Raptar-S from Wilcox Industries

Olympic Arms Issues New York State Sales Policy

Almost on the heels of LaRue Tactical‘s controversial policy on sales to LE in areas that restrict civilian ownership of their products, Olympic Arms issued this statement yesterday regarding sales of their products to law enforcement in the State of New York. Say what you will but Oly Arms has been in this for the long haul. In fact, I owned one before the 1994 AWB.

Press Release: Olympic Arms, Inc. Announces New York State Sales Policy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Olympic Arms is a staunch believer in and defender of the Constitution of the United States, and with special attention paid to the Bill of Rights that succinctly enumerates the security of our Divinely given Rights. One of those Rights is that to Keep and Bear Arms.

Legislation recently passed in the State of New York outlaws the AR15 and many other firearms, and will make it illegal for the good and free citizens of New York to own a large selection of legal and safe firearms and magazines. We feel as though the passage of this legislation exceeds the authority granted to the government of New York by its citizens, and violates the Constitution of the United States, ignoring such SCOTUS rulings as District of Columbia v. Heller – 554, U.S. 570 of 2008, McDonald v. Chicago – 561 U.S. 3025 of 2010, and specifically the case of United States v. Miller – 307 U.S. 174 of 1939.

Due the passing of this legislation, Olympic Arms would like to announce that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee of such an entity – will no longer be served as customers.

In short, Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York – henceforth and until such legislation is repealed, and an apology made to the good people of the State of New York and the American people.

If the leaders of the State of New York are willing to limit the right of the free and law abiding citizens of New York to arm themselves as they see fit under the Rights enumerate to all citizens of the United State through the Second Amendment, we feel as though the legislators and government entities within the State of New York should have to abide by the same restrictions.

This action has caused a division of the people into classes: Those the government deems valuable enough to protect with modern firearms, and those whose lives have been deemed as having less value, and whom the government has decided do not deserve the right to protect themselves with the same firearms. Olympic Arms will not support such behavior or policy against any citizen of this great nation.

Olympic Arms invites all firearms manufacturers, distributors and firearms dealers to join us in this action to refuse to do business with the State of New York. We must stand together, or we shall surely fall divided.

Sincerely,

Brian Schuetz
President
Olympic Arms, Inc.

Tags:

46 Responses to “Olympic Arms Issues New York State Sales Policy”

  1. Sgt B says:

    Let’s be honest, the legislation wasn’t passed by the people, it was forced in to place. I’m happy to see Olympic taking a stand. They’re a business and they have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose.

  2. droneboy says:

    Amen!

  3. tc8 says:

    There is something incredibly impressive about companies that put their money where their mouth is and take a stand. Wow. They really deserve our support.

    • Barrett did this very same thing years ago with California. When they Ban’d the M82. They discontinued serevice to all law enforcment agencies and government employees to the state of California. Then they promptly made the .416 ver of the M82, California legal (which has slightly better ballistics.

  4. Rob says:

    We need to see more manufacturers do the same… and in more states.

  5. Scott says:

    AWESOME!

  6. Tim says:

    This make me proud that a company would do this now if kimber and other would follow that would be awesome.

  7. chip says:

    excellent. lead by example

  8. Michael says:

    Now if all companies would do this instead of supplying the homeland security 7000 personal defense weapons. This would be great arm the American citizens not these agencies trying to grab for our rights.

  9. samual says:

    Thank god there are still true americans who care more about the country than their bottom line. god bless you olympic arms. i have never owned your products but will def buy one when they become available again at my shop. Thank you for doing the right thing and hopeful more will follow.

  10. Gyozo says:

    Olympic Arms a company that truly supports freedom.

  11. Jason Muzzy says:

    My first rifle was an Oly and my son’s first will be an Oly, thank you for doing what is right.

  12. Average joe says:

    Awesome! Now all that is needed is for glock, sig sauer, and smith and wesson to do the same! If their police force cannot get the firearms they want, the people will win.

  13. Eric B says:

    I had a long rant about Cuomo and his hypocrisy, but that’s all been said before. I support Oly and I hope more follow suit. I further hope the good people of New York finally recognize this gross violation of their rights, done with thunderous applause from the legislators.

  14. jonathan says:

    living in NY all i can say is thank you, when this ban is lifted i’ll be sure to place an order with EVERY company that takes this stance. the actions of companies like Olympic Arms and La Rue gave me a voice when i felt like i had none. again thank.

  15. Mr. European says:

    Whatever stockpiles of arms New York LE agencies have will last for some years at least, and I doubt they limit themselves in terms of suppliers.

    I don’t know how much total business OA even does with the state or its establishments, but if any other firearm companies work there, they just lost a competitor.

    Making a profit is the main purpose of any private company, so I very much doubt that all firearm suppliers will boycott New York. But surprises do happen.
    And for some reason (perhaps pessimism and cynicism) I doubt OA would completely stick to this. They’ll get political points and support from gun rights (and privileges) advocates, but I have a feeling they’ll try their best at making a profit with the mentioned agencies.

    Even if they genuinely stick to this, if there’s a backlog of orders already in place, will OA deliver on those and then not take any new ones, or just cancel all their pending deals and deliveries?

    By what I gather the agencies will need to look at more expensive alternatives eventually, so there’s going to be a bidding war.

    “This action has caused a division of the people into classes: Those the government deems valuable enough to protect with modern firearms, and those whose lives have been deemed as having less value”
    What are they trying to argue with that? Are they trying to say that those holding public office don’t need more protection than the general citizenry? Or that laws would be enforced differently for different income brackets (self-defence vs hired security)?

    In terms of self-defence would a person wielding a weapon designed for a 21st century soldier be more secure than a person having an old-school revolver or shotgun?
    A high-powered weapon can be dangerous in an inept user’s hands (to him/herself and others), but an older design can be highly effective in an experienced user’s hands.

    • SShink says:

      It’s just not the gubmints business to decide this for us. If they are allowed to, what comes next? Outlawing fast cars?

    • Eric B says:

      What are they trying to argue with that? Are they trying to say that those holding public office don’t need more protection than the general citizenry? Or that laws would be enforced differently for different income brackets (self-defence vs hired security)?

      Yes, I believe that is EXACTLY what they are trying to say. Why should a public official or a rich person have a greater right to protection then you or I? The Governor and many public officials have dedicated police security details 24-7. All to be armed with high-cap mag pistols, AR style rifles, and or SMGs. The public will not be permitted such protections, even in their homes. As statistics show, the general populace is subject to a greater threat of violence then public officials are, yet they cannot protect themselves in a similar manner.

      The law is not clear with regards to private security, but since so many are retired officers, they will be exempt. This will provide those who can afford private security (the rich, elite, and often as not liberals) more protection then the unwashed masses.

      Again I ask, why are some permitted greater protection simply because or their elected position or the size of their wallet? In a land of equality, we should all have equal access to the means to protect ourselves and our families.

      Your final statement regarding the effectiveness of older designs simply goes to the point of OA. Why provide more 21st Century weapons for officers if an old trusty 870 or wheelgun will do the trick? If this is correct, then apply the law to all. If it is not, then exempting law enforcement is elitist and hypocritical, at best.

      • Mr. European says:

        I disagree with any principle that says those whose pockets are fuller need more protection.
        But I do think those in higher positions (in the government structure) should be afforded protection needed to ensure their safety.
        Elected govt. officials (governors, mayors, representatives, etc.) have been entrusted a certain degree of power for their terms, and some might want to exploit any weaknesses these people have in order to access their power. Having a security apparatus preventing that is common sense.

        And that security apparatus needs the most suited equipment it needs to do its job. But I do like the idea of limiting certain segments (patrols and guards) to 12ga shotguns, especially since they can fire 12ga taser shells: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-03/shock-bullet
        But the security apparatus (i.e. the police) has different requirements for its use of force from the regular citizenry. But I do lament the militarization of police forces (aside from SWAT).

        Wheellocks? Please. Notoriously unreliable.
        Anything manually cycled (through separate action or pull of trigger) or with an integral magazine is good.

        • Matt says:

          We live in a Republic where the populace chooses representation to speak on our behalves. They were not endowed by our governing documents to be more or more important than the people which chose one of their own. Because they are citizens, no more and nor less, they deserve no more protection than those they serve. We are a country by the people and for the people. The only power we can impart on our country are those we choose to share collectively. If we, as a people, are not allowed arms, then neither can we grant that right to our elected representation, and definitely not to the unelected employees of those officials.

          Your argument for arming one group of citizens above others creates the caste system or Europe where the Lords have privileges, the street thugs have power of force, and the citizen is enslaved by both.

          Many of our ancestors fought to resist and reject that system of overlord-ship. Today, the US populace and local governments are rising up to vote down the self appointed Lords of our country..

          • Mr. European says:

            I am not advocating for the armed protection of individual persons per se, but the armed protection of their offices. An individual holds an office for a term, during which their security to exercise the powers of their office should be guaranteed. When out of office they shouldn’t need a protective cadre. No-one in a western democracy holds office for life.

            But when you go for civilian armament, in a world (no cliche intended) where firearm licensing is a political hot potato, general weapon feature restrictions would be the only way the state can seek a measure of internal safety and security. A state supposedly lead by representatives chosen from among and by the people.

            It is commendable that people safeguard their most principle right of determining the course of their society, but when mislead that force can be incredibly harmful. Populism is a terrifying weapon. This continent knows that very well.

            If you demand any practical aspects of the exercise of your democracy changed I’d say two options are most paramount: public funding of elections and a ban on gerrymandering. The former would ensure people would be voted for based on their ideas and not their wallets; the latter would prevent demographic manipulation.
            You can put term limits there as well, if you want. To prevent the creation of a political class.

    • james says:

      You sir have a very limitted scope of knowledge regarding what a 21st century soldier is wielding and I can assure you that it is not a single triger pull single shot rifle… as for the long rifle of the day when the 2A was drafted… it was state of the art and would have been consider one which a soldier would have used… sorry to see such a narrow minded individual with and even more limitted knowledge of fire arms would make such bold statements. You sir are wrong.

      • grant says:

        When the 2A was drafted a single triger pull single shot rifle was state of the art. civilians also owned bows, cross bows, cannon, mortar, crude rockets and any other weapon they could purchase manufacture or barter for. The idea of the 2A was to enable the citizens the ability and legal right to protect not only ones self but the community, state, or nation from anyone or government that would try force us to submit to the exertion of force should the need arise.
        I would also like to mention that hunting had nothing to do with the 2A. A gun was seldom used for hunting as it was considered a wasteful use of the gun when the bow was nearly as effective and wasted no resources. the arrow could be retrieved and reused even if they missed unlike the gunpowder and shot required to use the gun.

    • Doc B says:

      The AR-15 is not a “21st century” rifle, see Vietnam for proof. It is simply a very versatile weapon which sells at the top of the charts for several reasons.

      For you to call it “high-powered” means only that you have been lied to effectively. It is, by original standard, a 5.56mm/.223 caliber rifle – in certain places, too light a caliber to hunt certain game (not that the second amendment has anything at all to do with hunting). Most hunters who go out for deer or larger creatures prefer to use something in .30 or larger. I personally use a .308 during rifle season on whitetail, a .300 Win-mag for mule deer.

      Part of the reason for the popularity of the rifle, at least in my case, is its versatility. I can literally switch about just about any component of the weapon for one that I choose for whatever reason. It’s a lot like Lego in that regard. If you wish to use it for home defense, for instance, you can change the weapon to a caliber that YOU choose to make it by doing little more than pulling two pins, switching the upper receiver, and pushing the pins back in. Load appropriately, and Robert’s your father’s brother. You can defend your home, hunt appropriately-sized game, make holes in paper, make steel targets sing the ker-plink tune, the list goes on.

      Having served in our .mil for as long as I have, there is no other weapon system more appropriate for me. I have sat through somewhere around 6 million safety classes on it (approximate estimate), I am unable to estimate how many rounds I’ve put through them but since ’91 and after 7 years between Iraq and Afghanistan, I will say that it’s been at LEAST 10 or even 12 magazines’ worth…

      There is nothing better for me to be armed with, nor most any other living vet – I am not anything special.

      • Mr. European says:

        “High-powered” is short-hand, I won’t deny the limited nature of it.
        High-powered can mean anything from the used caliber (energy, range, etc.) to its fire rate and mode of action. In this instance I mean military caliber (5.56NATO primarily), semi-automatic weapons (which can be tweaked to full auto with after-market products).

        And I do know how the AR design works. I’m interested in military arms from an engineering standpoint, but I do not have intentions of owning such. Besides a stock SKS as a reservist weapon.

        The last point ties to your stated status as a veteran. I believe veterans who are in good mental and physical health should be given a license to derivatives of weapons they’ve been trained with (minus MGs, of course), in order to maintain their skills. Many in my country do have that privilege when they’re in reservist organizations, and we have conscription. One acceptable reason for getting a license for reservist rifles is participation in reservist/voluntary national defence activities. Ever heard of SRA?

        I used the ’76 version of the RK 62 during my year in the army, and I found it to be a very good weapon. But I wouldn’t buy an AK-based weapon when not serving. Too “powerful” for non-military use. An SKS has the same caliber, but is not as modern as the RK (integral mag, semi-automatic only, wooden stock), so that would be better in my view as a weapon owned when not serving.

        But that reminds me of a question on the AR platform: is there any upper receiver that is clip-fed? Seeing as the action resembles that of the MAS, Ljungmann and FAL rifles, this would be a sound design choice. And since they come with non-removable magazines, it would make reloading a bit easier than opening the whole weapon. And having a magazine reloaded with clips seems more kosher than using work-arounds like the bullet button.

  16. Eddie says:

    I am a New Yorker and I was so disappointed in my state government when they decided to make a very strict gun law state even stricter. Utterly ridiculous. These laws guarantee that now only criminals will be able to obtain firearms. I commend Olympic Arms for taking action and I will support any other firearm manufacturer who decides to take the same course of action. I promise to do my part and vote against ALL policy makers who supported this bill & support the NRA who defend our 2nd Amendment Rights.

  17. SShink says:

    BRAVO !

  18. Ash says:

    I hope this becomes a trend in the industry; it’d be nice if Glock joined in but I’d be truly surprised if they gave up any of their massive contracts willingly.

  19. mike says:

    I’m suddenly looking more fondly at my Olympic carbine. Good show, guys!

  20. Ivan says:

    I am a LEO in California which appears to be following in New York’s footsteps. I will likely be affected by any similar positions taken by manufacturers with respect to California. I applaud Olympic Arms and other principled manufacturers.

    • james says:

      you already are not being serviced by Barrett… nor do you have access to .50 Cal anything… I feel you are already there… and I am sorry for that. You have a job to do and your service should not be happered by such silly people in office…

  21. majrod says:

    Way to go Olympic!

    What about MagPul and like was said, Glock?

  22. MACK says:

    It’s seems like only when the safety of those in government is compromised do we see action. Those in government can not be two faced when it comes to our constitutional rights.

    I belive we are seeing the first testing ground with NY.

  23. veteran says:

    Good stuff Oly, good stuff…

  24. Bman says:

    I don’t really agree with them refusing to sell to any and all employees of New York and law enforcement officers who are buying privately. Employees of the state include those in the National Guard who serve to protect our freedoms as do law enforcement officers. I understand it is their right though and ultimately New York’s doing. I wont even visit New York so I would never consider living there for the taxes alone. I don’t understand how anyone could. I just hope they have a list of all the law makers that passed the bill and refuse to sell to them

  25. Bman says:

    I agree with some of the comments about Glock but I think they are already losing a lot of contracts to Smith and Wesson so they probably don’t to lose so much money in New York. New York City PD alone would probably change the tune of the state. On top of that, current contracts are probably another reason they don’t simply drop New York as a customer as they might get in legal trouble. I wonder if they would honor only current contracts.

  26. Mike D. says:

    Bravo! A company that operates on principle is a rarity these days.

  27. I hope that the AAFES located in NY and any other State that fall under a “No Sale” ban would be excluded. Weapons sales and ammunition / related items are increasing each year dramatically in the PXs. This is a sanctuary for Service members from all parts of the US and they are serving in a State that they are probably not a resident of.

  28. Dan M says:

    If Magpul gets pushed out of CO and all those people lose their jobs I hope they start a similar policy.

  29. J Young says:

    Good on Oly Arms and Larue for standing up for the rights of legal law abiding citizens. It takes some bawls to put your money where mouth is. Very impressed with Olympic Arms, bravo!

  30. reverend says:

    HEY! If a bunch of Pro-2nd supporters/vendors can shut down the Eastern Outdoor Show for not supporting us, what does the State of New York think they’re going to do if ALL of us just boycott NY?

    As a “free” country, we have to right to do business with whomever we choose. In turn, I feel businesses have the right to do transactions with whomever they choose. If you do not support my values, why should I support you? And Vice Versa.