ATF Shuts Down Firearm Manufacturer.

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    Oh man am I glad I got my Yeet cannon when I did. I’m sure they’re coming for High Point next.
     

    Xeon64

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Jan 26, 2021
    790
    93
    Prairieville, LA
    Pretty sure there are laws against making cheap throw away guns. This is why the Saturday Night specials and RG guns went away in the 1970s.
     

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    Pretty sure there are laws against making cheap throw away guns. This is why the Saturday Night specials and RG guns went away in the 1970s.
    There should be laws to prevent some of these from being produced. There was indeed a Saturday night special theme to the 1968 gun control act wherein the import of these cheapass guns was banned, but there are no laws on the books for guns produced in the US. RG guns was included in the ban but eventually opened up shop in Miami and were reintroduced here and then were eventually bought by Umarex. They went away because they’re basically crap. Made in Germany doesn’t always mean quality. I’m sure I could find some proof if I need to back all that up but I think it’s common knowledge.
    Anybody remember the term, ring of fire guns?
     

    Kraut

    LEO
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Oct 3, 2007
    1,799
    83
    Slidell, LA
    Wow, the tenor in responses here surprises me. Not because of the quality of the guns, but because that factor seems to push aside the issue of the government shutting down a legal firearms business.

    I owned a Bryco/Jennings once, prior to them becoming Jiminez. Yes, I bought it for a low price because I could afford it, and yes, ultimately, I discovered that I did not want to rely on it for my safety. The firing pin broke somewhere around 200-250 rounds, and they sent me two replacements as if they expected me to have to call again at some point in the future for the same problem. I didn't take that as a good sign.

    One is better than none, though, and for folks who really can't afford something nicer, the bottom dollar gun that at least functions for a little while is still important. We talk about everybody having a right to bear arms to defend themselves, but at the same time we have to face the reality that many of those people who would like to exercise those rights, in the neighborhoods where it's more likely to have to be exercised, can't always afford the better known manufacturers.

    Does that mean that those guns might also be attractive to some criminals just because of a cheap price? Sure, but if we allow the actions or preferences of criminals to determine what is right or allowable for the rest of us, we're giving up. The government already does that for us too much.

    If they showed that Jiminez Arms directly sold onto the street, or knowingly to criminals or cartels or whatnot, hey, no problem, but if they're just making lesser quality, affordable guns for a profit that you or I might choose to avoid, and even warn others away from, then I don't think they should have their license revoked/denied.
     

    Xeon64

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Jan 26, 2021
    790
    93
    Prairieville, LA
    Wow, the tenor in responses here surprises me. Not because of the quality of the guns, but because that factor seems to push aside the issue of the government shutting down a legal firearms business.

    I owned a Bryco/Jennings once, prior to them becoming Jiminez. Yes, I bought it for a low price because I could afford it, and yes, ultimately, I discovered that I did not want to rely on it for my safety. The firing pin broke somewhere around 200-250 rounds, and they sent me two replacements as if they expected me to have to call again at some point in the future for the same problem. I didn't take that as a good sign.

    One is better than none, though, and for folks who really can't afford something nicer, the bottom dollar gun that at least functions for a little while is still important. We talk about everybody having a right to bear arms to defend themselves, but at the same time we have to face the reality that many of those people who would like to exercise those rights, in the neighborhoods where it's more likely to have to be exercised, can't always afford the better known manufacturers.

    Does that mean that those guns might also be attractive to some criminals just because of a cheap price? Sure, but if we allow the actions or preferences of criminals to determine what is right or allowable for the rest of us, we're giving up. The government already does that for us too much.

    If they showed that Jiminez Arms directly sold onto the street, or knowingly to criminals or cartels or whatnot, hey, no problem, but if they're just making lesser quality, affordable guns for a profit that you or I might choose to avoid, and even warn others away from, then I don't think they should have their license revoked/denied.
    I do not think we are talking about the guns being cheap. HiPoint is cheap but is a gun that works and is safe. The guns I am refering too are like Jiminez, RG, and the like. Making guns with zinc frames that are very low in quality and in my opinion down right unsafe. I have an RG is an it was literally made to shoot it once and throw it away. Esentially promoting it as a murder weapon. Companies that make something like this have little morals which leans to criminal activity from the manufacturer.
     

    themcfarland

    tactical hangover
    Rating - 100%
    58   0   0
    Dec 6, 2008
    4,653
    63
    Destrehan
    How can you folks justify any legit business being shut down by the government , especially a gun business. I have not heard of any of these guns blowing up in recent history and any traction the government can get to erode our rights is bad..
     

    krotsman

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    104   0   0
    Aug 2, 2012
    1,364
    113
    Baton Rouge
    How can you folks justify any legit business being shut down by the government , especially a gun business. I have not heard of any of these guns blowing up in recent history and any traction the government can get to erode our rights is bad..

    The article said they lied on their license application. So, I would say that's on them for getting their license pulled. It also looks like ATF didn't really want to pull it but was forced to when they got pulled into court about it and the bad publicity and all.
     

    Trailboss

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Apr 2, 2013
    389
    28
    Norwood LA
    Did no one read the article? If you can believe USA Today, the company declared bankruptcy after being sued, formed another company and lied to ATF to obtain a license for the new company. ATF later rescinded the license.

    When I was a poor yout, a Jennings 9mm was all I could afford, and it served its purpose reliably and well. I wasn't planning to compete or go to war with it. Of course, I upgraded as soon as I could afford it.
     

    Kraut

    LEO
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Oct 3, 2007
    1,799
    83
    Slidell, LA
    The article said they lied on their license application. So, I would say that's on them for getting their license pulled. It also looks like ATF didn't really want to pull it but was forced to when they got pulled into court about it and the bad publicity and all.
    "The group then filed a separate lawsuit along with Kansas City and the state of Illinois against the ATF for awarding the new company a license – the suit that led to Wednesday's action. It alleged that because of false statements to the ATF and the unlawful shipment of guns to a gun trafficker, Jimenez was disqualified from holding an FFL."

    The article says that the lawsuit, filed against the ATF by a private organization, "alleged" that false statements were made by the owners of bankrupt Jiminez when filing for a new license. No elaboration about the allegations, no mention of any official court ruling that the allegations were found to be true, just the ATF revoking a license.
     

    krotsman

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    104   0   0
    Aug 2, 2012
    1,364
    113
    Baton Rouge
    The article says that the lawsuit, filed against the ATF by a private organization, "alleged" that false statements were made by the owners of bankrupt Jiminez when filing for a new license. No elaboration about the allegations, no mention of any official court ruling that the allegations were found to be true, just the ATF revoking a license.

    From a different article-

    "During the case, the ATF re-inspected J.A. Industries and determined the license should be revoked. The gun manufacturer has 15 days to challenge the notice and request a hearing before the license is revoked."

    Read more at: https://www.kansascity.com/news/sta...-missouri/article259954660.html#storylink=cpy
     

    RaleighReloader

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    Jan 30, 2015
    1,177
    48
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Let's be absolutely clear: this is Bloomberg (vis-a-vis his many astroturf gun banning organizations) flexing its legal muscle.

    I haven't reviewed Jimenez's various applications and such, but my guess is that the company was deliberately filing for bankruptcy protection to avoid lawsuits and the subsequent liabilities. What they did may not have been strictly illegal, but it's something that will give the IRS (and ATF) a good reason to give them a thorough proctological examination. And heck, I'm sure I broke some obscure law on my last trip to the bathroom two rooms over ... if the government wants to jam you up, they most certainly will.

    Bloomberg knows that companies like Colt and Smith & Wesson will be much harder targets, so he's starting with the low hanging fruit.

    Mike
     

    Core

    Salt
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 5, 2011
    247
    28
    Maine
    This is more slippery slope constitutional abuses. The very fabric of Western Law is being torn apart in the name of "security" by elites tied to UN's vision of a new world order. No citizen should stand for this. They will come for you next if this is allowed.
     

    RaleighReloader

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    Jan 30, 2015
    1,177
    48
    Baton Rouge, LA
    That’s crappy , what reason do they have to shut them down other than the guns are cheap ? They are a legitimate business what gives them the right
    Technically they're not shutting down the company; they are just denying the company an FFL to manufacture firearms. That's well within the purview of the ATF's jurisdiction, for better or worse.

    Jimenez is also a good target for Bloomberg & Co. because most gun owners (and especially collectors and serious shooters) probably don't care a wit about what happens to Jimenez. If they go after Smith & Wesson or Colt or some other big name, Bloomie knows that he'll have to deal with a ton of gun owners and a lot of law enforcement agencies. But Jimenez? Even some of the people in this thread had said that they don't care—which is exactly what Bloomie wants.

    This is all a dry run for when they take aim at the American arms industry. Between Jimenez, the suit against Remington, Mexico's lawsuit, etc. ... he's sharpening his pencil.

    Mike
     
    Top Bottom