UPDATE: Sheriffs sue over COLORADO gun laws

[Heredoggydoggy]

Elections have consequences, and so do Dollars.  The State of Washington found out the power of the Dollar when less than half of the people refused to grab their wallets (and other lower body parts) and shell out $30 for a Discover Pass.  Now, instead of admitting defeat, the legislature is looking for other means of ripping us off "for the public good".

[Dave Workman]

Elections have consequences, and so do Dollars.  The State of Washington found out the power of the Dollar when less than half of the people refused to grab their wallets (and other lower body parts) and shell out $30 for a Discover Pass.  Now, instead of admitting defeat, the legislature is looking for other means of ripping us off "for the public good".

There ya go!

[washelkhunter]

Elections have consequences, and so do Dollars.  The State of Washington found out the power of the Dollar when less than half of the people refused to grab their wallets (and other lower body
parts) and shell out $30 for a Discover Pass.  Now, instead of
admitting defeat, the legislature is looking for other means of
ripping us off "for the public good".

There ya go!


And thats the truth. Boycotting the DP had a massive affect on the state parks budget. Boycotts work. The job now is to steer the fix in the right direction.

[Bob33]

How did the biycott against Chick fil-A work out? How much did it hurt their business?

[Fl0und3rz]

Sad. But this is what it has come to.  I hope that people contemplating a hunt in CO are reconsidering that as well.

As far as CO companies go, Warbonnet is a maker of high-quality hammocks and accessories. Sadly, they have the misfortune of residing in CO.

http://www.warbonnetoutdoors.com/contact_us.php

Here is a message I left on their contact page.

I was considering purchasing one of your hammocks and accessories after seeing my brother's in action.  Sadly, after your Governor's signing of laws that fail to respect the rights of its citizens under the Second Amendment, I must reconsider supporting the many economies of Colorado. 

While I realize that the effect on your potential sales is an unfair economic consequence, the effects should be communicated through to your elected representatives.  My apologies.

Please keep me on your mailing list, in the event that you relocate to a Second Amendment friendly locale, or in the event that steps are taken to repeal and/or overturn these infringements, as I am still interested in your products or suitable alternatives.

Kind regards.

An understanding reply from Brandon at Warbonnet.  He is a top notch guy, and if you are inclined to not boycott CO currently, consider him for your backcountry shelter needs.  Even if you are inclined to boycott CO currently, consider him in the future.

Thanks for the email,  i understand your position, and i am in agreement with you.  Please also know that we currently have petitions to recall 3 of the state representatives that were the most responsible for these bills.  They just forced them through, it was not the will of the people, in fact every sheriff in colorado refused to enforce any of the laws in question but they pushed them through anyway. We are not happy about this here in colorado and hopefully there's enough people upset that we can do something about it. 

regards,
Brandon
Warbonnet Outdoors

[huntnphool]

Sad. But this is what it has come to.  I hope that people contemplating a hunt in CO are reconsidering that as well.

As far as CO companies go, Warbonnet is a maker of high-quality hammocks and accessories. Sadly, they have the misfortune of residing in CO.

http://www.warbonnetoutdoors.com/contact_us.php

Here is a message I left on their contact page.

I was considering purchasing one of your hammocks and accessories after seeing my brother's in action.  Sadly, after your Governor's signing of laws that fail to respect the rights of its citizens under the Second Amendment, I must reconsider supporting the many economies of Colorado. 

While I realize that the effect on your potential sales is an unfair economic consequence, the effects should be communicated through to your elected representatives.  My apologies.

Please keep me on your mailing list, in the event that you relocate to a Second Amendment friendly locale, or in the event that steps are taken to repeal and/or overturn these infringements, as I am still interested in your products or suitable alternatives.

Kind regards.

An understanding reply from Brandon at Warbonnet.  He is a top notch guy, and if you are inclined to not boycott CO currently, consider him for your backcountry shelter needs.  Even if you are inclined to boycott CO currently, consider him in the future.

Thanks for the email,  i understand your position, and i am in agreement with you.  Please also know that we currently have petitions to recall 3 of the state representatives that were the most responsible for these bills.  They just forced them through, it was not the will of the people, in fact every sheriff in colorado refused to enforce any of the laws in question but they pushed them through anyway. We are not happy about this here in colorado and hopefully there's enough people upset that we can do something about it. 

regards,
Brandon
Warbonnet Outdoors

That was a very well thought out and written letter Flounder, well done.

[Fl0und3rz]

How did the biycott against Chick fil-A work out? How much did it hurt their business?

Why it did not work is because there was a motivated plurality that used their economic power to support the position and/or the expression of the rights of Chick fil-A (actually the president's freedom of expression).  I think you misunderstand the situation or the comparison between Chick fil-A and the proposed CO boycott, because the Chick fil-A situation leads one to conclude that the Chick fil-A outcome actually supports the notion that CO should be boycotted.

Chick fil-A: A small but vocal minority was in favor of compelling the company to act in its favor (suppress the free expression of its president).  A large plurality disagreed with this bullying and expressed itself through economic activity in support of the company.  Many companies tried to jump on the bandwagon, and hilarity ensued, as Chick fil-A's economic windfall exploded.

CO: A group of legislators bent on control of the masses and restriction of individual liberty pushes through a law that will have no effect on crime or safety.  A large plurality (relative to the funds at risk in a boycott) threatens economic boycott of the state, which depends on hunters and Second Amendment support for a large amount of tax revenue, directly and indirectly.  Note that withholding economic activity, in this instance, is also more easy than undertaking to engage in economic activity (if you choose to support CO's recent 2A restrictions). 

If you are suggesting that there is some large group of people that is going to spontaneously support CO's recent 2A restrictions by undertaking to engage in economic activity that, without such a proposed boycott, they would not have undertaken, I would suggest you identify these group(s) that are actively looking to counteract such a boycott.  Or at least suggest that, for the levels of revenue that we are talking, identify groups inclined to counter-boycott, that have the disposable income to counteract the effects. The only groups income-wise that come to mind may be the marijuana tourists or the gay-marriage/honeymooning patrons.  But even among them, I would not expect that 100% could be counted on as counter-protesters intent on bringing revenue to CO to counteract a pro-2A boycott.

[whacker1]

Fl0und3rz - Thank you for the well thought out response on boycott along with sharing the dialogue you had with Warbonnet.  Great information

[Elkaholic daWg]

 A chat I had with alike minded friend from Colorado........

 Just curious Mike how you feel about the new Colorado Gun laws, and the boycott ideas that are going around because of them?
Unlike · · Unfollow Post ·

    You and Michael like this.
    http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/board,79.0.html here is an example
    Gun Rights & Hunters Alerts
    hunting-washington.com
    Gun Rights & Hunters Alerts
    Sunday at 8:27pm · Like · Remove Preview
 Hi Jim, not happy at all, it was shoved down our throats....HB 1224 will cost many dems in the election in 2014...
    3 hours ago · Unlike · 1
     Sounds like Magpul is leaving
    about an hour ago · Like
     Hope you are right about the dumbocrats!
    about an hour ago · Like
  s Magpul is outta here in July..can't blame them.....hunters don't want to
    about an hour ago via mobile · Like
 several recalls started on dems ...
    about an hour ago via mobile · Like

[Bob33]

How did the biycott against Chick fil-A work out? How much did it hurt their business?

Why it did not work is because there was a motivated plurality that used their economic power to support the position and/or the expression of the rights of Chick fil-A (actually the president's freedom of expression).  I think you misunderstand the situation or the comparison between Chick fil-A and the proposed CO boycott, because the Chick fil-A situation leads one to conclude that the Chick fil-A outcome actually supports the notion that CO should be boycotted.

Chick fil-A: A small but vocal minority was in favor of compelling the company to act in its favor (suppress the free expression of its president).  A large plurality disagreed with this bullying and expressed itself through economic activity in support of the company.  Many companies tried to jump on the bandwagon, and hilarity ensued, as Chick fil-A's economic windfall exploded.

CO: A group of legislators bent on control of the masses and restriction of individual liberty pushes through a law that will have no effect on crime or safety.  A large plurality (relative to the funds at risk in a boycott) threatens economic boycott of the state, which depends on hunters and Second Amendment support for a large amount of tax revenue, directly and indirectly.  Note that withholding economic activity, in this instance, is also more easy than undertaking to engage in economic activity (if you choose to support CO's recent 2A restrictions). 

If you are suggesting that there is some large group of people that is going to spontaneously support CO's recent 2A restrictions by undertaking to engage in economic activity that, without such a proposed boycott, they would not have undertaken, I would suggest you identify these group(s) that are actively looking to counteract such a boycott.  Or at least suggest that, for the levels of revenue that we are talking, identify groups inclined to counter-boycott, that have the disposable income to counteract the effects. The only groups income-wise that come to mind may be the marijuana tourists or the gay-marriage/honeymooning patrons.  But even among them, I would not expect that 100% could be counted on as counter-protesters intent on bringing revenue to CO to counteract a pro-2A boycott.

Thanks for the response. What I am suggesting is simply this: boycotts often work, and often fail. I don't know that a boycott of CO by hunters will cause the gun rights situation to improve, to worsen, or if so by how much. I'm asking the question.

I do suspect with a higher degree of probability that a hunter boycott would harm some good, hard working gun rights indviduals. It appears to me this thread is suggesting that we "do something" without taking some time to think the situation through. Just because someone does not want to immediately join this boycott does not make him a mindless individual, a "closet liberal", or someone who excretes male bovine waste material. For the record, I don't hunt CO so this I don't have a dog in the game. I do like to see hunters make wise, informed choices - that's all.

[actionshooter]

How did the biycott against Chick fil-A work out? How much did it hurt their business?

Why it did not work is because there was a motivated plurality that used their economic power to support the position and/or the expression of the rights of Chick fil-A (actually the president's freedom of expression).  I think you misunderstand the situation or the comparison between Chick fil-A and the proposed CO boycott, because the Chick fil-A situation leads one to conclude that the Chick fil-A outcome actually supports the notion that CO should be boycotted.

Chick fil-A: A small but vocal minority was in favor of compelling the company to act in its favor (suppress the free expression of its president).  A large plurality disagreed with this bullying and expressed itself through economic activity in support of the company.  Many companies tried to jump on the bandwagon, and hilarity ensued, as Chick fil-A's economic windfall exploded.

CO: A group of legislators bent on control of the masses and restriction of individual liberty pushes through a law that will have no effect on crime or safety.  A large plurality (relative to the funds at risk in a boycott) threatens economic boycott of the state, which depends on hunters and Second Amendment support for a large amount of tax revenue, directly and indirectly.  Note that withholding economic activity, in this instance, is also more easy than undertaking to engage in economic activity (if you choose to support CO's recent 2A restrictions). 

If you are suggesting that there is some large group of people that is going to spontaneously support CO's recent 2A restrictions by undertaking to engage in economic activity that, without such a proposed boycott, they would not have undertaken, I would suggest you identify these group(s) that are actively looking to counteract such a boycott.  Or at least suggest that, for the levels of revenue that we are talking, identify groups inclined to counter-boycott, that have the disposable income to counteract the effects. The only groups income-wise that come to mind may be the marijuana tourists or the gay-marriage/honeymooning patrons.  But even among them, I would not expect that 100% could be counted on as counter-protesters intent on bringing revenue to CO to counteract a pro-2A boycott.

Thanks for the response. What I am suggesting is simply this: boycotts often work, and often fail. I don't know that a boycott of CO by hunters will cause the gun rights situation to improve, to worsen, or if so by how much. I'm asking the question.

I do suspect with a higher degree of probability that a hunter boycott would harm some good, hard working gun rights indviduals. It appears to me this thread is suggesting that we "do something" without taking some time to think the situation through. Just because someone does not want to immediately join this boycott does not make him a mindless individual, a "closet liberal", or someone who excretes male bovine waste material. For the record, I don't hunt CO so this I don't have a dog in the game. I do like to see hunters make wise, informed choices - that's all.

Hey Bob 33, I see my "closet liberal" comment left a mark and for that I do appologize. We are all on the same side here, we just have different theories on how to handle the situation. I see the majority of my money going to the state when I hunt in Colorado,( probably 75%) and its the state I am boycotting, not the private businesses.  Trust me I have thought this through, wasting 5 years of collecting points in what I feel is the best mule deer state, is a big deal to me. I am probably losing more than anyone who has posted on this thread.

[Fl0und3rz]

Just because someone does not want to immediately join this boycott does not make him a mindless individual, a "closet liberal", or someone who excretes male bovine waste material. For the record, I don't hunt CO so this I don't have a dog in the game. I do like to see hunters make wise, informed choices - that's all.

Hear. Hear.  Hope you did not get that "closet liberal" idea from my posts.  I can agree to disagree,  respectfully.

[huntnphool]

Cash is king, maybe the outfitters will offer "free" hunts.

[6x6in6]

Cash is king, maybe the outfitters will offer "free" hunts.

[Bob33]

Just because someone does not want to immediately join this boycott does not make him a mindless individual, a "closet liberal", or someone who excretes male bovine waste material. For the record, I don't hunt CO so this I don't have a dog in the game. I do like to see hunters make wise, informed choices - that's all.

Hear. Hear.  Hope you did not get that "closet liberal" idea from my posts.  I can agree to disagree,  respectfully.

Not from you. Respectfully