Tell the gun-makers - sell to Cali, or sell to the OTHER 49! (Microstamping)


PDA






Green Lantern
October 14, 2007, 06:42 PM
DELETE plz - I just "jambogged!" :(

Well, the "Governator" proved that his common sense has long since been "Terminated." He signed the Microstamping bill in California.

Rather than wait and see what kind of stuff hits the fan in 2010, I say we take the PRO-ACTIVE approach right now! Namely, contact ALL gun-makers (esp any that are big sellers to the California gov't) and let them know that you WILL boycott their products if they come out with ANY Cali-approved Microstamping guns!

Thoughts???

ETA - when contacting them, it would be wise to point out the numerous flaws in the 'microstamping' system as a crime-control measure.

If you enjoyed reading about "Tell the gun-makers - sell to Cali, or sell to the OTHER 49! (Microstamping)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TexasRifleman
October 14, 2007, 06:46 PM
Thoughts???

My thought is that the gun makers hate this more than you do, it will cost them a fortune.

I think everyone is pissed off about this but taking it out on a company that is obeying the law makes no sense.

Should we boycott Bushmaster since they won't sell me a full auto AR?

Should we boycott Chevrolet since the DOT made them install seatbelts?

Go after the real cause of this.

Green Lantern
October 14, 2007, 07:01 PM
It WON'T cost the gun makers a fortune if they COLLECTIVELY tell Cali to "shove it" and refuse to do business with them. Then when their cops start needing new handguns, the law gets repealed.

....Or, just added with an exemption for .gov guns only.. :(

TexasRifleman
October 14, 2007, 07:07 PM
First off there is already an exemption for Law Enforcement and second, read what you wrote....

It WON'T cost the gun makers a fortune if .....refuse to do business with them.

How you figure not selling as many guns is not going to cost a gun maker money?

You can guarantee that FN, SIG, and probably Glock will all do this no matter what since the LE market is such a large portion of their revenues.

So a boycott only hurts the small manufacturers. Not selling any guns into California is a lot bigger monetary loss than any boycott would be.

Again, we have to go after the REAL cause of this.

Look, this deal sucks but there's no way a boycott of law abiding companies is going to get this changed.

If a boycott of someone that didn't even cause it and angry lashing out response is all we can muster over this then the anti's have won anyway.

only1asterisk
October 14, 2007, 07:11 PM
So a boycott only hurts the small manufacturers. Not selling any guns into California is a lot bigger monetary loss than any boycott would be.

That is a silly thing to say. Can you back that with numbers?

Look, this deal sucks but there's no way a boycott of law abiding companies is going to get this changed.

I'm not looking to get it changed. It isn't going to change except to get worse.

David

TexasRifleman
October 14, 2007, 07:20 PM
That is a silly thing to say. Can you back that with numbers?

I don't have to. This was tried before on Smith and Wesson after the agreement with Clinton.

Didn't hurt them really. They are still around, the locks are still in place. Nothing changed. Nothing.
That boycott didn't do a darn thing and it was all targeted at one specific manufacturer.

You want to target what will probably be eventually most of the handgun makers in the country.

There are not enough of us to make an impact in the ways you suggest.

The motivated, active, 2A shooter is a small portion of an already small portion of the population that shoots and hunts at all.

All boycotts have done in the past is give people a place to take out their frustrations.

They start off real strong, then people forget, more and more get passive, then they start buying again and before long the boycott is a faint memory.

It isn't going to change except to get worse.

And you think that, even if they would work, a boycott hurting the makers of guns, a shrinking business anyway, doesn't make things worse?

BlkHawk73
October 14, 2007, 07:31 PM
Seems the one's upset the most ae those in CA. If it effects them so stronly that they feel the need to call in the rest of the country for thier cause in boycotting any companies that manufacture CA-approved micro-stamped model then maybe they should have the same enthusiasm in simply leaving that state. Oh but I live here. My job's here, my family is here, etc... Can't have your cake and eat it too. if you feel so strong about it...leave!

TexasRifleman
October 14, 2007, 07:34 PM
Oh I'm in Texas and I am way passed pissed about this.

I'd do anything that I thought would help with this mess because I do believe that the gun makers will eventually have to make some models with microstamping in order to stay in business.

You can bet that NJ, IL, and maybe a couple of others will fall in line now that it's happened once.

I just think we have to be real careful with our response.

We might be able to pull one big push together to make a difference, but we have to make sure it's the right push and will be effective.

This will effect everyone on some level.

Green Lantern
October 14, 2007, 07:37 PM
First off there is already an exemption for Law Enforcement

DOH.....:banghead:

Well.....if you got a "Plan B" for someone that does not actually have a ballot to cast in that state, now would be a good time to tell us! :(

TexasRifleman
October 14, 2007, 07:40 PM
Well.....if you got a "Plan B" for someone that does not actually have a ballot to cast in that state, now would be a good time to tell us!

I wish I knew right now, I just don't think a boycott will do much good. It did squat for us over the Smith and Wesson thing and I don't have confidence it would do any better here.

It's depressing.

only1asterisk
October 14, 2007, 07:42 PM
Didn't hurt them a bit. They are still around, the locks are still in place.

Of course it hurt them. Thousands of guns that would have been sold weren't. I would have bought no less than 6.

It didn't break the company, but they lost enough sales to notice. Look at their financials from the period. The owners had to sell the company. In the end they made a cost/benefit analysis. They looked at their investment and made the decision to ride it out. They judged most gunowners right and profited.

We are fools to let that happen again. If we support gun makers that will bow to a single state government (and make us pay extra for it) we are done.

David

Crunker1337
October 14, 2007, 08:00 PM
I will not purchase firearms from a company that sells non-microstamping pistols to California LE. If a company wants to make microstamping pistols, that's their decision, but I'm not going to give them money if they treat LE as a ruling class.

On a similar note, should we boycott Class III gun-dealers that sell post-86 machineguns to LE?

Smurfslayer
October 15, 2007, 02:32 PM
Crunker,

That's exactly the right idea. Make their LE abide by the same rules their citizens have to, no exceptions. DOD has a legit need for machine guns, LE has the presumption of innocence to deal with.

Let's ZUMBO them.

kludge
October 15, 2007, 05:27 PM
Why would we want to stick it to the gun makers?

Isn't this the fault of the politicians/voters?

mordechaianiliewicz
October 15, 2007, 05:41 PM
This sounds silly but what needs to be done, is for Cali gun owners to declare they will leave California. They should start sending in letters, to their state reps and the governor's office, explaining why, then stating approximately how much they make, and why the state of California doesn't deserve their taxes. Then, say which state you are moving to.

Vote with your feet if you live in Cali, and you own guns. (Granted, you should have left a while back)

only1asterisk
October 16, 2007, 01:45 AM
Why would we want to stick it to the gun makers?

Who wants to stick it to gunmakers? All needs to happen is for us to remind them that their future as gunmakers depends on having us as customers. It is in the best interests of both gunmakers and gunbuyers to fight gun control together. I'd rather buy guns from companys that were investing in the future of the RKBA (and their own best customers) than taking advantage of a bad law to make a little short term profit.



David

Blackbeard
October 17, 2007, 05:24 PM
Since non-mircrostamping firearms are added to the definition of "unsafe guns" in **********, are they saying that the cops get to use unsafe guns in their official duties?

Hawk
October 18, 2007, 04:23 PM
Anybody besides me wondering how this microstamping stuff managed to push biometric personalization smooth off our collective radar?

It's not like NJIT (http://www.njit.edu/publicinfo/newsroom/Spotlight_smartgun.php) hasn't been busily beavering away using taxpayer dollars. They've produced some lovely prototypes.

An interesting alternative to the observation that no manufacturers were working on the technology for NJ - just throw public funds at the issue. I guess California could do likewise if the manufacturers drag their feet.

Anybody besides me starting to wonder if our priorities are getting skewed or is it simply more likely that CA stuff will metastasize into the flyover states more quickly than NJ stuff? I'd concede that's not altogether implausible.

Or is it perhaps that biometric personalization is simply seen as a relative "good thing" in comparison to microstamping?

The Wiry Irishman
October 18, 2007, 08:37 PM
How about pressuring gun companies to sell only one model gun in California - make CA LE pay the same inflated micro stamping price as its citizens.

Geno
October 18, 2007, 08:46 PM
The problem is this...the companies cannot afford to have two standards, two models...stamped and traditional. They will make all autoloaders stamped. Either we fight this fight at all levels, and defeat it, or all autoloaders will have the stamped whatever piece.

I seriously doubt Glock would turn its back on the American handgunner to keep their LEO contracts. But, in the event that they would, I would not want their pistols either.

JMHO

Grey54956
October 18, 2007, 08:48 PM
I think the best way to deal with this is to require law enforcement to adhere to the safe definitions of "unsafe handguns" as the rest of CA's citizenry. We do not want police and state officials to be using or buying unsafe handguns. Likewise, any and all AW bans, magazine limitations, and so on should also apply to civilian law enforcement agencies in CA. These are not military organizations, so they shouldn't need full cap magazines or Evil Black Rifles.

The NRA and gun manufacturers should be pushing for legislation to this end, using the same justification as was used to push microstamping: public safety. Force the police organizations and CA gov't into a corner and say that these weapons are necessary for the safety of the officers and community, due to their safety, efficiency, and efficacy. Once they've said it, introduce legislation to turn back the clock.

Hawk
October 19, 2007, 05:28 PM
I'm in an uncharacteristically cynical mood so I'll offer the observation that California shooters will, for the most part, suck it up and adapt. It'll be forgotten in two years.

California might listen if there was negative financial impact - not likely but they might. However, they've learned that gunnies make empty threats and don't follow through.

Allow me to take us back to August of 2004, AB-50, where we find this:


As a California business we pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes each year, we have numerous employees and, as clients, we support a wide range of vendors in our area. We run a huge metal machining business in addition to our rifles but if AB-50 passes we will have no choice but to let everyone go and relocate to another state. More unemployment, another empty building... everybody loses.
Bill Ritchie
Chief Executive Officer
EDM Arms
Redlands, CA

OK, fast forward to October of 2007, we check EDM's contact info and find:

E.D.M. Arms
Copyrightę 2000 E.D.M. Arms
421 Business Ctr Ct
Redlands Ca 92373

I'm sure Ritchie is a great guy and honorable businessman but the one threat of actually causing economic harm associated with AB-50 and what materializes? Nothing.
No unemployment.
No loss of business to a "wide range of vendors in our area".
No empty building.
Nothing.

Why is he still there?

Sorry guys, I just stumbled across the receipt where I sent 500.00 of my money to help fight California's AB-50 issue, due in no small part to Bill Ritchie's principled stand. I checked to see where he relocated the business and the net result is a mini-rant.

But seriously, why would anybody believe him or someone in a similar position again? It was empty chest thumping. Unless of course the California address is a DBA for an out of state business, then I will be pleased to have a heapin' helpin' of crow.

Nix
October 19, 2007, 05:41 PM
lol you guys dont get it... this is there way to stop gun production... the gun makers are not going to want to microstamp (a lot more money) so they will only make LE weapons in california now... heh... chalk one up for "the man"

frogomatic
October 19, 2007, 09:36 PM
I have mixed feelings on this idea. I want to take action against this stupid bill, but at the same time, I don't want take a particular action just for the sake of taking action. We shouldn't punish gunmakers for what the politician's have done anymore than the politicians should take away our guns because of what a few criminals have done.

Crunker1337
October 19, 2007, 09:49 PM
Yes, we should punish gunmakers for going out of their way to please the insatiable desires of anti civil-rights activists. I do not tolerate that kind of crap and I won't support any entity that does.

Hypnogator
October 19, 2007, 11:32 PM
Hasn't anybody figured out that boycotting gun manufacturers to punish them for obeying the law could well diminish their business to the point that they go under? :what::eek::uhoh:

Isn't that just what the anti's want? You're playing right into their hands!:cuss::fire::banghead::banghead::banghead::barf:

Robert Hairless
October 19, 2007, 11:46 PM
Will everyone who thinks that the politicians or the voters who support these bills are concerned about keeping gun manufacturers in business please raise your hand.

Now, will everyone who thinks that those politicians and voters want gun owners in their states please raise their hand.

You might want to think about the effect anti gun laws are intended to have. They are intended to make guns and gun owners go away.

bogie
October 20, 2007, 12:58 AM
Guys, just suggest that they cease sales/support of LE weapons to California. And tell 'em you're gonna buy a new boomstick from 'em.

And buy it.

And send 'em the receipt.

Chris B
October 20, 2007, 01:27 AM
Barrett refuses to sell to California law enforcement since Cali banned civilian ownership of .50 BMG weapons.

Scorpiusdeus
October 20, 2007, 01:32 AM
As a Californian I just want to thank you all for considering throwing us under the bus.

I'm not happy at all about Microstamping, but I'm less happy about losing my choices for firearms purchases.

Why don't all of you move to California and help us take the state back from these wacky politicos?

Robert Hairless
October 20, 2007, 02:05 AM
Scorpiusdeus:

As a Californian I just want to thank you all for considering throwing us under the bus.

I'm not happy at all about Microstamping, but I'm less happy about losing my choices for firearms purchases.

Why don't all of you move to California and help us take the state back from these wacky politicos?

Sure, Scorpiusdeaus, I'm happy to help. I'll promise you that nobody who is not a registered California voter will vote for any politician in California who supported this law or who supports any other anti-gun bill in California. Now all you have to do is deliver the registered California voters.

So I've just taken care of 49 states plus the District of Columbia. All you need to do is get the voters of just 1 state on your side.

If you can't do that, you're not entitled to complain that anyone else is "throwing you under the bus." You will have created the bus and thrown yourself under it.

As for moving to California for the purpose of helping you to take back the state from the whacky politicians you helped elect, I'm a little busy right now tending to the affairs of my own state because I don't want it to become California. That takes work and time in the pursuit of voters who can be persuaded that neither guns nor gun owners are a threat to them. Give it a try. It might work in California too.

Nix
October 20, 2007, 02:17 AM
As a Californian I just want to thank you all for considering throwing us under the bus.

you kommiefornians threw yourselves under the bus, as are we all by not doing something about it.

Sheldon J
October 21, 2007, 09:07 PM
you kommiefornians threw yourselves under the bus, as are we all by not doing something about it.
What needs to be said is get politically active, get to know your rep on a first name basis, help get Pro 2A people elected to office, all it takes is for you to donate time, and spread the word. :evil:

Take heed If all you people out in the messed up state of California don't make the effort to get your act together, then stop complaining about what you get, after all remember the old computer term 'Garbage in Garbage out" and that applies to politicians too.:rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Tell the gun-makers - sell to Cali, or sell to the OTHER 49! (Microstamping)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!