Is it hypocritical that AAFES stores are no longer selling high capacity magazines?

SPC David S. — Wed, 07 Mar 2018 21:36:03 -0500

*** UPDATE ***

In less than 10 days after deciding to no longer sell high capacity clips - AAFES has reversed its "policy" and is now once again stocking these items.

It was a policy decision - while not happy about the policy glad to see others make a stink as well AAFES in understanding the customer base and willingness to service it - well done.

https://www.armytimes.com/pay-benefits/mil-money/2018/03/12/customers-protests-bring-high-capacity-ammo-magazines-back-to-aafes-shelves/

To me this seems a bit hypocritical as the DoD has trained millions of service members on the use of automatic weapons that use high capacity magazines. Some of the weapons system are belt fed. As well the DoD has deployed a good number of "soldiers" off to war to combat our enemies using such weapons - yet they can't buy a magazine that holds more than 11 rounds.

Customers’ protests bring high-capacity ammo magazines back to AAFES shelves

AAFES is bringing high-capacity magazines back to its shelves after customers protested.

Response by SPC Mike Lake made Mar 7 at 2018 9:39 PM

SPC Mike Lake — Wed, 07 Mar 2018 21:39:00 -0500

I think it's Pretty sad that AAFES would cave to the political left wing assault

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Mar 7 at 2018 9:59 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Wed, 07 Mar 2018 21:59:45 -0500

You mean normal or common or standard capacity magazines sold as original equipment with every AR pattern rifle ?

Yes it is

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2018 10:02 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Mar 2018 22:02:40 -0500

Is this real? I'll have to check our BX tomorrow.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2018 10:04 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Mar 2018 22:04:32 -0500

How fast can one change a mag? A few well placed rounds is all that counts.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Mar 7 at 2018 10:05 PM

LTC Kevin B. — Wed, 07 Mar 2018 22:05:19 -0500

The DoD also trained millions of service members on the use of hand grenades, mortars, SAWs, etc., but they don't sell any of those in AAFES. Would that also be hypocritical? This policy doesn't bother me.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2018 10:09 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Mar 2018 22:09:35 -0500

My aafes never sold PMags

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2018 10:19 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Mar 2018 22:19:33 -0500

One can argue whether it is a good policy or not, but hypocritical--no. It has never been AAFES mission to equip soldiers for war. So whether or not the military trains and equips soldiers with certain weapons and magazines has no bearing on what AAFES sells in their stores.

Response by TSgt David L. made Mar 8 at 2018 12:04 AM

TSgt David L. — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 00:04:34 -0500

Absophuckinlutely! Pardon my French, but this is that last retailer that should bow to the antis. Pure BS! I don't shop there much, but I'll be sure to limit my trips to NONE from here on out...

Response by SFC Michael Watkins, MPA/EM, CHPP, CJE made Mar 8 at 2018 2:03 AM

SFC Michael Watkins, MPA/EM, CHPP, CJE — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 02:03:38 -0500

so, now the military doesn't trust it's personnel?

Response by SPC Casey Ashfield made Mar 8 at 2018 2:52 AM

SPC Casey Ashfield — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 02:52:09 -0500

Not really. They are just covering themselves. I would not expect the PX at Ft Drum to sell high capacity magazines and put themself in legal trouble. Dropping them from all stores saves on logistics.

And I would just buy elsewhere.

Response by SPC Kevin Ford made Mar 8 at 2018 3:12 AM

SPC Kevin Ford — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 03:12:38 -0500

I’m surprised they sell magazines of any kind. Soldiers are trained to operate tanks too and I don’t expect AAFES to stock those either. When you agree to enter the military you agree to a different relationship with whatever constitutional rights you may think you have. AAFES stocks things that the military thinks are ultimately good for the military. A soldier’s desire to own personal weapons to use on the weekend with high capacity magazines probably doesn’t tally too high on their scale.

Response by SGT Jim Arnold made Mar 8 at 2018 4:03 AM

SGT Jim Arnold — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 04:03:20 -0500

I would say yes it is, but being a good capitalist I took my business elsewhere and for a better price.

Response by 1SG Dave Carello made Mar 8 at 2018 7:06 AM

1SG Dave Carello — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 07:06:36 -0500

It seems that the entire Nation has become SISSIFIED!!! Yes, FL and CT School murders were horrifying and I don't want my grandchildren to be targets but, I didn't shoot anyone, the NRA didn't shoot anyone, and neither did Trump. A Magazine is NOT going to solve anything. How foolish. The shooters in so many of these MURDERS were imbeciles whose parents were just as criminal. There is NO answer but, I do know this. We have MORE to fear from Islamists in America who WILL do us harm here in the U.S. as well as millions of Illegal invaders who WILL and DO cause us harm daily than we ever have to fear from you or me with rifles of any kind.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2018 7:12 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 07:12:24 -0500

I don't care. When I first came in, AAFES didn't sell guns anyway; that came later on. Even when they did, it was still cheaper to buy guns, ammo, and magazines on the internet instead.

So was it hypocritical of them not to have sold guns and such BEFORE they ever actually started?

Response by SSG Jessica Bautista made Mar 8 at 2018 7:16 AM

SSG Jessica Bautista — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 07:16:34 -0500

Or... They weren't making enough profit from them. AAFES hasn't been selling firearms for very long anyway. On Fort Leonard Wood, the selection is tiny, but there use to be a Cabela's on post. Cabela's ain't there no mo'.

Response by SGT David T. made Mar 8 at 2018 7:54 AM

SGT David T. — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 07:54:44 -0500

Stupid business decision. Luckily there are plenty of other sources to obtain such things. I really don't care since I can't shop in the physical exchanges anyway.

Response by TSgt Jesse Morey made Mar 8 at 2018 8:05 AM

TSgt Jesse Morey — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 08:05:50 -0500

AAFES just put the support of the Military behind this movement. What happened to not making political statements or actions that could bring a negative light to the military? Yes AAFES is a business and can make choices. It can even make choices knowing service members can't do a whole lot without retaliation. It, however, does mean it needs to abuse the members. It also would be the last place anyone would call for this ban or push.
The only one that sees this?
( I do understand the AAFES is not directly the military. You tell me if you think the news won't manipulate it or sell it as the military. Then it spread to the public and good luck bringing that back in).

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2018 8:08 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 08:08:27 -0500

Hypocritical? No...Ridiculous? Yes.

The Exchange isn't responsible for issuing duty weapons. Their choice to sell, or not sell private weapons and or weapons components/accessories in and of itself isn't a "statement" upon duty weapons or their use. That, to my mind, is not hypocritical.

However, they are making a "statement", intended or not, and I would agree it is driven more by "CYA" than the political leanings of the directors. If we ever do lose our rights, I expect it will be more because owners, retailers and distributors cave in to pressure voluntarily, more than "jack-booted thugs" coming in the night to take them.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Mar 8 at 2018 8:30 AM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 08:30:10 -0500

Not really...it was probably a pure business decision. Not all AAFES have a need to keep them on the shelves.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2018 8:59 AM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 08:59:36 -0500

My guess is that it was a business decision due to sales vs. space in stores. It also had value added of positive PR to feed the anti-gun folks. They trained folks on nuke rounds also, but don't sell enriched uranium.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Mar 8 at 2018 9:38 AM

SGM Bill Frazer — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 09:38:42 -0500

I have yet to try to shop AFFES for guns, mainly because of the hassle- no guns in quarters, etc. It was always easier to buy off post, legally, and they had a wider selection.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2018 9:54 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 09:54:32 -0500

It's certainly hypocritical but not because we deploy with similar weapons. IMO, this shows that they are taking some responsibility for criminal actions if the crimes are committed with these particular items. So I wonder if Class VI will stop selling alcohol since it leads to more crime than high capacity magazines ever will. In 2016 alone there were over 10,000 fatalities in car accidents involving drivers with BACs of over .08 yet no one ever suggests that alcohol be banned. And that's just car accidents. How many other alcohol related deaths were there that didn't involve a vehicle? Somehow we easily separate the legal selling of alcohol with people who misuse it, but for some crazy reason we can't separate the legal selling of guns and magazines with those that misuse them and that's hypocrisy.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Mar 8 at 2018 9:57 AM

SFC Everett Oliver — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 09:57:18 -0500

The Federal installation Gun regulations are BS and no good for you.... Another right you give up so others can have it....

Response by SPC David Willis made Mar 8 at 2018 10:03 AM

SPC David Willis — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 10:03:11 -0500

On a truly hypocritical note, while I was deployed I had my dad send me a few PMAGS I had for my rifle at home. The post office confiscated them, I had thought it was ok to ship since you could buy them online and get them shipped to you but for some reason buying them and having them shipped home and then shipped to you was a no go... who knew?

Response by MSgt Gerald Orvis made Mar 8 at 2018 10:10 AM

MSgt Gerald Orvis — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 10:10:44 -0500

While the decision to not sell "high-capacity" magazines may be driven by business considerations, I also believe it is driven by the anti-gun hysteria that has overtaken the country. The latest school shootings just tripped the trigger, so to speak, and gave an excuse to companies (and now the PX system) to ditch the gun community in favor of PC anti-gun policies. I see this at my local Marine Corps Exchange. The last time I bought a gun there (a Colt M45A1 (USMC) pistol, for big bucks), I had to fill out the state and federal paperwork and undergo the background check. No problem. Then it got silly - no sooner had I paid and taken possession of the pistol than I was escorted out of the store by an employee, who supervised me putting the pistol in the trunk of my car, and then instructed me to depart the base immediately with that unregistered handgun. I'm nearly 69 years old and a war veteran and haven't fired a shot in anger since 1969, and I don't need to be treated like that. Needless to say, I haven't given the MCX any further business - it's 27 miles away and doesn't give me any real price breaks. I can usually find the same goods cheaper out in town (or at gun shows). If the military wants to get into the gun control game (in which it is already heavily invested - they don't allow "non-registered" guns on base, troops living in on-base married quarters must have secure storage for their personal firearms, and they don't honor any state's concealed carry permit), they should just ban privately-owned guns from bases entirely. They almost do for official-issue weapons - troops (except MPs) have almost no access to their assigned weapons except for range days, cleaning or field training. Otherwise, their firearms are locked in an armory. Today's military - except when on deployment somewhere - is an almost toothless tiger.

Response by SPC Bryan Richardson made Mar 8 at 2018 10:44 AM

SPC Bryan Richardson — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 10:44:15 -0500

Its dumb and some exhanges actually sell firearms but the base policy is you cant have them on base unless secured at the armory.. Also you have to take the firearm off base once you purchase it.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Mar 8 at 2018 11:27 AM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 11:27:50 -0500

At many locations, AAFES is losing money as they cannot keep up with local retailers. They are simply priced out of the market. At my base, I see more retired folks than military folks using the BX and Commissary.

They really shouldn’t be giving folks more reasons not to shop there.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2018 2:13 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 14:13:05 -0500

Seems to me that I have about 15 options for locations to purchase magazines within a couple of miles of any military post in the country. Sounds like a nothing burger to me.

Response by SP5 Peter Keane made Mar 8 at 2018 3:49 PM

SP5 Peter Keane — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 15:49:06 -0500

AAFES is so over priced, it makes more sense to go to Academy. ( Was gonna say Dick's, but Rosy and Ellen love Dick's)

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2018 4:22 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 16:22:37 -0500

What a bunch of hypocrites. Military members should be viewed as defenders of constitution unless proven otherwise. They should have have the availability of the same semiauto capacity that the public law allows

Response by MAJ James Woods made Mar 8 at 2018 4:59 PM

MAJ James Woods — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 16:59:56 -0500

Uh...no.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Mar 8 at 2018 11:01 PM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 23:01:50 -0500

I don't think it's ethical for a federal entity to take a political side.

Response by SSgt John Hutto made Mar 10 at 2018 7:33 PM

SSgt John Hutto — Sat, 10 Mar 2018 19:33:13 -0500

YES, 10000% TIMES ANOTHER 10000%!!!!

Response by SSG Thomas Trutt made Mar 12 at 2018 10:24 AM

SSG Thomas Trutt — Mon, 12 Mar 2018 10:24:50 -0400

Not really. As a business, they don't need to stock anything. If they wanted to ban Tide Pods at the commissary that's their decision based on the market and what's in the news. And I think what a lot are missing is that in addition to the military members, there's also a lot of spouses and children on military bases - and some of the ones I met I don't really want anywhere near a pair of scissors much less a weapon, so the argument that since it's on base and for the military isn't 100%.

From a tactical gear type perspective - if the Military wants you to have it, they'll issue you it. Or you can just go online or to the local military surplus and get it cheaper anyway.

Response by CWO4 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2018 3:55 PM

CWO4 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:55:48 -0400

The Marine Corps Exchange back in 2013 decided unilaterally and without
publishing any official guidance to discontinue the sale of so-called "high
capacity" magazines. Yet no one has been able to produce an official letter
with someone's name on it that implemented it and approved it. Instead, it
seems like "email" were the only medium in which this was don’t to mirror
the laws that are in place in only a few states like California for selling
magazines above 10 rounds. However, what they didn’t do was stop selling
weapons in other stated that came with "high capacity" magazines as standard
accessories. Recently AAFES has seen a backlash from military consumers on
their change in policy to stop selling "high capacity" magazines and as a
result of this backlash they have changed their policy and will sell "high
capacity" magazines. Yet the Marine Corps Exchange has not changed this
unofficial policy and continues to deny its customers the products that they
can legally own in most stated and comes with the rifles and pistols they
purchase. Yet they continue to stock 10 rounds magazines that collect dust
as consumers don’t want the reduced capacity magazines.

Response by SSG Robert Spear made Apr 6 at 2018 1:39 PM

SSG Robert Spear — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 13:39:54 -0400

I don't know that I would call it hypocritical. I would describe it as counter productive, short sighted, dim witted, ridiculous and arbitrary.

Response by PV2 Screwderia Ferrari made Apr 12 at 2018 5:41 AM

PV2 Screwderia Ferrari — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 05:41:15 -0400

Everyone may now unclench. This was published on March 12:
https://www.armytimes.com/pay-benefits/mil-money/2018/03/12/customers-protests-bring-high-capacity-ammo-magazines-back-to-aafes-shelves/

Customers’ protests bring high-capacity ammo magazines back to AAFES shelves

AAFES is bringing high-capacity magazines back to its shelves after customers protested.

Response by 2LT Ronald Reimer made Apr 12 at 2018 7:30 AM

2LT Ronald Reimer — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 07:30:54 -0400

Well, the Army taught me how to shoot a .50 cal and a 155 Howitzer, but AAFES doesn’t sell those, either, so I would say no, it’s not. You’ll get a better price at Brownell’s or Cheaper Than Dirt online, anyway.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2018 9:22 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 09:22:07 -0400

Yes, but why shop there when there are better prices elsewhere.

Response by Lt Col Marlon Ruiz made Apr 16 at 2018 1:24 PM

Lt Col Marlon Ruiz — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:24:22 -0400

Taking into consideration all of the nuance discussion arguments made both for and against agreeing with the AAFES policy implementation/reversal decision, I offer that perhaps it is worth the effort to error on the side of caught, when it comes to the accessibility of high capacity hardware distribution and availability. In my view, the question scenario that comes to mind stems from having to explain after the fact dealing with any "on-base" active shooter and/or mass casualty sceanrion at any Defense system school located at any installation. Can we really ensure that the ills that afflict our society at large will never occur at one of our instatllations and our youth really that immune to the same ills that afflict so many not rasied in a military family environment. Lastly, are we really willing to gamble that those on base are so far removed from what occurs all too often outside the installation? Just some food for thought and not meant to argue one way or the other the implied outcome of the recent AAFES policy decision. Thanking everyone for your service and wonderful support to our great nation.

Response by Sgt Edgard Colon made Apr 24 at 2018 12:08 PM

Sgt Edgard Colon — Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:08:16 -0400

I don't know where did you news coming from. Mcdill and Patrick Air Force base exchange still selling high capacity magazines. I just bought some last weekend. Over price as well.

Response by MSgt J D McKee made May 13 at 2018 5:46 PM

MSgt J D McKee — Sun, 13 May 2018 17:46:49 -0400

Some fucking idiot who knows nothing about guns except they don't like them stepped on her dick. They should have to tell you if it's illegal in the state your base is in, but that's it.

OR, we could grow up as a society and just take the attitude that if one can be trusted to, for example, guard nukes for about 20 years, one could be trusted with a magazine that doesn't require reloading after 10 rounds.

Response by SFC David Meberg made May 14 at 2018 8:44 AM

SFC David Meberg — Mon, 14 May 2018 08:44:30 -0400

Hand grenades, mortars,etc. are listed as "destructive devices" by the National Firearms Act of 1935. Ammunition containers, clips, magazines, boxes, or belts, are not listed as such and should be able to be owned by anyone whether or not they own a firearm that could use such a piece of equipment.

Response by SCPO Clark Gertner made May 16 at 2018 4:29 PM

SCPO Clark Gertner — Wed, 16 May 2018 16:29:03 -0400

First of all, are we talking about clips or magazines? Obviously the author isn't sure. Secondly, I have no idea what high-capacity actually means (as defined by a lefty or a righty?). I think anything over 2000 rds in a back pack is a bit excessive, but to each his own.

Response by MAJ Peter Eldridge made May 25 at 2018 10:10 PM

MAJ Peter Eldridge — Fri, 25 May 2018 22:10:21 -0400

Always bought my own and did the proper Maintenance and storage. never failed

Response by CPO Earl Osborn made May 28 at 2018 4:05 PM

CPO Earl Osborn — Mon, 28 May 2018 16:05:34 -0400

Yep. And ever since AAFES signed up to a non-compete with the civilian markets, and it's basically run by civilians, there is almost no advantage to utilize them for shopping for anything but uniforms.

Response by PO1 David Hedenberg made Jun 12 at 2018 9:29 AM

PO1 David Hedenberg — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:29:12 -0400

Do these people understand who their customers are?

Response by SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM made Jun 21 at 2021 10:05 PM

SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM — Mon, 21 Jun 2021 22:05:39 -0400

Politics at work again!