WokewayUSA? This is so disappointing

[BBQ Guy]

I quit buying from crapway and sh*tterfield when they couldn't ship stuff packaged correctly.

These folks will put themselves out of business and come back to folks like us with their greedy hands open.
There are better business's to deal with. Seek them out and support them.
F**k crapway and Larry Sh*tterfield.

 

[lucusloc]

I and others simply disagree with the notion that there is anything inherently risky with selling lawful goods in a lawful capacity.

Then you fail to have a basic understanding of the law and what terms like "temporary injunction" and "appeals" mean with regards to legal risk in the context of a challenge to a law that is technically already on the books.

Everything you have said past that is founded on the basis of this misunderstanding and is therefor meaningless.

If one of these companies ships an order after a judge has ended a temporary injunction (which they can do with no notice whatsoever) they are in violation of the law, whether they knew about it or not. That means they are liable for all penalties found within the provisions of that law, up to and including jail time. That is not "no inheritance risk" with the decision to keep shipping the proposed contraband. Indeed that is a huge risk, indeed it could be a businesses and freedom destroying risk.

Your failure to understand and appreciate that risk is not their fault, regardless of if they agree or decline to take up that risk. Indeed I strongly suspect that the companies who are agreeing to take up that risk are doing so despite the warning of whatever legal council they are keeping, and may even be incurring additional costs with that council to keep a close daily eye on the law looking for the end to injunctions or rulings against their favor. I also suspect there are quite a few companies who cannot afford to keep such a close watch on all the various cases in all the various states that impact the legality of their business, and have just shut it all down while they wait for a more permanent resolution to come to fruition. Considering what the risk actually is I do not blame them for that. If you refuse to see and understand that risk, again, that is on you, not them.

 

[Flopsweat]

Then you fail to have a basic understanding of the law and what terms like "temporary injunction" and "appeals" mean with regards to legal risk in the context of a challenge law that is technically already on the books.

Everything you have said past that is founded on the basis of this misunderstanding and is therefor meaningless.

If one of these companies ships an order after a judge has ended a temporary injunction (which they can do with no notice whatsoever) they are in violation of the law, whether they knew about it or not. That means they are liable for all penalties found within the provisions of that law, up to and including jail time. That is not "no inheritance risk" with the decision to keep shipping the proposed contraband. Indeed that is a huge risk, indeed it could be a businesses and freedom destroying risk.

Your failure to understand and appreciate that risk is not their fault, regardless of if they agree or decline to take up that risk. Indeed I strongly suspect that the companies who are agreeing to take up that risk are doing so despite the warning of whatever legal council they are keeping, and may even be incurring additional costs with that council to keep a close daily eye on the law looking for the end to injunctions or rulings against their favor. I also suspect there are quite a few companies who cannot afford to keep such a close watch on all the various cases in all the various states that impact the legality of their business, and have just shut it all down while they wait for a more permanent resolution to come to fruition. Considering what the risk actually is I do not blame them for that. If you refuse to see and understand that risk, again, that is on you, not them.

Midway's lawyers are probably not from the bottom of the barrel either. Certainly more reliable than some random disgruntled absolutist on the internet.

 

[mhayd93]

temporary injunction

Yes, it is I that have failed to understand! lol

I encourage you to read more about Measure 114 before accusing anyone else of misunderstanding the legality of it. Some highlights from Judge Raschio's ruling striking down Measure 114 include language such as: "permanent injunction" and "permanently enjoining its implementation."

I'll say it again, every company incurs risk on a daily basis; this is just a weak move on MidwayUSA's part, simple as that. It's their right as a corporation to make that move, and it's my right to stop spending there accordingly.

The notion that it is somehow my job to worry about their wimpy legal team and "risky" behavior is honestly idiotic. This is capitalism, it's my job to vote with my dollar and support businesses how I see fit. There are so many other willing businesses worthy of my money, it baffles me that people like you are so triggered by people being reasonably upset with MidwayUSA.

 

[mhayd93]

Midway's lawyers are probably not from the bottom of the barrel either. Certainly more reliable than some random disgruntled absolutist on the internet.

Yeah, their lawyers are so good they are helping Midway lose money! Meanwhile dozens of other companies' legal teams are reaping the rewards (of selling unrestricted goods).

 

[lucusloc]

Yes, it is I that have failed to understand! lol

I encourage you to read more about Measure 114 before accusing anyone else of misunderstanding the legality of it. Some highlights from Judge Raschio's ruling striking down Measure 114 include language such as: "permanent injunction" and "permanently enjoining its implementation."

I'll say it again, every company incurs risk on a daily basis; this is just a weak move on MidwayUSA's part, simple as that. It's their right as a corporation to make that move, and it's my right to stop spending there accordingly.

The notion that it is somehow my job to worry about their wimpy legal team and "risky" behavior is honestly idiotic. This is capitalism, it's my job to vote with my dollar and support businesses how I see fit. There are so many other willing businesses worthy of my money, it baffles me that people like you are so triggered by people being reasonably upset with MidwayUSA.

Yes, it has a permanent injunction now, which is why I included the word "appeal" in my list. That "permanent injunction" is only as permanent as the next judge is willing to let it be. It still only takes one order from the next higher court for that to be reversed and the law to go into immediate effect. This is why I said this will not be completely over until it is either ruled on by SCOTUS or the state declines to take up their appeal (hint, the state did not decline to take up their appeal in this instance).

This plays right into Floppy's comment on how actual layers are probably a better source of advice than internet activists. . .

 

[ktgee]

Washington gun shop and its former owner to pay $3 million for selling high-capacity ammo magazines - KTVZ

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — A suburban Seattle gun shop and its former owner will pay $3 million for selling high-capacity ammunition magazines despite a state ban, the Washington attorney general said Tuesday. Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced the settlement with Federal Way Discount Guns and...

ktvz.com

I know we are talking about Oregon still legal to buy high-capacity mags or standard mags. But here is one reason some vendors for not selling high-capacity magazines to questionable states laws. With the confusing and ever-changing gun laws, it's a big liability if they ship the mags to the wrong state.

 

[lucusloc]

Washington gun shop and its former owner to pay $3 million for selling high-capacity ammo magazines - KTVZ

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — A suburban Seattle gun shop and its former owner will pay $3 million for selling high-capacity ammunition magazines despite a state ban, the Washington attorney general said Tuesday. Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced the settlement with Federal Way Discount Guns and...

ktvz.com

I know we are talking about Oregon still legal to buy high-capacity mags or standard mags. But here is one reason some vendors for not selling high-capacity magazines to questionable states laws. With the confusing and ever-changing gun laws, it's a big liability if they ship the mags to the wrong state.

Yep, and I will note that this is taking place while the law is still being challenged. Even if the law is eventually overturned that guy is not getting his business back. Best case is he gets to start over with whatever money he can recover from the legal system (if you think it will be the full amount he had spent defending himself and paying the fine I have a bridge to sell you).

You can bet that Oregon is just waiting for an opportunity to sink as many business they can at first opportunity. The Oregon State Supreme Court is a whole lot less friendly than Judge Raschio and there is concern that they will simply ignore his well reasoned ruling and reinstate the law in short order. With similar friendly courts (to them) the state only needs a month or two to destroy as many businesses as they can charge.

Those who see "very little risk" in all this are blind.

 

[Need2Sell]

Yep same experience with Midway. I tried to buy 7 round magazines for a 1911 and 8 round magazines for a Sig P-6 both refused because they could be modified to hold more than 10 rounds due to their removable base plates. Now I just leave them in my cart with out checking out and go buy elsewhere.

I had the exact same experience. Tried contacting their customer support (which is *supposed* to be good) and they basically said they couldnt help. Hk webstore is the same way. I just have started boycotting all the sites depriving me of my rights as best as i can.

 

[Flopsweat]

Yep, and I will note that this is taking place while the law is still being challenged. Even if the law is eventually overturned that guy is not getting his business back. Best case is he gets to start over with whatever money he can recover from the legal system (if you think it will be the full amount he had spent defending himself and paying the fine I have a bridge to sell you).

You can bet that Oregon is just waiting for an opportunity to sink as many business they can at first opportunity. The Oregon State Supreme Court is a whole lot less friendly than Judge Raschio and there is concern that they will simply ignore his well reasoned ruling and reinstate the law in short order. With similar friendly courts (to them) the state only needs a month or two to destroy as many businesses as they can charge.

Those who see "very little risk" in all this are blind.

And if you think the 5th Circuit will be kind to us, I've got a Nomad shotgun I'll sell you for $2000.

 

[64MercurysRule]

$20.00 ?

 

[64MercurysRule]

$20.00 ?

What's a little ole dot ......

 

[Flopsweat]

$20.00 ?

I think they retail for about $80 or $90, but I assume once you shoot it, it drops to about $40.

 

[mhayd93]

Yep, and I will note that this is taking place while the law is still being challenged. Even if the law is eventually overturned that guy is not getting his business back. Best case is he gets to start over with whatever money he can recover from the legal system (if you think it will be the full amount he had spent defending himself and paying the fine I have a bridge to sell you).

You can bet that Oregon is just waiting for an opportunity to sink as many business they can at first opportunity. The Oregon State Supreme Court is a whole lot less friendly than Judge Raschio and there is concern that they will simply ignore his well reasoned ruling and reinstate the law in short order. With similar friendly courts (to them) the state only needs a month or two to destroy as many businesses as they can charge.

Those who see "very little risk" in all this are blind.

From the article:

"The store and Baghai sold thousands of the magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, after the state law banning them went into effect in 2022…"

There is a huge difference between Measure 114 in Oregon (which is not a law), and this case in Washington, where it is a law that has been implemented.

We actually have good case study to see if these godlike MidwayUSA lawyers risk aversion is reasonable.

1. When the mag ban was temporarily lifted in California a few years ago. Tons of magazines were purchased and shipped into the state by a wide variety of retailers before an appeals court reinstated the mag ban. Were any adverse legal actions taken against those companies? Surely many magazines were delivered after the ban was reinstated.

2. The ammo-purchase ban in California that was recently struck down (and then reinstated). Again, many retailers shipped ammo directly to the consumers door, which I doubt was all delivered before the ban took effect again. I have yet to hear of any legal action taken against the companies that shipped the ammo while it was legal.

Also, don't you think all of the other companies still selling magazines to Oregon also have legal teams? I wonder why they aren't as scared as Midway?

 

[lucusloc]

From the article:

"The store and Baghai sold thousands of the magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, after the state law banning them went into effect in 2022…"

There is a huge difference between Measure 114 in Oregon (which is not a law), and this case in Washington, where it is a law that has been implemented.

We actually have good case study to see if these godlike MidwayUSA lawyers risk aversion is reasonable.

1. When the mag ban was temporarily lifted in California a few years ago. Tons of magazines were purchased and shipped into the state by a wide variety of retailers before an appeals court reinstated the mag ban. Were any adverse legal actions taken against those companies? Surely many magazines were delivered after the ban was reinstated.

2. The ammo-purchase ban in California that was recently struck down (and then reinstated). Again, many retailers shipped ammo directly to the consumers door, which I doubt was all delivered before the ban took effect again. I have yet to hear of any legal action taken against the companies that shipped the ammo while it was legal.

Also, don't you think all of the other companies still selling magazines to Oregon also have legal teams? I wonder why they aren't as scared as Midway?

114 passed, and would be law if not for the injunction against it. If that injunction is ever lifted (and yes, a higher court can lift an injunction put in place by a lower court) 114 will go into effect immediately.

The California State Attorney General has stated they reserve the right to pursue action against violators of the magazine ban that happened after the injunction against the law was lifted. I think the only thing preventing them from doing so is the likelihood that such cases will get rolled straight back into the existing case, which would not benefit California at this moment in time. Should the law be upheld those businesses are still in jeopardy.

Like I said before, I appreciate the risk these businesses that do choose to sell contraband to us are taking. No, I do not think they owe it to us, as many in this thread seem to think.

And yes, I do assume that many of these business who are choosing to ship have legal councils. No, I do not think that legal council is advising them to continue shipping. I think they are doing that despite their council's advice, which is a choice they can make.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Then you fail to have a basic understanding of the law and what terms like "temporary injunction" and "appeals" mean with regards to legal risk in the context of a challenge to a law that is technically already on the books.

Everything you have said past that is founded on the basis of this misunderstanding and is therefor meaningless.

If one of these companies ships an order after a judge has ended a temporary injunction (which they can do with no notice whatsoever) they are in violation of the law, whether they knew about it or not. That means they are liable for all penalties found within the provisions of that law, up to and including jail time. That is not "no inheritance risk" with the decision to keep shipping the proposed contraband. Indeed that is a huge risk, indeed it could be a businesses and freedom destroying risk.

Your failure to understand and appreciate that risk is not their fault, regardless of if they agree or decline to take up that risk. Indeed I strongly suspect that the companies who are agreeing to take up that risk are doing so despite the warning of whatever legal council they are keeping, and may even be incurring additional costs with that council to keep a close daily eye on the law looking for the end to injunctions or rulings against their favor. I also suspect there are quite a few companies who cannot afford to keep such a close watch on all the various cases in all the various states that impact the legality of their business, and have just shut it all down while they wait for a more permanent resolution to come to fruition. Considering what the risk actually is I do not blame them for that. If you refuse to see and understand that risk, again, that is on you, not them.

Yeabut then I wouldn't be able to cry like a little b!tch.

 

[mhayd93]

114 passed, and would be law if not for the injunction against it. If that injunction is ever lifted (and yes, a higher court can lift an injunction put in place by a lower court) 114 will go into effect immediately.

The California State Attorney General has stated they reserve the right to pursue action against violators of the magazine ban that happened after the injunction against the law was lifted. I think the only thing preventing them from doing so is the likelihood that such cases will get rolled straight back into the existing case, which would not benefit California at this moment in time. Should the law be upheld those businesses are still in jeopardy.

Like I said before, I appreciate the risk these businesses that do choose to sell contraband to us are taking. No, I do not think they owe it to us, as many in this thread seem to think.

And yes, I do assume that many of these business who are choosing to ship have legal councils. No, I do not think that legal council is advising them to continue shipping. I think they are doing that despite their council's advice, which is a choice they can make.

Wait, so who is the internet legal expert now?

The statement from California's Attorney General seems to just further reinforce that they will prosecute those who violated the law while it was in effect. So again, there seems to be no case study supporting the idea that shipping a legal item to a state where it is legal to possess the item has any legal ramifications, even if said item becomes illegal later down the road.

Let me flip this argument on its head: why are some people so vehemently against boycotting Midway? It's almost as if boycotting this company is striking a personal chord. From my point of view it seems just as irrational as you are making a boycott out to be.

 

[lucusloc]

Wait, so who is the internet legal expert now?

The statement from California's Attorney General seems to just further reinforce that they will prosecute those who violated the law while it was in effect. So again, there seems to be no case study supporting the idea that shipping a legal item to a state where it is legal to possess the item has any legal ramifications, even if said item becomes illegal later down the road.

Let me flip this argument on its head: why are some people so vehemently against boycotting Midway? It's almost as if boycotting this company is striking a personal chord. From my point of view it seems just as irrational as you are making a boycott out to be.

The point is, as you stated, what happens when the law goes back into effect and there are still shipments in flight. Those are technically still violations of the law that they could choose to go after, and California has stated their willingness to do so if they have a good opportunity to. The legal risk is not in selling a mag while the law is enjoined, that is 100% ok by any legal standard. The risk is that when the stay is lifted, especially when it that is done so without warning. This is exactly as I sated in my first post on this thread so don't try to twist my words to mean something I never said. When a law is held back by nothing more than an injunction that is a status that can change in a moment, and unless you are willing to change your POS/shop/shipping at that exact moment as well you will likely be in violation of the law when it does. All it will take from that point is an opportunistic state prosecutor to decide to get you while they can and you are under active legal peril until (and if) things get resolved in your favor. Just like happened in Washington under that active law.

 

[Flopsweat]

Wait, so who is the internet legal expert now?

The statement from California's Attorney General seems to just further reinforce that they will prosecute those who violated the law while it was in effect. So again, there seems to be no case study supporting the idea that shipping a legal item to a state where it is legal to possess the item has any legal ramifications, even if said item becomes illegal later down the road.

Let me flip this argument on its head: why are some people so vehemently against boycotting Midway? It's almost as if boycotting this company is striking a personal chord. From my point of view it seems just as irrational as you are making a boycott out to be.

Wait, what? Who here has been "vehemently against boycotting Midway"? Seems like you're grasping a bit there.

 

[mhayd93]

The point is, as you stated, what happens when the law goes back into effect and there are still shipments in flight. Those are technically still violations of the law that they could choose to go after, and California has stated their willingness to do so if they have a good opportunity to. The legal risk is not in selling a mag while the law is enjoined, that is 100% ok by any legal standard. The risk is that when the stay is lifted, especially when it that is done so without warning. This is exactly as I sated in my first post on this thread so don't try to twist my words to mean something I never said. When a law is held back by nothing more than an injunction that is a status that can change in a moment, and unless you are willing to change your POS/shop/shipping at that exact moment as well you will likely be in violation of the law when it does. All it will take from that point is an opportunistic state prosecutor to decide to get you while they can and you are under active legal peril until (and if) things get resolved in your favor. Just like happened in Washington under that active law.

I've already addressed the California issue though, and currently there is no relevant case study to support your claim. In 2019, Magpul was selling "high capacity" magazines directly to California residents after Judge Benitez struck down California's magazine ban. Of course, a court of appeals reinstated the mag ban as swiftly as possible.

When this magazine ban was reinstated, I'm certain there were mags in transit from Magpul to California. However, here we are almost 5 years later and California has not brought forth a lawsuit against Magpul.

There is no case study in this scenario to support the notion that a company is liable for selling illegal goods when at the time of purchase and shipment, it was perfectly legal. The "risk" that you are defending Midway over seems to be fabricated out of paranoia rather than actual case study (typically what we'd consider a lawyers bread and butter).