Sig! Glock! Smith and Wesson! Time to stand up!


PDA






armoredman
March 10, 2008, 12:20 PM
I have been wondering if SiG, Glock, and Smith were going to stand by thier letters they sent to Arnie, stating they would pull out of the Cali market if he signed the microstamping bill. I don't know when it goes into effect, but I am curious if these companies will stand by what they said? Anybody heard anything?

http://www.gunownersca.com/Newsletters/PDFs/20072Q.pdf

If you enjoyed reading about "Sig! Glock! Smith and Wesson! Time to stand up!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
glockman19
March 10, 2008, 12:26 PM
You're a little late to the party.

The Bill has Been Signed. It takes effect Jan 1 2010.

Try a search using "microstamping".

MarcusWendt
March 10, 2008, 12:36 PM
I'm going to guess that they will continue to sell as many handguns in CA as they can right up until the microstamping bill takes effect. After that it's anybodies guess, BUT CA has a massive economy and to just walk away from all that money seems a bit foolish. More likely they will go along and raise prices to cover the cost of implementing the technology.

I'm buying what I can until that time comes and after that, no more Semi Autos for me.

Samuel Adams
March 10, 2008, 12:42 PM
There are other markets. These manufacturers will be just fine not selling to the Peoples Republic of **********.

armoredman
March 10, 2008, 12:46 PM
glockman, look again, I said "when goes into effect", I know it has been enacted. I didn't know when, but I was wondering if these companies will actually stand up to what they said. I fgured the cynical wisdom would be get as many firearms into the state as possible, so to make a buck or two before the end, but then what? Will they follow through, or go quietly? Will these, some of the biggest companies, stand firm, or set up small lines for Cali LE only?
Those are the questions I would like answered.

TexasRifleman
March 10, 2008, 01:06 PM
Those are the questions I would like answered.

Me too. I suspect they will not do anything until closer to when it actually goes into effect, buying them time for their lawyers to try to postpone the effective date of the law.

If I remember correctly there was a provision that the law could be postponed if the technology wasn't ready.

That's probably going to be their tactic, delay.

Ske1etor
March 10, 2008, 02:18 PM
Hopefully they do like the guys over at Barrett. Refuse to sell to anyone in Cali, including police agencies.

TexasRifleman
March 10, 2008, 02:22 PM
Hopefully they do like the guys over at Barrett. Refuse to sell to anyone in Cali, including police agencies.

Hopefully they will do more than that, since Barrett didn't try to stop their distributors from selling in CA. (Maybe they can't, who knows)

The net-net of the Barrett deal is that new Barrett rifles are still available to LE in California through other distributors, just no factory warranty work.

Border
March 10, 2008, 08:53 PM
I couldn't resist writing him an angry letter: Your signing of the AB1471 bill was part of a self serving purpose and had little if anything to do with protecting the public. You KNOW that microstamping serves no purpose. Maryland sepnt 5 million dollars on ballistic fingerprinting with ZERO crimes solved as a result. The University of California opposed such stamping as the technology was not there! Any chimp with a file can remove the stamping, change the firing pin etc. So why did you sign it? To appease the ignorant! VOTES! As always, it is all about you. You are NOT a Republican! Please, be honest and join the Democrats!

A little over the top but it made me feel better. :neener:

RancidSumo
March 10, 2008, 08:56 PM
Your signing of the AB1471 bill was part of a self serving purpose and had little if anything to do with protecting the public. You KNOW that microstamping serves no purpose. Maryland sepnt 5 million dollars on ballistic fingerprinting with ZERO crimes solved as a result. The University of California opposed such stamping as the technology was not there! Any chimp with a file can remove the stamping, change the firing pin etc. So why did you sign it? To appease the ignorant! VOTES! As always, it is all about you. You are NOT a Republican! Please, be honest and join the Democrats!

I like it. No chance he responded did he?

sdj
March 10, 2008, 09:08 PM
I like it.

1++

And to think this is the same lad who asked for the Phased Plasma Rifle and "da UZI nine mila-meeta". ;)

nicki
March 10, 2008, 09:31 PM
The Microstamp bill requires when the technology becomes available.

In order for the technology to be available, it would have to work so well that the markings would have to meet the legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt in crimnal trials.

Sure they put an exemption in the law for law enforcement, but that may actually be subject to court challenge.

What many people have overlooked in the "Silveria decsision" is that cops got subject to the same laws as regular citizens, at least with regards to personal assault rifles.

One could argue that thiere is a "compelling public" interest that police officers be required to carry microstamp certified guns.

It could reasonably be arued that since law enforcement officers get into shootings, having their guns using the microstamp tech would actually save taxpayer money by making investagations of shootings easier, especially where multiple officers are involved.

The manufacturer's could say that they can't sell guns to police without the microstamp tech because they don't want to inadvertently assist in "police cover ups.

What the manufactureres should be saying is this technology can never meet the legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

A positive ruling in Heller could throw out the whole law as a direct violation of the 2nd amendment.

The truth is it was a feel good bill and the legislature can now say they did something.

We have many issues in California that need to be dealt with which our elected officials don't want to deal with so they waste time on stupid diversionary bills that do nothing, but eat time, money and get people pissed off at each other.

Nicki

Border
March 10, 2008, 11:31 PM
Thanks guys! No, he hasn't responded yet-he's too much of a girlie-man to debate me! :)

E357
March 11, 2008, 01:56 AM
Can I get my name microstamped on the firing pin like some golfers do with their balls?

ants
March 11, 2008, 02:21 AM
Did you know that the bill requires microstamping on at least two internal parts? It does NOT require microstamping on the firing pin, but lets the manufacturer decide which parts.

Also, the bill exempts existing models of guns. Only NEWLY DESIGNED semi-automatic handguns sold after January 1, 2010 are required to be microstamped. Here is the text where it redefines "unsafe guns" which cannot be sold:

"Commencing January 1, 2010, for all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 12131, it is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol."

Side note: The justification for microstamping quoted by the geniuses in the Brady Campaign is that it may reduce straw purchases because the purchaser will "think twice" before transferring a microstamped handgun to a felon. Yes, the Brady Campaign actually uses the term "Think twice", and predicts that it will result in many, many fewer guns in the hands of criminals. I feel safer that our criminals are thoughtful, and will think twice.

Nobody's_Hero
March 11, 2008, 08:37 AM
Well, I hate to say it like this, but it looks like California is going to be our nation's guinea pig for overbearing government control. When all the manufacturers refuse to do business in California, we'll have to see whether or not the citizens feel safer when organized crime rings start smuggling unstampable guns into the state and supplying gangs with firearms which the citizens won't have access to (which already happens, anyway).

In a way - and I know some people are going to take this the wrong way - I sometimes wonder if it would be best just to let this thing go ahead and play out. You know, just go "all-in" and see if anyone at the table has a good hand, or if they're just bluffing.

Think about it: The only way to defeat prohibition (of alcohol) was to let it go ahead and happen, and then see clearly that it wasn't worth a damn.

TEDDY
March 11, 2008, 09:14 PM
SSI wont sell to cali.Barret made a 460 cal cart.for cal.wont sell 50 cal.
S&W got into a terrible mess when they agreed to abide by the gov rules.they might be "gunshy" if boycotted.

If you enjoyed reading about "Sig! Glock! Smith and Wesson! Time to stand up!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!