[blau993]

No, I read that part. What I took from this was that there was confusion within the company as to whether the export control regulations did or did not apply to this transaction. That is not an unknown phenomenon in any large organization. Ultimately they seem to have concluded (1) that the regulations did not apply, or (2) that the transaction would not have violated the regulations anyhow, or (3) both. Either way, I think my conclusion is still valid. Absent some repeat of the situation or some firm evidence that it is company policy not to sell to firearms-related entities, I think a boycott is an overreaction.

[narby]

What I took from this was that there was confusion within the company as to whether the export control regulations did or did not apply to this transaction.

And I've got some land to sell out in Florida.

The guys address was Pensylvania! There's nothing in the title of the company that implies anything about "export".

This is spin, big time.