Home CMMG Gun Company Just Turned Gun Bans Against Police

Gun Company Just Turned Gun Bans Against Police

2
45

A major American gun manufacturer is turning restrictive gun laws back on the law-enforcement agencies that benefit from special exemptions. CMMG says police departments in gun-ban states should not receive firearms, magazines, suppressors, or configurations that ordinary citizens are prohibited from owning—unless agency leadership is willing to take a public stand.

In this video, we break down CMMG’s law-enforcement sales policy, what it actually means for AR-15 ban states, why police exemptions create a major Second Amendment contradiction, and whether other firearm manufacturers could follow. We also examine how law enforcement may respond, the Founders’ concerns about government monopolizing effective arms, and the argument that citizens and government employees should not live under two different sets of gun laws.

Is CMMG’s position a meaningful stand for gun rights, or will police departments simply purchase from another manufacturer? Let me know where you stand in the comments.

Join this channel to get access to perks:

New Merch drop

ATTENTION: All opinions shared are just that, my opinions. I’m not a lawyer nor have I ever claimed to be one I simply commentate on different scenarios to give you examples of what can happen out in the real world.

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, social media, internet forums. etc.

45 COMMENTS

  1. Makes sense to me. If the common ordinary citizen doesn't have certain items because it's illegal, then the police don't need it. What's that you say, criminals don't care what the law says? Equal rights/access to law abiding citizens.

  2. This is a concept I have espoused for years, and I wish DOJ would impose this on the entire United States, especially the private security companies that provide boutique protection services to blue-state governors and politicians. There is absolutely no reason why Newsom or Pritzker or Spangberger (et al) should have protection armed with weapons their states restrict from ordinary citizens.

  3. Chiefs come and go. Sheriffs come and go. Even if one of them is willing to sign such a letter, the policy only lasts so long. Gun manufacturers need to simply not sell products in a state where those products are restricted. If they are not legal on the civilian market, just don’t sell them there. All gun manufacturers need to do this.

  4. You Yanks really are the stupidest people on earth. 1: Law enforcement agencies aren't ordinary citizens; they aren't even citizens at all, but rather state organizations. 2: You all scream about the Second Amendment, but none of you have actually read it properly; it clearly states that every citizen has the right to own weapons, but that this right MUST BE REGULATED BY AUTHORITIES/THE STATE!!! 3: Most countries have gun laws for citizens, but they have rules regarding the criteria and the type of weapon a citizen can obtain, in order to prevent mentally ill or unstable individuals from causing harm.

  5. With all the talk about not trusting the government amongst Americans, it's good the the playing field is being leveled to take undue advantage away from those that can get over ambitious in their job.

  6. In theory it makes sense, but you have to understand the lengths people will go-to to look right. Even if every gun company did this I would be willing to bet all the restricted states would need new ar's for the their guards armory. Then pop a semi fire control group into the old guns and sell them to the state, bam circumvented. It is a great gesture at least.

  7. This gun company in Florida own by Mark Serbu, told a New York state PD a few years ago that if we citizens couldn't buy firearms from him because of the double standard and hypocritical laws
    ( for our safety my behind) that he would not sell to them either. I respect a man like that. All those state that have restrictive laws like this, they shouldn't be able to buy firearms either.

  8. According to the Bill of Rights we the people have the right to keep and bear arms. The government does not. Don't believe me? Go re-read the bill of rights. Its the rights reserved for the the people NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Think about it.

  9. Well, the left actually wants at least FOUR classes of citizens.

    Unvaccinated and Unarmed (ineligible for medical care)
    Vaccinated and Unarmed (eligible for medical care)
    Unvaccinated and Armed (terrorist)
    Vaccinated and Armed (law enforcement)

  10. The states will just make a new law stating that gun owners have to pass a special class and get permits for ownership. Then the state will grant their police officers the required permits and issue the firearms.

  11. Imagine if they went the extra step as well, and for every police area that does not chose to say they won't enforce the rules…. that every gun that police station got, which complies with restrictions on the citizens, will have a "This gun is compliant with <pricinct name> jurisdiction rules" somewhere visible, so that every time the cops have to use and fumble with the guns, they are reminded why they have to use those guns.

    Gun laws are there to protect people. The whole 'anti-gun' advocacy is always with a goal of policing/enforcing laws against citizens, but does nothing against people who get the fire arms illegally. Criminals are protected, while the victims are stripped of their right to protection. The point isn't safety by removing the guns. The point is to terrorize the general populace into compliance through crime.
    Give up your rights, so we can tax you for the protection we took away.

  12. I never really realized that….here I am pointing out the UK's 2-tier police system without realizing some of our states have them as well. It's your typical rules for thee but not for me mentality. It is antithetical to the American way of life. We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights that is directly opposed to this type of "governance."

Leave a Reply