California goverment must be taught


PDA






Sam
June 14, 2008, 01:08 AM
The Attorney General of the Peoples Republik of **********, a Mr. Brown, Edmund Jr. 1 ea., sent me a notice today informing me that if I want to send firearms to an FFL in California, I have to register with their office and receive written permission from them in the form of an authorization number, prior to shipping firearms to an FFL in California.

Until such time as the citizens of California return to their senses, regain control of their sorry government and repeal this and all similar laws, rules or administrative regulations, I will not be shipping any firearms to California.

I will work on firearms belonging to private citizens of California but they will no longer be able to have one transferred from my shop to theirs.
I can no longer in good conscience work on firearms belonging to the State of California, agents of the State of California or any political subdivision or agent thereof and will not entertain their business.

To my friends In California, I grieve for you. To my police friends in California, please do not take it personal. If I didn’t have standards you wouldn’t like me much anyway.

Sam Damewood

If you enjoyed reading about "California goverment must be taught" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
VPLthrneck
June 14, 2008, 01:40 AM
Kudos to you Sam!
So what's the plan? Get all non-CA FFL holders going to stop shipping to CA addresses? How about contacting the "big guys" (S&W, H&K, etc.) about stopping sales into CA, and to CA agencies? Follow the steps of Ronnie Barrett type of thing.
So the guns you have from CA customers, are just waiting on them to drive to NM and get them. I bet police departments will love to see those vacation requests.

Here's a question for any legal-eagles out there:
Isn't this law in violation of the Commerce Clause? Sounds like it follows in the footsteps of Maine's law that tried to make delivery drivers verify the age of anyone who ordered tobacco products before they could deliver them.:banghead:

This eases the pain of the lost wages from being transfered out of that state.

A man with a gun!
June 14, 2008, 07:32 AM
You guys are following along with the plan exactly as our liberal legislators had envisioned.

Anything to make it tougher on a law abiding California gun owner.

And these fools keep getting voted into office. :banghead:

Sam
June 14, 2008, 09:10 AM
No cops will be taking vacation to get their guns worked on.

If you are an agent of the state of California, I'm not working on your stuff.

One of my biggest supporters, a fellow that has praised my work extensively and sent me a lot of business is a high ranking policeman working for the state of California. I owe him a lot, and he may forever condemn me for this, but I'm going to do a Ronnie Barret, in my own small little way.

A good old U.N. style embargo

I encourage all of my fellow FFL's to do the same.

SCKimberFan
June 14, 2008, 09:27 AM
It is the residents of the state of Kaliforication that will suffer, but perhaps this will energize them to work to change to Gawdawful Marxist laws.

armoredman
June 14, 2008, 10:24 AM
Smith, Glock, and SiG all said they would have to think long and hard about continuing business with Kali in ANY way if Ahnold signed the microstamping bill. Now to see if they stand firm, or break weak.
Kudos to you sir, to not do business with thier government agencies.

dejr2000
June 14, 2008, 10:48 AM
I'm with you Sam. I received the letter the other day and I don't think I'll be shipping to California, not worth the hassle. If California residents don't like it they need to change their elected officials that allow these things to happen, IMO!

karlsgunbunker
June 14, 2008, 11:46 AM
I got the same letter on thursday.
It went straight into the shredder.

Standing Wolf
June 14, 2008, 11:54 AM
I owe him a lot, and he may forever condemn me for this, but I'm going to do a Ronnie Barret, in my own small little way.

Well done! Courage is contagious.

Orange_Magnum
June 14, 2008, 01:34 PM
Californians hurry to disarm themselves as a comment to the brewing criminality in the streets and local politicians gathering power for personal use. It's the least American state by now.

If you are in the market for a new gun, don't buy one from a gun company that deals with California. Buy a used gun and write the gun company about your action.

Old Fuff
June 14, 2008, 01:50 PM
You guys are following along with the plan exactly as our liberal legislators had envisioned.

Of course. You are absolutely right. But there is no reason that businessmen (FFL holders) outside of California should be expected to put up with such stupid (and maybe an unconstitutional restraint of interstate trade). Is there some reason that California gun owners deserve special consideration?

Anything to make it tougher on a law abiding California gun owner.

Of course it will. That is part of the plan. The ultimate goal is to end private ownership of firearms in California as much as possible.

And these fools keep getting voted into office

Of course they do! That's because they are left-wing socialists in a state where the majority of voters like the socialist lifestyle. Those that are determined to live there must accept that fact, because there is no evidence the situation will change for the better; and while those of us that live elsewhere are sympathetic to the plight of California’s shooting community there is little we can do to influence the legislators who are responsible for these outrageous laws. To them our protests are a joke.

bobbarker
June 14, 2008, 02:16 PM
I love that FFL's are going to stop shipping to California. I'm stuck out here right now, and will be leaving *hopefully* soon, but I still feel for the lawful gun bearing people of the state, and something should be done. Keep fighting the good fight men.

VPLthrneck
June 14, 2008, 02:39 PM
You guys are following along with the plan exactly as our liberal legislators had envisioned.
Anything to make it tougher on a law abiding California gun owner.

I was stationed in San Diego when Ed Brown got elected into the state AG position. There was ALOT of anti-Ed feeling in SD, but San Fran and LA got him elected. If this doesn't work out for him, he'll try it another way, it's part of his campaign promises, and this one he'll try to keep his word on.
For all of you in CA, call your state assemblymen, senators, and the Governor's office, demand a recall of Brown, fight this locally!
If you are in the market for a new gun, don't buy one from a gun company that deals with California. Buy a used gun and write the gun company about your action.
Currently that's near impossible, but definately will be writing/calling them to express my concerns about this issue.
Now to see if they stand firm, or break weak
Call them and hold there feet to the fire-so to speak.

.38 Special
June 14, 2008, 04:20 PM
The "If you don't like the FFL laws, you guys in ************ are just going to have to wise up and start kicking out the socialists!" posts just about make me want to move to Switzerland so I can write stuff like "If you don't like the 1968 Gun Control Act, you guys in the United Socialist States are just going to have to wise up and start kicking out the commies!". It's not helpful, and enough of it starts getting on your nerves.

So catch a clue, rednecks: gun owners are doing everything we can in this state. We are simply outnumbered by the L.A./S.F. goofballs who think anything to do with guns is evil and would be overjoyed to see the entire industry implode, economic harm notwithstanding. So if you don't have anything constructive to say, how about you just go play with your guns, eh?

There. Now I feel better. :D

.38 Special
June 14, 2008, 04:21 PM
Oh, and one other thing: while I absolutely respect the rights of any American to conduct or not conduct a business in any way he sees fit, discouraging importation of firearms into this state is exactly what the gun banners are trying to accomplish. Chest-thumping posts about "I'm not selling to those commies any more!!!" may make the author feel good about himself, but they make anti-gunners feel even better. So between the "Californians have the government they deserve" posts, and the "I refuse to do business with Californians" posts, I'm beginning to wonder which side some of you folks are really on.

Picard
June 14, 2008, 04:33 PM
This should be a call to all California gun owners to unite and try to take back some ground. I feel like FFL's should stop dealing with California police, rather than the common man. That might get the government's attention.

TAB
June 14, 2008, 04:42 PM
This should be a call to all California gun owners to unite and try to take back some ground. I feel like FFL's should stop dealing with California police, rather than the common man

What I wish would happen here is some one to pass a law that stated all LEOs/ LEA agencys had to fallow the current gun laws. There would be so much fall out, it would be like ww3 had started. " you wanted it for every one else, now you got it for yourself"

nicki
June 14, 2008, 04:44 PM
Cal AG Jerry Brown is a liberal, but let's take a look at his actions.

When he was actually the Govenor, he signed no new gun control legislation during his 8 years in office.

Since he has taken over as state AG, he has reduced the size of the Cal DOJ firearms division. The prior AG Bill Lockyer has an obvious vendetta against gun owners.

Jerry Brown's pet agenda is the enviroment, not guns. When he was running for president he supported replacing the Income Tax with a 13 percent Flat tax.

I am not a big fan of Jerry Brown, but he is someone that we probably at least have a chance to work with.

The reality is many democrats hate the gun issue because it sets them back on other things that they feel are really important.

Union leaders know they have lost and will continue to lose close elections because of the gun issue.

California is a battelground state. We should not be abandoning California, what we should be doing is drawing the line and staging counter offensives.

It is better to wage gun control battles in California than in your home state.

If the gun banners can't win in California, they won't even try in many other parts of the country.

Nicki

fastbolt
June 14, 2008, 05:55 PM
I try to make it a point to avoid telling a business person what I think he/she should, and should not, do ...

Their business, so it's their business.

On the other hand, I have no problem taking my business elsewhere should I decide I dislike some policy, practice, philosophy, etc. of a business to the point where it overrides my desire to buy some product or receive some service from them. Sauce for the goose, so to speak.

Firearms & firearms-related business subjects do tend to raise hackles when it comes to this sort of thing, though, especially on firearms-related forums. Not really surprising.

So, when folks start to mix business practices & decisions with political considerations & situations? Well, it won't take long for folks to start voicing opinions and 'taking sides'. Again, not surprising.

Funny thing, though, I've never thought to ask the political leanings & philosophies ... nor specifically the RKBA beliefs, if any ... of the automobile & motorcycle sales & service facilities I patronize, nor the grocery store, coffee shop, restaurants ... nor my doctor, either. Would I refuse to patronize them, or receive their services, should I ask and discover they have strong feelings counter to my own in areas not related to why I'm receiving care and/or services from them?

In this specific instance it appears the OP says he's reacting to a new administrative requirement of the state of CA to which he objects and which directly impacts his ability to do business in this state, and which he is seemingly disinclined to work with, so his choice is to not do business in the state any longer. With anyone. Even with the folks who had no part of crafting, requesting, implementing or supporting this administrative change.

Hey, it's his choice, though, and I can't gainsay his decision on refusing to do business in CA. Not my place.

Until such time as the citizens of California return to their senses, regain control of their sorry government and repeal this and all similar laws, rules or administrative regulations, I will not be shipping any firearms to California.

Perhaps this is a 'last-straw' personal reaction based upon his views and opinions of CA's political and legislative environment. Maybe? :neener:

Hey, whatever, it's his business, and his call to make.

Now, CA's political environment and demographics may, or may not, allow for it's laws & regulations to be changed by its population expressing the desire for such change ... in the manner stated as being desired by gun owners on these forums. Maybe the beliefs, desires and day-to-day concerns of the state's growing population - as a whole, or even a significant majority - just won't ever place the subject of changing firearms laws and firearms-related administrative regulations on any sort of high priority ... or concern themselves with meeting the expectations of folks from other states. Dunno.

I wouldn't be overly surprised, however, to see such things as occur here slowly spread to some other states, if only in small numbers. Once again, not exactly surprising.

I've lived in CA for more than 50 years, although I wasn't born here. I've seen the state change in significant ways during that time.

When I retire I'm planning to move to another state. I'll be doing so for a number of reasons ...

As far as the major firearms manufacturers changing from being in business to make profits to being in business to promote political change? Well, not sure I'd hold my breath on that one :rolleyes: ... especially when it comes to those companies whose their parent offices are owned by foreign corporations in countries which don't have similar political and governing philosophies. It's business, not personal, and not political. It's business.

I'd suspect the eventual decision of some firearms manufacturer(s)... if it occurs ... to stop making CA compliant firearms because of the F/P microstamping legislation, would be because of a business-based (manufacturing cost/profit) reason, and not because they might consider it as an 'unreasonable encroachment upon the rights' of persons to own firearms.

fixyurgun
June 14, 2008, 07:08 PM
To .38 Special; What would You have out of state FFLs do then? Jim

archigos
June 14, 2008, 07:15 PM
You're not going to "teach California a lesson" by refusing to ship guns to its citizens. Those citizens buying guns are the same ones fighting against the corruption that led to this post. You're only going to be hurting the sensible people in California - and helping the gunbanners to be even more effective.
Now, if you're not going to ship to California because its too much of a hassle for you and not worth the money, there's nothing wrong with that. That's called a business decision. Just don't pretend that you're doing it to "take a stand". You're only standing against gun owners.

To .38 Special; What would You have out of state FFLs do then? Jim
A suggestion, for those who are considering action for the sake of taking a stand against the Socialist Republic of California:
Continue servicing your loyal customers and gun owners who are real citizens.
Refuse service to members of the California elite class (police, politicians, etc).
Refuse service to all California state organizations.
Do not ship any "Law Enforcement Only" firearms to California (or anywhere else they're considered "LE Only")

eliphalet
June 14, 2008, 07:18 PM
I've lived in CA for more than 50 years, although I wasn't born here. I've seen the state change in significant ways during that timeI think you have found the answer, LEAVE! do it quickly. I did over 25 years ago after living in Calif. over 25. I now live less than a mile from where I was born. Never once have I been sorry.

harrygunner
June 14, 2008, 07:29 PM
I've voted for decades in every major California election for candidates of any party who supported small government, individual accountability, support of the whole Constitution, etc.

California is like a room with three people, two of which are clowns. The rational person's vote never wins over the clowns.

So, some method other than voting is needed to turn things around.

Perhaps a boycott will cause Californians to become uncomfortable enough to embarrass legislators into refraining from submitting frivolous legislation.

Recall how civil rights marches changed behavior of "leaders" who minorities could not vote out of office.

Things need to change soon. The rational person wants out of the room and the silliness attracts more clowns.

Orange_Magnum
June 14, 2008, 11:36 PM
It's a good idea to ask gun producers to stop selling guns to the armed forces under control of the Commie politicians of California. The Commies shall not have the means to opress Americans. I will personally write one letter each to the big gun producers.

Just Jim
June 14, 2008, 11:45 PM
This is how a socialist government behaves, hope you understand that Obama is a socialist.

jj

Sam
June 15, 2008, 01:04 AM
hope you understand that Obama is a socialist.
Actually after studying the guy and who his mentors were throughout his life he is not a Socialist, he is a Marxist

Sam

.38 Special
June 15, 2008, 01:12 AM
To .38 Special; What would You have out of state FFLs do then? Jim
Whatever they want. It's their business. I just don't think it's right to let anyone labor under the delusion that "I'm going to teach Californians a lesson by not selling to them!" is at all helpful, except to the gun banners.

Beyond that, Archigos speaks for me, on this topic.

Right Wing Wacko
June 15, 2008, 02:50 AM
Any boycott of CA to be effective has to include more than just guns.

Do not buy anything that comes from CA, and do not sell ANYTHING to them. Do do any less would just be giving the anti's exactly what they want.

TAB
June 15, 2008, 03:00 AM
Do not buy anything that comes from CA, and do not sell ANYTHING to them. Do do any less would just be giving the anti's exactly what they want


Do you like veggies? fruit? A very large chunk of the produce grown in this country is grown in CA. We also pay the most in taxs to the federal gov, but since you don't need or want that money please write your congressmen expressing that.

wuchak
June 15, 2008, 04:23 AM
I'm curious to see the Federal response to this new measure, especially the BATFE. Shipping handguns across state lines would fall under the interstate commerce clause and the Feds have sole jurisdiction there, and for good reason. The Feds have put the regulation of firearms in the hands of the BATFE and THEY make the rules about how and when guns can be shipped from one of their licensed agents ( FFL) to another. The state of CA can say what happens once the gun in is CA and can make people engaged in the business of selling guns in their state jump through whatever hoops the want but they cannot regulate interstate commerce. I don't think this regulation will stand for long. Fed don't like people trying to usurp their power.

I also wonder how exactly CA plans on enforcing their state laws on residents of other states where they clearly have no jurisdiction. I don't see how they could ever arrest anyone for violating this.

TAB
June 15, 2008, 04:32 AM
I also wonder how exactly CA plans on enforcing their state laws on residents of other states where they clearly have no jurisdiction. I don't see how they could ever arrest anyone for violating this.



They don't have to, the batfe will do that for them. not that it really matters as its not the shiper that has to worry...

Sam
June 15, 2008, 10:39 AM
Not only are there issues with unlawful restraint of interstate trade, there is also a privacy issue involved.

Although it is not a secret and everybody but the tabletops advertise, just how and where did the California DOJ acquire the list of all the various ffls in the country to do their mailing?

I have a feeling that they got it from an agency that has no legal authorization to distribute it for that particular purpose.

There may be a cause for legal action against that agency although we would have to get one of our gun rights organizations to bankroll that fight.

Sam

Owens
June 15, 2008, 01:41 PM
You can request a national listing of FFL's from the BATFE. $15.00
(per the atf website)

JCF
June 15, 2008, 02:08 PM
LOL!

Yes, yes... all of you PLEASE teach the anti-gun establishment here in CA a good stern lesson by refusing to sell me a gun. That's showing them.


Do not buy anything that comes from CA, and do not sell ANYTHING to them.

LOL!!!

Yeah, ok. Give that a try why dontcha.

Hey... how come you didn't all teach the PRK a lesson by advocating the closure of the Berkeley recruiting station and refusing to accept enlistees from this area??? You missed a golden opportunity there. I'm sure they would have lost LOTS of sleep over that move also.

akodo
June 15, 2008, 04:12 PM
I too concur with the sentiment of not abandoning the average joe but instead refusing to do business with the state, the politicals, and the police

akodo
June 15, 2008, 04:14 PM
Do you like veggies? fruit? A very large chunk of the produce grown in this country is grown in CA.

yes, but the majority of the produce in the grocery store comes from elswhere, new zealand, chile, wherever

TwitchALot
June 15, 2008, 04:27 PM
To .38 Special; What would You have out of state FFLs do then? Jim

Sell to the people, not the police. Remember, the entire point of California gun control is to disarm the people, not the people who make the laws or the people who enforce them. They want to play hardball, let's play hardball ourselves. Sell to the people, and not to the police. If large companies feel the urge to sell to California because it has a huge market (from a police standpoint), at the very least, don't give them any breaks.

wolf13
June 15, 2008, 05:13 PM
Everytime a new law in CA comes up its the same type of responses. Don't send anything to CA, and dont buy anything from CA. There is no logic at all in those statements.

When you decide not to ship to CA to show the government you aren't happy, you get nothing positive done, and something negative done. They have moved on from straight banning, and are trying as many backdoor bans as possible. They are getting what they want in that they have made out of state FFLs not want to do business in CA. Thank you for supporting the bill. You can think that you are doing something positive to show them, but you aren't. Most likely, they won't even notice. If you want to do something, don't send guns to the police, or any government employed job which needs one.

Owens
June 15, 2008, 05:36 PM
Interesting approach. Not selling to Joe and Jane citizen would only do what the bill is intending. Making it MORE difficult to obtain firearms.
Instead, sell all you can to the citizenry of California. However to the state, the counties, the cities, sell nothing. No firearms, no ammunition, no supplies, no parts. That is how to get the lawmaker's attention! Make them the exclusioned sect.

billwiese
June 15, 2008, 05:37 PM
Thank you, Wolf13, for "getting it".

I believe Californians will understand that this extra unfortunate step (checking/printing out from DOJ website) does take a bit of time and would not mind seeing the shipping FFL compensated a few bucks' extra.

We will be accumulating a list of non-CA FFLs willing to be CFLC-compliant and ship to CA, and will publish them on Calguns.net . I'm sure these FFLs will enjoy the extra business from folks who like to support those who support us.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Prince Yamato
June 15, 2008, 06:17 PM
You know folks, not everyone in CA who votes liberal, votes that way because they are anti-gun. There are a myriad of other reasons people vote liberal- gay rights for instance, or being against the Iraq War- neither of which have any qualification on gun rights. For some people, other issues outweigh gun ownership. In that case, they vote for what they want in other rights. I'd be willing to bet a lot of San Francisco residents could care less about who owns a gun, but I bet they definitely care about being able to marry the partner of their choosing. So, seeing as they have the choice between a Republican who is pro-gun but would restrict gay marriage and an anti-Democrat who is pro-gay (but anti gun) they go with the Dem. Their decision has nothing to do with guns, but everything to do with something else. Not everyone in CA "gets what they deserve".

So, while I think it's reasonable to punish CA law enforcement or other state officials- which is what Ron Barrett did - I think it is totally unreasonable to punish the civilians. Barrett stopped selling .50cals because they prohibited citizens from having those guns, what some of you FFLs are proposing is NOT the same thing. Citizens aren't prohibited from having your guns, the state just makes it a pain in the ass to get them. I think some of you are falling right into the trap the antis are springing.

Prince Yamato
June 15, 2008, 06:35 PM
I'd like to add a little more food for thought:

I think with the impending Heller decision going in our favor, a lot of these anti-gun people are going nuts. They're going to lose a HUGE amount of ground. They're probably aware that people from their state are going to go to court arguing for the right to own AWs, get CCW, etc. And the people are probably going to win. There will no doubt be an outcry about lack of regulation. My theory has long been that ultimately, we may see a situation where you can get what you want (like an AK with a 75 round drum) in whatever state you want (like California or NY) and in a timely manner (standard NICS check time), but that the state will be able to require things like registration, provided it doesn't add a large financial or time burden upon your purchase. None of this infringes on your ability to own a weapon. All it does is make it a pain in the ass. I'm betting that California is seeing this and that's why they're doing this. The law only affects FFLs, who will find selling weapons to CA more of a hassle. They're trying to get us to shoot ourselves in the foot. On the plus side, if you comply with them now, you may find yourselves in an optimal position when the CA AWB gets overturned.

Sam
June 15, 2008, 08:33 PM
Wolf 13 read my original post.
No transfers in,
still work on private stuff
nothing for govt or it's agents.
Sam

harrygunner
June 15, 2008, 09:24 PM
"get it"?

How about getting that this incremental encroachment will not stop until we stop it.

A comparison to most of the rest of the U.S.A. shows how ANY new gun restriction is fair game.

- I have a CCW in Cali and a couple of other state. The other states want to know I can safely handle a gun and I'm not a felon. Cali wants that plus a "good reason", credit checks, interviews. Even after eight or so renewals, they still interview me. Paraphrasing the latest interviewer, "Don't want just anyone running around with a gun.".

- "Safe" gun list? LEO's can buy "unsafe" guns. If your out-of-state mommy or daddy buys and gifts you an "unsafe" gun, fine. Otherwise, forget owning a gun that can be bought in nearly every other part of the country.

- Magazine capacity limits. No need to elaborate.

- Wooden or plastic grips or other innocuous pieces added to a rifle makes it illegal. Embarrassing.

- Micro-stamping. Science and logic did not overcome the passing of this law.

Long list of gun store paperwork, "cooling off" wait periods, even if you have a dozen guns at home and one in the car, citizens finger printed to buy ammo in some counties. Just on and on.

Perhaps the willingness of California gun owners to keep taking it is the problem.

4v50 Gary
June 15, 2008, 09:44 PM
I wonder if its Atty Gen. "Moonbeam" Brown's action is in conflict with the Commerce Clause?

jhansman
June 15, 2008, 09:55 PM
You're not going to "teach California a lesson" by refusing to ship guns to its citizens.

Hear, hear! All the OP is doing is giving in to the larger agenda here, which is to prevent out of state dealers from shipping firearms to Calif. What you ought to instead, IMHO, is what Bud's and other dealers are doing and register. Then, sell as many guns as you can to us here. Then you are showing Sacramento something.

We'll keep working to reverse these idiotic laws they keep dreaming up (and oust the morons who pass them), but til then we need the help of every out of state dealer to show these clowns they can't abridge our rights.

savetheclaypigeons
June 16, 2008, 12:23 AM
I too concur with the sentiment of not abandoning the average joe but instead refusing to do business with the state, the politicals, and the police

so well stated it should be echoed twice

big thumbs up from me.

.38 Special
June 16, 2008, 01:04 AM
Perhaps the willingness of California gun owners to keep taking it is the problem.
And you would have us do what? Join the NRA? Done. Join our local pro-gun organization? Done. Write letters to our congressmen, attorney general, mayor, etc? Vote against every anti-gunner who comes down the pike? Blanket our newspapers with pro-gun letters? Done, done, and done.

But obviously, because there is a huge voting bloc that severely outnumbers the pro-gunners in this state, and they simply outweigh us at the polls, that means that we're not "doing enough" and therefore deserve whatever we get.

Or maybe you're one of those who think we should take up our guns and start a shooting war in downtown L.A., just to demonstrate to the rest of the voters why gun laws should be relaxed?

Or maybe, like a bunch of other "I have got mine" people on this thread, you're just outgassing without any real concern for the plight of your fellow Americans.

New rule: if you haven't got anything positive to say, and you're not a Californian, pipe down. :fire:

danweasel
June 16, 2008, 01:32 AM
Hahaha,

California makes some of you guys a bit jealous huh? Real mature...

Dan of Nevada City, CA

harrygunner
June 16, 2008, 02:48 AM
I am in California and as you mentioned, everything that has been done has not worked.

Time to do something else.

What if we embrace manufacturers' boycotts, insist on them.

Use the boycotts to expose the economic and social consequences of Sacramento's agenda. Call Sacramento's bluff.

If manufactures supported us in a boycott, would enough negative publicity arise to embarrass California legislators into backing off?

Maybe, only in the extreme would it become clear that their agenda does nothing against crime, only hurts the economy and annoys the law abiding.

You've probably heard the story about the hound dog sitting on a nail, but it did not hurt enough for him to move? Maybe the boycott would cause enough pain for everyone become aware of what we've been experiencing for years.

I don't have the answers, but we need new ideas and approaches. The answer is likely to require us to pay a price for a while.

billwiese
June 16, 2008, 02:55 AM
wonder if its Atty Gen. "Moonbeam" Brown's action is in conflict with the Commerce Clause?

Without speculating on commerce clause, why do you think it's Jerry Brown's fault?

Do you live in a state where the AG makes up laws? I doubt it.

He's just the Attorney General over the regulatory agency in charge of implementing laws the legislature passed.

Frankly, it's to AG Jerry Brown's credit that no attempts by certain lower-level minions to extend regulations beyond the scope of the law took place. We were worried at first that this could've led to things like 'approval' of the types of guns on the list in an attempt to drown out OLL sales, or that other tracking would take place and that we would have to fight the overextension of the law at the Office of Admin. Law. That appears not to be the case; the law was implemented as plainly as allowed.

Frankly, for gun matters Jerry Brown has been a dream compared to former AG (now Treasurer) Bill Lockyer.

Our gun issues in CA are with the legislature and because of term limits/jerrymandering, not due to Jerry Brown. And they're way way helped by a supinely useless Republican party who's traded off viability fo 'safe seats', lead by some Orange County biblethumpers who couldn't even elect a dogcatcher to statewide office.





Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

MarcusWendt
June 16, 2008, 12:13 PM
We in CA thank you for surrendering the the will of our government. You are doing exactly what they want. Thanks for the help.

I'm sure Sacramento is shaking in their boots right now. They are in deep depression over your actions. You sure did teach them a lesson.

Of course the 2A supporting citizens of CA are the one who are actually hurt by this, but screw them.

Good job! Way to hold the line. Obviously you're a part of the problem, not the solution.

You sure did teach them.... that what they are doing works.

spencerhut
June 16, 2008, 04:23 PM
I'm kind of okay with the No LEO sales thing. Just stop shipping everything to the PRK that a normal schmuck citizen (like me) can't buy. Let's see the LEO's rebuild their <2000 normal capacity magazines like I have to. Can't buy a new damn 30-round mag. Have to get the parts one at a time (or in a kit) and rebuild an old one. Never mind I have so many AR mags alone that I don't even know how many I have, must have a couple hundred at least.
Let the LEO's only get 10-Round mags with their CA "Safe" handguns like the rest of us schmucks. Hell I'd love to get an STI, not on the list. :fire: There are all kinds of handguns I'd like that are not on the list or on the list but crippled. FN Five-Seven comes to mind. What is the point in having a an ultra cool 20 round handgun with a crippled 10-Round mag?

Stop shipping anything a normal citizen can't have. Better yet, how about all the local CA guns shops stop selling to the local PD/CHP/Sheriff? See how they like that.

torpid
June 16, 2008, 05:54 PM
Staff H.Q., 1942.

"Well gentlemen, here's the plan.

Since the underground French Resistance in Occupied France hasn't ousted the collaborating Vichy Regime, we will no longer attempt to arm the Resistance until those blasted Vichys see the light and stop meddling with our efforts to arm the Resistance.

Now, let's all teach those Nazi-loving Vichys a lesson and make the Resistance's supply of guns dry up.
How will those collaborating Frenchies like it when the Resistance is forced to try to expel them with their bare hands? Ha, ha! "

harrygunner
June 16, 2008, 06:04 PM
There is an event in history we may want to look at for ideas.

Consider the Montgomery Alabama bus boycott as a possible source of ideas to consider.

Common themes:

1) There was no concession except to no longer exist that a minority could make to stop institutionalized racism. Same with Sacramento. California legislators will pile on new laws until we decide guns are not worth owning.

2) I'm sure there were people who said if Black people don't ride the bus, that's exactly what the bus company wants. Similarly, some are arguing a boycott by gun manufacturers is exactly what Sacramento wants.

3) By taking a stand on segregation that was highly publicized, the economic harm and public embarrassment caused a change that was impossible to make through voting. Is it possible something similar could happen here?

Finally, gun manufacturers and out of state FFL's are beginning to see the end game. If things continue as they are, California sales will become too expensive to support. Sacramento wins.

Yet, there are people in California thinking that doing the same thing over and over will produce different results.

If the boycott idea is rejected, fine, but new ideas are sorely needed.

danweasel
June 17, 2008, 01:39 AM
This message is mildly sacastic and mostly true.

Refusing to sell guns to people because they can't have 'em? Did you think about this at all? It would make more sense if you were going to smuggle 10,000 M240Bs INTO California (spelling it ********** is just silly and not very witty either unless you are the guy who made it up) and handing them out for free to all the citizens who want one. Take radical action! This is why you should leave the boycotting to the hippies. At least they use it against the power that they feel is hurting them, as opposed to using it directly for the benefit of said power.

The whole argument make me think of Rush Limbaugh on the radio the other day, He said something along the lines of; we should let the economy continue to crash and burn because thats what it needs! What? The only people who want that to happen are the ones who are holding all the cards. Massively rich people maybe would love it I am sure but what about us? I just wrote this as an example of someone trying to convince the opressed to do the work of the oppressor. Which in my mind, is exactly what refusing to sell guns to other gun owners because they live in the greatest state in America. Hahahaha, yeah I said it. Hey at least I'm not from West Virginia, right Dick?

gretske
June 17, 2008, 03:40 AM
I am just wondering, if the California law is in violation of the Commerce Clause, and maybe provisions in federal gun control laws, why not litigate it? I realize that the federal courts are full of liberal, presumably anti-gun, judges, but issues do get through.

Frankly, I have wondered this about the NRA for some time as well. Why don't they test anti-gun laws and regulations in the legal system, especially if Heller determines an individual has the right to bear arms? A boycott of some sort seems to be unworkable unless you can get nearly all FFLs to comply, which is doubtful. There are too many that will be willing to make the extra dollars afforded by lessened competition.

I would be willing to contribute to such a cause, and suspect there are many other gun owners who would as well.

jaak
June 17, 2008, 09:08 AM
in support of the trapped folks in **********, i will offer "replacement parts kit" ak47 30rd magazines to friends behind the lines. they are of russian make(slabside mags), manufactuered in the 1950's, 56' to be exact. i will sell them for 65 shipped each, or will work a deal with you for multiple. kits will include followers, floor plates, springs and mag body. they will come disassembled. they will be in excellent condition. pm if anyone trapped behind lines is in need of replacement parts.

Bubbles
June 17, 2008, 10:58 AM
Sam and everyone else refusing to sell to CA shooters - I won't tell you how to run your business, but will ask that you at least reconsider part of your boycott.

My business (07/02) will continue to support the shooting public in CA. OTOH, we absolutely will NOT sell to CA law-enforcement and state agencies. Going a step further, we do not recognize any law-enforcement or government exemptions to gun-control laws across the nation. If a law-enforcement or state agency wants to buy one of our products, we will provide it only if the shooting public in that jurisdiction is also free to purchase it.

I believe that if manufacturers had adopted these policies ten or twenty years ago, gun control laws would have been DOA in the legislatures.

FWIW I do feel bad for the shooting public in CA. From what I understand, transfer fees of $100 for a title I firearm are common, and now some dealers are tacking on an additional "CFLC Fee" after July 1.

Finally, remember that this law was not opposed by the CA dealers or the NRA when it came before the legislature. This is a March 2007 letter from NRA Liason Paul Payne regarding the NRA's position on AB2521.

Rick,

As promised, I looked into the AB2521 issue from the 2006 California Legislative Session. I am told that AB2521 was a bill that was sponsored by the CA-DOJ and it was not opposed by the California Association Firearms Retailers (CAFR).

Also, I have conferred with NRA's legal team and other NRA Staff and received the following:

The following is a quick summary of the effect of the changes to Penal Code section 12072(f) by Assembly Bill 2521:

Under Penal Code section 12072(f) federal firearms licensees are required to obtain a unique verification number for the recipient (if, and only if, the recipient is also a federal firearms licensee) from the California Department of Justice via the internet. This requirement is akin to the EZ Check system implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

This section also requires the same seller to include a copy of the unique verification number along with the firearm to the recipient.

This requirement does not apply to private party sales processed through a California dealer where the out of state seller is an individual and not a federal firearms licensee.

This requirement is not in effect until July 1, 2008, and is subject to DOJ processing regulations.

Hopefully, this will calm-down anyone on the Internet, or other places, who thinks that the NRA didn't do it's (our) job. I look forward to reading the retractions and/or clarifications from those who quickly jumped to the wrong conclusions regarding AB2521.

If there is anything else I can do for you, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Paul

mojohand
June 17, 2008, 12:21 PM
I am so sick of out-of-stater's saying we cali's are "getting what we deserve" or "why don't they just vote those people out of office?" Gee what a novel idea. Why didn't we think of that? California is a big place with a lot of issues, and guns are only part of them. Yes, we have a lot liberals here, and in certain areas they definately outnumber the conservatives and/or owners. It's in these areas that the laws get passed. The rest of us are doing what we can...writing letters, making calls, involved in the NRA, etc. It only goes so far. Like I've said before, help us fight or keep quiet. Your name calling does nothing constructive. Especially from all the ex-Cali's who've moved out and now don't have to fight anymore.

Please help us in our fight...ship to the people. Don't play into the hands of the anti-gunner's.

MarcusWendt
June 17, 2008, 12:40 PM
Bubbles: Thank you for a very well thought out position and post. As a Californian I would LOVE to see every gun manufacturer and dealer cut off our state and local government. LOVE IT!!!!

Jim Diver
June 17, 2008, 12:44 PM
I also want to see all dealers and manufacturers cut off all transaction with California. Citizens and ESPECIALLY government. If the cops start having to carry rocks to throw, then maybe we can get this crap reversed.

MarcusWendt
June 17, 2008, 12:47 PM
We as California gun owners need to get this rolling. I'm writing to every gun company I can think of to propose just this idea.

Please join in.

jlday70
June 17, 2008, 02:45 PM
Do you like veggies? fruit? A very large chunk of the produce grown in this country is grown in CA. We also pay the most in taxs to the federal gov, but since you don't need or want that money please write your congressmen expressing that.

Ya know NYC said this about NY taxes. What I say is if you are so arragant to think one state not being a part of the union will ruin us, and in the case of NYC most folks from upstate would say buh bye.

You can go on with the fantasy that the US needs Cali to survive, but I think in reality the rest of the country would be ok without it or any other state that disappeared.

learn2shoot
June 17, 2008, 03:59 PM
I think what is in order is a very agressive campaign in SF and LA to get people into (free) training classes. I am sure there is some grant, perhaps from the NRA, to get people at least a taste of shooting. Not sure of the details of how, but most people can be swayed to our side if given a good lesson and some solid logic.

loneviking
June 17, 2008, 04:27 PM
Nothing is going to change for the better in Cal. until they have a state-wide meltdown like the L.A. Riots--but worse. The best thing is to cut off all arms, ammunition and supplies until the Cal. government can no longer arm it's law enforcement community. Will it hurt 'the people'? Sure, and they are the ones who've allowed this mess to continue, they are the ones that voted these schmucks in that outlaw guns. It's time to make Cal. sweat!

kiko1
June 17, 2008, 04:50 PM
Learn 2 Shoot's idea is about as good an idea as I've seen for a while. I think it's worth a try.
Might be surprising how many folks would change their viewpoint if they had an interest in, and understanding of fireams. All they generally get is the media's "demonized" point of view.
Good thinking.
I also agree with the idea of supporting individuals aquisition of firearms in KA. Don't hurt the folks who care. Lobby the manufacturers and wholesalers to boycott all ********** state agencies regarding the sale of firearms.

tntwatt
June 17, 2008, 05:18 PM
I think that this is the word we need to use. I know it's not the true use of the word but the effect would be the same. A complete and total firearms embargo of a state like California (for civilian and especially law enforcement) would finally force the issue. The OP is not the first to enact his own personal firearm embargo on California. If enough FFL's would follow suit, it would give the pro gunners in California the help they need. Actual real world consequences to ideological fantasies.

wolf13
June 17, 2008, 05:42 PM
An embargo on the people who live here is exactly what they want. They don't want guns coming in, and are using this as a means to do it. If you don't want to sell guns to CA that is fine, but don't think you are helping anything. Not selling to the police and government is one thing, but taking guns out of normal people's hands is another. And that is exactly what some of you are proposing. I agree, companies and people should not ship guns or accessories to CA which normal people can't have. Make police deal with bullet buttons and "safe" handguns.

Robert Hairless
June 17, 2008, 05:56 PM
I am so sick of out-of-stater's saying we cali's are "getting what we deserve" or "why don't they just vote those people out of office?" Gee what a novel idea. Why didn't we think of that? California is a big place with a lot of issues, and guns are only part of them. Yes, we have a lot liberals here, and in certain areas they definately outnumber the conservatives and/or owners. It's in these areas that the laws get passed. The rest of us are doing what we can...writing letters, making calls, involved in the NRA, etc. It only goes so far. Like I've said before, help us fight or keep quiet. Your name calling does nothing constructive. Especially from all the ex-Cali's who've moved out and now don't have to fight anymore.

Please help us in our fight...ship to the people. Don't play into the hands of the anti-gunner's.

Well, maybe, but only if you call us "rednecks" the way the other Californian did. Insult us, beat us, kick us. Tell us how sick of us you are. Then watch the other Californians explain that they don't belong to the NRA because it doesn't benefit them. We enjoy a little of that sweet talking before the romance begins.

loneviking
June 17, 2008, 06:00 PM
Sorry Wolf, but your idea won't work. What would keep the buyer for a PD from going to a civilian supply store to buy ammo or weapons?

The embargo has to be total. No guns, supplies or ammo to any FFL listed in California is the only way to bring the politicians to their senses.

wolf13
June 17, 2008, 06:08 PM
Nothing would keep them from doing that. But your idea is exactly what they want. No guns coming in. Much easier for them to regulate what is already here. And if you want to do what is keeping them from doing ___. What would keep other government agencies from sending stuff to them? Nothing. You won't be able to fully stop them from having guns. What you are doing with a complete embargo is what the law makers hope. Taking guns away from CA.

loneviking
June 17, 2008, 06:20 PM
Nothing would keep them from doing that. But your idea is exactly what they want. No guns coming in. Much easier for them to regulate what is already here. And if you want to do what is keeping them from doing ___. What would keep other government agencies from sending stuff to them? Nothing. You won't be able to fully stop them from having guns. What you are doing with a complete embargo is what the law makers hope. Taking guns away from CA.

And that's exactly the point--the lawmakers need to find out just how horrible life gets when you have a state chock full of criminals on the loose, and nobody (including the LEO's) can defend themselves. The majority group in the legislature thinks that guns are so bad, so let's show them just how horrible their utopian vision of a gun free world really is.

And BTW, you'd be welcome in Nevada!

.38 Special
June 17, 2008, 06:56 PM
Well, maybe, but only if you call us "rednecks" the way the other Californian did. Insult us, beat us, kick us. Tell us how sick of us you are. Then watch the other Californians explain that they don't belong to the NRA because it doesn't benefit them. We enjoy a little of that sweet talking before the romance begins.
So every gun owner in your state is an NRA member? No? So then the gun laws in your state are the fault of every gun owner in that state in general and your personal fault in particular?

Or would it be stupid and obnoxious to think that?

CountGlockula
June 17, 2008, 07:24 PM
First, our own government bans our guns...now our fellow gunners ban our guns too.

Great. Thanks.

SoCalShooter
June 17, 2008, 07:33 PM
This one takes effect July 1. Best thing in my opinion is to not stop sending guns to california, let them know their laws are not going to deter us and then get them out of office in the next election and get the laws repealed.

Robert Hairless
June 17, 2008, 08:10 PM
So every gun owner in your state is an NRA member? No? So then the gun laws in your state are the fault of every gun owner in that state in general and your personal fault in particular?

Or would it be stupid and obnoxious to think that?

I wouldn't know if you were stupid and obnoxious to say such things to people from whom you ask help. If it works for you and makes you happy, go for it. I'm just one of the little old "rednecks." Good luck on getting other people to fight for you. Maybe you're just not insulting them enough.

torpid
June 17, 2008, 08:44 PM
If any of you think that an "arms embargo" would somehow deny anyone but your normal law-abiding CA citizen from obtaining firearms and ammunition, you are likely to be very mistaken.

As usual, the politicians, police, and criminals will all have ways of easily getting what they want, while the anti-gunners who vote for these asinine politicians and laws will be delighted to see the supply of guns into CA choked off by its source.

But, hey, what does that little detail matter when you can feel good about sticking it to the "Californians", even if it's really just only those who actually still care about gun ownership.

poet
June 17, 2008, 08:51 PM
No apologies necessary Sam and we do understand you feelings. It is getting harder for us Californians out here but we are still trying to put up a gallant stand and only give up ground grudgingly.

Animal Mother
June 18, 2008, 07:57 AM
With Heller coming down the pipe, it makes sense to begin to organize a Second Amendment civil rights march on Sacramento and to continue to do so until:

A) The legislators recognize the right.

B) The gov't oversteps its bounds in surpressing the protest, thereby leading to increased public sympathy for the protestors, thereby making further restrictions politically untenable.

C) You are able to educate the public that you don't fit the media stereotypes of gunowners, thereby making further restrictions politically untenable.

Protesting works. Look at the progress made with respect to campus CCW and CCW in general.

Heller has the potential to be a game changer for CA. Especially if it is incorporated into the 14th. This may not happen until after the Chicago ban is challenged, but think of how big the rallies could be by then. Organize monthly, bi-monthly, or quarterly marches. Organize, educate, and take action.

packnrat
June 18, 2008, 10:11 AM
well the anti's win this one.


that is the reason for the law, to make you stop doing work with the people here in ca.:banghead:

as for leo's they allready have a way to get said work done here in ca, and please do not think a co will stop makeing money selling guns to the cops.


:uhoh:

.

.38 Special
June 18, 2008, 11:22 AM
I wouldn't know if you were stupid and obnoxious to say such things to people from whom you ask help. If it works for you and makes you happy, go for it. I'm just one of the little old "rednecks." Good luck on getting other people to fight for you. Maybe you're just not insulting them enough.
Dodge. And I'm not asking for help. I'm asking for people to quit with the "California's gun laws are the fault of California gun owners" bit. It's obnoxious, insulting, and untrue.

And BTW, I didn't call you a redneck. You just seized on the word and made it yours.

Old Fuff
June 18, 2008, 11:28 AM
When you have worked inside of the firearms industry (and I have) you soon come to understand that decisions are not made on the basis of political or "gun rights" issues, but $$$$$$$...

There are exceptions of course, but when it comes to the bottom line (which is indeed the bottom line) firearm manufacturers, distributors and dealers are in the business of making and selling product, and making a profit while doing so.

They will continue to sell guns in California, and other restrictive states until the restrictions and requirements make it unprofitable to do so. At that point they will stop.

On this basis a small retailer may abandon doing business in California (or wherever) because the additional hassle isn’t worth it, because whatever business they do is limited. Larger distributors and manufacturers may absorb the additional cost, but only up to a certain point.

This point hasn’t been reached yet, but it may happen in the not distance future. At the present time some manufacturers are limiting the number of models they choose to qualify on California’s “can buy” list. I expect this trend will continue.

Manufacturers are also aware that if they incorporate certain features required by California statutes, sales in other states may be negatively impacted if the features are unpopular with buyers in those states. At some point, when they’re overall profits are effected in a downward direction far enough, they will abandon the California market.

But not until then.

Because it’s all about $$$$$$$$$.

billwiese
June 18, 2008, 03:07 PM
When you have worked inside of the firearms industry (and I have) you soon come to understand that decisions are not made on the basis of political or "gun rights" issues, but $$$$...

There are exceptions of course, but when it comes to the bottom line (which is indeed the bottom line) firearm manufacturers, distributors and dealers are in the business of making and selling product, and making a profit while doing so.

Yup. This new law appears to have had the support of CAFR (Calif Assn of Firearms Retailers) and CRPA due to their shared lobbyist-idiot, Kathy Lynch.

[Yes, that appellation for Kathy is not 'high road'. But she has been the enabler of borderline CA gun laws that large dealer chains actually like -because it reduces competition. She/her orgs help run SB15 'approved handgun list' thru in spite of NRA opposition - she paired up with Robert Ricker who lobbied for SASS short-term to get the precious single-action exemption.]

What happens in CA is that in the past we'd have fence-sititing legislators that would not vote anti-gun if enough opposition existed. But when they see NRA against something but CRPA+CAFR+SASS lobbyists for something, they assume the opposition is split and they can vote antigun.

Big CA chain dealers LIKE some of these laws. You won't see Turner's, for example, complaining much about a mail-order ammo ban: they think it's in their best interests for folks not to buy skids of milsurp 308 and instead buy it from Turner's at $15+/box (or whatever it is)


On this basis a small retailer may abandon doing business in California (or wherever) because the additional hassle isn’t worth it, because whatever business they do is limited. Larger distributors and manufacturers may absorb the additional cost, but only up to a certain point.

Sometimes. Actually the smaller FFLs have been a boon to CA and go the extra mile. It was a host of smaller FFLs that helped move 'off-list' AR receivers into CA at end of 2005/early 2006, while larger ones were cowed with legally-unsustainable letters from CA DOJ (in combination with poor reading ability). CA gunnies are loyal and threw a lotta biz their way afterward and quite a few of these businesses grew nicely.

CA gunnies support these dealers, and if there's a bit extra charge for CA paperwork, we understand paying a tad more for that cost.



This point hasn’t been reached yet, but it may happen in the not distance future. At the present time some manufacturers are limiting the number of models they choose to qualify on California’s “can buy” list.

Yeah. A big part of the problem is some of these mfgrs (esp Springfield Armory) change SKUs everytime they sneeze - even when that SKU change reflects just grips/sights/coating changes. There appear to be alternate ways of doing this that meet CA law and allow such variations to be sold as one item (with allowed cosmetic variations).

Manufacturers are also aware that if they incorporate certain features required by California statutes, sales in other states may be negatively impacted if the features are unpopular with buyers in those states.


Perhaps. But there is some overlap in CA with some other states' laws, so it becomes efficient to do that.

At some point, when they’re overall profits are effected in a downward direction far enough, they will abandon the California market.


Probably not for a long time, except for some small firms. And we have ways of getting around that via the single-shot and single-action exemptions.

CA is the ~8th largest economy in the world, and there are a TON of people buying guns here. The greater SF Bay area alone is responsible (directly and indirectly combined) for 4% of the US's GNP. I believe CA new gun sales exceed that of a whole slough of Western states, combined. S&W factory folk have told me they LOVE CA, and they're gonna do everything they can to ensure Californians can buy their guns.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

mojohand
June 18, 2008, 03:32 PM
There's only so much you can do when your out numbered. I guarantee you we all vote for the pro-gun candidates, but guess what...we don't have the votes! So spare us the, "it's your fault if you don't just vote them out" garbage. Is it DC's fault that the gun owners there didn't just vote out the anti-gunners there? They had 30 years, and now we're waiting on the Supreme Court to figure it out. I hope you relish the freedoms you have in your states. And I hope if they begin to erode away as your electorate changes and you need help, you won't hear, "Just vote them out!"

tntwatt
June 18, 2008, 05:03 PM
Somewhere, someone has to be the spark that sets off the keg. I believe that would be the main purpose for an embargo in California. Pro-gunners are horribly out numbered in Cali. The whole idea of an embargo there would be to force the issue. Since so much of the country follows California example, that seems to be the logical place to start. Not selling to government agencies there won't work, there aren't enough of them to vote new laws into effect. Not selling to anyone, might. It would force the voting public there to reconsider the futility of gun bans.

And remember all non-Californians, for an embargo to truly work, it means NO ONE ANYWHERE would buy firearms from any company that sells to Californians. This would affect the money flow of the manufacturers and bring change.

I have nothing against California. I think that it is the most anti state and therefore the most logical place for this to happen. Better for this to go ahead and happen in one state alone. It would set an example for the rest and it would be much easier to deal with on a state level than a federal level.

Old Fuff
June 18, 2008, 06:06 PM
S&W factory folk have told me they LOVE CA, and they're gonna do everything they can to ensure Californians can buy their guns.

You bet they will, and so will most if not all of the others...

But only so long as they make money doing it. If the California Legislature passes a law they can't (or won't) live with they'll be gone.

Unfortunately your left-wing legislators know this. It's only a matter of time.

86thecat
June 18, 2008, 06:07 PM
Californians- It's your state, your laws and your neighbors voting in the socialists. I don't understand why you all expect FFL's from other states to spend extra time and money to comply with CA's silliness to help you out. Your own FFL's sold you down the river on this one to block competition so maybe they should be boycotted.

.38 Special
June 18, 2008, 06:40 PM
Californians- It's your state, your laws and your neighbors voting in the socialists. I don't understand why you all expect FFL's from other states to spend extra time and money to comply with CA's silliness to help you out. Your own FFL's sold you down the river on this one to block competition so maybe they should be boycotted.
First off, this and similar posts on this thread again fall into the "Easy for you to say" category, as you're not the ones who would have to go without gun purchases.

Moreover, this still smacks of blaming California gun owners for the gun laws created by people who we did and do not support. Again, this is akin to blaming all the gun owners in Washington state for your 5 day waiting period.

As for what is "expected" of out-of-state FFLs, I guess I expect them to make money by selling guns. I would certainly understand if folks started adding a surcharge to cover the time wasted on this latest foolishness. But it certainly looks as though money isn't the issue nearly so much as "principle": FFLs trying to teach the anti-gunners in California a lesson by not selling guns to Californians. In point of fact, I tried to make arrangements to buy from an out-of-state FFL just today and was told that he would not ship to me because of the new law -- which doesn't go into effect for another two weeks. Obviously money has nothing to do with it, in at least some cases. "Principle", in this instance, seems to be a euphemism for throwing California gun owners under the bus.

TAB
June 18, 2008, 09:29 PM
The reality is, for most people in CA, guns are not even in the top 10 of issuses that are important to them.

Hell If I was elected tommarrow, getting the BS gun laws revoked would not even be in my top 5 things that need to be changed. That coming from some that very pro 2a.

86thecat
June 19, 2008, 01:46 AM
38spl

If you have a WA CPL there is no waiting period.

I lived in Southern CA thru the 80's into the mid 90's and the hand writing was on the wall when I left. Most CA voters don't give a crap about firearms (and by the laws PASSED seem to be firm anti's) but if anyone makes a generalization it's always "don't paint CA with a wide brush". Well the laws speak for themselves.

Quote {"Principle", in this instance, seems to be a euphemism for throwing California gun owners under the bus.}
No, your Californian neighbors, Californian politicians and greedy Californian FFL's have already done that and backed up over you again for good measure.

I wish you all the best of luck changing things, but if it doesn't work out Washington can always use some more conservative shooters to help balance the nuts (many from down there) who have brought socialism to our coast.

Sam
June 19, 2008, 12:13 PM
We are not 'throwing you under the wheels".
We are cutting the place loose.
You haven't been able to change your fellow subjects mind on the issue, despite multiple millions of dollars invested in trying to do so, it is not getting better. It is a source of contagion that needs to be removed before the malignancy spreads any further. We are already starting chemo out here.
Hopefully it isn't too late. Radiation therapy starts in 3 weeks:D

GET OUT,
VOTE WITH YOUR FEET(and your dollars),
YOU ARE DOING THE NATION A DISSERVICE BY PUTTING MORE MONEY INTO THE MEXIFORNIAN ECONOMY,
UN@$$ THE PEOPLES REPUBLIK OF MEXIFORNIA WHILE YOU STILL HAVE THE FREEDOM TO TRAVEL(and before we colse the border).

DO NOT BRING ANY IDIOTIC SOCIALIST/MARXIST FOOLS WITH YOU.

Sam

Animal Mother
June 19, 2008, 12:55 PM
I think a lot of gunnies would share the sentiments of the late comedian Bill Hicks opinion of California.

From the liner notes of his posthumus album Arizona Bay
A note from the Producer: Los Angeles is like the appendix of the world - illuminating the notion that even some of God's creations can go awry. The Good News is that God can and will do something about it. Arizona Bay is what will be left when L.A. falls like a piece of pie. Bill had a fantasy that he would someday gather up a troop of Boy Scouts, give them crow bars, and take them to the San Andreas Fault. Sometimes you have to lose a finger to save a hand."

86thecat
June 21, 2008, 01:19 AM
We are not 'throwing you under the wheels".
We are cutting the place loose.

How do we go about that legally? Could be called The United Cities of America, give them their own laws (shira or socialism), their own language (spanish), their own president (obama), and put walls around them for their own protection. :D

WoofersInc
June 21, 2008, 02:10 AM
People have been talking about California and it's gun laws and how people should leave, boycott, etc. Others have come back with gun laws alone don't make a difference.
I used to live in California and can speak with some experiance. For me it was a long list of things that together made California a place I no longer wanted to be in. They banned most of the firearms I was interested in. They listen to the extreme envirionmentalalists and are closing down ATV areas left and right. They are giving the state away to illegal immigrants. Heck they even tried to legislate that you could not spank your own children when they were bad.
It is the whole attitiude of the state government that they know better than you what you need and how to live that made me leave.
Yes gun rights played a big part in my decision but it was also the many other things that they are trying to legislate that make most people hate California.
I would be more than happy to help the gun owners of California any way I can as I have friends that remain there, but it is the overall direction the state is taking in ALL matters that I have a hard time dealing with.
Until the government of the state gets away from their basically communistic views, it does not look good for my friends left behind there or the people who actually have common sense.

borntwice
June 21, 2008, 02:23 AM
.....

borntwice
June 21, 2008, 02:24 AM
.....

borntwice
June 21, 2008, 02:25 AM
.....

borntwice
June 21, 2008, 02:26 AM
.....

trbon8r
June 21, 2008, 01:03 PM
Sam,

Since you have decided you no longer want to sell to California, maybe it would be a good idea to at least let the CA gun owners know who you are? I didn't see a name of your business listed, or are CA gun owners just supposed to know who you are?

As a former CA resident, I'd like to know the name of your business. Although your business decision won't directly impact me, I may wish to take your decision into consideration when I decide which business to patronize. I'm sure some of my fellow shooters here in Maryland would be interested in this information as well, considering we are fighting much the same type of fight as our brothers in California. ;)

trbon8r
June 21, 2008, 01:21 PM
in support of the trapped folks in **********, i will offer "replacement parts kit" ak47 30rd magazines to friends behind the lines. they are of russian make(slabside mags), manufactuered in the 1950's, 56' to be exact. i will sell them for 65 shipped each

I'm sure the CA gun owners appreciate your offer of support. Such a deal! :rolleyes:

hso
June 21, 2008, 05:45 PM
Folks this has turned into an involved discussion and that's not what this subforum is for. I'm going to close this and invite anyone to open a thread in the Activism Discussion subforum that wants to continue there.

If you enjoyed reading about "California goverment must be taught" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!