What if firearm manufacturers did this?

[O2HeN2]

Just wondering aloud...

What if the gun and magazine manufacturers sold guns and magazines with a legal, binding restriction that they cannot be used by any governmental agency in an area where the guns and magazines cannot be legally possessed by ordinary citizens. With a contractual incentive (say, a cool million dollars per contractual violation) to stay within the bounds of the contract. If you buy, you agree to the contract.

This contractual obligation would have to be durable and transfer with the firearm no matter how many times it’s sold (I hate to add stamped text on the firearm, but that would do it).

I think you’d see magazine bans and firearm restrictions vanish overnight, because the police would have to get on our side if they want their toys.

Either that, or one heck of a lot of firearm companies are going vanish if a civilian ban on firearms materializes and they can only sell to the government, which is a drop in the bucket of sales.

Seems to me such a move made immediately would be in the firearm industry's best interest.

O2

[johndoe3]

Sounds like more control of industry, with sort of a fascist-like taste to the apple.

[O2HeN2]

Sounds like more more control of industry, with sort of a fascist-like taste to the apple.

Nope, pure capitalism. No one will force manufacturers to do this and no government involvement unless a civil case arises, and then it's just the courts.

Again, it's a pure contractual agreement. The heart of capitalism.

O2

[T-Rex]

The issue would be that the contracting agency is the one to set the contract stipulations.
Anything above and beyond would be deemed as not meeting bid specifics.
Someone would give, as they're in it for the $$

[doubloon]

...
Someone would give, as they're in it for the $$

This.

Or not even participate from the get-go.

[Hokie]

You would need a registry of the items so you would know who broke the contract.

[Bendersquint]

Would never happen and it would never even be considered.

The gov like criminals would still get the guns they wanted.

The system needed to track every firearm and mag would make the NFRTR look like childs play. Then the lawyer teams that would be sueing civilians that broke the contract.....yeah it ain't gonna happen.

[TROOPER]

.. and if they broke the contract, who would step in and end it? The government itself?

Not happening.

[whiterussian1974]

Barrett Firearms already has this Policy. No Gov't Sales in NY or CA.

As for the contract, the Companies could sue for unauthorized use of their product. Already happens in Commerce. The Sovereign Immunity Clause would be the hurdle in Civil COurt.

Although, some Rx companies have already successfully sued to prevent their drugs from being used to Execute Inmates, Torture, or other Illegal or Immoral Acts. They sue the dispensing Agent and Pharmacy since they can't take the Gov't to Court.

Firearm Mnfrs could sue FFLs and whoever originally purchased the firearm. Unless the purchaser proves that they used the item for a certain minimum stipulated time (Contract Signed at Point of Purchase.); they could also Prosecute all involved Individuals including State/Gov't Employees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution
"A private prosecution is a criminal proceeding initiated by an individual or private organisation (such as a prosecution association) instead of by a public prosecutor who represents the state. Private prosecutions are allowed in many jurisdictions under common law, but have become less frequent in modern times as most prosecutions are now handled by professional public prosecutors instead of private individuals who retain (or are themselves) barristers."

TX even allows Private Citizens to convene a Grand Jury to investigate alledged crimes. But a Magistrate is required to compel witnesses, evidence presentation, production of documents, etc.