Aquaterro

Arc’teryx Is Not Anti-Gun

Truth be told, Arc’teryx doesn’t have a corporate policy on guns. Why would they? They are a Canadian clothing company. Granted, they have a division dedicated to Law Enforcement and Armed Forces customers, but they remain an outdoor brand.

But that didn’t stop a viral narrative from forming today after an employee of Arc’teryx’s corporate sales team sent this email to a member of the US firearms industry who has done business with Arc’teryx in the past, purchasing clothing embroidered with their corporate logo.

This image went viral. It’s an email from an actual Arc’teryx employee, but it doesn’t reflect policy.

Several people reached out to me to see if it was true. I told them I’d find out, and I did.

The email looked legitimate, but I was skeptical of the story since I had just received an Arc’teryx fleece along with others from SIG Sauer during a Defense Media event a few weeks back. What’s more, SIG Academy’s pro shop is well stocked with LEAF product embroidered with the SIG logo.

Instead of what is asserted in the email, interaction with the tactical industry (to include firearms related businesses) has transitioned to the LEAF team from corporate sales since those businesses have more in common with LEAF.

What I gather happened was that the Service Coordinator misunderstood the situation and thought that since the Professional & Corporate Sales Team would no longer handle those clients, Arc’teryx writ large was no longer doing business with them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Internally, this has been addressed.

I reached out to the receiver of the email who wishes to remain anonymous, but they didn’t answer my query which was very short suspense. Unfortunately, they went to others in the firearms industry to verify the purported policy shift rather than taking the issue up the chain at Arc’teryx.

Within 10 minutes of contacting Arc’teryx I was able to verify that the information in the email was incorrect and did not reflect corporate policy.

Arc’teryx provided me with this statement:

“The email screenshot expressing a restrictive policy on corporate sales to tactical industry business was sent out in error. It does not reflect our current policy. The customer has been notified, apologized to, and been put in touch with a representative from the Arc’teryx LEAF business unit”.

In the end, this is a horrible misunderstanding gone viral. Unfortunately, many are embracing the narrative to validate their own feelings rather than looking at the facts and understanding that this is a very big misunderstanding. Still others have used this incident for gain.

If you’ve ever been frustrated by so-called cancel culture, this is a classic example where narrative got out in front of fact. And the fact is, Arc’teryx LEAF remains committed to continue to conduct business with its industry partners, just like it has for over a decade.

215 Responses to “Arc’teryx Is Not Anti-Gun”

  1. Oh Billy..... says:

    Some of y’all need to take a knee and drink water.

  2. Alpha2 says:

    So, I am about set to throw a few steaks on the grill and enjoy this awesome 93 degree weather my beautiful wife and daughter but I gotta know, do I burn my Atom jacket when I am done with the steaks?

    Relax gents. Go enjoy Father’s Day with the family.

  3. UntilElysium says:

    #IStandwithRobynn

    • SSD says:

      For what? Sure, she doesn’t deserve death threats, but she screwed up and caused an undeserved backlash against her employer.

      • UntilElysium says:

        Because of all those points you mentioned.

        But mostly because if you would take a step back off the line for just a moment and remember; this too will pass.

        Arc’teryx will weather this storm. They have and will always be a polarizing brand.

        And yet the storm raging in that woman’s mind and heart with what she did, regardless of her political or social views, and the ensuing anger it has “woke”, deserves respite.

  4. weizer says:

    Arcteryx will probably be around for awhile because it is a fashionable and stylish brand, but their little LEAF is running on fumes due to apprehensions about their ownership and the fact that they can make more money selling overpriced extreme environment-inspired clothing to western world liberals/socialists (like the aforementioned Arc employee spouting anti-gun) who have no problems buying from a company like Arcteryx.

  5. .308 says:

    None of this should be a surprise to anyone who is in “the industry”… people dont like “us” banks, insurance, real estate, the list goes on… don’t be so sensitive.

  6. Unimog says:

    Can we at least agree that Kuhl makes better clothing?

    In the end everyone is free to spend their money how they see fit and companies are entitled to chose their stances on any topic they wish. If you believe they don’t represent your interests then don’t buy it, there is always another company that will tell you what you want to hear , regardless if they believe it or not.

    • SSD says:

      Pants, Kuhl is great. Everything else? Not so much.

      Everything else you said is spot on.

  7. Justa Joe says:

    Seems to me there’s an inconsistency between the SSD article, the response from Arc’teryx and the recipient of the original e-mail. If Arc’teryx really reached out to the email recipient, and the recipient “been notified, apologized to, and been put in touch with a representative from the Arc’teryx LEAF business unit”, then why, as SSD states, did the original recipient go “to others in the firearms industry to verify the purported policy shift rather than taking the issue up the chain at Arc’teryx?”

    Seems to me something doesn’t add up. If the original recipient was apologized to, then they should step up and acknowledge such. Regardless, if Arc’teryx is truly open to supporting the gun industry, they need to step up and broadcast it far & wide.

    • SSD says:

      There’s no inconsistency. The email went viral on Saturday and on Saturday, Arc’teryx reached out to the recipient and issued their statement. Corporate has no idea the email had been sent Friday afternoon because no one had questioned it until I did on Saturday after it went viral.

  8. Nicks87 says:

    I think everyone should burn or sell their deadbird gear immediately.

    About selling, maybe not the best idea since it’s gonna be hard with the marked flooded with XXXXL gravy seal sizes.

    Fat retarded keyboard warriors.

  9. Lasse says:

    Here is a hot take; Supplying the professional armed forces and police doesn’t mean you’re pro civie gun ownership. I bet if you did a poll of people working at Arc, a huge majority would be against civie gun ownership. Why? Because Vancouver is in Canada and Canada isn’t the US.

    And everyone’s boycotts are looking real good in their Condor gear.

  10. Jack says:

    Arc’teryx can claim to not be anti firearm. I know what I believe, but I can’t prove that one way or the other. What I can say for certain is that they are not supporters of law enforcement or military service members. Their own website offers proof of this. At the bottom of their home page is a link to their professional program. The list of individuals eligible for their program does not include the police or military. In fact, it specifically states that it excludes these groups. That alone should be enough to tell their customers what they think of these two groups.

    • SSD says:

      There’s a reason for this. Several years ago they suspended their corporate program so that they were no longer competing with, and undercutting their retailers. Now, LEAF customers go direct to their retailer of choice and enjoy discounts there.

  11. Rob K says:

    Just imagine if the community put this much effort into leaving comments on a potential change by the ATF……

    • Amer-Rican says:

      Just imagine if the gun community put this much effort into boycotting gun industry companies that are chy neez owned- like H010s0n and 0ligh+. It has to start somewhere, and better to start off with small and very specific goals.

  12. Robert Silvers says:

    Two things can be true at once. They don’t want to work with the gun industry which it’s pretty clear that womxn was briefed on, and they allow Leaf to do so.

    I stopped liking them when they refused to repair my jacket that I bought in the 1990s. It fell apart sitting in my closet. They said their “lifetime warranty” was not for the life of the owner and just for the life of the garment which to them is about ten years. I supported them before anyone ever heard of the brand, and my Marmot jacket of the same age never delaminated. Thankfully REI stepped up and gave me a credit where Arc’Teryx and Gore wouldn’t do a thing.

  13. Major Smoof says:

    All the pearls being clutched here!

  14. Sparky says:

    SSD,

    Is it possible that, considering the question came from you, a news outlet ao-to-speak, that damage control had to be done? It wouldn’t be too far afield to not want bad publicity from a company that seeks military contracts but wants to walk the fine line of not upsetting a primarily gun culture based community of veterans.

    Wasn’t Patagonia in an extremely similar position with their civilian market vs. Military product line?

    I’m not trying to raise the B.S. flag here, I’m just asking if this angle has been considered once you received a response. If so, I’d feel more comfortable with the outcome.

    • SSD says:

      You call it damage control. I call it correcting bad information. Either way, they continue to do business with firearms companies.

      As far as contracts go, that isn’t how it works. Contracts are based on three things:
      1. Cost
      2. Performance
      3. Delivery

      Federal KOs could care less what company the end user likes.

      However, Arc’teryx currently doesn’t manufacture anything in the US making them ineligible for military contracts.

      Any Arc’teryx products which are purchased for military use are done so via micro purchase, so below $150,000.

      • KevinB says:

        Arc used to make LEAF Gear in Canada – making it Berry compliant

        Honesty I’m not interested in what was in the Email, or why. This is America, if a company wants to have some policy that is up to them. I’m curious what company hires the sort of douche that throws someone under the bus and doesn’t attach their own name.

        If I throw someone under the bus I at least attach my name and contact info.

        • SSD says:

          Just a point, products have to be made in the USA from US origin materials to be Berry compliant. NAFTA doesn’t count.

          • KevinB says:

            I’m was sure Canada still counts as far as nylon goods etc goes for Berry Compliance. It’s been years since I had to look into it, but I just checked OSD regulations and it still allows for Canadian manufacture of protected Berry and Buy American Act items at a below $7.38M USD contract ceiling without needing to get waivers at the Secretary Level.

            But regardless most units/entities buying Arc stuff don’t need to care due to quantities or contract type as you noted above.

  15. Frank says:

    200th Comment! Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!

  16. M6 Actual says:

    Arc’teryx hasn’t been a wholly owned Canadian Company since 2019 – so the first paragraph in the SSD article is incorrect.

    Arc’teryx is owned by the Anta Sports group who are based in Jinjiang China. They are one of the worlds largest sporting goods manufacturers.

    Thus is if you are buying Arc’teryx products – you are directly supporting manufacturing in the peoples republic of China and all that it represents.

    • SSD says:

      It’s a Canada based company and operates as such. It was not owned by Canadians prior to its sale but rather Finns as it is part of AmerSports and was sold to a group of investors which includes Anta, a Chinese company. Another one of the investors is the former owner of Lulu Lemon who is Canadian. Ironically, Arc’teryx has more Canadian ownership now than when it did before the Chinese became owners.

      If you’re going to speak with authority, be sure to know what your saying.

    • Amer-Rican says:

      Buying from a partially or wholly chy neez OWNED company is even more egregious than buying something that is only MADE in chy nuh- but the latter is still unacceptable .

      We in the gun community, when buying GUN RELATED products, have the luxury of rejecting the chicom companies’ products and sticking to products from free world western nations, because chi-nuh hasn’t destroyed the optics and lighting industries- YET.

      Just because we can’t buy internet devices that aren’t made in Ch!-nah doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to boycott chyneez companies when we can- companies like H010S0n and 0Lite.

      NEVER FORGET that Ch1-nuhh INTENTIONALLY allowed international flights out of W00 Han so the virus would spread- while they blocked domestic flights from W0o-han.

      NEVER FORGET that chynahh is waging economic war on the free world- and doing major damage.

      NEVER FORGET that chynah sent more than 370,000 combat troops into North Korea to kill American and allied troops in the Korean War.

  17. Mick says:

    Response to this story is insane.
    But good reporting, good on SSD for actually following up and asking.
    I have to say though, I also get how the email recipient would be like “What? Hey guys, get a load of this! Can you believe it?”
    Extra due diligence is almost always warranted, but I get why that email response would cause so much surprise and shock that they wouldn’t follow up.
    An employee misunderstanding corporate policy is entirely plausible to me; I don’t think it’s a secret agenda so much as “corporate has 200 policies and email sender forgot/misunderstood policy #142…”
    Mick
    He/His/Him
    (included b/c evidently that triggers every other SSD reader lol)

    • KevinB says:

      Mick,
      Never put down to malice what can be attributed to incompetence…

      I’m pretty sure you are correct — mainly as Arc’Teryx has always been pretty supportive of Mil folks – both giving out T&E gear to folks deploying – or belts, beanies and beer at SHOT.
      They sent several folks to one of John “Shrek” McPhee’s classes several years ago, and gave a ton of gear to Army folks at it as well (I was there, so first hand knowledge).