Fighting the ban in California: get help from the manufacturers


PDA






DeseoUnTaco
June 26, 2005, 11:48 PM
As has been discussed here previously, we have two bills that are "in play" in California which would amount to a de facto ban on handgun ammo (including 22lr). Obviously our legislators aren't listening. Der Guv might listen, and help us out with a veto, or he might not. But we have some more options than that. One that we need to work on is contacting manufacturers and urging them to boycot law enforcement sales in California. Here is a letter from Glocktalk that you can send to your favorite manufacturers:


Dear ___,

How many pistols does ____ sell every year in the UK? How many in Japan? Let me guess: not very many in either the UK or Japan. Perhaps a few hundred, to law enforcement and military? The UK and Japan have different legal systems and different cultures, but they have two things in common: in both countries, individual citizens are effectively prohibited from buying or owning handguns, and the total market (civilian, law enforcement and military) for your fine products is tiny or non-existent in both countries.

I'm bringing these facts to your attention, because right now the California state government is seriously considering two pieces of legislation, called AB 352 and SB 357. These two bills together would create new handgun and ammunition serialization requirements that are so burdensome that they would effectively end recreational handgun shooting in California. These two bills will put California's gun laws into the same league as the gun laws in the UK and Japan, where rifles and shotguns are restricted, and handguns are unavailable, and even Olympic shooters have to go outside their own countries to train. These two bills will have a disastrous effect on your sales in California, and will probably put most gun stores and shooting ranges (ie, your sales channels) out of business in this state. Fortunately, your company has two options it can take in response to these two bills.

The first option is for your company to take a strong stance to defend the rights of California gun owners. Your company could start by writing a letter to our Governor asking him to veto the bills. Such a letter wouldn't hurt, but it probably won't help much either. The most effective action you can take to defend our rights is to follow the lead of the Barrett Rifles company and the Folsom Shooting Club. Both of these businesses have publicly announced that they will no longer do business with law enforcement agencies that promote gun bans. Stop doing business with law enforcement agencies in California until they stop promoting legislation that will drive your company out of California. Stop all sales of your products to State-level law enforcement agencies such as the California Department of Justice. California's Attorney General Bill Lockyer is lobbying for both of these bills; AG Lockyer should have to look elsewhere for guns for his department. Make a public announcement explaining why you have taken this action. Explain that you had to do it, because they are trying to drive your company out of the biggest handgun market in the US, and they are trying to take away our freedom. Reap the benefits of the publicity. Gun owners all over the US will suddenly have another reason to buy your products. California politicians might have a change of heart. Your market will be protected and you'll be able to continue making money selling your products to eager customers here.

The second option is to do what gun manufacturers have done in both the UK and Japan. They sell a lot of pellet guns and airsoft (plastic BB) guns in both those countries. If your company doesn't take action to stop AB 352 and SB 357, you should plan on introducing a line of airsofts for the California market, because you certainly won't be selling any of your pistols here.

Sincerely,


And here is their contact information:

Smith & Wesson
Eoin Stafford
Director of Sales
2100 Roosevelt Avenue
Springfield, MA 01104

Glock
Gary Fletcher
V.P. of Sales
6000 Highlands Parkway
Smyrna, Georgia 30082

SigArms
Bill Silver
Director of Sales
18 Industrial Drive
Exeter, NH 03833

Heckler & Koch
Joe Cunnife
21480 Pacific Blvd.
Sterling, Virginia 20166

Send those letters! Could someone please make this post sticky?

If you enjoyed reading about "Fighting the ban in California: get help from the manufacturers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Pilgrim
June 27, 2005, 12:56 AM
I think an 'embargo' is a more correct term than 'boycott'.

I also think it would be a remarkable act of cooperation if all the firearms and ammunition manufacturers agreed to back out of the California market.

Pilgrim

MrTuffPaws
June 27, 2005, 01:05 AM
I also think it would be a remarkable act of cooperation if all the firearms and ammunition manufacturers agreed to back out of the California market.

And thus, unlikely.

Though it would be sweet though. :evil:

El Rojo
June 27, 2005, 01:13 AM
If SB 357 passes, they won't have any choice but to back out on civilian sales. Good luck getting them to give up on the department cash cow. Business is business, especially if you are talking about foreign firearms manufacturers. Why should they care about the 2nd Amendment? They only care about Euros.

Gun owners all over the US will suddenly have another reason to buy your products.So true. I have already expressed how little Barrett gave up in California by cutting off LEOs and how much he gained in support across the rest of the country. That is if people rushed out to buy a $3000 plus rifle as a matter of principle and backing.

Sending that letter couldn't hurt.

DeseoUnTaco
June 27, 2005, 03:38 AM
I also think it would be a remarkable act of cooperation if all the firearms and ammunition manufacturers agreed to back out of the California market.
Doesn't matter. They don't need to cooperate. The point of a normal embargo is to deprive the target of the embargo from getting whatever it is. Ie, if there's an oil embargo, the oil producers are trying to cut off the oil supply to someone. To achieve that, yes, all the suppliers need to cooperate, but that isn't the goal here. LE agencies are going to get access to whatever guns they need no matter what manufacturers do, because there are plenty of manufacturers out there, and LE agencies can always buy from dealers, and manufacturers can't really control what their dealers do. So this is an embargo-for-PR, not a traditional embargo-to-cut-off-supplies. Anyway, I wouldn't want LE (or anyone else) to be disarmed. I do want the PR benefits of doing this, though.

The only maker that might (maybe) actually do this is S&W, because S&W has mostly given up on the LE market anyway. It would be purely a PR/symbolic thing to do for them, because LEs who want to buy their guns could buy them from dealers anyway (there's no way S&W could force their FFLs to embargo LE sales).

4570Rick
June 27, 2005, 04:09 AM
I got my first call from a manufacturer in response to my letters/calls Friday afternoon. It was from Remington. :what: The secretary to the Director of Marketing called me about 3:00 PM PDT last Friday to let me know that Remington will not be complying with SB357. :D So call, write, fax, and e-mail. They can't hear us if we don't make some noise. ;)

bg
June 27, 2005, 04:15 AM
Better watch them tricky cuss' up at Sacramento..Dunn sent SB357 back
back to be amended ! Now see how they have it set up !!!
This is just to get a few more votes and make it easier for Conan to
sign it into law. They're lower than the lowest, by golly. :mad:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_357_bill_20050622_amended_asm.html

MasterPiece Arms.com
June 27, 2005, 04:32 AM
This is precisely why I would never spend my FRCs (federal reserve credits) on anything from Glock, Sig, or HK anyway. I know it doesn't do much, because the majority of gun owners heavily support these companies. So, to counter that, I go out of my way to buy guns from A. small American assault weapon makers like MasterPiece Arms, or Bobcat weapons, and B. companies that I feel are under particular attack that do not have government contracts to bail them out. I include in that, companies that make affordable ("saturday night special") pistols that are our main hope of getting many fence sitters and/or poor people into shooting. The "saturday night special" is a great affordable gift to an 18 year old relative who likes guns but has been heavily brainwashed by gun hating parents. Using Jimenez Arms, Cobra, Heritage, and Hi Point, I have convinced quite a number of non gun owners to get over that hump into becoming gun owners when they otherwise would never have done so.

Yanus
June 27, 2005, 10:54 AM
4570Rick,
VERY well done....! I don't think Remington will be the only one, either. All of the other manufacturers will be looking at their bottom line and hopefully come to the same conclusion that it doesn't make business sense to comply.

Like I said earlier on another thread........ there's always NORINCO for the LE. :evil: I'm sure they would be more than happy to supply their "comrades in arms"........

Yanus

BenW
June 27, 2005, 10:59 AM
sent SB357 back to be amended !
Huh, that's a neat trick. Change the dates to be far enough in the future that your average CA gun owner / citizen will say, "Eh, who cares about something happening in 2016?" and your average CA politician will say, "By then they'll forget I ever signed it."

Pilgrim
June 27, 2005, 12:58 PM
Huh, that's a neat trick. Change the dates to be far enough in the future that your average CA gun owner / citizen will say, "Eh, who cares about something happening in 2016?" and your average CA politician will say, "By then they'll forget I ever signed it."

Sounds about right. Isn't that the same time period Social Security is supposed to start trying to cash in the IOUs it holds from the government?

Pilgrim

R.H. Lee
June 27, 2005, 01:16 PM
Should both/either one of these become law, a total and complete embargo of California by firearms and ammo manufacturers should be the response. Even if the CA legislature 'exempts' law enforcement (which is almost assured).

But, how can the manufacturers control distributors, middlemen, etc., who decide to sell to CA LE?

Flyboy
June 27, 2005, 01:27 PM
I got my first call from a manufacturer in response to my letters/calls Friday afternoon. It was from Remington. The secretary to the Director of Marketing called me about 3:00 PM PDT last Friday to let me know that Remington will not be complying with SB357. So call, write, fax, and e-mail. They can't hear us if we don't make some noise.
Wow. I just called them (1-800-243-9700; hit 0 for the operator, ask for marketing) to tell them I've switched from WWB to Remington value packs for my .45 ACP needs.
Good on ya, Remington!

Carnitas
June 27, 2005, 02:31 PM
But, how can the manufacturers control distributors, middlemen, etc., who decide to sell to CA LE?

Its my understanding that Departments get a lot of support direct from the manufacturers, in terms of parts, repair, training, and technical support. They also can get models for demo, purchase in bulk at favorable prices, with custom configurations and not normally included equipment. While a police department could order and purchae guns through the normal distributor channels that most regular folks do they'd still be loosing a lot of the support they're accustomed to.

In the unlikely event that an embargo came together and was in place long enough to really effect departments, I wouldent be suprised if more departments went to a system where officers purchased and supplied their own firearms.

Henry Bowman
June 27, 2005, 02:44 PM
But, how can the manufacturers control distributors, middlemen, etc., who decide to sell to CA LE? What Carnitas said, and by expressly stating that the warranty is void if purchased by or used for a state agency. This is the same as for other products that are specified for home use only and warranty is void if used commercially.

R.H. Lee
June 27, 2005, 02:52 PM
Hopefully, the manufacturers have the cojones to do it. Let's see how brave CA government will be when LE is disarmed, and millions of armed felons with unserialized bullets and non imprinting guns are running around loose. :evil:

LAR-15
June 27, 2005, 04:24 PM
The national guard is exempt from both bills, LE is not.

So they will just call out the NG.

Standing Wolf
June 27, 2005, 09:30 PM
You should have voted for McClintock, Californians.

Bacon
June 29, 2005, 01:06 AM
I did vote for McClintock. Obviously this state has been so overrun with half-wits that they don't know what is good for them. So Arnie got the vote from the ill informed.

Remington makes good ammo. I have no problem shooting their stuff in all my firearms. Plus I'll be looking at their rifles even harder. If the Model 700 is good enough for the best (Army Snipers), then it's good enough for me.

beerslurpy
June 29, 2005, 02:13 AM
Dude 99 percent of the people in this country just react to the personality of the candidate when they speak. I bet most dont even vote in primaries or do minimal research on the candidates.

Since the ED decision last week a ton of people at work have suddenly been stricken with terror. They are like "OMG HOW DID THIS HAPPEN BEHIND OUR BACKS. THIS IS TERRIBLE!!!11!"

And I just tell them (cliff notes form) "Now is a good time to read up on how your government is supposed to work and start fixing it. Politicians dont keep themselves within the bounds of the constitution because you never ask them to- in fact I would bet that neither you nor 99 percent of the public even knows what is in the constitution."

It is so hard to get people to even give a damn about their own fricken lives. It is just so damn sad. The worst part is that I am going to get the country they deserve.

fjolnirsson
June 29, 2005, 03:32 AM
It is so hard to get people to even give a damn about their own fricken lives. It is just so damn sad. The worst part is that I am going to get the country they deserve.

Yep. Too bad we can't set aside a nice island for them, and set up a nice utopian government for them, where weapons are banned and they're told what to do all day long. Don't we have places like that now? Oh, yeah. It's called prison. :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Fighting the ban in California: get help from the manufacturers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!