Politics in Law Enforcement Procurement

The mayor of Jersey City is mandating a gun control survey be completed by every vendor bidding on firearms or ammunition contracts for the city. The answers to the survey will be considered as much as price, safety, and other specs of the firearms and ammunition.

Assuming that they get any gun control surveys back at all, the likely result in this will not be pretty for the actual officers in Jersey City whose lives may well depend on their firearms and ammunition. Their guns will no longer be selected based on meeting needs of the officers, but on willingness to support select political agendas.

Of course, that assumes that the police will even find vendors willing to support gun control in order to win the contract of one department. The reaction of the consumer market will not be pretty if it is announced that a particular manufacturer responded to the survey with enough anti-gun remarks to win support of the Jersey City mayor and his Bloomberg-backed allies in MAIG.

23 thoughts on “Politics in Law Enforcement Procurement”

  1. Hope they get no bids, let them but ammo at retail, at Wal mart like the rest of us.

    1. The closest Walmart stores to Jersey City are in Secaucus and Kearny, but it would not matter anyway, because I am fairly certain that there is not a single Walmart store anywhere in the entire state of New Jersey that stocks any type of firearm ammunition. Maybe the Jersey City cops could get their firearm ammunition at Dick’s Sporting Goods in nearby Paramus. On second thought, scratch that – I would bet that the store there in Paramus has nothing of the sort. Those Jersey City cops could just get on Route 80 West, cross the Delaware Water Gap, and stop at the Walmart Store in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.

      1. “Maybe the Jersey City cops could get their firearm ammunition at Dick’s Sporting Goods. . .”

        Appropriate, considering that Dick’s is an anti-gun gun store.

  2. Limit them to a 5 day waiting period, 7 rounds, 4 safeties, and no semi-autos.

    Police are citizens too.. and if the treatment towards non-police is lowered to a certain level, it should be no different for them.

  3. I’d be willing to bet we never hear another word about this. They made the announcement for brownie points but won’t follow through to save face.

    1. The big problem will be that if word leaks on which companies get the contracts, it will be assumed that they answered sufficiently anti-gun enough because of this announcement.

    1. Are you sure about that? How would Jersey City control such things? Also, the article is very clear that it’s about the city’s purchase process for LEOs…

      1. The purchase process is standard public contract bids…..article clearly states that Jersey City will give bonus points to companies who support *preventing its weapons from appearing in violent video games. Another asks what the company does to combat illegal gun trafficking*….(other questions are unknown at this time)….so basically, Jersey City will give the bid to the company that would be most likely to restrict ‘our’ rights…..nothing will affect LEO’s…..unless Jersey City mandates ‘service’ revolvers in .38 special.

        1. I presumed that getting city contracts would cover what guns and ammunition the LEOs would have to carry on the job. Is that not the case? In which case, I’m curious just who they are buying these guns for.

          1. See…..these questions are geared to restricting ‘our’ rights…not LEO’s.

            – What do you do to combat illegal gun trafficking and illegal gun crime?
            – Do you manufacturer and sell assault weapons for civilian use?
            – Do you agree not to sell certain models of firearms for civilian use?
            – Are you requiring your dealers to conduct background checks?
            – Do you fund research related to gun violence and smart gun technology?
            – Will you commit to prohibiting your brand name from being used in violent video games?


  4. “Their guns will no longer be selected based on meeting needs of the officers, but on willingness to support select political agendas.”

    Why did that give me flashbacks to my days in the defense industry?

  5. I’m wondering if answers received in this bidding process are subject to FOIA requests?

  6. I think it’s interesting that the original version of the article claimed that Jersey City was going to buy about 250,000 guns. The revised article now says they are planning to buy $200,000 worth of guns and $150,000 worth of ammo.

    1. Someone got their numbers crossed. 250,000 guns doesn’t make sense for any police department of any size; I don’t think even the NYPD has that many firearms.

  7. Politically acceptable guns and ammo? Remember when Super Vel came on the market, and lefties went hair-on-fire crazy? How many towns forbade their officers to utilize hollowpoints? Forty years later,same old same old.

  8. Is it even legal to base purchase contracts on the support of the mayor’s pet projects? Could a company that lost the contract becuse it did not answer ‘correctly’ sue?

  9. Good. Let some companies highlight themselves, if they are foolish enough to do so.

    Frankly I prefer to buy from companies that don’t arm Tory gendarmes under any circumstances, myself. If there are equivalent products on the market, I prefer to send my dollars to Free States and I prefer to reward companies that don’t cater to the whims of the likes of officials in NJ, MD, NY, etc.

    I’d be perfectly happy if the NJ cops were reduced to billy clubs. Heck, the citizens subjects there aren’t even allowed to have BB guns as the headline on Fox News is stating right now. I’d sleep just fine at night knowing that the streets of Jersey City are being patrolled by cops with billy clubs and rape whistles. Heck, disarming the cops there might even save the lives of a few dogs!

  10. This was Elliot Spitzer’s brainchild from a few years back, just dusted off and pushed by MomsDemandAttention. This sad excuse of a Marine is happy to push it as a way to be NJ’s next Frank Lautenberg (another embarrassment to the USMC).

    Here is Spitzer’s article from 2009. I remember reading a 2013 article with similar ideas, with the goal being to coerce gun companies to stop selling “assault weapons” and “high capacity clips” not non-gov buyers.

  11. This approach stinks of illegal discrimination based on one’s political beliefs. I wouldn’t mind seeing this issue litigated.

Comments are closed.