Arnold is a traitor. Don't let your gunmaker be too


PDA






The_Antibubba
October 14, 2007, 03:15 AM
So the microstamping law passed. Once again the Austrian SOB has failed California shooters. Soon, any new semiauto sold in the PRK will require gun parts that have unique identifiers that will stamp your brass. The fact that this technology has failed in every unbiased test means nothing.

But maybe there is something you can do, even those of you who live in the other 49. Remember when the .50 caliber ban was passed, Ronnie Barrett refused to sell to or service any Barrett rifles in CA LE hands? You, the shooters of the United states, need to let the other manufacturer's know how much you admire that stance.

Currently, Smith & Wesson supplies the various State Police agencies with their semiauto sidearms. Call S&W, and let them know that how displeased you are about the new law. Explain to them that if they make semiautos to comply with the new law, you will boycott them. Explain that if they continue to service the existing pistols you will boycott them.

S&W's contact number is 800-331-0852.

Colt supplies AR and AR-style rifles to a great many State and local agencies. Let them know that if they continue to service and supply those agencies, you will boycott them. You don't have to worry about them microstamping the ARs themselves, since they're considered Assault Weapons here and are illegal.

Colt's Corporate contact number is 860-244-1442.

Glocks make up a high percentage of semiautos for police and Sheriff's departments in California. Let them know (do I have to repeat this again?)...

Glock's contact number is770-432-1202.

H&K's number is 205-655-8299.

Springfield's number is 800-680-6866.

Ruger's is 203-256-3367.
Mossberg's is 203-230-5420.
Remington: 800-243-9700.
Winchester doesn't post a number on their website, but there are talented souls here who can find and post it.

Call them all, and tell them all: If they make firearms that comply with the Microstamping law, YOU WILL BOYCOTT THEM. Tell them that if they continue to service and sell existing firearms to California LE agencies, you will boycott them.

This matter is too important to leave in the hands of government. Let the gun makers know that their bottom line is at stake.

Feel free to copy and spread this idea. Send it to the NRA, for as little good as they've been to California gun owners. Send it to your favorite bloggers. Send it to Ted Nugent. Send it everywhere. And call them.

David

If you enjoyed reading about "Arnold is a traitor. Don't let your gunmaker be too" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Diamondback6
October 14, 2007, 03:50 AM
Crossposted to both AmBack and the WA-CCW Yahoo! Group. Bump.

Double Naught Spy
October 14, 2007, 08:13 AM
Call them all, and tell them all: If they make firearms that comply with the Microstamping law, YOU WILL BOYCOTT THEM. Tell them that if they continue to service and sell existing firearms to California LE agencies, you will boycott them.


Remember what Ronnie Barrett did to the CA PDs? None went out of business. It was a good stance involving a few rifles, nothing more.

So you want us to boycott every gunmaker that complies with the law? CA is a niche market and now you want to do harm to gunmakers who operate within the law and try to turn a profit in a highly specialized niche market because you don't like the state's law? You want everybody else in the US for to force gunmakers to do what Californians could not?

I am sorry you people in CA could not get your act together and stop this microstamping nonsense, but there isn't any reason to punish the gun companies or other American shooters for your shortcomings. What you are suggesting would drive prices sky high for everyone.

On top of that, you are suggesting that we potentially put thousands of non-Californian people out of work because Californians were incapable of taking care of their own business.

PUNISHING THE GUN COMPANIES AND OTHER AMERICANS FOR A CALIFORNIA LAW IS STUPID!

You are NOT addressing the problem by suggesting this boycott.

The Annoyed Man
October 14, 2007, 09:06 AM
Can somebody please explain what exactly is involved in microstamping? I moved away from California in April of '06, and this issue has just not been on my radar. Also, I have another, perhaps related, question...

Since arriving in Texas, I've purchase two pistols. One of them is a Sig CPO gun (certified pre-owned), the other is a brand new HK. The HK came with a proof fired cartridge case in a sealed envelope. When I asked about it, the salesperson told me that some states require that, upon purchase of the new pistol, that proof fired case be sent to state authorities so that the gun can be "traced" if it is ever used in a crime. In Texas, that is not a state requirement, so you get to keep the little envelope with the proof fired case when you buy the gun. The question is this: Due to metal wear under regular usage, and due to the fact that the owner might use different cartridge brands, each of which uses cases of varying materials and hardness, isn't the idea of archiving a proof fired case an exercise in futility? And, if microstamping involves the idea of modifying a pistol's chamber so that it stamps some kind of identifying number into a chambered case as it is being fired, then won't that same wear and tear under normal usage combined with different case hardness from manufacturer to manufacturer conspire to eventually defeat the microstamping?

Don't get me wrong, if microstamping is what it sounds like, then it is 100% wrongheaded. But in the long run, given the nature of guns and cartridges, isn't microstamping ultimately self defeating?

41magsnub
October 14, 2007, 09:18 AM
That is sort of the point. I think the goal is that if micro-stamping proves to not work (the mechanical not work, not the way we all know it will not work) then pistols simply will not be able to be sold in CA. It's a back door pistol ban tool.

CannibalCrowley
October 14, 2007, 09:19 AM
PUNISHING THE GUN COMPANIES AND OTHER AMERICANS FOR A CALIFORNIA LAW IS STUPID!

Completely redesigning and retooling for a "highly specialized niche market" will force the companies to raise their prices on CA models, although an across the board raise wouldn't be unheard of in order to pay for the new costs.

Furthermore, if CA is so corrupt that it can't be changed from within, then I don't see anything wrong with applying a bit of pressure through legal means (united we stand and all that). I think that refusal to produce and sell microstamping firearms could force CA to repeal this atrocity of a law and I would certainly support any company that does so.

A question about the law, are military and police agencies required to abide by said law?

eflatminor
October 14, 2007, 09:35 AM
Double Naught Spy, I disagree with you. I don't see how putting pressure on manufacturers would drive up prices. If the companies refuse to retool for CA citizens AND law enforcement, they will suffer a few less sales than before the new law but they will save the investment needed to produce microstamping guns. Please explain how you think this will drive up prices.

For what it's worth, I don't think any company will even bother trying to make the technology work. The microstamping law is a back door ban on pistols. I wonder if the current supreme court would see it that way?

For what it's worth, I live in California...but not for long. This is the last straw for me. I'm out of here!

TexasRifleman
October 14, 2007, 09:40 AM
I'm sorry, I just don't see how blaming manufacturers for following the law in order to stay in business makes it their fault.

I get a spent case in each handgun I buy, that's not Texas law but it's cheaper for them to do it across the board.

Is it a real shame? Yes
Will I buy ANY handgun that is microstamed? No

But you can't call for a boycott for a company that is following the law and trying to stay in business, that's just wrong.

"I hate this law, I will punish anyone that obeys it"

Ieyasu
October 14, 2007, 09:45 AM
But you can't call for a boycott for a company that is following the law and trying to stay in business, that's just wrong.

"I hate this law, I will punish anyone that obeys it"
The trouble with the new law is that it exempts CA LEOs. That's how CA gets all of it's dumb gun laws passed.

The idea of a potential boycott is to target those mfgrs that sell the "regular" guns to LEOs.

TexasRifleman
October 14, 2007, 09:49 AM
The idea of a potential boycott is to target those mfgrs that sell the "regular" guns to LEOs.

Once again you want to punish a law abiding company that is trying to stay in business because we failed to stop the law in the first place?

It makes no sense and helps in no way at all.

Gun makers are having a hard enough time as it is.

Everyone talks about Ronnie Barrett and how great what he did is.

Barrett is a niche market/boutique maker. He's a nice guy and good for him for doing what he did, but he's in a very rare position in business. There are very few companies that could keep their doors open doing what you suggest.

You are mad, I am mad but the problem here is some are feeling to need to punish someone, ANYONE, over this.

The gun makers are not the ones that should be punished.

You have any idea what this is going to cost them already? There will be some gun makers that won't be able to survive this transition.

That makes you feel better go ahead but all it does is confirm the stereotype that gun owners are just angry and they don't care who they are angry at.

GRB
October 14, 2007, 10:05 AM
PUNISHING THE GUN COMPANIES AND OTHER AMERICANS FOR A CALIFORNIA LAW IS STUPID! As a matter of fact, it is not punishing the gun makers, it is punishing California. If enough people took part in such a boycott maybe the arms manufacturers would refuse to sell to California, or raise the prices so high for arms meant for police forces and the state's natiuonal guard, that the state would suffer. This would very likely make them reconsider changing policy. This would be a grassroots movement, in which the arms makers could participate if they choose, or loose money if they choose.

Ieyasu
October 14, 2007, 10:05 AM
I understand your points TR.

However, a boycott would allow a national focus of strength, and if successful (granted, a huge "if), it's really the only chance there is of getting the law repealed. Sure, it's possible that the law could be revised to include LEOs, but then the boycott would be lifted.

AirForceShooter
October 14, 2007, 10:24 AM
What ever made you think Arnold was on our side.
He grew up as a Communist. His Dad was a mamber of the Nazi Party.
Do you really think he's in favor of the sheep having guns?

AFS

GRB
October 14, 2007, 10:30 AM
Arnold was pretty much an avowed socialist and liberal when he ran for office as a Republican. For the life of me I do not understand how anti-gun guys like him and Bloomberg are allowed to register then run as Republicans.

Ed Ames
October 14, 2007, 10:34 AM
You've got to remember that California politicians don't mind costs going up.

Taxes are a form of social control. The power to tax is the power to destroy. They like having a reason to raise taxes. If at the same time it raises the costs of guns that works too. They get fewer guns sold (which is their stated purpose) and more revenue on the guns that are sold. A boycott won't hurt them at all. Worst comes to worst they'll just pull a costco when buying (costco is notorious for buying through third parties, even in other countries, and going through hoops that include exporting/reimporting US-made items to get around manufacturer restrictions).

The real problem isn't Arnold or any legislator. The real solution isn't boycotts. The problem is that gun owners are a silent de-facto minority in California. They hide their gun ownership, they never talk, they are bombarded with negative images about themselves in the form of anti-gun propaganda. There is very little positive about owning a gun in California. The solution is taking Californians shooting. It is showing them a positive gun culture instead of the media saturated shooting everywhere. It is making guns affordable and current instead of things grampa hid in the attic for 40 years.

It's an important lesson because California really is just an early indicator. What happens on the coasts moves inland eventually. If you don't learn to address the problems positively and form a strong and positive culture of ownership you will be chased from state to state until finally North Dakota is just as as bad as Southern California and gun ownership is illegal everywhere. You can't run away from this problem and win, and you can't attack it with petulance. You've got to provide positive and accessible images for voters. You've got to make it a healthy part of the culture. If you can't figure out how to do that then eventually gun ownership will go the way of the family cow.

Kimber1911_06238
October 14, 2007, 10:36 AM
too bad the other politicians that voted this bill to arnold's desk won't be held accountable since CA is mostly anti-RKBA

Ieyasu
October 14, 2007, 10:40 AM
The problem is that gun owners are a silent de-facto minority in California.
It's a part of the problem. Not only silent, but apathetic and un-informed. But still that's only a part. (Again that excludes 99% of CA-THR posters.)

TexasRifleman
October 14, 2007, 10:42 AM
It's an important lesson because California really is just an early indicator. What happens on the coasts moves inland eventually.

This one has been repeated often for years and has not turned out to be true.

In most cases it's been the other way around. While California is out there doing its' thing other states are adding concealed carry right and left.

There are states that are always going to be more restrictive. CA is one, IL and NJ are others. Their extreme point of view just doesn't ever seem to make it to mainstream.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant, but the whole "so goes California so goes the rest of the country" only seems to apply to clothing styles.

Clipper
October 14, 2007, 10:54 AM
Everyone has their price...I would have left CA long ago, but obviously some are willing to stay and dance to the insane music of an asylum that's run by the inmates. Perhaps this will cause more to leave. I myself would like to see the gun manufacturers get together and draw the line at the CA border and simply as a group refuse to do any further business in CA. Sure it would cause a hardship for gun owners who stay there, but I have no sympathy for 'em anymore. Get out. Leave that disease of a state to become the mecca for wierdos, hippies and druggies, gang-bangers and all the other self-deluded idiots nobody else wants, and when the whole place falls into the ocean, we'll get to quit dealing with them at all. For those who make the decision to value whatever hoops they have to jump through over what wonderful RIGHTS they could have elsewhere, all I can do is shake my head.

BTW, it's not the NRAs fault this passed, it's the fault of those who sat around and expected the NRA to do THEIR job for 'em and never bothered voicing their own opposition, though I'm sure there was a large "I don't own handguns, so it doesn't affect me" contingent of idiots. The members of this group are a tiny, infitesimal part of the gun-owning world, and we all know how apathetic people are. Even now they're sitting there dumb and happy with no real idea what this will mean in the long run to them until the day they personally are affected by it, when they will look up in amazement and ask "When did all this happen?"

Those with the capacity for inteligent thought have a few years to get yourselves relocated. Those who stay deserve what they get...

Ed Ames
October 14, 2007, 10:59 AM
This one has been repeated often for years and has not turned out to be true.

Huh? You are just looking at things over too short a timeline. California got lawful concealed carry (CCW permit) laws in 1923. Texas got CCW in 1993? Think about a seventy year lag and tell me California isn't a glimpse of your future. Or your grandkids' future anyway.

TheArchDuke
October 14, 2007, 11:01 AM
So to those who are against the boycott, what do you suggest should be done?

riverdog
October 14, 2007, 11:05 AM
If it's good for CA it's good for the rest of the states too. A refusal by the manufacturers to make pistols that meet this spec means the law will fail and the other 49 states won't have a reason to adopt a similar law. You're right, we in CA are already screwed; you guys just need to ensure we're the only state that's screwed.

You guys had better start thinking nationally. Democratic Senate and House with Hillary as Prez. . . I can see this going national and no gun company will honor a boycott at that point.

TexasRifleman
October 14, 2007, 11:53 AM
California got lawful concealed carry (CCW permit) laws in 1923. Texas got CCW in 1993?

LOL You gotta be kidding me right?

MAY issue vs SHALL issue and you are gonna tell me CA is ahead of things?

Once again a THR favorite, comparing apples to oranges.

Autolycus
October 14, 2007, 11:57 AM
Its funny to me that you say its not the NRA's job however people have been saying that they are the ones who get things done. Either they do or they dont.

As someone else stated, Arnold has never been a friend to gunowners and I dont believe he ever claimed to be. So in my opinion the traitor label is off.

As for the idea of a boycott, I like the idea. We have to influence the lawmakers somehow. I would fully support CA and their microstamping ban if it did not exclude law enforcement. I have to ask why the government wants its agents to have untraceable weapons? Are they hit men or something? ;)

CA maybe a niche market but it is a big one. By exerting pressure on gun manufacturers hopefully they can see that they are cooperating with a system that we oppose. And are LE contracts more profitable then civilian sales? I doubt that due to sheer quantity alone for some manufacturers. However if we could get it so that it becomes costly for LE to buy weapons from outside dealers maybe they would reconsider. All it would do is leave LE with outdated weapons and old equipment which is fine since they dont want to get on the bandwagon and get microstamped weapons.

Ask yourselves why the government wants to be able to trace all civilian sales and why they want to have guns that are untraceable (according to their standards)? Get community leaders who rally people against LE brutality on your side. Explain to them that the government wants guns that cant be traced and see what happens. Thats how they are painting gun owners. It sounds unreasonable that gunowners want to have weapons that cant be traced and registered. Ask the people why the government needs those things.

I apologize if I am rambling as I am a little drunk still.

AF_INT1N0
October 14, 2007, 01:43 PM
Yeah,
I heard about this bill. There wasn't much I could do, because I don't vote in this country( the PRK).

I personally would love to see gun companies pull a Barrett. But I don't see it happening.

As far as California getting CCW in 1923 and Texas getting it in 1993. I would submit to you that California doesn't have a CCW program. It's more like a Caste system where the rich carry and the serfs get hosed. (Note: Some county sheriffs are turning that around but sadly because it's a county by county thing there is no unified front.)

The main problem as I see it is Gun ownership is demonized even by those who have them. My wife won't shoot with me here because she says it doesn't feel fun. (like the ranges are over controlled) Even folks that have permits in the state (not all) are not for Shall issue. The folks that are for shall issue, are stuck in Gun free craptopias. (I'm in the Bay Area for instance) I have about the same chance of being struck by lightning as I have of being issued a CCW in my county.

Fortunately I am only here temporarily. I'm looking to go to Georgia, Florida, Texas, or Utah next (assuming I can find a job there).

eric.cartman
October 14, 2007, 01:59 PM
Fortunately I am only here temporarily. I'm looking to go to Georgia, Florida, Texas, or Utah next (assuming I can find a job there).

Are you a software developer by any chance?

Prince Yamato
October 14, 2007, 02:13 PM
What happens on the coasts moves inland eventually.

Maybe in the early 1990s. Not any more. I think by now, most people know that California is run by total fruitcakes.

chipperi
October 14, 2007, 02:44 PM
Hopefully the USSC sides on the side of the 2nd in the DC case so someone in ************ can try it as an unconstitutional gun ban being that the technology either doesn't exist or doesn't function.

Ed Ames
October 14, 2007, 03:11 PM
California is a lot more complicated that people credit. Most of the state (by area) affords freedoms I certainly don't have here in Texas. When I wanted to go shooting in California I just drove out into the desert and set up some targets. Nobody bothered me. Nobody cared. Occasionally someone else would drive out to the same general area and we'd wave at each other but that was it. Try that in North Texas. Try it anywhere in Texas. At the same time most of California (by population) is extremely urban. Since moving I've really had to school myself not to bust out laughing every time someone says how big and crowded Dallas is -- where I grew up we had about the same population as Texas (the whole state) crammed into an area about the size of Connecticut (which is smaller than Texas ;)).

Urbanization is happening everywhere. Our population is increasing and our land area is not. There are more people per square mile. That's happening fast in Texas, which is poised to overtake California as the population center of the USA. Those new Texans are moving to the cities and they are increasing the urbanization. That means they are displacing shooting ranges and packing together tightly enough that you can't shoot in your yard any more. Sorry.

Urbanization reduces the opportunities for positive contact with guns. If I was in a rural area I'd probably spend part of the afternoon today shooting. I'm not so I won't. Millions of people who used to shoot don't any more because of that. Urbanization also creates opportunities for fear-association that drives people to think they need guns now. That may be good in the short term but in the long term I'm not convinced. You've got to give people a positive reason they *like* to go shooting or they'll just say "yeah I need this while someone else has it, but I'd prefer if they were all melted down."

The brightest trend I've seen is the increasing popularity of sporting clays and similar games as legitimate alternatives to golf. I've seen California high tech professionals who were raised anti-gun actually become enthusiastic about shooting in that context. Cowboy action is another good one that was growing in popularity in California when I left. Fun, non-threatening, positive uses for firearms. Experiences that give positive images to counteract the negativity provided by friends (anti-gun peer pressure is very strong) and the media.

I still say California is just ahead of the curve and the difference between "may" and "shall" is largely academic in the long run. I hope I'm wrong. I guess I'll just have to wait 70 years to find out.

Creature
October 14, 2007, 03:20 PM
Already passed?

My understanding is that AB 1471 has passed the California Senate and is back in the Assembly...and has yet to be forwarded to "Governator"...

Zundfolge
October 14, 2007, 03:20 PM
If we don't punish gun manufacturers that comply with this new California law, we WILL have this crap from coast to coast. Period.

The idea really isn't to punish the "bad" gun makers, its to get as much of the firearms industry on our side as possible ... imagine if every gun manufacturer put their foot down and said NO! to California ... that might make these kind of laws less attractive outside of California.

But if most gun manufacturers knuckle under and start making microstamping guns, then there will be no reason in the minds of fence sitting citizens and politicians coast to coast not to start demanding this crap nation wide.

And when that happens you can kiss goodbye the days of inexpensive handguns and we're one step closer to tyranny.

Ieyasu
October 14, 2007, 03:23 PM
Already passed?

My understanding is that AB 1471 has passed the California Senate and is back in the Assembly...and has yet to be forwarded to "Governator"...
http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/7709/

kcmarine
October 14, 2007, 03:27 PM
I think it's important that the gun companies REMEMBER RONNIE BARRETT'S LEAD.

langenc
October 14, 2007, 04:04 PM
"You are mad, I am mad but the problem here is some are feeling to need to punish someone, ANYONE, over this.

""The gun makers are not the ones that should be punished.

You have any idea what this is going to cost them already? There will be some gun makers that won't be able to survive this transition."

I dont take this as punishment cause someone passed a dumb law. What is being said is the IF you gnmaker go along with the stupidity I will buy someone elses.""

If everyone goes CA compliant where will we get our guns. And we all know that guns will now go up for those complying cause it will cost more to make them and someone has to pay. What percent of guns S&W (or anyother) supplier makes go to CA how much will they loose?? Ill bet they can get by without it, or raise the price 5-10 bucks and use that to cover the CA "loss".

CleverNickname
October 14, 2007, 04:11 PM
California got lawful concealed carry (CCW permit) laws in 1923. Texas got CCW in 1993?
Yeah, the California may-issue permit system enacted in 1923 was a real big improvement over the Vermont-style system they had before that!

TexasRifleman
October 14, 2007, 05:43 PM
When I wanted to go shooting in California I just drove out into the desert and set up some targets. Nobody bothered me. Nobody cared. Occasionally someone else would drive out to the same general area and we'd wave at each other but that was it. Try that in North Texas.

That has zero to do with politics.

Texas was nearly all railroad land and none was set aside as public use land. California's political landscape is not why you can shoot on public use lands and one more apples to oranges comparison.

I still say California is just ahead of the curve and the difference between "may" and "shall" is largely academic in the long run

Well when you can walk into the Sheriffs office in LA and be guaranteed you'll be issued a CCW let me know.

That's hardly academic.

only1asterisk
October 14, 2007, 06:01 PM
If we don't punish gun manufacturers that comply with this new California law, we WILL have this crap from coast to coast. Period.

I will not purchase a firearm of any kind from a company that produces a "microstamping" model or sells non-microstamping guns to state, county or municipal governments in CA after this law takes effect. The same with the lead ammo ban.

The fifth largest economy will have to do without new guns for while or gunowners will need to display their displeasure in a meaningful way.

David

TexasRifleman
October 14, 2007, 06:09 PM
The fifth largest economy will have to do without guns for while

Again and again, no one is going to do without guns. All the hundreds of models on the CA DOJ list will continue to be sold in CA, just like this mess had never happened.

Ed Ames
October 14, 2007, 06:24 PM
Well when you can walk into the Sheriffs office in LA and be guaranteed you'll be issued a CCW let me know.

Actually, that's a great example of what I'm talking about with California being more complicated than people seem to understand. LA is a true urban area... I kid you not, if you take the L.A. Metro area you have a very large fraction of the entire population of Texas in an area smaller than most eastern states. That really does impact the politics, it reduces the chance of positive contact with guns, it changes perceptions, it allows an anti-gun culture to flourish because nobody has much opportunity for positive contact with them. The people are anti and they elect anti people.

Don't like it? Escape from LA.

Many areas of California are basically shall issue. Where I lived was basically shall issue. The reason California has complicated laws and allows local discretion in areas like CCW permits is that the state is politically several states all rolled into one. If they didn't have that then everyone in CA would be EVEN MORE dominated by the population centers.

Except... LA is growing. There are more and more places like LA. The USA is urbanizing. Move out of LA without addressing the forces that make places like LA anti-gun and you are just delaying the inevitable. Where are you going to escape to next time? And after that? I left the LA metro for an outlying area and the metro problems followed (about 10 years later). I've now left the state but I have no comfort that the pressures of urbanization are easing. I think LA is still following but maybe this time it will take 70 years IF nothing gives guns a more positive image.

I'm not saying that nobody is addressing those issues. I'm saying that acting petulant and ranting against Arnold because he signed laws that legislators have been able to pass and would be able to pass again isn't addressing those issues. It's a waste of energy.

TexasRifleman
October 14, 2007, 06:27 PM
m saying that acting petulant and ranting against Arnold because he signed laws that legislators have been able to pass and would be able to pass again isn't addressing those issues. It's a waste of energy.

I agree with you completely on that one. He seems like a crappy gov, but powerless for the most part. This stuff is hardly his fault. Lots of things had to go wrong for that thing to land on his desk.

Green Lantern
October 14, 2007, 06:49 PM
Er, I obviously am 100% behind the OP.

What I fear is that rather than bothering to make "Cali Models" and "Free State Models" of everything, the makers will go to ALL Cali models! Especially since they can charge God-knows how much MORE for them!

As for companies being "punished" and losing a TON of money by writing California off - Honestly - How can the market in ONE STATE compare to the market of FORTY-NINE of them???

For those that choose to disparage the actions of Ron Barrett - well, how many cops use 50 cals, exactly? Now, how many carry a sidearm???? BIIIIIG difference!

Barrett is a man of principle, and I think he realized that the world wouldn't end for Cali PD's without Barrett rifles. But if we can even get one or two of the BIG suppliers of handguns to California on our/his side....!

only1asterisk
October 14, 2007, 07:00 PM
All the hundreds of models on the CA DOJ list will continue to be sold in CA, just like this mess had never happened.

Until they are declared "unsafe" and dropped from the list or the law is altered slightly or the manufacturer wants to make a improvement or cosmetic change (requiring recertification).

David

Double Naught Spy
October 14, 2007, 08:16 PM
This is amazing. So many of y'all think that because California passed a law that we should punish non California gun companies with boycotts if they comply with the law. Y'all have lost your good sense of judgment as to cause and effect, guilt and innocence.

Personally, I thought the gun makers were our allies. They make that which we use for our 2nd Amendment rights. So if they make guns that comply with California laws, y'all are suggesting we attack them and hurt them financially until they cave in to our demands or collapse. That is just fricking brilliant. Basically what this tells me is that when many gun owners get hysterical, they eat their own.

If Arnold is a traitor as is the California Legislature, then why the hell are we not doing something against them?

As for Ronnie Barrett, like I said above, what he did was nice and all, but it really wasn't that big of a deal. It involved only a few rifles. It was a symbolic gesture only. It didn't actually accomplish anything. Police departments were still able to get Barrett parts and rifles. They just didn't get them for a discounted price direct from Barrett. So big fricking deal. No departments did without Barrett rifles.

CNYCacher
October 14, 2007, 08:46 PM
PUNISHING THE GUN COMPANIES AND OTHER AMERICANS FOR A CALIFORNIA LAW IS STUPID!

Absolutely! +1

This entire idea is based on the assumption that if the gun makers comply, then anti-gunners in other states will take up the idea and try this in other states.

*** do you think will happen if your boycott campaign is successful and suddenly there are no handguns sold in Kommifornia?

Lanyard
October 14, 2007, 08:48 PM
This isn't about punitive measures against gun/ammo manufacturers. It is one arrow in our quiver. There needs to be serious and immediate ramifications for this legislation. California is a LOST CAUSE. We only need to show the rest of the Union that there will be significant pain and discomfort if they foolishly follow California.

However, we must also offer the velvet glove. We should selflessly support our local manufacturers, we should stop wasting our time proselytizing those on the Dark Side and instead convert the unknowing to our cause. We need to take someone to the range who doesn't know which end of the barrel the bullets come out of. Just the look on their face when they feel the excitement is enough, let alone knowing that there is someone else to call for support when the need will come.

The tide is changing, though the immediate future looks bleak, I believe that we will be successful in the end.

Green Lantern
October 14, 2007, 09:08 PM
Governor Schwarzenegger can be reached by phone at (916) 445-2841, fax at (916) 445-4633, or visit http://gov.ca.gov/interact#email to send him an email.

ZeSpectre
October 14, 2007, 10:25 PM
I'm in with those who want to find a way to express our dismay with this situation WITHOUT "eating our own".

Let's not allow zeal to do our cause even more damage than the enemy plans.

R.H. Lee
October 14, 2007, 10:27 PM
Zundfolge, do you really believe that a few boycotting rubes have anywhere near the economic power of California LE, who buy handguns by the dozens, hundreds, and thousands?

This state is the seventh largest economy in the world, and you can be assured that what happens here gets the attention of the world. So if you think you're going to somehow be exempt from this microstamping foolishness, wait until Hillary is in the Whitehouse. Hillary, Nancy, and Harry can put the smackdown on your 'free states'. And they will.

Raspu10
October 14, 2007, 10:35 PM
better watch out or he'll strike again...


Arnold: "I'll Be Back"

Zundfolge
October 14, 2007, 11:15 PM
Zundfolge, do you really believe that a few boycotting rubes have anywhere near the economic power of California LE, who buy handguns by the dozens, hundreds, and thousands?
If we in the RKBA movement are nothing but a "few rubes" than we're already so completely and utterly screwed that we might as well all turn our guns in now, stop voting and become vegans.

I will agree that extending the boycott to those that supply LEAs in the PRK is probably too much ... we need to focus our ire on those that manufacture microstamping guns.

This state is the seventh largest economy in the world, and you can be assured that what happens here gets the attention of the world. So if you think you're going to somehow be exempt from this microstamping foolishness, wait until Hillary is in the Whitehouse. Hillary, Nancy, and Harry can put the smackdown on your 'free states'. And they will.
This is what I don't get about many of our RKBA brethren in the PRK ... y'all have lost and lost BIG and your only response is to gloat about how the rest of us in "free America" are next.

You guys should just stop supplying the CA government with your tax dollars, move out here to free America with the rest of us (hell, enough of your idiotic state-mates have come to my state and started screwing us blue) and fight the fight from a position of strength instead of fighting a dead cause.

Outlaws
October 14, 2007, 11:17 PM
Here is the simple answer.....

California can have their micro stamping. I won't boycott any gun companies over that. I am not in California and whatever the Cali .gov passed to mandate this isn't my problem (yet). But I will let the gun companies know that I will not buy any products in my state that are micro stamped, so they better make special Cali-only firing pins. The Cali buyers can absorb ALL the added cost because its a California issue and either the company can suck it up or pass it on to the people of Cali. But I don't want any part of it. I am sorry, but if you choose to live in a state like Cali, you deserve to pay for every cent extra is costs the company to do this for your state in order to keep our prices as they are. You are responsible for your own screwy government.

eliphalet
October 14, 2007, 11:32 PM
So to those who are against the boycott, what do you suggest should be done?Boycott any where laws like this become law. Any product from or company that pays their taxes there. Things would change in a hurry but like always gun owners seem bent of arguing among them selves and nothing gets done except more gun laws. Again we gun owners lose. Propaganda has us a house divided and so we fall, one step at a time.

The_Antibubba
October 14, 2007, 11:57 PM
Zunflge said:
If we don't punish gun manufacturers that comply with this new California law, we WILL have this crap from coast to coast. Period.


I will not purchase a firearm of any kind from a company that produces a "microstamping" model or sells non-microstamping guns to state, county or municipal governments in CA after this law takes effect. The same with the lead ammo ban.

The fifth largest economy will have to do without new guns for while or gunowners will need to display their displeasure in a meaningful way.


If gun makers retool for this "niche" market, they will not have a separate line for the other 49. You will all get microstamped guns. Even if microstamping doesn't work consistently, you will have to find every single piece of brass you fire, on the off chance that a unique ID number is on it, one that can be traced back to you.

I don't want to punish the gun companies, but I can't think of another disincentive to prevent California-compliant guns from being sold EVERYWHERE. I want you to convince the gun makers to punish California, by threatening to not buy their products if they retool. Maybe some of you "Free Staters" can have your state legislators pass laws that prevent microstamped guns from being sold there.

This entire idea is based on the assumption that if the gun makers comply, then anti-gunners in other states will take up the idea and try this in other states.

*** do you think will happen if your boycott campaign is successful and suddenly there are no handguns sold in Kommifornia?

The main focus is on our state's Law Enforcement, who are of course exempted from the ban, just as they can buy guns that are on the prohibited list, just as they can have magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, etc. Cops are not held to the same laws here as "civilians". No new guns to California LEO, no servicing of existing weapons, and the Law Enforcement and Corrections unions will put the pressure on the state legislators who they already own. Do a search on the California prison system and the union that controls it. It's been handed over to the Feds because the conditions and the overcrowding violate the US Constitution. Corrections officers are considered Law Enforcement here--and they are a formidable political power in this state. Imagine what might happen if they can no longer get new toys.

I'm willing--no, eager--to see no new semiautos sold to California if Law Enforcement is deprived too--because that is the only way the law will be repealed.

Green lantern said:
As for companies being "punished" and losing a TON of money by writing California off - Honestly - How can the market in ONE STATE compare to the market of FORTY-NINE of them???

It's a big Effing market here, big enough that the makers CAN'T afford to not make their guns compliant, unless the rest of the US shooting market threatens to boycott them. We're the world's sixth-largest economy! you can bet the makers are ready to retool NOW. You will get a microstamped gun, and YOU will pay a higher price for that gun.

only1asterisk said:
I will not purchase a firearm of any kind from a company that produces a "microstamping" model or sells non-microstamping guns to state, county or municipal governments in CA after this law takes effect.

Yep, he gets the idea, But call them up and tell them. If they hear it from enough of us, they'll be loathe to make the change. The bottom line is what decides it, not idealism.

Hopefully the USSC sides on the side of the 2nd in the DC case so someone in ************ can try it as an unconstitutional gun ban being that the technology either doesn't exist or doesn't function.

I thought of that, but microstamping isn't a restriction against ownership, at least not directly, so Parker vs D.C. isn't likely to have an impact against it. Against "May issue" definitely, but not this one.

Clipper said: Everyone has their price...I would have left CA long ago, but obviously some are willing to stay and dance to the insane music of an asylum that's run by the inmates. Perhaps this will cause more to leave. I myself would like to see the gun manufacturers get together and draw the line at the CA border and simply as a group refuse to do any further business in CA. Sure it would cause a hardship for gun owners who stay there, but I have no sympathy for 'em anymore. Get out. Leave that disease of a state to become the mecca for wierdos, hippies and druggies, gang-bangers and all the other self-deluded idiots nobody else wants, and when the whole place falls into the ocean, we'll get to quit dealing with them at all. For those who make the decision to value whatever hoops they have to jump through over what wonderful RIGHTS they could have elsewhere, all I can do is shake my head.... Those with the capacity for inteligent thought have a few years to get yourselves relocated. Those who stay deserve what they get...

I'd like to get out, but I can't afford to go elsewhere right now. My job skills, and lack thereof, are going to stick me in a big city somewhere. And honestly, my leaving only helps me. It won't affect California in any measurable way. It won't help anyone else, here or elsewhere.

Can't smoke in a public place? Get fined for not wearing a seatbelt? Hate crime enhancements? Non-lead birdshot? Where do you think these intrusions on our rights get their start? Idaho? Tennessee? Kansas? Unless you flex your collective (oh, the irony) muscles now, you'll be buying microstamped guns whether you know it or not.

As some of you have said, California is screwed--mostly for reasons not even mentioned here. But we're also your canary in the coalmine. When WE drop off our perch, YOU have to take action immediately, or it does you no damn good at all.

kayl
October 15, 2007, 12:11 AM
This is what Arnold wrote about signing the bill:
To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am signing Assembly Bill 1471.
While I appreciate and understand that this technology is not without limitations, I am
signing this bill to provide law enforcement with an additional tool for solving crimes
committed with semi-automatic handguns in California.
Public safety is one of the most important roles of government and I encourage all
stakeholders to work on improving this technology so that it may become an even more
effective crime fighting tool.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
From: http://gov.ca.gov/pdf/press/2007bills/AB%201471%20Signing%20Message.pdf

This will be an interesting topic to follow...

trbon8r
October 15, 2007, 12:14 AM
You guys should just stop supplying the CA government with your tax dollars, move out here to free America with the rest of us (hell, enough of your idiotic state-mates have come to my state and started screwing us blue) and fight the fight from a position of strength instead of fighting a dead cause.

You might want to consider that most of the people that move out of California are the right thinking ones that are tired of the BS. My wife and I fit into that category and moved out last year.

Stop blaming a few California imports for your state's problems. Colorado has been a well known haven for lefties for years now.

Diggers
October 15, 2007, 12:25 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_microstamping

There is a link to an interesting read on microstamping.

A very interesting part the article brings up is the fact that it is illegal to remove any serial number from a gun. The microstamp on the firing pin is a serial number. This will actually wear away after shooting a lot of ammo. Does this them make your gun illegal? What do you do if a firing pin brakes?? I guess the only legal thing to do is have a new pin with the correct serial number on it made. Oh wait…..can any one even do that?
Then there is the fact that in the wikipedia article only about half of the primers had a serial number stamped into it that was legible, so there is that.

Of course that information, if it is there, is only useful if the gun is legally owned and even then in some situations they still won’t be able to track it down to the person who owns currently.

There are just sooooo many impractical holes in this law it really borders on comically ridiculous.

AND HERE IS THE KICKER GUYS AND GALS

The guy who came up with this idea and is trying to get rich off of it is Todd Lizotte. Todd states that he is a conservative, a Republican AND….a member of the NRA!!! :banghead:

Youtube actually has Todd pitching the microstamping technology to some part of the California State Gov. in which he states is political affiliations.

Is he really just unwittingly helping out the antigun people or is he totally full of it.

eliphalet
October 15, 2007, 12:29 AM
I'd like to get out, but I can't afford to go elsewhere right now. My job skills, and lack thereof, are going to stick me in a big city somewhere. And honestly, my leaving only helps me. You have to want out bad enough is the secret. I literally said "I would rather work at the Circle K than live here any longer". It has not always been a smooth ride but the quality of my life has been worth ever minute of it. Sometimes ya just gotta do what ya gotta do, stay or go. Success or the money can depend too. I left a good self employed business my ex left a mediocre job. She has done far better than she probably would have ever done in Ca. I have done worse than I expected. Like I already said "worth every minute. My kid was 8 when we came here, he grew up here, that is pricless, again my life has been far better and leaving Ca was "worth every minute".

2RCO
October 15, 2007, 12:31 AM
How about this.. Forget the manufacturers and Boycott California. If the people of the state can't get it together then Boycott the whole state. Stop buying California Wine, Cheese, Produce, and anything else made there, this would make much more sense but would unfortunately still punish innocent people. It's not that big of a concern since Boycotts don't work unless a large group of people are behind them and as we've seen over the years gun owners aren't very good at getting behind anything. We as a group are horrible at sticking together and are way to factionalized! We need more unity--just look at how few gun owners are NRA members --everyone can come up with some BS reason why they won't join instead of joining and trying to make a difference. Getting on the High Road and moaning doesn't do very much. Banding together and taking a political stand does-If you don't like the NRA join and change it! Look at the upcomming election--there is no serious Pro-Gun candidate on either side (Ron Paul whatever he has made too many whack statements to be taken seriously by the majority of Americans). We need to do something in this country before we all are radio chip tagged and only allowed to use plastic knives at home. --note I don't wear a tinfoil hat but it's a slippery slope on our privacy and rights. Microstamping is ridiculous and doesn't even work--Guns can already be matched to fired rounds by forensic experts so is it really necessary? The Antis will argue this along with, "If you aren't involved in crimes why do you care." at which point any baited response we give back makes us all look like criminals or kooks. We have to say at some point with our rights and freedom enough is enough you can't take any more away this isn't 1939 and we don't live in Germany.

Zundfolge
October 15, 2007, 12:53 AM
It's not that big of a concern since Boycotts don't work unless a large group of people are behind them and as we've seen over the years gun owners aren't very good at getting behind anything.
IIRC, S&W executives have claimed that the boycott hurt them enough to drive down the value of S&W to the point where the Brits that owned it (and stabbed us in the back) had to sell it cheap to a bunch of Americans.

Then there's Jim Zumbo. If we could raise just a 10th of the ire against some old dude that likes to shoot bambi because of disparaging comments he made about our EBRs I'd think we could force the hand of any gun manufacturer out there (with maybe the exception of HK which tells us we suck and they hate us (http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/hk-because-you-suck-and-we-hate-you/) and maybe someone like Colt which like HK doesn't like us "civilians" too much ... now that Bill Ruger is dead I figure Ruger will toe the line).

AZTOY
October 15, 2007, 01:19 AM
Cyberdyne :uhoh:

Green Lantern
October 15, 2007, 08:28 AM
Is he really just unwittingly helping out the antigun people or is he totally full of it.

I think he may be just a fool that hasn't learned that you can't sell out "a little" to the anti-gun crowd - in the end, they'll accept ALL or NOTHING!

mmike87
October 15, 2007, 11:01 AM
Any gun company that seels these microstamped guns in California and seels non-microstamped guns to California law enforcement will not get my money.

Yes, it is appropriate to punish the gun makers. They have the ability to not sell or service guns in California.

Will it hurt them? Yes.

However, NOT taking a stand now will ultilmately spell the demise for their entire industry. Most of the companies cannot survive on LE sales alone. Gun sales in most parts of the country are at all time highs. Gun ownership and shooting in general are becoming MORE popular in most places.

This type of crap is really indicative of the failure of Democracy. People are too stupid to collectively govern themselves responsibly. Pass any damn law you want as long as I can keep my Volvo, my iPhone, and my McMansion. Sorry, I am ranting. But I am angry.

Clipper
October 15, 2007, 12:10 PM
CA may have lots of people, and lots of money, but in an anti-gun society like theirs, how large a slice of the gun market pie are they? I'll bet they're actually a small market compared to the rest of the country. The gun manufacturers will not deal with CA if they're convinced that complying with this law for the sake of that CA slice will remove a larger hunk of pie than they'll save. Let 'em know in no uncertain terms that if they comply, they can kiss even 15% of their revenue bye-bye, and they'll pass on CA, I guarantee it...

Double Naught Spy
October 15, 2007, 12:10 PM
Yes, it is appropriate to punish the gun makers. They have the ability to not sell or service guns in California.

Will it hurt them? Yes.

Will it hurt us? Yes.

So we don't collectively ask gun makers not sell to CA, we threaten them as our first volley?

So I bet if we collapse enough companies by boycotting them because of this issue, what do you think will happen to those companies? What will happen to the government agencies depending on those weapons? More than likely, there will be a federal bail out and bailed out gun companies will become federalized institutions that will supply materials to the government only. Wouldn't that be just a kicker?

only1asterisk
October 15, 2007, 12:50 PM
So we don't collectively ask gun makers not sell to CA, we threaten them as our first volley?

Who said that?

kiko1
October 15, 2007, 01:13 PM
I agree with 2RCO in that the only way to succeed against the liberal anti-gunners is for we gun owners to support NRA (change it if you don't like it, but DO something), and similar 2nd amendment rights efforts.
The Brady people and their counterparts put the gun owners to shame when it comes to an organized effort in support of "their" cause. It's been my experience that gun owners tend to rant, rather than get behind any cohesive effort to support our beliefs. We had better smarten up, or we'll lose something that will never be given back.

Scorpiusdeus
October 15, 2007, 01:45 PM
You will never get a boycott to work. I will predict here and now that GLOCK will not jump on board, and I doubt S&W will. If even one major manufacturer doesn't boycott all you've done is take choice away from the people of CA and the LEO's of CA.

What we really need to to get Gun owners in CA to get active and run our elected officials out of office. It's not just guns these people screw up, it's everything.

azredhawk44
October 15, 2007, 01:57 PM
You will never get a boycott to work. I will predict here and now that GLOCK will not jump on board, and I doubt S&W will. If even one major manufacturer doesn't boycott all you've done is take choice away from the people of CA and the LEO's of CA.


I predict the OPPOSITE: Glock and S&W WILL jump on board.

Ruger won't, because their handguns aren't used by any LEOs and they are nearly 100% "civilian" sales with their autos (because they suck in comparison). Other off-brand autos won't jump either, because they get no LEO sales and the "civilian" sales in CA won't be worth the bottom line.

Springfield will jump, Kimber will jump. Sig will jump. HK will jump. Beretta will jump.

The custom 1911 makers won't go with it. Wilson, STI, etc. will be hurt more by complying since they cater to gun enthusiasts who hate this law and will react with their wallets.

I don't have plans to buy any Kimbers, Sigs or HKs... but I do have plans to buy a couple more Springers of various makes. I will be letting them know, as a 2-gun springfield customer and a shopper for at least 2 more of their products, that my plans will certainly change if they comply with this.

ClickClickD'oh
October 15, 2007, 03:03 PM
When I wanted to go shooting in California I just drove out into the desert and set up some targets. Nobody bothered me. Nobody cared. Occasionally someone else would drive out to the same general area and we'd wave at each other but that was it. Try that in North Texas. Try it anywhere in Texas. Uh okay, no problem. I actually do that quite often. All you need to do is 1) Find un-incorporated land -that- 2) is not privately owned. Failing 2, got to 3) Ask the owner. Not a problem.

where I grew up we had about the same population as Texas (the whole state)Either you were born in Tokyo or you are telling a tall tale there.

I kid you not, if you take the L.A. Metro area you have a very large fraction of the entire population of Texas in an area smaller than most eastern states.
LA Metro pop: 12.9mil
Tx Pop: 23.5mil

skinnyguy
October 15, 2007, 03:16 PM
What I fear is that rather than bothering to make "Cali Models" and "Free State Models" of everything, the makers will go to ALL Cali models! Especially since they can charge God-knows how much MORE for them!I'm in agreement with this point. The gun makers will go all-or-nothing on their production.

I know that should that happen, and I need a pistol, I'll be buying a pre-2010 model, that will be taking money away from the makers because they have already received payment from the original purchaser. It isn't a boycott, it's a decision to buy used rather than new.

Right now, the only thing I can see to do is to start writing letters. To the manufacturers, telling them you won't be buying microstamp models, and to your state's legislators, telling them that since Cali passed this law, there will be similar legislation being introduced in other states, and that you fully expect them to so strongly oppose that legislation that it never makes it past introduction.

Californians need to be writing to your governor, telling him that if you have anything to say about it, his tenure as governor will be ending very soon, and don't even bother running for senate, it would waste his time.

medic_guns
October 15, 2007, 03:20 PM
Someone should appeal this to the supreme court. It ain't over yet.

walking arsenal
October 15, 2007, 03:51 PM
The idea is that since we CAN NOT get through to the law makers maybe we can get through to the companies.

Yeah, we don't like the law.

Can we get it repealed? No.

Get we get the guy who signs the laws out? No

And if we can what will it solve? Nothing.

So we rebel and force/ask manufacturers to stop delivering guns to California.

The manufacturers take a financial hit for a while but its just in one state.

Or

If they retool and manufacture microstamping guns for California they take a bigger hit from shooters from all other 49 states who cease to buy from them.

Suddenly the state is begging for weapons.

The manufacturers are more than willing to supply them if only they do one thing.

Cease requiring micro stamping.

The law gets repealed because people, cops, security guards need their weapons and then everything gets one step closer to "normal" in ***********.

When will we learn that "We the people" run this country. Not the politicians.

Jim Diver
October 15, 2007, 04:01 PM
Look.. Boycotts do not work.

Contact the gun makers. Tell them that you will support them 110% should they decide to not sell any firearms to Ca LEO. After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander too.

No threats of boycotts... just gently remind them of what Barrett did.

Or ask them to ignore the law and send guns with out microstamp. After all, there is no obligation to obey illegal laws.

alsaqr
October 15, 2007, 04:44 PM
The title of this thread is wrong. Ahnold is not a traitor. In order to be a traitor, Ahnold would have been pro-gun sometime during his life. Folks, Ahnold was never pro-gun. Ahnold is a dedicated anti. Anyone who voted for Ahnold believing that he is pro-gun must have stood in the sun too long.

carnaby
October 15, 2007, 05:00 PM
I don't know if someone already wrote this, but I don't see a problem with the law. Yes it is stupid, but that never stopped California in the past. California gets to be the guinea pig for something that will waste time, effort and money, and have nothing to show for it.

Much like the fiasco we saw back east in, I think it was Maryland (and Mass?) with the millions wasted on "fingerprinting" cases, at some point the police and/or populace will want to see results for all the money they're going to have to spend on the bureaucracy and equipment.

When it becomes clear that the law does nothing but waste money, they'll start wanting it spent where it can actually do something good, like more officers on the streets, for example.

kludge
October 15, 2007, 05:41 PM
How about this.. Forget the manufacturers and Boycott California. If the people of the state can't get it together then Boycott the whole state. Stop buying California Wine, Cheese, Produce, and anything else made there, this would make much more sense but would unfortunately still punish innocent people.

In.

But how do you spread the word when people don't care (even the gun owners) and the media is heralding the new law, and won't present any alternative views?

What if we could find some out-of-state electric company to refuse to sell any electricity to California until they repealed the law.

Or a natural gas/gasoline company. Or Three.

Yes, it will hurt.

What's the alternative?

In other words...

What's the modern day equivalent of a tea party?

AF_INT1N0
October 15, 2007, 06:11 PM
^^^^^^ A wine party!

QuickDraw
October 15, 2007, 06:48 PM
I apologize if I am rambling as I am a little drunk still.

This is the best response of all!:D

fantacmet
October 15, 2007, 06:58 PM
Not to mention, does anyone else see the potential for abuse here? Say you are getting out of your car to get a bite to eat after a day at the range. A piece of brass accidently hits the ground and goes unnoticed by you for whatever reason. A cop finds it. CRAP! Yer screwed buddy. They wanna know why you were shooting in town and decide to nab yer toys for illegal discharge of a firearm.
My heart really goes out to all the california gun owners for this one. Well provided you actually faught against it. If you didn't then, you reap what you sow.

fantacmet
October 15, 2007, 07:00 PM
Not to mention, does anyone else see the potential for abuse here? Say you are getting out of your car to get a bite to eat after a day at the range. A piece of brass accidently hits the ground and goes unnoticed by you for whatever reason. A cop finds it. CRAP! Yer screwed buddy. They wanna know why you were shooting in town and decide to nab yer toys for illegal discharge of a firearm.
My heart really goes out to all the california gun owners for this one. Well provided you actually faught against it. If you didn't then, you reap what you sow.

Ed Ames
October 15, 2007, 07:23 PM
On the flip side of the evidence planting, there is a reduction in credibility as evidence of cases which don't have stamps. If you need a stamp then the ballistic fingerprinting (i.e. all the fired cases that come with so many guns) are in the opinion of an "expert body" not reliable. Suddenly defendants being faced with "your shells have the same imprint as shells found at the scene of the crime" arguments can say "but according to California such matches are insufficient and microstamps are needed. Beyond that, if a non-stamped shell is found and you have a stamped gun... that can be used to plant the suspicion in a jury that the shell was planted by someone with a ready source of unstamped shells. Who qualifies? Law Enforcement Officers!

LA Metro pop: 12.9mil
Tx Pop: 23.5mil

Exactly! And that's not counting the full LA metro as SoCal people count it. La Metro is 13,006,527, then Riverside/San Bernardino (commonly called "suburbs" of LA) adds 3,648,841 and that's not even opening the San Diego and related areas can of worms. That's 16.7 million to 20 million people in a very small area. Texas has only 23.5 million and to a surprising extent they are spread thinly across a rather large state.

If you want something really scary go back over the last 20 years. You'll find that Texas is growing *very* rapidly with almost all of the growth being urban. If the growth curve continues much longer Texas will overtake California as the most populous state, and guess what? Those large urban areas will have most of the problems SoCal has... UNLESS you can address the basic problem which is a lack of positive contact in urban areas.

You want to fix the problem? Take a Californian shooting. I've done it and changed minds. Take city folk, boys and girls from whatever city and state, shooting. It's a slow "one at a time" process... but guess what that's true of all real activism.

Oh, and:

Originally Posted by Ed Ames
where I grew up we had about the same population as Texas (the whole state)
Either you were born in Tokyo or you are telling a tall tale there.


Go back to when I was growing up and consider that my idea of "where" may be fairly broad (I lived all over SoCal and consider the whole area my "home turf"). It wasn't long ago that Texas had less than 12 million people total.

Paradiddle
October 16, 2007, 12:39 AM
I think the California is a much larger firearm market then most of the non-Cali residents give credit. In fact, while I can't find much about it on the Internet, I remember reading that California might be the largest firearm market in the US. It would jive with the largely conservative nature of SD, OC, and the Inland Empire, the population, and the income here. Not to mention what naturally happens when you tell someone they can't have something - they want it more.

I did find this, which shows more firearm transfer applications in California then any other state that recorded such data. Page 77.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ssprfsm03.pdf

I know several very active gun owners in California, but you are right due to media hysteria from other states problems (Columbine, Virginia tech, that Amish killing, the last college killing, etc. etc.) we are a somewhat private bunch. In fact I blame other states lack of good parenting for these killings and MY states ridiculous gun laws!

It also seems that many of the top competitive shooters in near every class live in California - certainly several of the top ISPC/IPDA/3 gun guys are in So Cal and shoot at a local range. I think a lot of technique and technology comes from competition and these shooters. We are a pretty voracious and gutsy group - look at the inroads we've made with off list lowers - albeit a lame excuse for the ban we live with, but it's still spits in the face of our DOJ.

The NRA is also concerned with the downstream affects if you read their site they have some news links about Microstamping.

I think other states should boycott our products - when you've all starved from lack of fruits and vegetables because your climate doesn't grow them well - I can buy cheap ranch land out of state ;)

I'm a California native and I admit I'm considering moving more and more recently, and perhaps one day I will. I do think other states have problems, most of them being the weather, but the lack of Constitutional rights in this state regarding firearms is staggering. Please don't complain when I buy a house in your neighborhood for full price with a portion of my equity money - I don't complain when you move into my neighborhood because your job market sucks or it's too cold in your state. :)

We all should be concerned that a method proven to NOT work could become a major issue for firearm makers. I think once Glock, S&W, etc. tool up for MS that all of you will have to purchase them – unless someone figures out a cheap way to keep two lines running in a factory. As far as companies cowing to our laws think of the BS that Ruger pulled with magazines and also S&W with their internal locks – imagine a company as proud and “strong” as S&W cowing to lawmakers and ruining their guns!

While Arnie may not be a traitor he is most certainly a hypocrite. How can a person make a living off of the promotion and glamorization of violence and firearms be anti-gun - it's absurd. He should focus on things he knows - like banning performance-enhancing drugs from sports - since he is a former roid guy he'd be an expert.

only1asterisk
October 16, 2007, 12:58 AM
I did find this, which shows more firearm transfer applications in California then any other state that recorded such data. Page 77.

It should be noted for those not willing to follow the link that only 16 other states chose to submit data. For example, the state of Oregon alone recorded tranfers amounting to a third of California's.

David

only1asterisk
October 16, 2007, 01:31 AM
Antibubba,

Don't blame Zundfolge for what I wrote! Even he doesn't deserve that.

David

wolf13
October 16, 2007, 01:53 AM
A big problem is that I do not see companies offering two different types of guns. It is not economically sensible. Companies don't really care about you, or your cause, they care about the bottom line. The bottom line will show that if they have to spend all this money on the MS then all their guns will be MS guns. It is inefficient for them to have two types of the same gun comming of the assembly line.

An example of this is cars. I don't know how many of you are into cars, but CA has the strictest controls in the nation. A company has two real options, follow the national laws regarding smog and stuff, or follow CA much stricter ones. They follow CA, because it makes more sense.

This is not something that will just affect CA, but something that will affect everyone. Simple economics will show it is more productive for them to make 1 type of each gun, the CA legal one.

Ed Ames
October 16, 2007, 08:42 AM
wolf,

For years car makers didn't make all their cars meet CA emissions laws. Some still don't. There were "49 state" and "California legal/50 state" cars. The only reason so many cars today are "50 state" is that federal emissions standards went up.

If you bought a car 10+ years ago in CA it was common to see a line item on the price tag being "California emissions compliance" or similar. Californians paid an extra surcharge of $500 or sometimes a lot more. That has faded but it isn't completely gone. Example: My 2006 motorcycle is a "california" model. If I'd bought it in any other state I would have gotten an extra half a gallon of fuel tank capacity and saved a couple pounds of added junk. Why is the difference noticeable? Motorcycles are still allowed to be very primitive (carbs) but California doesn't allow them to be quite as primitive as everyone else.

Microstamping a gun is inherently time and tooling intensive. You've got to take each gun and engrave it in special ways. It isn't a stage you normally go through. That means special, expensive, equipment. And California guns already get special treatment... the gun makers don't want to ship non-CA guns to CA. To buy enough equipment to mark every gun you produce really doesn't make sense for a manufacturer. What manufacturer is going to buy enough equipment to handle 50,000 guns per month/year/whatever when they could instead buy enough to handle 10,000.

No, the problem isn't CA laws hitting you directly. It is CA laws being used as a model for laws that do apply to you.

qdemn7
October 16, 2007, 09:48 AM
I would like to see every gun manufacturer refuse to sell new guns in California at all. Including and ESPECIALLY to Law Enforcement.

If companies:

Refuse to sell to Law Enforcement,
Refuse to allow their Distributors outside the state to sell to Law Enforcement under penalty of losing their Distributorship,
Refuse to honor the warranty of any guns coming from California after the date the law goes into effect,
Refuse to buy guns back from Law Enforcement,

Then just HOW pray tell will Law Enforcement get their guns?

Is that spite? Yes it is!

It's LEOs wanting this nonsense, even though it can easily be defeated. So you're right I'm going to deny them weapons. Maybe they will realize they need to quit trying to pass nonsense laws and enforce the ones already on the books.

And FINALLY it seems these days too many cops think they are superior to the average citizen already. They have forgotten they work FOR us. It's time to disabuse them of those ideas.

kludge
October 16, 2007, 10:07 AM
The alternative proposal is that we write the gun maker and say we'll buy a gun if they refuse to sell to California LEOs.

wolf13
October 16, 2007, 10:42 AM
Ed Ames,

I realize that there are still some companies that have a 49 state legal car and a CA car. I also realize there is a slight chance that they will make 2 different kinds of guns.

I believe it will come down to exactly how much the equipment costs them as well as how much longer they take to make. If they find a way so this technology is not as hard as it seems to be, then I do see them running all teh guns through the same process. It makes it easier for them in the long run, unless the law gets taken away.

It will be very interesting to see what happens within the next 3 years. I was already planning on buying a handgun the day I turned 21, but now I just may have to buy more than 1.

Jim Diver
October 16, 2007, 03:16 PM
qdemn7: Simple. They will get their guns from the National Guard prolly. The Gov will order that the NG sidearms be distributed to LEO.

That or PRK will open it's own exempt firearms manufacturing plant. God... that will be a nightmare gun.. 100% designed by politicians.:what: It would be the worst self defense firearms made... a prison zip gun would be preferable.

Diggers
October 16, 2007, 05:43 PM
The mircostamping process, from what I saw on YouTube and wickipidia, looks like it will be an after production process. So the gun makers are not going to have to buy new equipment at all.

Its done with a laser pulse that cuts microscopic letters and numbers in to the firing pin and on the body of the gun some where.

And it sounded to me like it will be an out of house process where the guns are sent off to this Todd guy (who invented this process) and he will add the microstamping to the guns that are going to be sent to CA.

BTY there are at least two other states looking at making this a law in their state also.

glennv
October 16, 2007, 07:41 PM
And it sounded to me like it will be an out of house process where the guns are sent off to this Todd guy (who invented this process) and he will add the microstamping to the guns that are going to be sent to CA.

I hope this guy chokes to death on his dinner.

Bubbles
October 17, 2007, 11:09 AM
For those of you who want to contact the firearm companies...

Springfield Armory:
Phone: 1800-680-6866
FAX: 309-944-3637
Email Address: sales@springfield-armory.com


GLOCK (USA), Inc.
Phone:1 770 - 432 1202
Fax: 1 770 - 433 8719
No Email Address:

Heckler & Koch
Phone (205) 655-8299
Fax (205) 655-7078
Law Enforcement: Email leinfo@hk-usa.com
Commercial Email: cs@hk-usa.com

SIG SAUER, Inc.
Phone: 603-772-2302
Fax: 603-772-9082
Email Address: http://www.sigsauer.com

Smith & Wesson
Phone: 1-800-331-0852 (USA)
Email Address: qa@smith-wesson.com
Fax: 1-413-747-3317 (USA)

Beretta U.S.A.
Phone:(800) 636-3420
No Email Address:
No Fax:

Kimber:
Phone: (800) 880-2418
No Email Address:
Fax: (914) 964-9340

Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC.
Phone: 1-800-883-6229
Email Address: :Law Enforcement: le@bushmaster.com
Technical Support: techsupport@bushmaster.com
Customer Service: customerservice@bushmaster.com
Company Information: info@bushmaster.com
No Fax:

Colt Defense LLC
Phone:1-800-241-2485 OR (860) 232-4489
No Email Address:
Fax: (860) 244-1442

Rock River Arms:
Phone: 866-980-7625
No Email Address:
No Fax:

Lewis Machine &
Tool Company, Inc.
Phone: Phone:1.309.787.7151
Email:SwansonG@lewismachine.net
Fax:1.309.787.7193

Stag Arms:
Phone: (860) 229 9994
Email: Sales@Stagarms.com
No Fax:


Taurus International MFG, Inc. USA
Phone:(305) 624-1115
No Email Address:
Fax:(305) 624-1126



Remington Arms Company, Inc.
Phone: 336-548-8700
No Email Address:
Fax: 336-548-7801

O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc.
Phone: (203) 230-5300
Email Address: service@mossberg.com
Fax: (203) 230-5420

Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.
Phone: 888-220-1173
No Email Address:
Fax: 928-541-8850




Mailing addresses:


J. W. Dorsey, VP
GLOCK, Inc.
6000 Highlands Parkway
Smyrna, GA 30082

Ron Cohen, CEO
SIG SAUER, Inc.
18 Industrial Drive
Exeter, NH 03833

Leland A. Nichols, President
Smith & Wesson Corp.
2100 Roosevelt Avenue
Springfield, MA 01104
lnichols@smith-wesson.com

Dennis Reese, CEO
Springfield Armory, Inc.
420 West Main Street
Geneseo, Illinois 61254

Martin Newton, CEO
Heckler & Koch Inc.
21480 Pacific Blvd.
Sterling, VIRGINIA 20166-8903

Patrick McDonald, VP
Beretta USA, Corp.
17601 Beretta Dr.
Accokeek, MARYLAND 20607

Alice Poluchova
CZ-USA
P.O. Box 171073
Kansas City, KS 66117-0073

Michael O. Fifer, CEO
Ruger Firearms
Lacey Place
Southport, CT 06890

Kook Jin Moon, CEO
Karh Arms
130 Goddard Memorial Dr.
Worcester, MA 01603

Carlos Murgel, CEO
Taurus International MAnufacturing Inc
16175 NW 49th Ave.
Miami, FLORIDA 33014

Robert Hairless
October 21, 2007, 01:11 AM
Refuse to do business with any company that either does business with California or with any other company that does business with a California company. Boycott the U.S. Postal Service, FedEx, UPS, and any other company that ships to or from California, and quit your job if the company you work for has anything to do with California.

Nix
October 21, 2007, 02:22 AM
you people are looking at this the wrong way... all you will do is make it harder for law abiding californians to get weapons... if you want to boycott them... say

"if you help in the development of technology that will allow microstamping we will boycott you"

because the whole california thing revolves around IF microstamping can be done

GaryGGR
October 21, 2007, 02:27 AM
:banghead:

I f gun manufactures stop selling guns in California because of the Micro Stamping law, there will be a stampede in every liberal state in the union to intact the law. They can stop guns sale in their state and put gun manufactures out of business.

Gary & Storm

SilentArmy
October 21, 2007, 03:08 AM
This is political backscratching at its finest! Proof positive that with the proper political ties, you can sell america anything whether they want/need it or not. Nothing shy of a true boycott will extend the message to manufacturers. But really folks, America has not pulled together for a true boycott in my lifetime and not the last 100 yrs (that I have read of) so what makes anyone think this could be different? I believe that any Manufacturer that values its future in this country should refuse to supply CA with it's products. Civilian and LE alike. Leave the Kali cops with what they have got or let them sharpen sticks. What will it take for people to decide they have had enough? I respect the Barrett company for their stance! If only the rest could be patriots so the people can be awakened as it is the People who have to effect change.

PavePusher
October 30, 2007, 05:02 AM
Rather than have the gun manufacturers shun Cali, have them charge higher rates for guns sold to all government agencies except school shooting teams and hunter safety education. A price tag of $50-100,000 per weapon should subsidize the micro-stamping quite handily. And insist on selling the government only microstamp guns. Modification of the items by the state will incur monetary penalties, void the warrentee, and result in confiscation of any state weapon thus tampered with.

By the way, Hello! First post here, I'm on OCDO under same username on occasion. Been lurking in the hedges here for a while now, finally registered today.

jeepmor
October 30, 2007, 06:41 AM
Refuse to do business with any company that either does business with California or with any other company that does business with a California company. Boycott the U.S. Postal Service, FedEx, UPS, and any other company that ships to or from California, and quit your job if the company you work for has anything to do with California.

You pay my bills and you have deal.

Geez, some peoples' kids.

And it sounded to me like it will be an out of house process where the guns are sent off to this Todd guy (who invented this process) and he will add the microstamping to the guns that are going to be sent to CA.

Umm, he's the one who got the ball rolling in the first place. It has little to do with legalities, it's somebody knowing he's on the government gravy train if he can get it to go through. This is not the first time something of the "if I can pass a law, they'll have to come to me for the materials, work, whatever, has happened."

Hawk
October 30, 2007, 11:34 AM
STI's stance is no longer a matter of conjecture:

...
On the "flip side" of states’ laws, we have California! As you know, we let all of our DOJ listings lapse several years ago. We also stopped selling to CA law enforcement agencies in the same time frame. We did, however, continue selling to individual officers, who could get their agency to approve, for (IPSC, IDPA, etc.) sporting purposes. Now we have more even MORE onerous restrictions on the general populace? No more! We’re sorry! We’re done! No guns! Nobody! ‘Nuff said!

Of course, as I embrace my inner cynic, I question the overall impact of someone dropping out a market they didn't serve in the first place. I can't remember when STI was on CAL DOJ's roster but they evidently were at some point in the dim and distant past.

If you enjoyed reading about "Arnold is a traitor. Don't let your gunmaker be too" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!