Selling guns in California


PDA






Superlite27
January 17, 2009, 08:02 PM
Many gun owners are polarized on this topic. In another thread, someone selling a firarm was castigated for stating "No sales to CA residents".

How do you feel about sellers that refuse to sell to California residents?

I personally believe that "people deserve the government they live under" (I think this is a quote). If you live where legislators are democratically elected, you DO have a choice. Either elect legislators who pass the laws you like, or go somewhere else representative of your beliefs.

So, like Barrett, and STI, I see no problem with refusal to compromise your company's or your individual beliefs. If California requires all guns sold in their state to have radar detectors, a four foot length of 3/4 inch chain, and an air horn to be permanently attached, more power to you for refusing to compromise and add these to your firearm in search of the almighty dollar. How can you be faulted for not caving in to these unreasonable requirements? As a matter of fact, I think ALL firearm sales to California should be halted. You might believe this isn't "brotherly" to my fellow firearms enthusiasts, but this way, maybe the gun owners will unite to change the government, or move somewhere representative of their lifestyle.

Yet, I'm sure there's a few here who will spit and sputter and $&*$! ^%$#! CURSE! CURSE! all you who won't sell your &%&^$&! guns in California. Well, elect new officials.

If you enjoyed reading about "Selling guns in California" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Duke of Doubt
January 17, 2009, 08:13 PM
To some extent it's distasteful to give the anti-gun politicos in Cantaffordya exactly what they want to achieve. However, I would support any dealer who refused to sell into that environment.

As a professional I reserve the right to refuse to deal with anyone. I "fire" clients from time to time, and frequently refuse to take on various work even if I could use the extra money. Maybe I just don't want to do it. Maybe the work is annoying and unrewarding, or boring, and unduly burdensome. Or maybe the client is a jerk. Either way, for whatever reason, or even for no reason, that's my right. Coming into my office is not like entering a McDonald's which may not refuse service. Likewise with firearms dealers.

I would never live in California, Illinois, New Jersey or any of a number of states, even though I could make a lot of money by returning to one of those states. I have no respect for those who sacrifice their principles, their hobbies, and their happiness just to increase their salaries for awhile.

TAB
January 17, 2009, 08:18 PM
1st STI pulled a bull **** move... They pulled out of CA twice, the 2nd time they were only selling to LEOs, but they played it up like they were selling to every one.

CA has more gun owners then some states have in population.

Lets turn things around, lets just say that congress and obama come toeghter and completly ban guns... its ok right, since after all the people of this country elected them. they deserved it.

ChronoCube
January 17, 2009, 08:29 PM
I'm not sure the comparison to Barrett is a valid comparison. IIRC, Barrett refused to sell to CA law enforcement after CA law banned civilian ownership of .50 caliber rifles.

CoRoMo
January 17, 2009, 08:39 PM
The fascists trying to disarm every last Californian probably prefer that all manufacturers cease selling to their state. Some of the most extreme types might even want law enforcement disarmed, but that's not probable. Eventually their crime rates would reflect this misstep, but they won't connect those dots. It would be blamed on Nevada, Arizona, or some other fantasy cause.
Just my $0.02

RonE
January 17, 2009, 08:42 PM
When a manufacturer or an individual for that matter refuses to sell a gun to a California dealer or any other buyer, they are doing exactly what the liberals want them to do. Barrett (sp?) started this when California banned .50 Cal rifles. Many people applauded his stand but now it seems to have bitten us in the butt! Many people on the auction sites refuse to sell perfectly legal (in California) guns and more and more people are getting on the band wagon every day. In my opinion we should sell anything and everything we legally can to residents and dealers in California.

expvideo
January 17, 2009, 08:44 PM
No. If you care about your rights, vote like it.

RonE
January 17, 2009, 08:47 PM
I'm not sure the comparison to Barrett is a valid comparison. IIRC, Barrett refused to sell to CA law enforcement after CA law banned civilian ownership of .50 caliber rifles.

I believe you are right and his actions were so well thought of by the firearms community at the time that many people shot themselves in the foot over the issue.

kermit315
January 17, 2009, 09:03 PM
ask yourselves this question and answer it honestly: if/when a nationwide awb, bullet serialization, microstamping, LCI, mag disconnect, etc law is passed, will it be your fault, or will it still be Californias fault?

Starcheck55
January 17, 2009, 09:04 PM
I don't think that gun manufacturers should feel obligated to design or alter a gun to make it Kali or Mass compliant.

If the gun owners in those states are so dissatisfied with their rights being trampled, they can move to another state. It is simply a matter of priorities.

Darthbauer
January 17, 2009, 09:06 PM
I live in CA and I think it's pretty stupid when someone has something for sale that is legal here and won't sell it because it's a bit of a hassle.

kermit315
January 17, 2009, 09:07 PM
what about perfectly legal guns that there are hundreds, if not thousands of? Are you of the opinion that no guns should be sold to California?

Duke of Doubt
January 17, 2009, 09:10 PM
Kermit, I think it's up to the seller. If it's worth his while and it's legal, he may do it. Or he may choose not to bother. Plenty of buyers elsewhere these days.

Darthbauer
January 17, 2009, 09:11 PM
If the gun owners in those states are so dissatisfied with their rights being trampled, they can move to another state. It is simply a matter of priorities.


If you think someone is going to pick up everything and just move to a whole other state for the gun laws then it is you who's priorities are out of wack. I love guns but I could never justify moving my wife and child out of the state just so I could get a suppressed SBR with a 100 round beta mag in it.

Duke of Doubt
January 17, 2009, 09:14 PM
Darth, it's not always that stark a choice, or for so esoteric a preference.

I could take a job in IL, CA, NJ or in other anti-gun states, but choose not to. I make less money as a result, though my expenses are much lower, too. And I get to shoot my side-folder AK at a local range and carry it concealed beneath my overcoat. I carry my Beretta concealed practically every day. I cannot do those things in IL, CA or NJ.

TAB
January 17, 2009, 09:21 PM
thats entirely not true... in CA it depends on which county you live in rather or not you get your CCW... its split almost 50/50. I've lived in both.

kermit315
January 17, 2009, 09:23 PM
I wish it was Florida being told no, or Idaho, or Texas, or any other state, because then maybe you guys would see the problem. Its never a problem for gun owners until it affects them personally.

And, dont think if it happens in California, it wont spread to the rest of the country, because it will.

expvideo
January 17, 2009, 09:34 PM
I wish it was Florida being told no, or Idaho, or Texas, or any other state, because then maybe you guys would see the problem. Its never a problem for gun owners until it affects them personally.

And, dont think if it happens in California, it wont spread to the rest of the country, because it will.
"it" doesn't happen with magic and bad luck. "it" happens with people not prioritizing their gun rights high enough when they vote. "It" happens when you say "well I preffer candidate X's policy against global warming, even though they are not as good on gun rights".

If you don't vote for pro-gun candidates, you are to blame. In Idaho, they vote for pro-gun candidates. That is why "it" doesn't happen to Idaho.

kermit315
January 17, 2009, 09:36 PM
so, no answser to my question: if/when a nationwide awb, bullet serialization, microstamping, LCI, mag disconnect, etc law is passed, will it be your fault, or will it still be Californias fault?


Did you vote for Obama?

expvideo
January 17, 2009, 09:37 PM
if/when a nationwide awb, bullet serialization, microstamping, LCI, mag disconnect, etc law is passed, will it be your fault, or will it still be Californias fault?


Did you vote for Obama?

It will be California's fault. And of course I didn't vote for Obama. I'm not a communist.

And, dont think if it happens in California, it wont spread to the rest of the country, because it will.
Stupidity is not Herpes.

Darthbauer
January 17, 2009, 09:38 PM
The whole reason I voted was because of people's stance on gun rights. We know how that one ended.

Bozo
January 17, 2009, 09:40 PM
The right of an individual or a company to decide where it wants to sell its' product is still permissible in this country. Isn't this one of the things that make this country great?

I have no problem with someone who does not want to sell in California.

Duke of Doubt
January 17, 2009, 09:40 PM
expvideo: "Stupidity is not Herpes."

I don't know; the other night an awful lot of people were watching "reality TV" (f/k/a "game shows").

kermit315
January 17, 2009, 09:41 PM
so, when the documented gun grabber (Obama) starts signing gun laws, it will be your fault, because you didnt stand up for your rights.

expvideo
January 17, 2009, 09:42 PM
so, when the documented gun grabber (Obama) starts signing gun laws, it will be your fault, because you didnt stand up for your rights.
Excuse you! I've been standing up for my rights, and I vote accordingly.

Chukpike
January 17, 2009, 09:43 PM
Superlite27 quote:
I personally believe that "people deserve the government they live under" (I think this is a quote)..

Sounds like you would be perfectly happy had Germany and Japan won WWII.

California gets the brunt of your disdain, but you ignore states with even more restrictive laws than California. New York, New Jersey et al.

Superlite27 quote:
"As a matter of fact, I think ALL firearm sales to California should be halted."

So much for free trade.

You do not believe that the manufactures should operate their businesses as they see fit, because you do not like the residents of California even if they are pro gun.

I guess I do not want you as Dictator.

ChronoCube
January 17, 2009, 09:46 PM
How about we extend this to other examples. What if the ********** government mandated an environmentally conscious filter in cars? What about 1 gallon-per-flush toilets? Should car makers and toilet makers refrain from selling to California?

kermit315
January 17, 2009, 09:50 PM
No, excuse you. You stated that if we cared about our rights, we would vote like it. well, you seem to forget that California gun owners/enthusiast are outnumbered by about 3 to 1 (that is a rather conservative number) and the districts here are gerrymandered to keep anti democrats in office. So, I say that if Obama starts grabbing guns, its your fault, just like it is the gun owners fault in California that we have a gerrymandered state (which WAS fixed last election to get the districts redrawn...but what do I know, we arent doing anything to try to fix the problem).

JWarren
January 17, 2009, 09:56 PM
I don't particularly like how this poll is worded.

Do I want to see firearms sold in CA? You bet.

Do I think NOT selling firearms in CA gives the gun-grabbers what they want? You bet.

Do **I** want to be the one selling them there? Hell No.


Most of us answering this are not gun dealers. We are ordinary citizens. Many of us HAVE sold firearms via FFLs across state lines, but we are not experts on this.

But even so...


I don't feel that ANY one of us-- CA resident or not-- can demand that ANYONE sell in a market that they do not want to be it, or exposed to.

The last time I checked, there was still SOME vestige of freedom in this country.

We can say all day long what a person or a dealer SHOULD do, but that means exactly squat. It is thier choice.

If someone sees the reward outpacing the risk, let them have it. If one sees the risks as too great, it is their choice.

Many of us forget that people are in the business to make money and to represent THEIR best interest. And if an individual sells, they are doing the same thing.


Our talk is cheap. After all, we are talking about someone ELSE'S risk, right? That's the American way, after all.

I'm not willing to expose my family's future to the capricious legal system of CA. I have more responsibility to them than that.


I see some CA residents being critical of those that feel as I do. But I want to ask them this...


Someone on this thread mentioned that CA has more gunowners than some states have populations. I don't doubt that. And that sounds like a very powerful force if organized.

Instead of complaining about US, why has NONE of these CA gunowers organized and created a LEGAL DEFENSE FUND that they contribute to and agree to 100% fund the legal defense and accept liability damages for the dealers that sell into the state of CA???


You want to do something other than complain, well that's a start. And it would send a POWERFUL message to both dealers AND politicians.

But it is much more rewarding to complain and blame it on the ones that have to assume the responsibility than it is to make the effort to organize and then pony-up the money to support it.


When YOU have the problem, it is YOUR problem to fix. If dealers are afraid to come in because of liablity, it is YOUR responsiblity to find a way to take that liability from them-- either by changing the laws or insuring them.


-- John

kermit315
January 17, 2009, 10:08 PM
Go to Calguns.net and peruse the 2a forum. You would be greatly surprised by the number of legal cases that go on in California that never make the national headlines, because they get counted as losses for DOJ. CGF ( The Calguns Foundation) has been set up to go after 2A issues in California, and even before they have their 501(c) they have done great things. We have the first case up for incorporation of Heller in the 9th Circuit. We have gotten AR-15's and AK clones back into the hands of california residents. We are substantially closer to killing the "Safe Handgun List". We are working on standardized may issue, while pursuing shall issue at the same time.

And, as mentioned, there are other states with WORSE firearms laws than California. NY, NJ, just to name a couple. As I said in the other thread, there is nothing different in a private party selling to a resident in California. You still send the gun to the FFL in california. You still get your money.

People that dont sell to California are giving Californians the middle finger, and helping the gun grabbers win by proxy. I am not saying "sell exclusively to CA", I am saying dont cut us out just to make a political point, because the only point being made is that you are on the side of the gun grabbers.

expvideo
January 17, 2009, 10:08 PM
No, excuse you. You stated that if we cared about our rights, we would vote like it. well, you seem to forget that California gun owners/enthusiast are outnumbered by about 3 to 1 (that is a rather conservative number) and the districts here are gerrymandered to keep anti democrats in office. So, I say that if Obama starts grabbing guns, its your fault, just like it is the gun owners fault in California that we have a gerrymandered state (which WAS fixed last election to get the districts redrawn...but what do I know, we arent doing anything to try to fix the problem).
Do you see this? It's world's smallest violin...

Duke of Doubt
January 17, 2009, 10:10 PM
expvideo, I liked that line, too, but it isn't the same without Charlie Sheen rubbing his thumb and forefinger together.

TAB
January 17, 2009, 10:14 PM
Why would we need such a def fund for dealers? As dealers is that they already except the liabilty of shiping guns across state lines. CADOJ( and I'm sure the ATF does as well) already has both a hot line and info on thier website about what can and can not be shipped here. I personally own 3 companys: construction, property maintance and a ADA consulting company. I always do my "home work" when it comes to the laws. Protecting myself against liabilty is the main reason for that. Why would a FFL be diffrent? There is no extra paper work on the shiping end. If they did what they were supose( part of having an FFL is fallowing both state and federal laws) there is zero liabilty.

JWarren
January 17, 2009, 10:15 PM
I am saying dont cut us out just to make a political point, because the only point being made is that you are on the side of the gun grabbers.


I am on the side of MY family.

I have no doubt that there are groups that do good things in CA.

But JUST like the NRA, those groups pick and choose the cases they will take to court.

PLENTY of gun cases don't get assistance.

And ONE can ruin you. So, I am telling you this...

If gunowners there won't insure the dealers against CA law, they have NO right to expect them to sell a single firearm there.

And the same can be said for NJ.


BTW... insuring is common practice in the investment world. If you issue bonds and they are considered risky, you may insure them against default in order to obtain an AAA rating-- even if your organization is in trouble.

CA is in trouble. Insure or quit complaining.


-- John

JWarren
January 17, 2009, 10:17 PM
As dealers is that they already except the liabilty of shiping guns across state lines.


They don't HAVE to accept liability of selling to CA.

Otherwise, this thread would have never existed.


-- John

TAB
January 17, 2009, 10:17 PM
If they fallowed federal law, they have zero liabilty from CA.


see above post.

( federal law says that ffl must comply with both state and federal laws.)

JWarren
January 17, 2009, 10:19 PM
Tab, I am really talking about manufacturs that choose to not expose themselve to that legal envirionment.

I was not talking about FFL's that sell in CA.

I should have been more specific.


-- John

kermit315
January 17, 2009, 10:19 PM
Like I said, and has been said on this very board before, "As goes in California, so goes the country". I am sure, with your attitudes, this will see fruition. There is nothing special in selling a gun to a California resident versus an Iowa resident, Illinois resident, Texas resident, etc.

TAB
January 17, 2009, 10:21 PM
no one has ever been sued under that law and no one ever will be.

Dominus
January 17, 2009, 10:21 PM
I don't like the idea of manufacturers capitulating to Calif.
I can see that BS spreading to other states and before you know it, we're limited to black powder muskets.

JWarren
January 17, 2009, 10:37 PM
Tab,

We would not be having this discussion if there were not a real liability issue.

Capitalism dictates that when the rewards outweigh the risks, a market exists. If people who do this for a LIVING see the risks as too great, that is telling.

Logic dictates that when such a condition exists, only two things can occur to alter it:

1.) The reward must rise to overcome the risks, or

2.) The risk must be lowered to justify the level of reward.


It's a choice.


Kermit wrote:

"As goes in California, so goes the country".


On many levels, I reject that notion.

However, you may be right....

CA's going bankrupt. The country probably isn't far behind that.


-- John

ChronoCube
January 17, 2009, 10:39 PM
I don't like the idea of manufacturers capitulating to Calif.
I can see that BS spreading to other states and before you know it, we're limited to black powder muskets.

I fail to see how a manufacturer boycott will prevent that.

notorious
January 17, 2009, 10:46 PM
I voted according to my conservative beliefs. We got soundly defeated by style over substance. I am stuck in CA for a while because I work in a field that is heavily regulated and my licenses don't hold in other states without a lot of loops.

Once I find a way, I will move out of Kommiefornia but gun laws will only be one reason. Heavy taxes, crazy environmentalism, rampant liberalism, and the overall mood of this area all contribute to the decision.

As for businesses who choose not to sell to CA. It's their own choice to cut out one of the most lucrative markets in the union. While I wish it weren't so, it's their choice to make. In the end, they will have a Pyrrhic victory while the anti-gunners will have the real victory.

kermit315
January 17, 2009, 11:07 PM
This whole situation devolved in July when California required dealers to comply with CFLC. That is when everybody decided "I dont want to jump through the hoops to deal with California". Thing is, CFLC doesnt apply to non license holders shipping to FFLs in California, and it is a 2 minute FFL check for the FFL's to ship in.

We arent asking anybody to redesign anything to ship in, just sell us the stuff that is already legal here. Hell, even the SR9 is on the list here.

I dont see auctions saying "No sales to NJ, because you got the government you deserve". I see everybody talking about California, which has less restrictive gun laws than NJ or NY.

MP3Mogul
January 17, 2009, 11:11 PM
Komifornia is the most liberal state in the Union.... they wanted it, they voted for it.... who cares? If you don't like Komifornia... move.

Doc_Jude
January 17, 2009, 11:17 PM
One thing that pisses me off is that some sellers, different online auctions, etc, aren't willing to sell to me, even when I'm attempting to purchase a gun that I'm absolutely able to purchase with my Curio&Relic license. They claim that they aren't willing to work with me, even when I'm willing to cover every single fee.

Superlite27
January 17, 2009, 11:29 PM
I'm still torn on whether manufacturers should sell their products to states with restrictive laws. All it does is CONFIRM that if you place stupid restrictions on firearms owners, they'll bow and scrape and follow right along like good dogs. Those who live under the restrictive laws start justifying. Yeah, it's bad. But not as bad as it COULD be. So there are more stupid laws passed. Then manufacturers conform to those. If they refuse to conform, they suddenly become the bad guys for avoiding the liability. Gun owners in restrictive states yell and shout, "Hey! What about us? Do you really expect us to pack up and move? Just for a few little requirements?"

Yeah. It's too bad you folks in CA can't swap mags in your AR-15's. Too bad you can't just drop in your local gun shop and pick up one or two AK's either. Keep bad mouthing manufacturers who refuse to ship to CA. You guys really should check out STI's 1911 platforms. REALLY ACCURATE! Those Barrett 50's are a BLAST too!

Am I a bad guy for believing NO guns should enter California? You play the heartstrings pretty well with your "Woe is me! I can't help where I live!" act and accuse me of catering to what the anti-gunners want by advocating the complete denial of firearm availability in restrictive states, but who is really catering to the anti-gunners? Those who write off California, or those who alter their designs to comply with the eternally increasing strangulation?

What WOULD happen if manufacturers stopped selling to California? I'd love to hear input on this. What would the actual result be if ALL gun shops just quit? Law enforcement would take a HUGE hit, wouldn't it? When duty weapons wore out, when SWAT teams broke firing pins, when excessive range use took its toll, wouldn't they need NEW STUFF? What if it wasn't available? Wouldn't they start crying for guns? Civilian gun owners would also be galvanized, right? NO MORE GUNS IN CALIFORNIA. Don't you think there'd be some politicians tossed out of office over that? Especially if there are more gun owners in California than some states populations as I've seen claimed?

kermit315
January 17, 2009, 11:33 PM
So, like I said, you advocate NOT selling something completely LEGAL to make a point. Then only point being made is that you are on the side of the gun grabbers that California residents dont need those awful guns.

Great job.

Shytheed Dumas
January 17, 2009, 11:38 PM
Not only do I think it's right for somebody to exercise peaceful civil disobedience by witholding gun sales to California if they so choose, I think many industries that are beaten down by CA's emotion based environmental policies such as those affected by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) should quit selling there as well.

California has a way of setting the bar for the rest of the country, and frankly it is a bar-setting state that is completely out of control and is in serious need of some reality. Major public outcry by citizens unable to purchase every day items is one of the best ways of sending some reality to their elected officials that I can think of.

That said, if you disagree, then go ahead and sell there if that's your thing - no big deal to me.

harrygunner
January 17, 2009, 11:39 PM
Consider these aphorisms:

1) Visitor question: Why is that hound dog sitting on that nail?
Owner's answer: It doesn't hurt enough for him to move.

2) Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

So, what if Californians supported other states boycotting firearms sales to state government employees and to private citizens.

Could doing this different thing cause the nail to hurt enough for the majority of people to turn on Sacramento?

kermit315
January 17, 2009, 11:49 PM
Consider this: What if it was you? What if your state was the one being singled out, and you couldnt get something plainly legal sent in because somebody made an arbitrary political statement of 'you got the government you deserved'. How would you handle it.

So, you say vote, vote, vote and you can fix it. The problem is that Californians do vote, vote, vote, and gun owner/enthusiasts are outnumbered. What is your solution for that, other than advocating leaving, leaving gun owners numbers even lower. California DOJ is corrupt to the highest level, spreading backdoor regulations throughout the state, trying to cause us to not buy anything. They have been called on this before and been slapped down for it. Between corrupt politicians in gerrymandered districts, and a corrupt DOJ that is working against us, and other gun owners/dealers/sellers outside California working against us, we are set up for failure.

The majority in California will never turn on Sacremento, because gun owners are in the minority here. That is what people dont understand. Every gun owner in the state could vote for something, but it wouldnt be enough votes to be a majority, and as long as that happens we have an uphill battle in the legislature alone.

Prince Yamato
January 17, 2009, 11:52 PM
I always find irony in people who bash California and NY. Many Southerners sanctimoniously trumpet how much better their gun laws are, when if you look back as little as 10 years in some cases, NY and California had similar if not better laws than most southern states. For instance, NY and CA had CCW before most of the southern states (NY began offering CCW in 1936). In NY and I believe CA as well, you can carry your CCW in more places than in many southern states. It's only in the past 10-15 years that stupid restrictions began being placed on weapon ownership in NY and CA.

Not everyone votes on one solitary issue (ie, guns). For instance, there is nothing that precludes one from wanting universal healthcare and CCW at the same time (I don't but there's nothing that says you can't have both, at least in theory). For some people, the issues of healthcare and the economy outweigh that of guns. For others, it's gay marriage. I don't think half the people who vote for anti-gun politicians agree with their anti-gun stances. Heck, I don't even think most people know where their politicians stand on guns. I think they know where they stand on things like the war in Iraq though, which many people oppose. Again though, you can oppose the war in Iraq and still support gun ownership. But for some, ending the Iraq War may outweigh their desire to legalize machineguns, so they vote Democrat. That's why you have people voting like they do in CA and NY.

And the whole, "move out of state" argument is garbage, because many people can't afford the move, can't afford to leave their families, and perhaps can't find a job suited to their needs in a pro-gun state. You can't run away from all your problems. You can't blame everything on "city folk" either, because like it or not, the numbers of "city folk" will grow, whereas the number of farm boys will shrink.

Moving out of state is like retreating in battle. You can only retreat so far. It makes more sense to "take the fight to Berlin"... or San Francisco, NYC, or LA. Let's be honest, if you're all hunkered down in Idaho, do you think many Americans will care if there's a federal ban on weapons and the only people who complain are Idahoans? I mean seriously, how many people really cares what happens in Idaho? Now if a whole bunch of Californians complain, there's going to be some media attention. Case in point... if Idaho banned gay marriage, most proponents of gay marriage would roll their eyes and go, "oh well, that's Idaho." When it happened in California, people started soiling themselves.

My point is, you cannot ignore California and NY. You're also not "punishing" California by not selling to civilians. All you're doing is making the California politicians say, "good, we don't want those folks from Idaho selling guns here anyway." And there you have it. No more guns in California, the antis win.

Superlite27
January 17, 2009, 11:53 PM
you are on the side of the gun grabbers that California residents dont need those awful guns.

No. YOU are on the side of the gun-grabbers by believing gun manufacturers should bow and kowtow to the whims of anti-gun legislators in order for you to continue your past-time. Meanwhile, these laws continue to get tighter, a little tighter, a little tighter..........next thing you know you can't breathe.

I just want to snap the noose. Maybe then you'll realize you're being strangled.

Cut yourself loose.

I intended this thread to rationally discuss this slow process of choking gun owners and possibly trying to find out an effective method to combat these moronic anti-gun requirements. I thought we, as gun owners, might possibly think of a strategy to change these things. The first thing we need to do is come up with a consensus. This issue is more polarizing than I originally thought. How can we possibly fight the anti-gunners if we're bickering amongst ourselves? We're all on the same side. Let's start thinking of things to fix the problem we all face.

Unfortunately, my belief is some strong medicine. Like cauterizing an open wound, this is gonna hurt. Evidently, sacrifice is out of the question for those of you in restrictive states.

Basicly, no more guns in California, the anti's win. Completely absurd restrictions, the anti's win. What's the way around this obstacle?

kermit315
January 18, 2009, 12:17 AM
the way I see it, everybody is for "sacrifice" as long as they are the ones that dont have to give up anything.

Basicly, no more guns in California, the anti's win. Completely absurd restrictions, the anti's win. What's the way around this obstacle?

well, cutting off the supply isnt the answer.

if anybody here has a good idea, lay it out, because there is no easy answer for this.

Prince Yamato
January 18, 2009, 01:35 AM
the way I see it, everybody is for "sacrifice" as long as they are the ones that dont have to give up anything.


I feel the same way. "Moving" isn't as simple as people think. I've done quite a bit of moving, mainly when the economy was better. Moving the belongings from my apartment in New Mexico to my apartment in Texas cost ~$4500 and the movers only filled 1/4 of the truck. That was 3 years ago and I got a discount because I used the movers before. Moving an entire household is probably 4-5 times that in cost. Couple that with purchasing another house... saying, "move" doesn't really make much sense. Spending $20,000 or more relocating and another couple hundred thousand on a house isn't really an economically sound decision if the primary motivation is to buy a $1600 rifle to shoot at the range.

kermit315
January 18, 2009, 01:40 AM
I am getting ready to move this summer. I have most costs covered by the Navy, and I am still looking at 2000 in incidentals associated with the move that will come out of my pocket. So, I can definately see how anybody paying for a whole move out of their pocket, on top of trying to find a new job and new place to live wouldnt be able to do it.

that being said, I dont think anybody should have to cut and run just to get the same rights that everyone else has. I am all for fighting, but it has to be done smartly, and it is. But it is also something that wont happen overnight, and will be 10 times more troublesome if we have to fight CAL DOJ and other gun owners/sellers/dealers at the same time just to get something legal into the state. Divide and conquer, the perfect battle plan. The brady bunch couldnt have planned it better.

R.W.Dale
January 18, 2009, 01:52 AM
I'm sorry but as a frequent Gunbroker seller with the latest CA DOJ regulations me and my dealer came to the conclusion that we can sell all our guns easily enough by relying on the other 49 remaining states. It simply isn't worth the hassle for us. Our take on the matter is if California doesn't want to act like they're part of the Union then by god we won't bother to treat them as though they are.

kermit315
January 18, 2009, 01:53 AM
and what regulations were those that keep you from selling to California? the two minute FFL check?

R.W.Dale
January 18, 2009, 02:02 AM
and what regulations were those that keep you from selling to California? the two minute FFL check?


Deal with it http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Sad/sad-026.gif

something called NOP applies

Not
Our
Problem

You Californians always seem to get the greatest shock when something arises to point out that the rest of the country DOESN'T revolve around you. As I previously mentioned there are still 49 other states.

kermit315
January 18, 2009, 02:03 AM
yep, thats class right there....



well, its something anyway.

You are a prime example of the problems this country faces.

R.W.Dale
January 18, 2009, 02:09 AM
Consider this: What if it was you? What if your state was the one being singled out, and you couldnt get something plainly legal sent in because somebody made an arbitrary political statement of 'you got the government you deserved'. How would you handle it.


Well for one I wouldn't start by blaming the rest of the country expecting them to modify their method of doing business to suit the state in question.

I understand that people like yourself really have no representation on this matter whatsoever. But that still doesn't give you the excuse to blame anyone but your state goverment

kermit315
January 18, 2009, 02:12 AM
hmmm, 2 minute FFL check...I know, that is asking so much when somebody wins an auction that it probably took you longer to put up on gunbroker. Are you an FFL holder, because if you are not, you dont even have to do the check, you just ship to the California FFL, just like always.

Yep, thats sure a major modification to the way the fed government makes you ship a weapon anyway.

Duke of Doubt
January 18, 2009, 02:19 AM
Princess: "And the whole, "move out of state" argument is garbage, because many people can't afford the move, can't afford to leave their families, and perhaps can't find a job suited to their needs in a pro-gun state."

I did. My job "wasn't suited to my needs" either, at least to hear it from a few of my erstwhile associates.

Some of us can't be bought, Princess.

Your argument is garbage.

R.W.Dale
January 18, 2009, 02:19 AM
I work in conjunction with an FFL holder handling all the internet sales all our outgoings are in the books PERIOD

If you want to criticize our method of conducting our affairs you're only hurting your own cause.

kermit315
January 18, 2009, 02:21 AM
well, according to you, it doesnt matter anyway, because it isnt your problem. with your attitude, you better hope it never is your problem, because your solution is to cut off the supply of legal arms into your state. that will sure show those anti gunners.

kermit315
January 18, 2009, 02:24 AM
who is being bought duke? it was said that many cant afford to up and move based on crappy gun laws. you did, more power to you, but ask yourself this.....did you stand up for a principle, or cut and run to some place more convenient.

what have you done for the second amendment lately?

Duke of Doubt
January 18, 2009, 02:29 AM
For the Second Amendment, I've defended indigent criminal defendants facing gun charges with a risk of jail, and won dismissals and acquittals.

You?

kermit315
January 18, 2009, 02:32 AM
no, thats not for the second amendment,that is what you do for your clients. just because you use the second amendment, doesnt mean you are protecting it.

so, who is being bought again?

Duke of Doubt
January 18, 2009, 02:36 AM
froggy: "no, thats not for the second amendment,that is what you do for your clients. just because you use the second amendment, doesnt mean you are protecting it."

Oh, that's hilarious. Because I do it for pay, it doesn't count.

Right.

Again, what do YOU do day to day for the Second Amendment, Scooter?

kermit315
January 18, 2009, 02:40 AM
I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I didnt ask how you use the 2nd amendment, I asked what you DO for it, so what is that? And you never answered my question about whom is being bought.

Duke of Doubt
January 18, 2009, 02:42 AM
I answered it. I defend people accused of gun crimes.

You didn't answer my counter-question. What do YOU do for the Second Amendment on a daily basis, kiddo?

I'm guessing a big goose egg on this one.

kermit315
January 18, 2009, 02:47 AM
no, you didnt answer it, you dodged it.

How have you done anything FOR the 2nd amendment? I dont care how you USE the 2nd amendment to get your clients off.

I joined the Military, and take my oath very seriously. I am an active member of the NRA, and do alot of UOC campaigning in my area.

Along with other residents of California, we have gotten AR15's and AK clones back into the hands of Californians across the state, are working to nullify the handgun safety list, and are working on LOC with shall issue CCW right behind that. I will probably be out of California before that happens, but I wont stop helping them achieve their goals, because they should be common goals of all gun owners.

persing
January 18, 2009, 02:48 AM
I vote pro gun here, but there are so many illegal aliens here in CA who get home loans from freddie and fanny. They vote anti gun as well as all the Big City Idiots.
I will keep mine, and watch, if you think you live in a safe state, you have drastically fooled your intelligence. We have a gone back in time, to the beginning, ammo goes first.

Kirk
The unfortunate biggoted state and I cant blame you.

Duke of Doubt
January 18, 2009, 02:52 AM
Froggy, it sounds like you're merely USING the Second Amendment to satisfy your own vanity.

Shame on you.

Meanwhile, guys like me heroically free people accused of gun crimes. Sometimes (though far from always) pro bono. But you see us as "using" the Second Amendment.

Bwah hah ha.

kermit315
January 18, 2009, 02:54 AM
whatever you have to tell yourself at night, thats your problem.

so, who is being bought again? those people that cant afford to move?

Duke of Doubt
January 18, 2009, 02:56 AM
Anyone can afford to move. Price of a bus ticket. Hauling all their stuff into temporary local storage is cheap, too.

kermit315
January 18, 2009, 02:59 AM
ok, like I said, whatever you need to tell yourself. Everything isnt always as black and white as you seem to think it is. And even if that was the case, are you saying the correct answer is to cut and run? I know that is what you did, but do you really view that as a victory, or a retreat to a safe area?

Auburn1992
January 18, 2009, 03:03 AM
Well yes of course. If we didn't we'd be letting the anti's get what they want.

I could not see this helping us in any way.

BHP FAN
January 18, 2009, 03:12 AM
I DID NOT vote for Obambi,none of my friends and none of my relatives voted for Obambi.I vote the second ammendment first,last and always.

expvideo
January 18, 2009, 04:38 AM
well, according to you, it doesnt matter anyway, because it isnt your problem. with your attitude, you better hope it never is your problem, because your solution is to cut off the supply of legal arms into your state. that will sure show those anti gunners.

Hey! Something we agree about!

You're right. It's not my problem. I live in a free state, vote for the things that matter to me, actively campaign for the candidates who share my views, teach fence-sitters, write letters to legislators, boycot anti-gun businesses, call in to radio shows, and I have even stood up against police officers to protect my rights. That's right, I've been threatened, detained and even physically assaulted by police officers while open carrying.

You seem very interested in what the free people have done to protect their rights. What have you done?

notorious
January 18, 2009, 07:24 AM
Just wondering, when you defend criminals on these gun crimes, are there any other charges such as... say... robbery attached?

If you get a robber off on the gun enhancement but he is still a robber... I don't see that as much of a 2nd Amendment cause because the 2nd Amendment was not meant for criminals to use in the course of their crimes.

However, if it was like the current CA case where an innocent seller got set up and DOJ went after him for the buyer's violations, then I can definitely see your point.

Just wondering exactly what your 2nd Amendment defense consists of, counselor.

Duke of Doubt
January 18, 2009, 11:22 AM
kermi: "ok, like I said, whatever you need to tell yourself. Everything isnt always as black and white as you seem to think it is. And even if that was the case, are you saying the correct answer is to cut and run? I know that is what you did, but do you really view that as a victory, or a retreat to a safe area?"

No, the correct answer is to keep and bear arms. That means living in a location where that is allowed, and refusing on principal to live in an area where that isn't allowed. "Cutting and running" in this situation means settling for life in an unfree land, just to make a little more gross income. Victory means settling into a free land, and making the most of it, financially and otherwise.

Hey, I know full well that a lot of people were very happy living in Stalin's Russia and Mussolini's Italy. Some of them made a lot of money. They rationalized their choice by telling themselves they were the stay-behinds, working within the system to minimize its abuses and to reform it. They were full of it.

Duke of Doubt
January 18, 2009, 11:28 AM
notorious: "Just wondering, when you defend criminals on these gun crimes, are there any other charges such as... say... robbery attached?"

Usually.

If you get a robber off on the gun enhancement but he is still a robber... I don't see that as much of a 2nd Amendment cause because the 2nd Amendment was not meant for criminals to use in the course of their crimes.

Most gun crimes should not be crimes. Fighting the charge is a legitimate Second Amendment cause. So, arguably, is fighting a collateral charge which will result in a lifetime firearms ban. Incidentally, you do know that Adams, Franklin and others had death warrants out of England, and were convicted (in absentia) of assorted high crimes, right?

However, if it was like the current CA case where an innocent seller got set up and DOJ went after him for the buyer's violations, then I can definitely see your point.

Those cases are exceedingly rare. I don't know which case you mean.
I think I have an idea, and if it's the one I'm thinking of, the seller was VERY far from innocent. But he sure likes to talk publicly about his case. When my clients do that (against my advice), I fire them.

Just wondering exactly what your 2nd Amendment defense consists of, counselor.

Many and various aspects.

Art Eatman
January 18, 2009, 11:36 AM
This backing-and-forthing is pointless...

And too much politics, venting and bashing.

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