AlphaKoncepts aka CGS Posted November 12, 2013 at 04:39 PM Share Posted November 12, 2013 at 04:39 PM 6,000 but I never heard of them until this very day. Even if everyone bought a mag from them, it still wouldn't pay for the legal fees if just ONE mag got used in a crime and they got sued for supplying dangerous evil magazines to a criminal about to turn his life around. Know what I mean? Risk vs Reward ration, the reward just isn't worth the risk. Plus like I said, it's probably out of their hands. Theyt probably use a drop shipper like everyone on the internet and are bound by the policies of their distributors. Barking up Weidners tree may be the wrong tree to bark. Why not bark up the politicians and get all mag bans removed from the books to make it easy on the dealers like Weidners? I'm still confused by your argument. If they know the law (and admit it) and follow it, there is NO risk.. Can you really ever really know the law? Really? It changes so often in this state. And again it may be outside of their control as I have stated numerous times. Everyone on the internet selling product used drop shippers to some degree. Do you really think I have over 5 million dollars in inventory sitting in my basement? Cheaper Than Dirt uses the same drop shippers as I do and I bet this supplier does too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChadN. Posted November 12, 2013 at 05:01 PM Share Posted November 12, 2013 at 05:01 PM I wasn't aware Bud's had any issues with Illinois. They have a pretty clear set of guidelines that they follow for Cook County. They haven't updated in a while, but I haven't had issues with them lately. Did something change? They won't even make an exemption for law enforcement in Chicago, including with department letterhead. That's definitely a plus in my book. I live in Chicago, and they now will not sell to ANYONE, including LEO's, who has a Chicago address, even if you're transferring to an FFL outside of Chicago, or even Cook County for that matter. They've blacklisted me because of my address, I've blacklisted them for their policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narcoden Posted November 12, 2013 at 05:12 PM Share Posted November 12, 2013 at 05:12 PM 6,000 but I never heard of them until this very day. Even if everyone bought a mag from them, it still wouldn't pay for the legal fees if just ONE mag got used in a crime and they got sued for supplying dangerous evil magazines to a criminal about to turn his life around. Know what I mean? Risk vs Reward ration, the reward just isn't worth the risk. Plus like I said, it's probably out of their hands. Theyt probably use a drop shipper like everyone on the internet and are bound by the policies of their distributors. Barking up Weidners tree may be the wrong tree to bark. Why not bark up the politicians and get all mag bans removed from the books to make it easy on the dealers like Weidners? I'm still confused by your argument. If they know the law (and admit it) and follow it, there is NO risk.. Can you really ever really know the law? Really? It changes so often in this state. And again it may be outside of their control as I have stated numerous times. Everyone on the internet selling product used drop shippers to some degree. Do you really think I have over 5 million dollars in inventory sitting in my basement? Cheaper Than Dirt uses the same drop shippers as I do and I bet this supplier does too. Wait, you had 5 mil in toys in your basement and didn't show me at class? Why were you holding out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcloud Posted November 12, 2013 at 05:24 PM Share Posted November 12, 2013 at 05:24 PM I live in Chicago, and they now will not sell to ANYONE, including LEO's, who has a Chicago address, even if you're transferring to an FFL outside of Chicago, or even Cook County for that matter. They've blacklisted me because of my address, I've blacklisted them for their policy. I know, that was my point. They don't sell to anyone, LEO or otherwise, so at least they treat everyone equally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCroskey Posted November 12, 2013 at 05:51 PM Share Posted November 12, 2013 at 05:51 PM Online shops that don't sell handguns or handgun ammunition to everyone in Illinois, Cook and Chicago included, don't get my business anymore. I'm sick of the excuses. They can blame Rahm Emanuel all they want, but when the law clearly says handguns and handgun ammo is preempted by the State and the local ordinances no longer apply, continuing to adhere to those ordinances is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted November 12, 2013 at 06:01 PM Share Posted November 12, 2013 at 06:01 PM 6,000 but I never heard of them until this very day. Even if everyone bought a mag from them, it still wouldn't pay for the legal fees if just ONE mag got used in a crime and they got sued for supplying dangerous evil magazines to a criminal about to turn his life around. Know what I mean? Risk vs Reward ration, the reward just isn't worth the risk. Plus like I said, it's probably out of their hands. Theyt probably use a drop shipper like everyone on the internet and are bound by the policies of their distributors. Barking up Weidners tree may be the wrong tree to bark. Why not bark up the politicians and get all mag bans removed from the books to make it easy on the dealers like Weidners? I'm still confused by your argument. If they know the law (and admit it) and follow it, there is NO risk.. Can you really ever really know the law? Really? It changes so often in this state. And again it may be outside of their control as I have stated numerous times. Everyone on the internet selling product used drop shippers to some degree. Do you really think I have over 5 million dollars in inventory sitting in my basement? Cheaper Than Dirt uses the same drop shippers as I do and I bet this supplier does too. So use a different drop-shipper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elderberry Posted November 12, 2013 at 06:14 PM Share Posted November 12, 2013 at 06:14 PM So they won't sell to someone in Marion or Cairo but they will sell to someone in Kenosha or Gary and THAT's going to protect them from a lawsuit...?? Boy there's a great business plan... I don't accept the argument that it's the drop shipper's fault. Why is it everything in this day and age is someone else's fault..?? If it is legal where I live then the vendor gets to decide if they want my money or not. And since it's a free country, they can refuse my business all they want. But I get to play the same game. Sorry, but I'll spend my money elsewhere and I probably won't keep it a secret... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaKoncepts aka CGS Posted November 12, 2013 at 07:02 PM Share Posted November 12, 2013 at 07:02 PM So use a different drop-shipper?Sure yeah, because there are soooo many? Guys there area really only maybe 5 big distributors where ALL the product you buy originates. There are tons of guys calling themselves distributors but the smaller distributors will charge almost "internet retail" prices. Impossible to make a profit when there is already so little margin in the industry. It's all volume. It sounds good on paper like communism, find another distributor, but we all know how well communism works in reality. If distributor A is selling magazine 1 for $21, and magazine 1 is selling all over the internet for $23. Distributor A won't ship to restricted areas, but distributor B will. However Distributor B is selling the magazine for $21.95. If you think there is more than a 10% margin on firearm accessories, or more than a 5% margin on ammunition; think again. It's not as easy as finding another drop shipper. Not when everyone spends 10 hours of wasted time to save $1 on a magazine and the top 2 or 3 distributors who control the market have restrictive policies. The answers are real easy when you are on the outside looking in, but when you have the face the reality of the situation that the ENTIRE industry is based on drop shipping and only a few distributors control the entire market, well there's no real easy answers anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaKoncepts aka CGS Posted November 12, 2013 at 07:07 PM Share Posted November 12, 2013 at 07:07 PM So they won't sell to someone in Marion or Cairo but they will sell to someone in Kenosha or Gary and THAT's going to protect them from a lawsuit...?? Boy there's a great business plan... I don't accept the argument that it's the drop shipper's fault. Why is it everything in this day and age is someone else's fault..?? If it is legal where I live then the vendor gets to decide if they want my money or not. And since it's a free country, they can refuse my business all they want. But I get to play the same game. Sorry, but I'll spend my money elsewhere and I probably won't keep it a secret... Because in SOME situations it entirely IS the fault of others. If I am bound by their policy like it or not, then what can I do? I am not saying this is Weidner's problem. heck maybe they do stock the magazines. I'm saying it'd be real easy for anyone, myself included, to be in the situation Weidners is in, at no fault of their own due to policies set forth by their suppliers. Maybe Weidners does suck, maybe they don't. Why waste so much energy? Just go buy the mag elsewhere. I'm not defending Weidners as a company per say, I am defending the whole idea that automatically they are anti 2nd amendment because they won't ship mags to Illinois. And I am defending this idea for one reason, because I understand the industry and I could just as easily be the next one "dead to you", and at no fault of my own. So in some cases yes people might cop out, but there is the possibility it could also be someone else's fault. Not always, but sometimes it is right to pass the buck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elderberry Posted November 12, 2013 at 07:09 PM Share Posted November 12, 2013 at 07:09 PM The answers are real easy when you are on the outside looking in, Well, I certainly agree with that statement.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZomBGone012 Posted November 12, 2013 at 07:13 PM Share Posted November 12, 2013 at 07:13 PM Did Ii forget about a mag ban we had in illinois/. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockerXX Posted November 12, 2013 at 07:58 PM Share Posted November 12, 2013 at 07:58 PM Distributor A won't ship to restricted areas, but distributor B will.Really doesn't matter what A or B charges then when B is the only one willing to actually sell to said customer... End result B will get all the business in town because of A's choice to not sell in town, regardless of price or profit margin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaKoncepts aka CGS Posted November 12, 2013 at 08:09 PM Share Posted November 12, 2013 at 08:09 PM Distributor A won't ship to restricted areas, but distributor B will.Really doesn't matter what A or B charges then when B is the only one willing to actually sell to said customer... End result B will get all the business in town because of A's choice to not sell in town, regardless of price or profit margin...So you are saying, as a middle man, I place my orders with distributor A for 49 states and place the rest of my orders with distributor B for 1 state AND I charge an Illinois surcharge? Or I should place my order with distibutor B and take a loss? Or I should try to charge the whole country inflated distributor B prices and sell to nobody because everyone who buys on the internet wants cheap? See what I mean about no easy answers. But I do agree with you, it'll all go to distributor B and rightly so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elderberry Posted November 12, 2013 at 08:26 PM Share Posted November 12, 2013 at 08:26 PM Because in SOME situations it entirely IS the fault of others. If I am bound by their policy like it or not, then what can I do? Well, in that case you could say why it isn't possible for you to ship to those customers and also explain whose policy it is that you are bound by. In that case I would still support your business (and encourage others to do the same) while fighting back at the business who had that policy (and encouraging others to do the same). But apparently Widner's didn't do that. Apparently they made a decision to not do business with anyone in Illinois on items that most of the geographical area of this state has the legal right to purchase. And it's probably fair to assume before they made that decision they looked at their sales data and their margins and said it's not worth bothering with. So, stated another way, there is a business out there dealing directly with the public that has decided those of us in Illinois who want to purchase certain items aren't worth bothering with, no matter whose fault that is, and that we also aren't worth a reasonable explanation. In my simple mind that seems like a poor business model for a company that cares about customer loyalty. So perhaps they don't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockerXX Posted November 12, 2013 at 08:50 PM Share Posted November 12, 2013 at 08:50 PM So you are saying, as a middle man, I place my orders with distributor A for 49 states and place the rest of my orders with distributor B for 1 state AND I charge an Illinois surcharge? Or I should place my order with distibutor B and take a loss? Or I should try to charge the whole country inflated distributor B prices and sell to nobody because everyone who buys on the internet wants cheap? See what I mean about no easy answers. Seems that many other Internet companies have found an option that is the best of both, as there is not shortage of companies that will sell competitively priced items and actually ship to IL, so there has to be a viable option out there... For example you could bulk order a shipment to yourself from Distributor A and for those limited places they won't drop ship you can ship from your own inventory... Might not be the same profit but a happy customer is much more likely to return and spend more vs the one you sent away by refusing their order... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChadN. Posted November 13, 2013 at 10:17 PM Share Posted November 13, 2013 at 10:17 PM I live in Chicago, and they now will not sell to ANYONE, including LEO's, who has a Chicago address, even if you're transferring to an FFL outside of Chicago, or even Cook County for that matter. They've blacklisted me because of my address, I've blacklisted them for their policy. I know, that was my point. They don't sell to anyone, LEO or otherwise, so at least they treat everyone equally. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. See section 90 of the FCCA. It states specifically about preemption regarding handguns AND ammo. In any case, I see your point, jcloud, at least they're not selling to anyone at all including LEOs, sort of what Magpul did because of Colorado's laws. The difference here is that Colorado's laws specifically bans 10+ mags, while there is no sort of ban on ammo here in the IL, contrary to what they're saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChadN. Posted November 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM Share Posted November 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM I think you guys are arguing (a good argument nonetheless) on a tangent. Everyone is saying that if company X won't do business with us, then we don't need to do business with company X...and I agree with this, I believe cgs does so as well. However, I think the bottomline of what Tom (correct me if I'm wrong, cgs!) is saying is that just because a company refuses to deal business with a particular state, we shouldn't write them off automatically as anti-2A. If this was the case, Magpul and all the other firearm manufacturers that uprooted would fall in this category. Bottomline is, a business who doesn't want to deal wouldn't automatically join the anti-2A category for me, however, they would be in the do-not-deal category definitely. Widener's, and Bud's are in this category. A change in their selling policy, such as allowing sales in IL, would move them out of this category. A change in stance the other way, such as selling to government only, or stopping firearm sales AND stating 2A should be changed, would definitely keep them in this category, AND get them included in the anti-2A category as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Posted November 14, 2013 at 12:33 AM Author Share Posted November 14, 2013 at 12:33 AM I think you guys are arguing (a good argument nonetheless) on a tangent. Everyone is saying that if company X won't do business with us, then we don't need to do business with company X...and I agree with this, I believe cgs does so as well. However, I think the bottomline of what Tom (correct me if I'm wrong, cgs!) is saying is that just because a company refuses to deal business with a particular state, we shouldn't write them off automatically as anti-2A. If this was the case, Magpul and all the other firearm manufacturers that uprooted would fall in this category. Actually Magpul hasn't refused to do business with any State unless the State has already attacked the 2A like Colorado did. . Illinois did attack the 2A But the voters of the State b***-slapped the heck out of the politicians and the attempt failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChadN. Posted November 14, 2013 at 01:07 AM Share Posted November 14, 2013 at 01:07 AM Actually Magpul hasn't refused to do business with any State unless the State has already attacked the 2A like Colorado did. . Illinois did attack the 2A But the voters of the State b***-slapped the heck out of the politicians and the attempt failed. Yes sir, this is along the lines of what I meant. Magpul by any means isn't anti-2A just because it refuses to deal with Colorado. Had I lived in Colorado, I fully support their stance, but they would be in my do not deal list, well, because obviously they won't sell to Colorado. The difference between Bud'sGS/Wideners and Magpul in this situation is that Colorado has a law in place preventing Magpul from selling their standard capacity rounds in Colorado, while Illinois doesn't have a law preventing Bud's/Wideners from selling here, unless of course, their lawyers believe local ordinance trumps state law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletcher969 Posted November 15, 2013 at 08:42 AM Share Posted November 15, 2013 at 08:42 AM Where there are barriers, there are opportunities. Looks like somebody with some extra capital laying around could be an in-state distributor for all things relevant. I sent my email. Registering my opinion with may not help, or change a thing, but it never hurts to be heard. Where 2A issues are concerned, one is either with us, or they're against us. My 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGF Posted November 15, 2013 at 07:39 PM Share Posted November 15, 2013 at 07:39 PM Whether it be by its own volition or that of its shipper, Wideners has made its choice.Now we in the 101 "other" counties can make ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockerXX Posted November 15, 2013 at 08:02 PM Share Posted November 15, 2013 at 08:02 PM Where there are barriers, there are opportunities. Looks like somebody with some extra capital laying around could be an in-state distributor for all things relevant. There are already 1000s of other companies that will gladly accept business from Illinois customers and ship to them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted November 17, 2013 at 01:50 PM Share Posted November 17, 2013 at 01:50 PM Bud, I understand your frustration, but I think it is misdirected. It's not Widener's fault that Illinois has such screwy and hard to interpret laws. You should be directing your frustration against those laws, not a retailer of guns, ammo, and accessories. They are "our" ally while Illinois and certain municipalities are not. Be careful when discerning friend from foe. Hatred of Widener's "Dead to me" is simply misplaced. Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
il.bill Posted November 17, 2013 at 03:37 PM Share Posted November 17, 2013 at 03:37 PM Seriously, they are going to make a buck or two on a magazine. Do you blame them NOT risking a ten thousand dollar legal battle over $2 gross profit? It is their business and certainly it is their right to run it how they choose. A buck or two on a magazine? I have purchased multiple firearms from Widener's (five pistols in the last 17 months), as well as several purchases of ammunition, magazines, and supplies. Not any more - I removed them from my browser's bookmarks list and sent them an e-mail telling them so when they chose this week not to sell me a half dozen CZ82/83 magazines because I live in Illinois. It is just laziness on their part, and while I am dismayed by their choice to be that way, I also respect their right to do so. It is free enterprise in action and they simply do not want my business, so they will get no more of it. An interesting side note: instead of automatically buying from Widener's I had to do some internet searching and found the exact same CZ82/83 factory new magazines on GunBroker at a substantial savings in my delivered cost. 'Hello' Robertson's Trading Post and 'Goodbye' to Widener's! "A buck or two on a magazine?" What a simplistic and short-sighted outlook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted November 21, 2013 at 12:53 AM Share Posted November 21, 2013 at 12:53 AM "A buck or two on a magazine?" What a simplistic and short-sighted outlook. x2! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geneseo1911 Posted November 21, 2013 at 01:28 PM Share Posted November 21, 2013 at 01:28 PM Meant to get to this sooner, but I've been busy in the field: To Whom It May Concern: It has come to my attention through the “IllinoisCarry.com” forum that Widener’s is refusing to sell standard capacity magazines to residents of Illinois. The thread concerning this issue can be found here: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=42849&st=0I have been a customer of Widener’s for five years, and spent several thousand dollars with you. I am very disappointed to hear of this development, and I wanted to make you aware of the issue and find out for myself what Widener’s policy is. Illinois has always been on the front lines of the gun rights battle. One county in this state sees fit to try to oppress the other 101. Through hard work we have been able to not only beat back magazine and gun bans, but even to take substantial ground, such as the recent passage of our concealed carry law (which preempts ALL handgun laws, including magazine capacity limits, in the state). The last thing we need is our allies in the battle turning their backs on us. I invite you to join our forum and tell us your side of the story. I will be posting this letter there along with any response. I will also not be purchasing anything with Widener’s unless or until this issue is resolved. There are plenty of companies perfectly willing to sell standard magazines to Illinois residents, where legal (which is everywhere except Cook County and a handful of northeastern suburbs in the case of rifles, and the whole state in the case of handguns). Thank You,*geneseo1911* I'll post any response I get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Posted November 21, 2013 at 01:52 PM Author Share Posted November 21, 2013 at 01:52 PM Bud, I understand your frustration, but I think it is misdirected. It's not Widener's fault that Illinois has such screwy and hard to interpret laws. You should be directing your frustration against those laws, not a retailer of guns, ammo, and accessories. They are "our" ally while Illinois and certain municipalities are not. Be careful when discerning friend from foe. Hatred of Widener's "Dead to me" is simply misplaced. Think about it. No it's not. Please cite the law that forbids purchase, possession or sale of magazines to me. There is no law. Because there is a law in Cook County, Widener's has decided it is too ha5rd to sell/ship magazines to me even though they have done it in the very recent past. I spend a lot of now very much regretted money with Widener in the past. Guns, ammo and magazines. They have clearly indicated that they are no longer interested in my business purely because i live in Illinois. There is no other reason provided by them, it is just because i live in Illinois. So, "dead to me" is quite appropriate. If you choose to do business with them, go for it, that's your right. But don't belitt;le my decision based on a false premise of a confusing law. The law isn't confusing at all because.....wait for it... there is no law! How is that confusing? because you can't find one that makes it illegal than it becomes confusing and no longer non-existent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGF Posted November 22, 2013 at 11:32 PM Share Posted November 22, 2013 at 11:32 PM "I spend a lot of now very much regretted money with Widener in the past." Did you think you were getting a good value then? If so, then you were.If not, why'd you return and what were you paying for?You were buying stuff from a seller, not getting engaged.We got it: Widener's is dead to you. 10-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockerXX Posted November 23, 2013 at 02:15 AM Share Posted November 23, 2013 at 02:15 AM Please cite the law that forbids purchase, possession or sale of magazines to me. See that is the confusing part, no such law exist so they are confused when they can't find it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cola490 Posted November 23, 2013 at 02:40 AM Share Posted November 23, 2013 at 02:40 AM I just checked the website, they stated they would not ship to Cook County. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.