It was Jim Pruett and it was around 4 minutes into the recording.
He is basically kissing ass to his LEO customers who hate the idea of private ownership of sound suppressors.
Houston Jim Pruitt Against Silencers.
- Thread starter matefrio
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
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!
Member Benefits:
It was Jim Pruett and it was around 4 minutes into the recording.
He is basically kissing ass to his LEO customers who hate the idea of private ownership of sound suppressors.
Email sent:
Jim,
I heard your radio spot on KTRH regarding the use of firearms suppressors, and would like to gain a clearer understanding of your opinions and the logic behind them. Here were your comments:
"I'm really not for it. I don't see the value of it. I see the potential danger and threat to citizenry and police officers."
What threat does the use of a suppressor pose to "citizenry and police officers" in hunting game animals, or any other application for that matter? I would also have to assume that based on these comments of yours, you also support the fact that suppressors are classified as an NFA item. What is your logic behind that opinion?
You profess to be a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment, yet your statements reek of the typical liberal, anti-gun, big government rhetoric that seeks to destroy MY rights as a US citizen.
I have to be honest and tell you that no matter how you reply, I won't threaten to no longer do business with you....that happened several years ago when I tired of being muzzle swept by your employees as they dealt with other customers. Your son pointing a handgun in my direction and pulling the trigger was the final straw.
Anxiously awaiting your response,
Pete
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
Soooo, I need help. Do I hate Jim Pruitt now?
I'm going along with Pruitts thoughts that somehow allowing them for hunting would further put citizens and police at risk. Silencers are already legal to own, and possess. How does making them legal for hunting increase the risk for anybody? Point is if you justify keeping them ban for hunting because the risk of danger to police, and citizens, whats the next step? Making it illegal period. It's a counter productive slope. I don't think he grasps the big picture when he says these things. How does it pertain to the 2A? Directly it doesn't, indirectly it goes back to implying that mere possession of a suppressor would encourage and endanger the public and police. Just because the suppressor it'self isn't a fire arms doesn't mean it's not 2A related. It's an armament accessory and should be availible to John Q Public, for whatever legal purpose he desires. Be that desire hunting, (I prefer to hunt without ear plugs. It's usefull to have all your senses sharp when your out on your own)or simply being able to spend more time on the range without having plugs/muffs rub your ears raw.
I shoud have included the orgina quote by another user. This previous post was in response to the quote below:
"We get it that you have issues with Pruett, but WTF does not allowing the use of silencers for hunting have to do with the right to bear arms?? I don't get the correlation."
"We get it that you have issues with Pruett, but WTF does not allowing the use of silencers for hunting have to do with the right to bear arms?? I don't get the correlation."
Has anyone gotten a reply to their emails??? I have not.
There are plenty of examples of "gun people" doing stupid stuff,
Billy Carter: Gun shows are a threat to his business and he is too lazy to set up booths at them, so he is against them, and lobbies to have them banned.
Jim Zumbo of the Outdoor Channel shows came out against civilian versions of assault rifles, because they were not something he was interested in, so no one else should have them.
Jim Pruitt may be against suppressors/silencers because he does not want to put forth the effort to get licensed to sell them, and does not want potential customers visiting other shops that do.
JMHO, I could be wrong...............
There are plenty of examples of "gun people" doing stupid stuff,
Billy Carter: Gun shows are a threat to his business and he is too lazy to set up booths at them, so he is against them, and lobbies to have them banned.
Jim Zumbo of the Outdoor Channel shows came out against civilian versions of assault rifles, because they were not something he was interested in, so no one else should have them.
Jim Pruitt may be against suppressors/silencers because he does not want to put forth the effort to get licensed to sell them, and does not want potential customers visiting other shops that do.
JMHO, I could be wrong...............
To say that I am disappointed in Jim Pruitt is an understatement!
Once again, Jim pruiit sticks his foot in his mouth. Moron. Look at who he associates with.
Once again, gun owners are their own worst enemy. The Fudds Amongst us will throw one group under the bus for their own perceived protection.
Funny to listen to him whipping out the "Danger to Law Enformcement" statement.
Once again, Jim pruiit sticks his foot in his mouth. Moron. Look at who he associates with.
Once again, gun owners are their own worst enemy. The Fudds Amongst us will throw one group under the bus for their own perceived protection.
Funny to listen to him whipping out the "Danger to Law Enformcement" statement.
Nope. Don't bother with hate - it's negative energy.
But, this little bit of his just cost him any chance of me spending my hard-earned money at this shop.
If he is going to be a part of the firearms community and make his money from the people within it, but turn around and favor limits placed on them legally conducting activities within their sporting purpose............I've got no respect for him.
And that video....I'll chalk that up to a fellow messing around and me only seeing part of it, but that little part did make him look like an idiot.
I was in another shop today, tweaking some paperwork issues with a suppressor and the BATF, and asked the gentleman dealing with me if he had heard the statements made by JP. He laughed, and said he can not understand the guy, or how they are still in business. Allegedly Jim Pruitt is not able to legally own a firearms business due to past er, uh,................ indiscretions.
All the licenses, etc. are through his wife. The man I was dealing with has been in the gun business for years here in Houston, and could not understand how the BATF allows him to continue to work there, and wear a sidearm while working.
Does anyone know anymore about this???
All the licenses, etc. are through his wife. The man I was dealing with has been in the gun business for years here in Houston, and could not understand how the BATF allows him to continue to work there, and wear a sidearm while working.
Does anyone know anymore about this???
Getting an FFL revoked isn't very uncommon after a BATF audit that is normally kicked off by a very stupid mistake the FFL makes that puts them on the radar.
Look at what happened to "Red Jacket" and I know a couple of others here in the Houston area that have done the same thing.
Putting the FFL under someone else after such a mistake and audit happen does not mean a person cannot work at an FFL as there are normally no charges involved, just the revoke of the license.
Jim Pruett was arrested in Mexico back in the 80's for running guns. He has not had a conviction in the US that would prevent his firearm ownership as far as I know. As duplicitous as he is, he is still legal.
I truly believe his views are because of his LEO customers because the last time I was in his shop there were 8 HPD vehicles in the parking lot and a bunch of LEO's in the store. I personally don't have anything against LEO's in general as long as they perform their duties objectively and respect the original intent of the founding fathers with regard to the US Constitution and uphold their sworn oath to defend the original intent of the US Constitution.
Anything I could point someone to that shows this? I'd love to throw this back at some radio stations who use him as a subject matter expert.
