.

      • droneboy says:


    • jellydonut says:

      I’m sure you’ve noticed that state governments are doing their part too, and that NY has already passed the first stupidity.

  10. AlaskaVet says:

    Absolutely fucking spot-on. Thank you LaRue for being willing to put your money where your mouth is, and for standing up for all of us. You just gained a new customer in me, hope that’ll offset some lost business from this new policy.

  11. Rit says:

    Excellent news. As local LE I fully support this move. I would like to see this extended to federal LE as well, but one must start somewhere.

    • veteran says:

      Thanks Rit for for your comment. I and many others are tired of LEO’s complaining how they are going to be hindered in executing their duties because companies making decisions like this.

      I am my own protector and thus, you can help if Im lucky enough to be close enough for you to take action but it is MY responsibility to protect and defend myself, my family, and those around me!!!!

      • RogerRabbit says:

        Good for you protecting your family. I hope your around them 24-7, because it sounds like you sure don’t want any Cop who would be responding to your family’s call for help to be the best equipped, best trained person out there. You need to come back down to earth and stop acting like superman… or you can be a hypocrit and not call the Police whenever heaven forbid anyone in your family needs help.

        • Smith says:

          Best trained? I’m sure those 9 bystanders in New York would disagree.

          • veteran says:

            Precisely Smith….

            Roger, you obviously do not get my point and can continue to expect others to “protect and defend” you… As for me and my family, we will not.

            When seconds count, LEO’s are minutes away….

    • Anonymous says:

      So what if you were LE in CA……and could only run an AR with a non-detachable mag!!!!! I bet you would not support it then. Tell me your response isn’t…move from the state, or fix the laws, or quit your job it is a choice. Yes I support 2A, yes I want to fix things, and yes all citizens should have the same rights to bare arms! Do you think America will be better of if LE can’t protect citizens due weapons restrictions! Right concept LaRue….wrong application!

      • veteran says:

        Unfortunately I have to admit that I am one of those… As stated above, if I cant own it THEY should not own it. LEO’s are not above the law and we as a nation either “Say what we mean, and mean what we say,” or we are an unscrupulous society.

        • Pete says:

          ^ My word – is that integrity showing?

          LaRue is on the side of Angels on this issue. Thanks for courage.

        • mike says:

          Veteran, neither are members of the military. So should we only allow the military to use the same weapons as US civilians under federal law or US citizens who live Washington DC? We are not talking about private ownership here, these are agency purchases. So if you really stand behind your statement your answer should be yes.

          • veteran says:

            The Second Amendment addresses your question… nuff said.

          • mike says:

            Yes or No? Don’t go politician and dodge the question.

          • veteran says:

            Your framing of the question disregards the true intention, essence and substance of the 2nd amendment. We were always intended to be able to have access to the firearm which the average infantryman is provided…. Not the other way around. THIS is why I made the aforementioned statement…

          • mike says:

            My question had nothing to do with the “true intention, essence and substance of the 2nd amendment”. I was simply asking for your personal opinion in reference to the original question I asked. Yes or No.

          • veteran says:

            I stand by what I stated above, I believe we as law abiding citizens must be allowed the same firearms the military infantryman has as the 2nd amendment prescribes….

            Your attempt to back me into a rhetorical corner is nonsensical and borderline insulting. As a veteran I feel the military should have the best equipment and defensive tools available. I also believe you and I should have unobstructed access to those same weapons period.

            I said what I meant and meant what I said.

            2A DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ACCESS OF FIREARMS AND LEO’S, I made my initial statements addressing LEO’s and the fact they are not given a special category constitutionally PERIOD!

        • Aninymous says:

          So, the law that allows LE to be exempt ( NFA BATF form 5) in say CA and purchase a regular AR 15… following the law. How does this make an “everyone” must follow the law argument! I do not think LE is above the law and I do believe it is everyone’s right as a citizen to have and bear arms that can protect their freedom from the government!


          • LAPD Pro-2nd Ammendment says:

            Aninymous………… Amen my friend! Most of these people are to short sighted to see what’s being done, and instead vilify us LEO’s. I, unlike these pissants, will support the 2nd Amendment, not fall for the lefts trickery, like these morons. I wonder how many of these dolts still use B of A as a banking institution? Or even use an ATM by B of A? A bunch of wet finger in the air followers, who are unable to think for themselves. And shame on la rue tactical for rolling over! Turn-coats!

          • veteran says:


            THE 2nd Amendment never addresses LEO’s and quite simply shouldn’t.

  12. Paul says:

    Not perfect and this will no doubt hurt many LE folks caught in the political grandstanding of their elected leaders (read NY, Kali, Ct, and Mass). However, LT should be commended for defending the 2A.

    Hopefully other gun manufacturers will follow LT’s lead. Imagine if Colt, S&W, Glock and others didn’t sell ARs or standard capacity mags to LE in states which prohibit those same items to their citizenry. Picture Mayor Bloomberg’s bodyguards limited to only being able to purchase 7 round magazines.

    I suspect that police officials would soon be complaining….and complaining loudly and maybe make the politicos reconsider.

  13. bob says:

    Awesome. Glad to see someone stepping in like this.

  14. NCDeputy says:

    I like it! I hate that it will effect some of my fellow LEOs but the point it drives home is FANTASTIC!

  15. Matt says:

    I back this 100%. For LEO’s that don’t like it, either let your elected officials know or hope that their fantasy comes true and the panacea of gun control will solve all violent crimes…

    • Anonymous says:

      Really……I hope that when the moment that your family needs defending and you are not present….the LE officer who responds will have the appropriate weapon to resolve the problem and not whatever the stupid local or state (NY 7 rounds) allows!!!!!!! How would you like to go to war with the ROE’s of no detachable rifle mag or a 7 round pistol mag….or whatever othe stupid law gets approved!

      • Matt says:

        My wife is a pistol instructor so yeah… Like veteran said above, I am my own protector and likewise my wife can handle herself also. Citizens have a responsibility to take care of themselves.
        Again, if you’re a LEO on here complaining that you should be safe from a company standing up for citizens rights then I think you’re looking for sympathy in the wrong place. Take your complaint to the appropriate place. The ballot box.

        • LAPD Pro-2nd Ammendment says:

          You’re an ignorant hypocrite, just like veteran above! We LEO’s are ALL FOR, CONCEALED CARRY FOR ALL AMERICANS, except for felons and loons! You want to make a correct stand…… NAME EVERY CHIEF of police or Sheriff, and go after them! They are the imbeciles going after your guns, not us grunts!

          • Matt says:

            Wow, you’re right. Youre constant badgering of anyone who has a contrary opinion and all caps have convinced me of the error of my ways. Just one thing though… this topic isn’t about concealed carry (though you make an exaggerated and baseless claim that I’d love to see you try to back up).

            Go home LAPD Pro-2nd Amendment you’re drunk.

          • droneboy says:

            Lapd pro….ain’t you got a wack-job to catch?

          • Ash says:

            “not us grunts”

            Um, grunts are soldiers. LEOs are civillians, like it or not.

          • LAPD Pro-2nd Ammendment says:

            Haaaa. Glad to see you RINO’s are paying attention. I wondered how long before you keyboard commandos commented on the scumbag we have on our hands out here. Weak shot. But, like you get a day off from flipping hamburgers, I get a couple hours off to use my 1st amendment right, to defend our second amendment rights. You clowns come on here and wax intellectual, but clearly lack in any cohesive substance to support your feeble straw position. Good luck with your mediocre approach. it clearly suits your obtuse position. Did that help with your comprehension of my position there Matt?
            I back my “claims” up every day. I, unlike you, don’t just come on a blog and bang on my keyboard. Again, enjoy your ignorance, it suits you.

          • LAPD Pro-2nd Ammendment says:

            Oh and Ash…..Is an Unitede States Marine, beginning as an 0311!!! I earned my Grunt status! So go shit in your fist! A bunch of panty wearing turn-coats on this page! You clowns aren’t Pro 2nd Amendment, and all that that position intails. Just a bunch of straw malcontentious pissants. Enjoy your blog ladies. Matt, I back my play every day.. Glad to see your wife is the firearms instructor and not you. At least one person in the house isn’t a pussy!

          • Matt says:

            Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Internet meltdown of the week known as LAPD Pro-2nd Amendment.

            If you are indeed a LEO, then I recommend that you seek anger counseling. I’d hate to see you unleash you’re superiority complex on an average citizen. At best you’re an embarrassment to the profession.

            A LEO with 23 years of experience sends.

          • LAPD Pro-2nd Ammendment says:

            Thank you Matt. I take your scorn as a compliment.

          • veteran says:

            I like how some of the “LEO’s” on here resort to name calling while they give halfwitted arguments to justify their status as elitists to us citizens….

            Foolishness. Like politicians you are a public servant and are failing us…

  16. Steve says:

    I was wanting to stand up and cheer until I read the line “This policy does not apply to Military and Federal Agencies”

    Too damn bad. I guess the realities of becoming a federal vendor trump the policy. Fair enough. I’m not an LT customer but I’ll take a look when I’m in the market for some of its gear, at least.

    Congratulations, Mr. Larue, for doing what you can. I salute you for that.

  17. Jordan says:

    Good call. One mistake and the very people you are trying to help will string you up by your thumbs. If those that want the rest of us to be defenseless victims then maybe they should live by the laws they endorse and enforce.

  18. 167 says:

    Mistake. You think the elected representatives, who can’t figure out what an assault rifle is, differentiate between semi-automatic vs. automatic, what a bayonet lug is for (it isn’t for mounting a grenade launcher), etc., care what the cops can get or have access to? Or that the 700,000 or so cops in this country can make a huge political influence that will result in different laws? Barrett and Larue are delusional and only hurting cops trying to do the right thing. Is this suggesting that cops should quit their jobs because their employer (State/Local Gov) is anti-2A? I guess I just don’t understand what this “stance” is designed to do? What it just did was lose a customer on the personal and professional side.

    • veteran says:

      COPS ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW!!!! That is what it is trying to prove…..

      • J ay Dub says:

        What they should have done is continue to sell and therefore make a profit. If they want to change things they should have taken those profits and funded a lobby effort, financially. Thats how stuff gets done. Keeping LE from getting top equipment only hurts the guy trying to do a job.

        The guys that pass laws do not care what LE thinks. They never have, they never will.

        2nd, you do not want a police force that picks and chooses the laws they enforce. The police shall enforce laws on the books. If the populace does not like the laws they must have them changed through democratic means. If LE was allowed to choose the laws they enforce, or was allowed to use their public office in any political way the very purpose of the second amendment would become very f*ckin clear.

        LE must be directed by the democratically elected people in the legislature. They must be kept apolitical.

  19. LaRue Tactical – well done!!!

    • LAPD Pro-2nd Ammendment says:

      Say it isn’t so…………Not Larry Vickers?! Unfucking-real!

    • Jimmy-crack-corn says:

      Did I really read Larry Vickers is on board with this too? Please tell me that is someone other than LAV himself? Thoroughly disappointed that someone I thought was a thinking Warrior, is turning into a sympathetic, useful idiot for the left. Hopefully this is some bed wetter using LAV as a pseudonym? If not , wow! I guess Obama is winning.

    • Anon says:

      Im curious to see if LAV would say “well done” if this was applied to Mil/Fed agencies?

      • veteran says:

        If the Federal Govt was implementing laws like the state and local governments currently are, Im sure that he would.

      • Anon says:

        You know what would be noble of LAV to do is find the most restrictive state gun laws in the US (CA perhaps) and personally limit himself to only buy guns or mags that meet that standard……that will teach them liberal anti-gun law makers. He could really support the citizens of that state limiting himself to what they have to carry!!!!!! LAV YOU HAVE SERIOUSLY LET MANY PEOPLE DOWN- YOU WERE AN AMERICAN HERO AND NOW…….ASSCLOWN

    • Anon says:

      Thanks LAV for not supporting LE! I will make sure to spend my money on other instructors instead of YOU! I will tell everyone I know to not attend any of your classes….maybe 20 people will spend their money on other instructors and they can get 20 more people and so on!

      Trust me you are a fine instructor, but so are many others. Many with more experience than you!!!!!!

  20. SGT Rock says:

    Huzzah LaRue Tactical!

  21. Jim says:

    I have been saying that the firearms industry in general needs to do this exact step. Thank you LaRue for making some very nice products indeed, and supporting the needs of the shooting community.

  22. MattRobotHunter says:

    My only problem with this is that now I have to buy a LaRue. I was thinking PredatOBR.

    Thanks a lot for being stand up people! Clearly if “We the people” don’t need it, law enforcement doesn’t need it either. We’re all law abiding citizens after all.

  23. Rob says:

    I agree with this action but also wish that it applied to the Feds too.

  24. Arrow 4 says:

    God bless you LaRue!!!

  25. Steve says:

    If only all firearms manufactures would take this stance. This is a perfect display of equality!
    Well done LaRue!

  26. Dan says:

    Good on ya! Well said.

  27. Scott says:

    This is great! I hope that many companies will begin similar policies. If we could get it extended to the federal level and many companies joined in it would be even better. Thanks LaRue for being principled and upright! And to the LE affected by this: please communicate your support of the Second Amendment to your local and state leaders. We all swore an oath…

  28. jerry says:

    good start, hope more company’s follow your example. you just got a new customer

  29. Steve says:

    I guess it would be way to much to institute this same policy on the military and feds… afterall it is the fed gov that has been pushing all this crap… i could see how that could be bad though… and would prob put you out of business…

  30. Tim Nicely says:

    Way to stand up for the 2A, I wish other gun companies would follow suit.

  31. DesertVet says:

    The policy needs to include Federal agencies as well or the individuals at these agencies need to have a background check performed and fill out a questionnaire developed by LaRue that will always result in a denied purchase.

  32. Mike says:

    Hats off guys and gurls!

    You will have my business from now on!

  33. LAPD Pro-2nd Ammendment says:

    “Due to the recent and numerous new Anti-gun/Anti-2nd Amendment laws passed and/or pending across our country, LaRue Tactical has been forced to reconsider how we provide products to state and local agencies. ”

    ” passed and/or pending ” Are you fucking kidding me? What kind of weak-kneed sissy bullshit is that? Fucking cowardice statement.

    I have NEVER expected to get anything other than what is legally authorized in my state. It would be against department policy and get me fired if I did otherwise. What about the feds including the Military? SF, MARSOC, NSW, and any other government addresses you may have to ship too on your banned list now? Well, are you guys at la rue going to sack the fuck up and include the feds/gov too??? Let me get this straight? The majority of us cops across the land, are PRO second amendment, and 100% for all of you commenting here having CCL’s and what ever long guns you desire! I feel it’s a force multiplier and feel like every one of you, that the 2nd amendment is clear and the left sucks ball-sack. But because my state and Chief (California/LAPD) suck ass, and are a bunch of toe-touching libs, we cops are being singled out as a need for policy change? Most cops should be abiding by this anyway.? I have already refused to back ANY anti 2nd amendment bullshit laws my department tries to enact, and you hypocrite fucktards are fucking us cops over, because you’re trying to prove a point to the ass-clown politicians? WTF, yeah, great job of being a complete pussy! Sack the fuck up, all of you! You’re letting these anti-gun zealots play you like chumps. And please tell me that the one and only Larry Vickers isn’t sissified and acquiescing in sissified policy changes by la rue? Keep this pussy shit up and you guys will do just what the libs want…..put yourselves out of the gun business. Wow, say it aint so….? Texas gun company on queer street, weak in the knees! What a pussy move! Pro 2nd amendment my ass! You’ve embarrassed Texas with a pussy statement like this! Again, I never expect, nor would I have ordered anything that isn’t legal in my state, but the principal of your statement/position smacks of a back-hander towards the grunts and flat foots that don’t stand for the pussy left wing cunts. What a slap in the face! Fuck you la rue,…. tactical my ass! I guess some of you get pussified as you get older….show me clear!

    • veteran says:

      Wow sir, you should not be an LEO….

      • If you are an LAPD officer, you should be ashamed of yourself for the rant, using foul language, posted above. And “I have already refused to back ANY anti 2nd amendment bullshit laws my department tries to enact,” you’re refusing to carry out an order or enforce the law, something you swore to uphold? I have a deep respect for LEO’s, but not you.

      • JDT says:

        I disagree with what ‘veteran’ says on occasion, but this is a time where I do not. ‘LAPD’, if you are actually an officer, you need to re-evaluate your career choice. I am embarrassed to be in the same profession as you.

        • LAPD Pro-2nd Ammendment says:

          Go fuck yourself Pittman! Hows that for foul language! And JDT this is a blog, not church, and I’m embarrassed that a prissy like you is so easily offended by a small rant like mine! You would get someone killed out here. So piss off!

        • LAPD Pro-2nd Ammendment says:

          I know of no less than 20 of my fellow officers that comment on SSD, from time to time, and five of them called to ask wtf is going on with la rue with their singling out of cops in this presser? And none of them are Sallies like you two.

          • LAPD Pro-2nd Ammendment says:

            By the way Earl you jackass. If my department attempts to have me enforce an UNCONSTITUTIONAL, departmental Special Order, your position is that i should commit a felony and follow through on an un-lawful order? Is that what you want me to do? That’s you companies stance??? So you’re also against all the Sheriffs that have publicly stated on Fox News and other news sources that they TOO will not enforce these orders? Do I have your ignorant position correct? You Sir, are an ignorant lefty. Or perhaps you didn’t fully read my comments, because your virgin ears were to fucking offended!

          • veteran says:


    • droneboy says:

      Get a goddamn grip yer loosing it.

    • majrod says:

      You’re presenting your case poorly. Doesn’t LAPD have enough problems with bad examples e.g. Chris Dorner (who BTW is pro gun control…)

  34. Ken Juen says:

    I feel the need to buy something from these guys. My son is in Federal law enforcement and always has good things to say about LaRue.

  35. BlackLion says:

    Refreshing to see a Company choose Principles over Profits.

    • LAPD Pro-2nd Ammendment says:

      The last line….. “* * This policy does not apply to Military / Federal Agencies * *”

      So what principals are you talking about Chief?

    • LAPD Pro-2nd Ammendment says:

      The last line “* * This policy does not apply to Military / Federal Agencies * *”

      So what principals are you talking about there Chief?

  36. LAPD Pro-2nd Ammendment says:

    So know not only is my department lead by a bunch of draft dodging toe-touchers! But now the gun industry is going to have all the pro 2nd amendment advocates fighting with each other, because companies are caving like an old pig-bladder! And malcontents who are to fucking stupid to see the light are clapping like a bunch of sissified lemmings….Great job! I fucking hate mediocrity, but man is it embraced by a lot of dolt!

  37. Anonymous says:

    I support the 2A and I appreciate LT trying to take action to support the 2A. However, this policy essentially means LT does not care about LE! Suppose you are an LE in CA or another state with ridiculous laws…and you want a LaRue AR. If you work in CA, LaRue will only sell you an AR with a non-removable mag….really! Legally they can file a BATF form 5, get a back ground check and be legal. Who are you punishing LaRue? Do you not think LE members in these states don’t support the 2A or aren’t trying to fix Fienstien stupidity in their states…most are! Makes me think LaRue is taking the easy way out. So of LaRue wants to not support LE….then I will tell everyone I know to not support your business!!!!!!! I just spent $5500 with LaRue and was going to place another order with them next week…..that will not be happening even though the state I live and work in is pro 2A!

    • Anon says:

      Stop blaming LaRue. You only have your chiefs organizations and fop to blame.

      • Aninymous says:

        Really….I vote, I am a life time member of the NRA, I lobby in my State…..Stupid takes a long time to fix…..why our Pro2A supporters allowing us to be divided? I don’t get a say in who the idiot Police of Chief is or have any influence in his liberal ways. It would be awesome of responsible citizens armed and protected themselves…it is there duty! Why not apply it to the military….because it is ludicrous! Yet drug cartels and gangsters won’t follow it, but LE should be restricted in what they can defend themselves with. Makes no sense to put the burden on American LE to change the politicians!

        • Smith says:

          Chief Ken James,

          “A gun is not a defensive weapon. A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power. Police officers do not carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to do their jobs in a safe and effective manner and face any opposition that we may come upon”

          • Anon says:

            I suppose “If you argue with an idiot, those who are watching will often not be able to tell the difference between the two”

          • Anon says:

            Where did you learn your assume investigative skills- CNN or NBC. Take the words of a Chief whose city is not even 2 square miles and borders one of the nations most liberal areas Berkley CA. Yep that is obviously what all LE in America think! I bet all 10 of the officers he commands are in agreement with your quote! I hope you spend a lot of money with La Rue because they will lose a lot of customers over this! Which is good because LaRue is restricting the purchase of guns to people who can legally buy them. Any gun company who restricts the sell of guns to Americans should be shut down!!!!

  38. Gus says:

    Thank you. I will be one of your customers from now on. Got bless you and got bless America

  39. Lcosdiver says:

    Thanks for standing up on this! I hope more manufacturers and venders will take a stand on this…. perhaps the idiots in the government will listen to the LEOs since they won’t listen to their citizens.

  40. Randy says:

    Politicians listen to Police Chiefs and the LEO Unions, not the citizens. Police Chiefs across the country are touting the restrictions on law abiding citizens, if they are to feel the same pinch, as they should be held to the same standard as citizens, as they are citizens as well, then maybe Police Chiefs will have a sudden reaction of common sense. Cops are not above the law and if the citizens should have restrictions for public safety, then the enforcers of public safety should no longer need those types of firearms. This is applying the Police Chiefs’ and the LEO Unions’ logic to their own departments.

    • mike says:

      People sometimes confuse the actions or words of a anti 2A Police Chief or Sheriff as a direct reflection of the individuals working for the department. Police Chiefs are puppets of the mayor or city council and the Sheriff is a politician with a badge looking to gain votes for the next election so they can continue collecting a pay check. There are exceptions, but not many.

      Police and Sheriff Unions are only interested in doing what will gain them favors for the next contract negotiation and could care less what the majority of the membership believes in.

      Most LEO’s are very pro 2A, but can only voice their opinion as private civilians. If they stand up in uniform and voice their opinion they will be disciplined or fired because it’s usually a violation of department policy and for good reason. Their job is not to campaign for one side or the other when in uniform, it’s to go out and keep the peace. Unfortunately the heads of LE agencies rarely hold themselves to the same standards as the rank and file.

      Just like the military, cops in uniform are used like puppets to push political agendas.

  41. Agent Orange says:

    Good job LaRue! Glad to see more manufacturers stepping up to the plate and taking a stand. We’re all created equal men, so we should all be treated the same.

  42. RowlandP says:

    Well done. Now if Glock, S&W and Sig would follow your lead. It’s time to suspend the sale of firearms, parts and ammunition to the governments of states that abuse their citizens.

  43. Randy says:

    I guess i should have said Liberal politicians, Conservative politicians do listen to their citizens. Criminals dont obey the law and law abiding citizens may become criminals just by some of these very laws only because they hold true to their constitutional rights.
    So if you are a police officer dont say, “What about me?” As if you are better than those that you are there to serve and protect. Instead say “What about us law abiding citizens”? Talk to your unions and your police chiefs and your politicians; cross that thin blue line and make a stand for the red, white and blue.

  44. josh says:

    I would love to see law enforcement stand on our side of the 2nd amendment. Most already do but I am talking about whole departments like the stance Utah has taken.

    • mike says:

      Most LEO’s do, but as private civilians. They can’t stand up in uniform because it’s against the policies of most agencies to do so and they will be fired or disciplined if they do.

  45. Murray says:

    Thumbs up for LaRue! Just watched this video of a legal immigrant testifying pro gun. Inspiring!

  46. majrod says:

    Way to go LT!!! I need a new upper. I’ll be looking if I can afford an LT product.

    While I sympathize with state and local LEO impacted by this decision it’s state and local police who stand behind state politicians who create more anti 2nd amendment laws and while many law enforcement are pro 2A there are many that aren’t.

    Those LEO that are the most vocal here weren’t as vocal about 2A issues until they got lumped into their state’s plain Jane citizenry. Welcome to the club. I wonder if you’ve written a letter as strongly worded to your union or supervisors?

    I’d like to see LT expand the ban to Feds working inside certain states especially the ATF. Misery loves company. I also understand that there is a bottom line and until we see the military violating posse comitatus I don’t see why they should fall under the policy. BTW, the feds don’t get their weapons through military channels. They have their own purchasing channels.

    Hey MagPul, you listening?

  47. Caleb says:

    LEO that are bitching: Welcome to the real world. Hold your union superiors responsible for the political grandstanding they do in support of sheeple state gov’t, and you’ll be able to own a superior rifle. Until then, be a slave to their whims. Welcome to the world regular gun-owners live in.

  48. JDT says:

    It seems like there is a misconception in this comment thread that LEOs believe they are above the law. I think we all understand the reality of the situation. If a ban on a state or federal level is passed there will still be “assault” weapons and high-capacity magazines available on the black market or from other states with less restrictive gun laws. A sales policy as LaRue has adopted will only serve to prevent officers and agencies from obtaining the proper tools to do their jobs. As some have noted, they are their own protectors. I agree that self-protection is, and should be, a personal responsibility. However, what about those who are unable to protect themselves? Just because one is not able to defend his- or herself does not mean they deserve to be victimized.

    I am a federal LEO who uses his own rifle for duty because his agency cannot afford to buy enough for each officer. It is my duty to perform my job to the best of my ability. If that means buying my own tools for the job, so be it. I am pro 2A; a member of the NRA; have a CCL (and exercise it); and have contacted my state and federal representatives concerning my opinion on gun control. As of right now I am unaffected by LaRue’s policy, but there are officers like me on the State and Local levels doing the same exact job with the same or greater amount of dedication. Government budgets already have LEOs across the country doing more with less. Sales policies like LaRue’s becoming widespread would only put these men and women at a greater disadvantage.

    The hypocrisy of not extending the policy towards Mil/FedLE only serves to undermine the entire statement that LaRue is sending. As a supporter of the Second Amendment I appreciate LaRue’s gesture and respect their decision as a private corporation. However, I cannot help think of the phrase “cutting off the nose to spite the face.” Targeting individual officers to apply political pressure to legislators and policy-makers far removed from LEOs is the wrong way to approach the problem. It will only alienate current and prospective customers and further fracture those groups supporting the Second Amendment.

    • majrod says:

      “It will only alienate current and prospective customers and further fracture those groups supporting the Second Amendment.”

      With all due respect I think it actually garners more customers and those LEO impacted are in the most liberal states that also happen to have law enforcement present as they promote more gun control and are held up as examples to the nation. Chicago, NYC, LA are all primary examples of this phenomena.

      Check out his link and note who’s in the background…

      Here’s another one. Who’s behind Sen Feinstien?

      LT isn’t the only ones fracturing 2A rights groups and they aren’t punishing all gun owners unlike the LEO in the pictures above.

      As a citizen I don’t see or hear of any contrary positions from those departments officers. I understand police may have to enforce the local law but they don’t have to agree with it.

      Appreciate all you do but what about a suggestion on how to deal with LEO that do support more gun control? I don’t have anything against LEO but they have to do their share and it starts by admiting there’s a lot of LEO that don’t support citizens 2A rights. That’s tough. Loyalty between LEO is legendary right or wrong.

    • J ay Dub says:

      I agree. Well said.

  49. JG says:

    I completely support LaRue’s decision on this. I’ve read the comments from law enforcement officers here and how unfair it is to them, and how it is above their grade that the decisions are being made. But I have also seen on many occasions sheriff and police department heads backing a ban on high capacity magazines, “assault riles”, etc. If there was no support for a ban at the local law enforcement level, then the support at the state and federal level would also dry up. I believe recently a press conference was held in Minneapolis showing the police captain’s support for such a ban.

    I am also concerned about the over militarization of local law enforcement. Why exactly do local and state law enforcement officers need to wear camouflage uniforms, carry fully automatic weapons, suppressed weapons, etc? Most threats the police are responding to are a single perpetrator, not an enemy fireteam. For that matter, why do they need high capacity magazines? If the police are proficient with their assigned weapons, then shot placement should be more important than volume of fire. One or two criminals should be able to be brought down with a couple well placed shots, not 30~60 rounds from an AR-15 type rifle or 17~34 rounds from a Glock 17. The danger in having higher capacity magazines for law enforcement is the mindset that if I miss, I have plenty more rounds to try and make the hit. If an officer had a revolver, then I would imagine his mind would be more focused on making every round count.

    I would argue that high capacity magazines are more appropriate for civilians and the military as the circumstances for both are different than for a law enforcement officer. The average Soldier, not SF types, gets to shoot an appalling few rounds for training. When I was in the Army, we hit the range once or twice a year, got about 10 rounds to zero and then 40 to qualify. Less training and more stress generally means lower accuracy. Plus, Soldiers have the need for suppressing fire; law enforcement does not. Civilians can also benefit from higher capacity magazines for many of the same reasons. Less time to practice, the stress of home invaders, etc.

    While it would be good for LaRue to extend their new policy to the federal and military sales, I can see their reasoning. To the law enforcement officers who see this as hypocrisy, maybe take it up with your chain of command and ask why your department, city or state is so willing to limit or take away the rights of the citizens.

    Thank you, LaRue, and I will be purchasing from your company, barring a federal ban!

    • JDT says:


      I just wanted to address a few of the items you’ve brought up:

      Many of those PD/SO heads you see publicly backing gun control legislation are politically motivated (either having future political aspirations, were appointed to his/her position, or, in the case of many sheriffs, were voted into office like any other elected official). If they were genuine public servants they would stay out of politics and focus on enforcing the laws on the books (not lobbying to get new ones passed). LEOs are a function of the executive, not the legislative branch.

      I also saw footage of that press conference in Minnesota (?) and I cringed at the sight of using officers to imply that all LEOs support gun control. I am sure those several dozen officers had better things to do like preventing or investigating crimes. And I wonder how many of them were ordered to stand on that stage whether they supported the message or not.

      Training shortfalls are not confined to the Army. I have worked postings where I was allotted just enough ammunition to qualify and afforded no time to practice. Without delving too deep into shot placement/magazine capacity/tactics/militarization… Of course shot placement is important; however, suppressing fire is a useful tactic if the background is clear and you need to maneuver on a shooter. Magazine capacity greater than 6 or 10 will certainly help in implementing this tactic. High-capacity magazines are useful to LE for the same reasons they are useful to military and civilian users. To argue that LE should not have high-capacity magazines is to effectively support a ban on those same magazines for everyone.

      Historically LE agencies’ equipment and tactics are reactive to threats faced “on the streets”. Generally their militarization is in proportion and response to the militarization of the general population. And for what it’s worth, aside from some FBI and Secret Service folks I’ve worked with, I have yet to see any other cop issued a fully automatic rifle and/or suppressor.

      • JG says:


        Thanks for replying to my post. My comments on the high capacity magazines was meant to point out that no one, civilian, military or LE should be limited on magazine capacity. Everyone can benefit from the larger capacity that is offered by a 10+ round magazine. I do support LE officers being able to use the best tools available for their job, as they should support the average citizen the same right and access to those tools for their own personal protection, or that of their home and family.

        I have had coworkers tell me that it is ok to have a magazine and “assault weapons” ban…as long as THEIR guns and magazines were not taken away. To me, that is rather self serving, much like some of the posts from LE officers here. If you aren’t willing to fight for the rights of those you serve, i.e. the public, then why are you in a public service position? I am former Army and a current civil servant and take my oath to support and defend the constitution, all parts of it, seriously. The second amendment is just as valid today with regards to an AR-15 as compared to a musket as the first amendment is to a public speech or printed word as compared to email, video or tweets. The technology has changed, but not the spirit of the rights it affirms.

  50. mike says:

    Mark had me till the Fed part. So Federal agencies residing in DC, which has the worst anti gun laws are good to go. Why the double standard?

    • Blue Line says:

      Because he just won his first large federal contract with a department of energy agency. Can’t send the, their 14.5″ guns if they were included. I understand what his thought process is, make a statement and hope the people in charge listen. Unfortunately that isn’t what’s going to happen.

      • LAPD Pro-2nd Ammendment says:

        10 ring hit Blueline! Ill thought out decision.

      • mike says:

        I already knew the answer, was hoping someone might take a second to read through the lines though. First off I’m a huge Larue Fan, support them, and will continue to buy their products, but I’m not stupid. Lets all be honest here. Mark is a VERY smart businessman and this was a very smart and calculated business move as well as a symbolic pro 2A move.

        Basically Larue sat back and said how can we make a pro 2A statement that will get a lot of publicity and increase sales. I know, we will eliminate a small portion of potential LE sales, give a free pass to the federal agencies so we don’t lose our recent contract and get a surge in sales from the publicity.

        If they were really serious about making a statement they would have included federal agencies, tribal police, and foreign governments that restrict their citizens right to bear arms. They would have also required that their retailers not sell to any of the agencies listed.

        The reality is that the agencies effected can still buy all the Larue rifles they want. They just can’t buy direct or they must be configured in a way that meets the laws set for civilian ownership in that location. Doesn’t mean they can’t remove the fixed 10rnd or 7rnd mag after it’s delivered. So all you guys up in arms that your agency won’t be able to get the best equipment anymore can now relax. I don’t believe for a second that Larue Tactical thinks America’s Law Enforcement should be sent into the fight with one hand tied behind their back and their lives used as pawns to send a political message. At the same time anyone who thinks Larue would have made this same policy change if they were in the middle of filling a million dollar contract to LAPD or NYPD is stupid. Mark is a very smart businessman, friend to LE/MIL and supporter of the 2A.

        This was a calculated move to bring awareness to the 2A and increase sales at the same time. That’s why he makes the big bucks and I don’t 🙂

        • veteran says:

          Please don’t forget the fact all the new 2A infringements are state and local laws and nothing has been passed by the federal government yet! LT is addressing the issue without going “full retard” and possibly hurting his business at the same time…

          I would not be surprised if when the federal government passes such legislation we will see LT post some similar news release and cross that bridge then.

          • mike says:


            So in your eyes the feds are good for now because they haven’t passed any new laws and the old ones are acceptable?

            “Non-sporting firearms are still prohibited from importation under sections 922(l) and 925(d)(3) of the GCA. Because the vast majority of SAWs (semiautomatic assault weapons) are nonsporting, they generally cannot be imported.”

            The feds are actively doing what they can to prevent you from obtaining assault weapons and have been for years even though the AW ban is over.

            Washington DC, the nations capital, which is controlled by Congress has the strictest gun laws around and has banned American Citizens living there from owning assault weapons and mags over 10 rounds. So if an American Citizen in DC can’t own an assault weapon or a high cap mag shouldn’t Larue also stop selling to federal agencies since DC is controlled by the Federal Government? If Larue was serious about this they would have applied this to federal agencies also. But that would have meant losing a substantial government contract.

            Last couple times I drove onto an Indian Reservation there were signs saying firearms were prohibited. Since American Citizens are prohibited from exercising there 2A rights on the reservation why aren’t Tribal Governments mentioned?

            like I said, read between the lines and see this for what it really is.

          • veteran says:

            We are talking about a business here!!!!! Not politics!!!!

            I agree with you that the feds are subversively working toward their end goal of making us bow to their every goal, but I am saying that if I was a business owner the only way to stay in business but still make a stand and protect my ass would be to address what is already out in the light and clearly identified in direct response to the recent tragic events which we have watch unfold.

            I am actively writing and calling my “elected officials” both state and federal giving them hell weekly but as far as what a business can do and remain in business, LT, Dawson Precision and Barrett have made their point known.

            At the very least it has brought about a new sense of urgency as the manufacturers have caused this big of a stir since releasing their position….

            You are right though when you basically say we have a bigger fight on our hands, but we cannot even address that until we clean up the local and state level infringements.

          • mike says:

            You’re right, this has created at stir, but only among people who are already on the side of the 2A. Everyone who wants more restrictions doesn’t care. The one thing that does make politicians listen is money. My argument would be to continue taking the money from the state and local governments and use it fight their anti-gun agenda using the tax dollars. Law Enforcement gets the tools they need, Larue makes more money, and tax dollars get used to fight gun control all at the same time.

          • veteran says:

            Good points Mike and I am agreement with you. We can only hope they will eventually in the not so distant future take their policy a step further… but for now, I am pretty excited they are taking the proactive steps they are.