Olympic Arms Draws A Line In The Sand With FOP

Posted: February 16, 2013 by ShortTimer in Economic freedom, Government, Guns, Second Amendment

From GunsSaveLives.net:

Yesterday, we reported that Olympic Arms drew a line in the sand, refusing to do business with any state or law enforcement employees in New York until they reverse their recent gun control measures.

Now, Olympic Arms has drawn another line in the sand, calling out the Fraternal Order of Police when they were solicited to advertise in a FOP publication.

From Olympic:

AS:

1. The Fraternal Order of Police is on Congressional Record as having been a major supporter of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.
2. As a matter of fact and record, the FOP is accredited with assisting VP Biden in formulating the language of the newly proposed ban
3. Additionally, as a matter of fact and public record, the FOP is in support of the newly recommended Assault Weapons Ban introduced by Senator Feinstein.
a. FOP representatives were actually standing on the Stage during the presentation as a sign of “support”.

THEREFORE:
Olympic Arms, Inc, manufacturers of AR15 type firearms, firearms that these legislators would call “Assault Weapons”, will not be supporting in any way, shape, form or fashion, The Fraternal Order of Police, any organization that represents, supports, takes advertising dollars from, spends advertising dollars with, is in anyway related to, any individual who is a card carrying member of, or any person or entity in any way associated with the Fraternal Order of Police. Period.

Just like Ronnie Barrett’s famous refusal to service .50 caliber rifles for California and now Magpul’s promise to leave if they’re demonized by Colorado law, now Olympic is taking stand after stand for the Second Amendment.

Good on ’em.

Comments
  1. […] Arms: thepatriotperspective.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/oly… #tcot […]

  2. Olympic Arms Posts Inaccurate Information About the National FOP on Its
    Facebook Page
    02/16/2013

    The assertions recently made by Olympic Arms about FOP positions and actions
    on various pending firearms issues are misleading, inaccurate, and, in some
    cases, just plain false. In August 1993, the delegates assembled at the 51st
    National Biennial Conference in Louisville, KY adopted Resolution No. 6 on a
    1,516 to 1,073 vote.

    The Resolution called for the Grand Lodge to support H.R. 1472/S. 639, the
    “Anti-drug Assault Weapons Limitation Act of 1993,” which would prohibit the
    importation and manufacture of certain military assault weapons.

    This Resolution is still binding on the Grand Lodge and the National
    Legislative Program. However, current pending assault weapons proposals,
    including the one offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), go well beyond
    the scope of the 1994 statute, and, as National President Chuck Canterbury
    stated in the most recent issue of the FOP Journal, it is not a goal of the
    FOP to support an expansion of the original 1994 statute (which expired in
    2004).

    It is true that the FOP has met with Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. as
    well as with a Congressional working group chaired by Representative Michael
    Thompson (D-CA). The FOP, along with numerous other groups and organizations
    representing law enforcement, firearms manufacturers, gun rights
    organizations, and others provided feedback on the issues of gun violence
    and school safety. In none of those meetings did the National offer,
    support, or approve any legislative language, nor was any offered.

    It is completely false that the FOP has endorsed any Federal legislation
    currently pending that would institute a ban on any particular type or style
    of firearm or accessory. We do not know who any of the rank and file police
    officers who appeared with Senator Feinstein at her press conference are,
    and the National FOP had nothing to do with their attendance. I hope this
    information helps.

    Remember – we live in a time when just about anybody can say just about
    anything he or she wants on the Internet – true or not. We thank all of the
    members of the FOP who have come to us and asked for the truth, rather than
    jumping to conclusions on the basis of false and misleading statements by
    outsiders.

    • ShortTimer says:

      Older story on it, but one of the first easy results by using google:

      http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19910816&id=YH9eAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5WENAAAAIBAJ&pg=1492,4865969

      The FOP has a history of supporting gun control. Their argument against Olympic starts with “we support this gun control and that gun control, but we don’t support – THAT gun control”.

      They can score a technical point by Olympic taking them at face value as anti-rights activists, but that doesn’t change that they’re still against citizens’ rights.

      There are patrolmen’s associations and non-FOP police and law enforcement groups (AFP, etc.) that don’t hold the same opinion the FOP does – not by a long shot.

      The FOP doesn’t represent most police officers or law enforcement.

      Also:
      http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/12/biden-no-reason-assault-weapons-ban-shouldnt-clear-152546.html

      There’s “no reason” why Congress shouldn’t be able to pass a ban on assault weapons, he (Biden) said. Referring to the bill he authored in 1994, he added: “Quite frankly, you guys helped me write it,” referring to the leaders of major law enforcement groups at the meeting — including Jon Adler of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Jim Pasco of the Fraternal Order of Police and Walt McNeil of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.


      And from an FOP journal back in 2002:

      Q: 11. The Fraternal Order of Police was at the forefront of the fight to enact the Federal ban on assault weapons, which is set to expire in September 2004. Will you support reauthorizing the Federal ban, and oppose any additional expansion of the current law?

      PRESIDENT BUSH: I support reauthorization of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. I oppose additions to or expansion of the ban.


      And again:
      http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Dyo0z04fJMIJ:www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2988248/posts+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a


      They’re anti-gun. For almost twenty years, they’ve supported an assault weapons ban.

      They didn’t change overnight. Leopards, spots.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s