Customer Privacy Upheld
Fort Worth, Texas — Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc. (BMG) has successfully resolved our prolonged legal dispute with the State of California, initiated in August 2021 in San Francisco by Chesa Boudin, the former SF District Attorney who was later ousted by San Francisco voters in a 2022 recall election. The state wrongfully alleged that 80% frames and receivers sold by our company were firearms. This case has now come to a close after intense litigation. Our refusal to disclose customer data, even in the face of substantial legal costs to keep customer data private, underscores our dedication to privacy.
Throughout this challenging period, BMG has consistently upheld its principles, dedicating over 2.5 million dollars toward legal expenses aimed at safeguarding customer information from the State of California. To further ensure our customers’ confidentiality and to end ever-climbing litigation expenses, a settlement of $500,000 was reached to end this abusive litigation.
Resuming California Sales and Advocacy
We are pleased to announce that, following this settlement, we will resume offering products to our customers in California that comply with current state and federal laws. We continue to vigorously defend Second Amendment rights, with our case, VanDerStok et. al. v. Garland, set to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States this October.
About Blackhawk Manufacturing Group
Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, dba 80 Percent Arms, is a leader in pro-Second Amendment legal actions against overregulation and the preeminent manufacturer of 80% lowers and jigs. We’re committed to upholding the highest standards of quality and service in the industry.
Thank you for standing with us and we look forward to serving the community of builders for years to come.
For further information, please contact:
80 Percent Arms Support at support@80percentarms.com
who pays the $500k settlement and who gets the $500k? does it mean that Blawkhawk paid $500k to the state to be allowed to continue to sell their products? if so, then should the prosecutor be charged with extortion? I’m trying to figure out this settlement.