Ruger Facebook Response To Request That They Not Distribute To Dick’s Sporting Goods
BY Herschel Smith
6 years, 7 months ago
FB:
To All Our Loyal Fans & Customers: We have had a number of inquiries about whether we plan to discontinue sales to Dick’s Sporting Goods. We do not sell to Dick’s. Ruger utilizes a two-step distribution system in which we sell to independent, federally licensed distributors, who sell to independent, federally licensed retailers. Because the distributors are independent, we cannot control where they sell the products they acquire. However, we share your concerns about how Dick’s is conducting itself and are disappointed by their recent actions. Given Dick’s recent pronouncements, we expect it is safe to assume that you will not be seeing Ruger firearms in their stores. #Ruger #firearms
I just don’t know whether I believe this. All Ruger – or any other manufacturer – has to do is require of their distributors that they not sell to Dick’s Sporting Goods. If they are caught doing that, then Ruger does not use those distributors any more.
In fact, this could all be set up in a contractual agreement. What’s so hard about that? Why is Ruger dismissing this as if we’re stupid and can’t figure it out?
|
|
On May 6, 2018 at 10:32 pm, Uncle Kenny said:
“…we expect it is safe to assume that you will not be seeing Ruger firearms in their stores. ”
You might consider that Ruger is sending a very pointed message to its distributors here. It’s one that does not need to get filtered through armies of lawyers, negotiations, and revised distributor agreements. It’s one that can be put in place between the distributors and Dick’s as soon as the next order that Dick’s wants to place.
And if a distributor doesn’t get the hint? The next time their Ruger contract is up for renewal, there may be a surprise in store for them. At least one would like to think that is what’s happening here.
Leave it to companies like Dick’s to signal their virtue and have hissy fits. I expect Ruger to behave more professionally and to work with their customers, the distributors, in a businesslike way.
On May 7, 2018 at 6:48 am, Frank Clarke said:
“All Ruger – or any other manufacturer – has to do is require of their distributors that they not sell to Dick’s Sporting Goods.”
This could easily be interpreted as “a conspiracy in restraint of trade” which, while it should be none of the government’s business, is still a violation of federal law.
I think Uncle Kenny interpreted Ruger’s words accurately.
On May 7, 2018 at 8:47 am, Fred said:
Let me put a finer note on it in case any distributors stop by; if all of these middle men were cut out how much would a Ruger firearm cost me? Now we have a two tiered market incentive in place. I like free markets.
On May 7, 2018 at 10:51 am, Jay Eimer said:
Ruger probably can’t say that because they’re a publicly traded company – their shareholders are frequently mutual funds and investment groups and not necessarily gun owners.
On May 7, 2018 at 11:16 am, Herschel Smith said:
@Jay & Frank,
BoA is a publicly traded company too, and yet they aren’t lending to firearms manufacturers. Is this not a “restraint of trade?” Is Dick’s really going to take Ruger to court over something like that? Are they really going to hire litigation attorneys to depose witnesses and spend time filing court briefs over not supplying Dick’s with guns they won’t sell?
On May 7, 2018 at 12:05 pm, tjbbpgobIII said:
I just think whomever wrote that headline needs the onsoe meds to help them recognize irony when it literally jumps off the page.
On May 7, 2018 at 12:09 pm, tjbbpgobIII said:
on some meds, is what I intended to write not osoe meds.
On May 7, 2018 at 12:18 pm, Fred said:
Jay, Ruger’s revenue stream is gun owners (buyers). These major shareholders aren’t sitting around eating crayons. They know where the money comes from. So all of these decisions are either monetary or philosophical. If somebody doesn’t like a product for whatever reason, including philosophical then fine.
Herschel & Frank, About Restraint of Trade. Ruger sells to middle men for it’s own convenience. Single buyers greatly simplify supply chain. Period. Ruger, outside of current contracts has no obligation to use tier 1 in their 2 tier system. And BofA? lending is a choice regardless of reason to conclude that Ruger may be a bad investment. But, attempting to harm companies and individuals ability to exercise a civil right is what they are attempting to do. That’s a felony. Since they don’t fear the feds, because both parties are gun controllers, they can openly and blatantly state their reasons for (not) banking this way. VERY IMPORTANTLY, you don’t want them to be forced to loan money to somebody they’d rather not do you? Isn’t this how Barney Frank crashed the housing market…yes.
One more time: “The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant [literal = slave] to the lender.”
My position is God’s. He said don’t borrow and this shit won’t happen to you.
You should know, that what is happening in the firearms space on wall street happens to every industry. If I were a dem, I would drive down the prices of these stocks in anticipation of taking one or both houses and then ousting Trump after one term. Think they might-could make a penny if accumulating shares over the next couple years if they do this? Uh, yeah. Drive down price, buy, change environment, price goes up. Happens every day.
When we get to Heaven we’ll discover that Diane Feinstein’s financial advisor has traded vigorously around the political aspect of gun control, enriching his client (and himself). Just a hunch.
On May 7, 2018 at 12:46 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@tjbbpgobIII,
I don’t understand the comment. What “irony?” What “headline?” Who on meds? What meds?
@Fred,
Of course it’s for convenience. That’s why I can order a gun online and have it delivered to an FFL and pay a transfer fee.
On May 7, 2018 at 12:48 pm, H said:
I don’t really know anything about gun sales channels, but if you go with the principle that companies can be good at only a few things, it makes sense for manufacturers to make guns, and distributors to know and manage relationships with zillions of gun stores, and to do preform consolidation functions like selling stores guns from multiple manufacturers. That said, a search just now matched my memory that companies like Ruger also do exclusive deals with distributors.
Jay Eimer: Ruger only has to make a case that stopping sales to companies like Dicks makes business sense, that they’d lose more if they didn’t because enough outraged gun owners won’t buy their stuff. And use examples like S&W.
Fred: I think you’ll find Peter Schweizer’s new Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends very interesting, although you might want to read his 2013 Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets first for more background on this general angle. Some of the most interesting chapters were on Obama’s “Smash and Grab” tactics, he smashed industries like for profit colleges and coal companies, and his friends and allies then picked up the remains for pennies on the dollars.
On May 7, 2018 at 1:26 pm, TheAlaskan said:
So…just stop shopping at Dick’s. If they’re that big, they’ll start feeling it. They sell lots of stuff right? Don’t shop there and let anyone know who inquires, why.
We don’t have Dick’s up here…..stores that is.
On May 7, 2018 at 1:30 pm, TheAlaskan said:
So…just stop shopping at Dick’s. If they’re that big, they’ll start feeling it. They sell lots of stuff right? Don’t shop there and let anyone know who inquires, why.
We don’t have Dick’s up here…..stores that is.
Ruger probably isn’t concerned.
On May 7, 2018 at 2:02 pm, Gryphon said:
Ultimately, it is the Buyer (who takes the Product Home) who Decides which Retailer survives in the Marketplace; Stupid Decisions by a Retail Merchant to piss off potential Customers are ‘on them’. As for Ruger mandating to Whom a Distributor can re-sell their Products to, I Doubt that having that in a Contract would be grounds for Legal Action, Especially By the second-tier Buyer (Dick’s)
While it would be Nice to see Ruger or other Manufacturers attempting to Fight Back against Anti-Gun Retailers, in the End it’s up to Us as Gun Purchasers to make the Final Statement. Buy Local, even if you have to Pay a few dollars More, You can be Sure that the Owners of the Local Gun Shops are NOT virtue-signalling libtards with an Anti-American political agenda.
On May 7, 2018 at 2:46 pm, moe mensale said:
@Frank Clarke,
“This could easily be interpreted as “a conspiracy in restraint of trade” which, while it should be none of the government’s business, is still a violation of federal law.”
Good thing this kind of crap doesn’t happen in the medical industry or the financial/banking industry. Oh, wait a minute…..
15 USC Chapter 1.
On May 7, 2018 at 9:47 pm, Ned said:
Well, yeah – it’s safe to assume I won’t be seeing, well, anything in Dick’s, because I won’t go in there. However, I will also consider what i will buy in the future. If I find that a manufacturer is selling to an anti-rights outlet, and funding an assault on me, I will most likely purchase some other product that will fulfill the need.