I think I’ve figured out what Palmetto State Armory is doing here…
On the PSA Terms & Conditions page in the “Firearms Shipments” section they have the following restrictions for Rhode Island;
PSA will not ship semi-auto pistols to Rhode Island weighing more than 50 ounces, having a barrel shroud, or a threaded barrel. PSA will not ship semi-auto shotguns with a fixed magazine capacity of more than 6 rounds or one with a detachable mag and a pistol grip, folding or telescoping stock.
It looks to me like they are either A) Doing a favor for Cicilline by enacting his desired AWB in his home state in a show of support for his legislation. Or B) Punishing the ENTIRE state of Rhode Island for the proposed legislation by Cicilline because we unfortunately have him as a representative.
Option A goes contrary to many years of comments from PSA regarding supporting 2nd amendment rights and “dedicated to spreading freedom of the highest level to all Americans”.
Option B makes me wonder why they would do this to an entire state considering when the state of Washington enacted their magazine capacity ban, PSA actually PRIORITIZED shipments of magazines to the state to supply as many WA customers as possible prior to the ban being enacted. (**Magazine and Order shipments**)
This is especially concerning because RI has no AWB to speak of, and there is absolutely no reason for these rules other than to punsish customers from RI.
Firstly, welcome to the community. If you spend any amount of time here you will see that PSA and this community are fierce defenders of the 2nd. I will try to illuminate as well as I can from my perspective.
PSA is required to operate within the confines of the law for each state. Rhode Island had, at that time already enacted H.R.1808 and therefore PSA is required to follow that law in order to do any business there.
As far as the WA magazine ban, there was a timeline for when it would be enacted and magazines purchased prior to it taking effect would be grandfathered in. Therefore, PSA was trying to fit as freedom into the state as possible before the banhammer finally fell.
Thanks for the warm welcome! I’ve been a PSA customer for a couple years and have bought numerous uppers, lowers, magazines and other parts from them. I was always proud to do so as I was under the impression that PSA really was a company that was fighting for the rights of all Americans. I completely understand that PSA needs to follow the law and would never fault them for having to comply with a state’s laws, no matter how unconstitutional I felt those laws were, which is why I am so absolutely infuriated about this.
That being said, you are incorrect about any sort of AWB in Rhode Island. H.R. 1808 or its equivalent has NOT been enacted in Rhode Island. There was proposed legislation this past session but it never even made it through committee, never mind a floor vote for its passage. We did have a couple unpleasant laws just pass that would affect SOME sales by PSA to residents of the state.
Magazine capacity restrictions (10 rounds maximum, no grandfather clause, and 180 days to either destroy/turn-in/or convert any non-compliant magazine).
Ammo purchase restrictions. RI residents need to provide a blue card (pistol purchasing permit) or orange card (hunter safety permit) in order to purchase ammunition.
There is no current ban on the purchase of anything classified as an “assault weapon” in the state. I can still go buy them at my LGS or any other vendor on-line. PSA is jumping the gun here and enforcing restrictions against the state that our laws do not require.
I attempted to get in touch with someone at PSA last week and was able to confirm that this restriction is NOT due to any law, but enacted as “company policy”. When I asked to speak with someone else regarding this issue to determine why this policy was put in place, I was told that there was no one else I could be connected to and that this is simply their policy. This flies in the face of everything I thought PSA stood for.
You spoke to the lowest person on the totem pole, the customer services rep’s job is to enforce policy. Of course they’re not going to say its based on any law because their job is to know PSAs policy, not every law for every state. Its also their job to not escalate calls where the outcome wont change, and they wont escalate calls if its about a policy because you’ll just be referred to the website.
Wait for a more definitive answer from their reps here, they’ll have more info.
Ok…y’all hold on. This issue was brought to PSA’s attention last week and their compliance department is working on it. PSA is NOT anti-2a. They also don’t want to be sued into oblivion, which could potentially shut down their company, resulting in one less firearm manufacturer.
No AWB in RI. That bill is federal and just so happens to be introduced by a RI Congressperson. They couldn’t pass an AWB in RI and settled for 10 rd magazines, up the age to 21 and require blue card to buy ammo, and no open carry of rifles in public.
The only restriction is no shipping >10rd magazines to RI
I couldn’t get anyone on the phone, so I had to take the only route I had. But they did do exactly what you suggested, just pointed me back to the website.
I just wanted to understand why they put this policy in place. My bonus comes in 2 weeks and I’ve been excited for a month to put in an order for the AK-104 GF4 and felt like they were yanking the rug out from under me for some mystery reason. Still feels that way.
I don’t want them sued into oblivion either! That’s the last thing I would want. I even went as far with the customer service rep to suggest a change to their T&C that I saw was missing so they DIDN’T get in trouble with the new laws that did pass in RI.
I’m taking a few deep breaths here and hoping that someone at PSA can provide some clarification (and hopefully a reversal of this policy!). I hope you can understand how this could be viewed by the residents of RI when these restrictions imposed by PSA aren’t even laws in the state. It felt VERY punitive
There are SEVERAL STATES whose citizens need to organize, influence, demonstrate and vote out their own anti 2A politicians instead of expecting a company like PSA to jeopardize their livelyhoods in lawsuits. I’m sure that the PSA ownership has acted under the advice of their legal team, not just from gut reactions to potential legislation. PSA has not grown into the company that they are by being stupid and CERTAINLY not by being anti 2A.
As you pointed out, it appears that PSA has enacted restrictions based, not on actual legislation, but POTENTIAL legislation. There is an argument to made that if a company chooses to restrict whom it will sell firearms to based not on state law, but the mere filing of a bill, by those who oppose the rights of its citizens, then that company is furthering the agenda of those anti 2A legislators. Since that proposed legislation failed in RI, its citizens seem to have already done what you suggested, and it appears PSA is still refusing them service anyway.
Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms got themselves into a similar predicament to this when their lobbyist tried to get them a carve out from a state bill to license firearm dealers in IL, at the expense of most other dealers in the state. It may have been good business for them, but the optics made people feel they were throwing the 2A under the bus. This situation may look to those unwilling to compromise on the 2A as if PSA IS willing to, much like their continued use of UPS, who has decided to cut ties with some 2A business (but not PSA) over the sale of 80% kits (which PSA has sold in the past). The more there are these perceptions of a pro 2A attitude as long as it doesn’t affect our bottom line, the more it will hit their livelihood. PSA needs to get out in front of this and address the issues being brought up about their business practices. A simple broad statement of support for the 2A won’t be enough, at least it wasn’t for SA or RRA.
Just for clarification. The proposed AWB I’m talking about is Federal and will affect ALL states if passed. There is no AWB in Rhode Island. It does get proposed every year, but never makes it out of committee. It’s just unfortunate that in this case the Federal legislation was sponsored by a US House representative from Rhode Island. They couldn’t pass it in RI, so he’s pushing to do it federally.
The enactment of restrictions on “proposed legislation” keeps items from being on the UPS truck, the law passing, and now you have something illegal before delivery.
Before this devolves into any kind of grab your pitch forks and burn PSA thread lets clear up a few things. This is an issue our team is looking into and consulting with our legal team. We fully support the second amendment and have been unwavering in our dedication to protect it. We also have a huge numbers of employees who depend on their jobs based on the actions we take. If a state enacts legislation we have to respond accordingly to protect ourselves and our customers from breaking any law the best we can. I have only heard about this in passing so I’m no expert on it but I do know its being addressed. As for the use of UPS complaints, we have used UPS for years because they have a major distribution hub a few miles down the road from our warehouse. They provide the cheapest and fastest route to get customers their orders. We have explored and continue to explore other options as they come available but so far the cost we would have to put on the customer is not worth the price hikes for changing carriers. If or when I have an update to any of this I will post about it here.
This is kind of my point. Rhode Island has not enacted ANY state legislation relating to the ban of “assault weapons” or ANY of the current restrictions PSA has on shipping items to Rhode Island.
Just to reiterate, I do NOT expect PSA to break any laws nor do I want to put the company, or it’s employees, in jeopardy. But I also didn’t expect PSA to stop shipping LEGAL items to states where no laws exist preventing the shipment of those items.
The only pending legislation is on a federal level and would affect all 50 states, not just Rhode Island. The language used in PSA’s Terms & Conditions page mimics the proposed FEDERAL legislation and has nothing to do with the state of Rhode Island. The only relationship between this federal legislation and Rhode Island is that the legislation is sponsored by a US Representative from RI and co-sponsored by 212 other Democrats from Texas, New York, California, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Florida, Washington, Colorado, Maryland, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Virginia, Oregon, Delaware, Indiana, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Montana, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Minnesota, Wisconsin and others…
Thank you Anthony. Looking forward to understanding what is driving this change. I’d still like to be able to buy that AK-105 GF4 next month but have been researching other options should PSA decide to stand fast with their current policy.