View Full Version : Midway USA Rumor
There are numerous reports of this email today:
We have been holding some products for you, waiting for other items to arrive so we could ship your order complete. However, we believe an Executive Order could be released any day prohibiting the sale of certain products such as high-capacity magazines and AR-15 parts and accessories. Therefore we have done a partial release of your backorders to ensure that any of these items and other items we had in inventory waiting to ship complete are all on their way, in case such an Order is forthcoming. You will receive a shipping notification shortly. Other items on backorder, that we have not yet received, are not affected by this partial release.
We appreciate your understanding and your business. We always put Customer Satisfaction first and believe this action is in the very best interest of our Customers.
Sincerely,
MidwayUSA Customer Service
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/will-obama-issue-an-executive-order-banning-high-capacity-magazines/
This what Midway told me:
Status: Connected Print
Paslode: Are you really holding orders because of a pending executive order from Obama?
MidwayUSA: Welcome to MidwayUSA!
Interaction transferred to CCWebChat.
All agents are busy assisting other customers.
Your position in queue is 25.
Your estimated wait time is approximately 11 minutes.
MidwayUSA: All agents are busy assisting other customers.
Your position in queue is 25.
Your estimated wait time is approximately 11 minutes.
MidwayUSA: All agents are busy assisting other customers.
Your position in queue is 21.
Your estimated wait time is approximately 9 minutes.
MidwayUSA: All agents are busy assisting other customers.
Your position in queue is 15.
Your estimated wait time is approximately 6 minutes.
MidwayUSA: All agents are busy assisting other customers.
Your position in queue is 9.
Your estimated wait time is approximately 3 minutes.
MidwayUSA: All agents are busy assisting other customers.
Your position in queue is 3.
Your estimated wait time is approximately one minute.
XXX: Interaction alerting Meghan.
MidwayUSA: Agent has joined the conversation
XXX: Thanks for contacting MidwayUSA--how may I help you today?
Paslode: Are you really holding orders because of a pending executive order from Obama?
Meghan: We are actually doing the opposite. We are releasing as many partial orders as possible.
Paslode: There is a rumor of an email flying about stating the opposite...
XXXX: We appreciate you letting us know. Is there anything else I can assist you with?
Paslode: That is it.
Paslode: Thanks
Obama just said at his news conference today (I am paraphrasing as I just heard it and didn’t read it), “those lining up and purchasing guns are opposed to common sense and ginning up fear for the federal government is coming to take your guns.” Also “It is a fear that is fanned by those that oppose any types of legislation. “
His EO will be out by the end of this week!
Badger52
01-14-2013, 11:48
Obama just said at his news conference today (I am paraphrasing as I just heard it and didn’t read it), “those lining up and purchasing guns are opposed to common sense and ginning up fear for the federal government is coming to take your guns.” Also “It is a fear that is fanned by those that oppose any types of legislation. “
His EO will be out by the end of this week!Some are way too late to the game & in lines with no product. Then again, some are lining up early for the inauguration.
President Obama said he'd take "executive action" to deal with guns at his press conference today (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-some-gun-control-measures-i-can-accomplish-through-executive-action_695381.html)
"My understanding is the vice president's going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence," said Obama. "Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I will be reviewing those today, and as I said, I will speak in more detail to what we're going to go ahead and propose later in the week. But I'm confident that there are some steps that we can take that don't require legislation and that are within my authority as president, and where you get a step that, has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then i want to go ahead and take it."
Streck-Fu
01-14-2013, 12:16
I read that as they are trying to ship ahead of any possible ban.....
But that begs the question, can such an EO be enforced?
nousdefions
01-14-2013, 12:30
So tell me again how Executive Orders are more enforceable than Laws?
White House to miss budget deadline; Breaks law... (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/276969-obama-budget-delayed-again-white-house-tells-paul-ryan) :confused:
So tell me again how Executive Orders are more enforceable than Laws?
White House to miss budget deadline; Breaks law... (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/276969-obama-budget-delayed-again-white-house-tells-paul-ryan) :confused:
If you are in charge of John D Law he will do what you say.
Law? What Law? Kneel before the King.
I'm telling you this country is begining to look more and more like a Robin Hood Movie.
Streck-Fu
01-14-2013, 12:43
I'm telling you this country is begining to look more and more like a Robin Hood Movie.
Yeah...this one:
I'm telling you this country is begining to look more and more like a Robin Hood Movie.
Been thinking the same thing.
Utah Bob
01-14-2013, 16:50
If you are in charge of John D Law he will do what you say.
Law? What Law? Kneel before the King.
I'm telling you this country is begining to look more and more like a Robin Hood Movie.
I refuse to wear tights.
A feather is okay though.
mojaveman
01-14-2013, 16:54
I refuse to wear tights.
A feather is okay though.
But what about your green felt hat? :p
Sad because I do a lot of business with Midwayusa.
I knew all of this fallout was coming...
Badger52
01-14-2013, 17:34
Sad because I do a lot of business with Midwayusa.
I knew all of this fallout was coming...I think it's sad for any reputable company. Larry & Folks are just tryin' to do the right thing.
Been thinking the same thing.
Nah. The Sheriff of Nottingham lost in Robin Hood.
GOP congressman threatens impeachment if Obama uses executive action for gun control (http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/14/gop-congressman-threatens-impeachment-if-obama-uses-executive-action-for-gun-control/)
Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.”
“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment,” Stockman said in a statement.
From the National Journal's website. <<LINK (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress-legacy/texas-36th-house-district-20121101?print=true)>>Texas, 36th House District
Steve Stockman (R)
Updated: November 7, 2012 | 2:55 a.m.
November 1, 2012 | 5:34 p.m.
Steve Stockman, Texas District 36.
Republican Steve Stockman caused plenty of controversy during his brief stint in Congress in the mid-1990s. But his strong opinions and unabashed conservatism suit the heavily Republican, southeast Texas district just fine. Of the four new congressional seats Texas gained from redistricting, the 36th is the most conservative and is tailor-made for Stockman.
As an accountant who grew up in the Detroit suburb of Royal Oak, Stockman is an unlikely Texas politician. He was one of many unemployed men from Michigan who came to then-booming Texas in 1980 seeking a job. For a time, he was unemployed and homeless. Only at age 34 did he get his bachelor’s degree.
By then, he had decided to run for Congress. In 1990, Stockman took on veteran Democratic Rep. Jack Brooks, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Brooks was not an easy target and spent $885,000 to beat Stockman, 58 percent to 42 percent. But Stockman ran again in 1992, narrowing the margin to 54 percent to 44 percent. Two years later, it was 1994 and a terrible political year for Democrats. And at age 71, Brooks looked the part of the old Washington insider. Stockman challenged Brooks a third time, and rode the strong anti-incumbent wave that year to a win, defeating Brooks 52 percent to 46 percent.
In the House, Stockman antagonized House Speaker Newt Gingrich by opposing the U.S. bailout of the Mexican peso, which had been delicately crafted in a high-level bipartisan deal. In 1995, Stockman penned an article in Guns & Ammo magazine suggesting that the Clinton administration raided the Branch Davidian cult-run compound near Waco, Texas, in 1993 to gain support for an assault-weapons ban. The article appeared soon after the Oklahoma City bombing, which fed suspicions that Stockman was sympathetic to right-wing militias. Stockman later said he regretted the timing of the article. He lost in 1996 to Democrat Nick Lampson.
Todd Gillman, the Washington bureau chief of The Dallas Morning News, wrote of Stockman recently, “While his mistrust of government was unusually strident for the time, in Congress at least, elements of his agenda are now staples of conservative discourse: demand for a balanced budget, smaller government and lower taxes, and warnings about illegal immigration.”
After leaving Congress, Stockman ran an unsuccessful campaign for the Texas Railroad Commission in 1998. His website says that during that time, he worked as a bank vice president and was director of the Campus Leadership Program for the Arlington, Va.-based Leadership Institute, which trains young conservative activists.
In the 2012 election season, Stockman entered a cluttered, 12-candidate Republican House primary. He ran a shoestring campaign, with a headquarters in a motorcycle shop. An Associated Press article reported that Stockman declined to attend campaign forums and was standoffish with GOP officials. “It is a strange campaign style, but then, Stockman is a strange character,” Lamar University political science professor David Castle told the AP.
His rivals included state Sen. Mike Jackson and financial adviser Stephen Takach. Jackson was the target of a mailer that falsely claimed he supported abortion rights and was dropping out of the race. The mailer included the line, “Paid for by Friends of Congressman Steve Stockman,” but Stockman disavowed any connection to it. He and Takach both got 22 percent and advanced to a runoff, while Jackson came in third with 20 percent.
Stockman’s campaign signs referred to him as “congressman” and his website encouraged voters to “reelect” him. His campaign played up his cosponsorship of a ban on partial-birth abortion and the Defense of Marriage Act. Both Stockman and Takach emphasized the need to curb illegal immigration. Stockman prevailed in the runoff, 55 percent to 45 percent, and in the general election he beat businessman Max Martin.
MOO, a threat of impeachment should be a measure of last resort--an option that is not even discussed until all other measures have failed.
ZonieDiver
01-14-2013, 19:06
I refuse to wear tights.
A feather is okay though.
Watch out, someone around here will really start commenting on your '32 inch waist' if you start wearing feathers! :D
From the National Journal's website. <<LINK (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress-legacy/texas-36th-house-district-20121101?print=true)>>MOO, a threat of impeachment should be a measure of last resort--an option that is not even discussed until all other measures have failed.
I assert that an Executive Order IS a last resort, and that impeachment is the only counter. Would you suggest that we watch our access to 'assault weapons' and applicable materials be stripped away while a law suit make its way through the legal system?
I assert that an Executive Order IS a last resort, and that impeachment is the only counter. Would you suggest that we watch our access to 'assault weapons' and applicable materials be stripped away while a law suit make its way through the legal system?
Did you read the article? Representative Stockman suggested other options.
The Constitution clearly establishes the legislative branch of the federal government as first among equals. If lawmakers need to resort to the most dire tool at their disposal to stop a president--who is himself not especially adept at doing his own job--then some American voters need to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves what kinds of politicians they're sending to Washington, D.C. in the first place.
IMO, it is not a good political argument to say that the American legal system should be bypassed because one may not like the outcome.
vorticity
01-15-2013, 14:42
I don't have tights or a feather to wear, but I can confirm that the MidwayUSA email is correct, having received one yesterday. I had a few M1A mags on backorder for a month, originally to be 'back in stock' on the 25th, and the email I got confirmed that they are shipping anything that they have in stock separate from other items in advance of another potential ban. I've since gotten tracking numbers for the mags, which are on their way.
My sense was that Midway keeps a small buffer of stocked goods, and that their 25th of January in-stock date for this item was really more of a date when they'd have *enough* items in stock to maintain a steady flow of sales. If an EO came down the pipeline that prevented them from selling those items, they didn't want their customers with those items on backorder to be caught in limbo, especially if they had some (just not enough) of those items on the warehouse floor. My guess is they went through the orders by time placed and matched that to stock in-hand, and shipped everything they had left on a first-ordered, first-served basis.
I thought it was a nice touch on the part of Midway, making sure that a.) their customers don't get screwed, and b.) they're not stuck with product that they can't sell.
Did you read the article? Representative Stockman suggested other options.
The Constitution clearly establishes the legislative branch of the federal government as first among equals. If lawmakers need to resort to the most dire tool at their disposal to stop a president--who is himself not especially adept at doing his own job--then some American voters need to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves what kinds of politicians they're sending to Washington, D.C. in the first place.
IMO, it is not a good political argument to say that the American legal system should be bypassed because one may not like the outcome.
I did read it Sigaba. And I agree with your second paragraph as well. Yet, here we are, on the verge of hearing that an Executive Order may suspend rights we are granted in the Constitution, an EO that bypasses the American legal system. Your suggestion is that we let him sign this order, turn a LOT of law abiding citizens into criminals, stamp the Presidential Seal of approval on the demonization of gun owners, then count on the legal system to give our guns back and un-demonize us? I know a non starter when I see one.
ZonieDiver
01-16-2013, 08:39
I did read it Sigaba. And I agree with your second paragraph as well. Yet, here we are, on the verge of hearing that an Executive Order may suspend rights we are granted in the Constitution, an EO that bypasses the American legal system. Your suggestion is that we let him sign this order, turn a LOT of law abiding citizens into criminals, stamp the Presidential Seal of approval on the demonization of gun owners, then count on the legal system to give our guns back and un-demonize us? I know a non starter when I see one.
How long will the impeachment process take, and what are it's chances for success?
No doubt he could be impeached.
Do you think he'd lose in the Senate trial?
And... those morons in Congress would freeze ALL other important business facing this nation while they diddle themselves over this.
Courts are a better way to go, and IMHO give us a better chance at success.
How long will the impeachment process take, and what are it's chances for success?
No doubt he could be impeached.
Do you think he'd lose in the Senate trial?
And... those morons in Congress would freeze ALL other important business facing this nation while they diddle themselves over this.
Courts are a better way to go, and IMHO give us a better chance at success.
The actual impeachment process for Clinton lasted ~ 2 months.
I think I see what you are getting at. An attempt to impeach him, after the fact, wont have any bearing on the EO being implemented.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from
Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under
the United States: [source] (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-806.pdf)
Would he actually lose the Senate trial? I doubt it. I cant quantify my doubt, I know that BHO has managed to do some things I thought impossible already (including getting re-elected) so its probably just pure pessimism.
I did a little research this morning and found an interesting precedent.
In DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER, the courts ruled in favor of Heller, partially basing their decision on United States v. Miller. This case defies the argument that "assault weapons" do not fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment because they are a recent invention.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER states: 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. [source] (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html)
So maybe there is hope that a ban on "assault rifles" is illegal.