S&W and Ruger give up on selling semis in California

Status
Not open for further replies.
This may be a dumb question but what's the big deal with microstamping? I'm not advocating ANY new gun regs but is microstamping really a big deal? Are there real facts that say it'll help with crime?
Click to expand...

I'll agree with 'Nope', but let me offer why.

Let us suppose for discussion that the technology works; I think that is false-to-fact, but go with it.

This applies only in California. It applies only to semi-automatic handguns - revolvers, and all long guns are exempt.

It applies only to semiautomatic handguns sold after May 17, 2013, and only to those which were placed on California's Roster after that time, that actually have the microstamping. (People keep asking 'Except LEOs?' - yes; LE are exempt from the Roster limitation, so microstamping and such are not a concern for them as the law is in 2014.)

Here is the CA DOJ publication on guns run through DROS.

CA has required dealers to report handgun sales since 1923; this data starts with 1972. In 1991, substantially all gun sales were required to run through CA FFLs - no more 'face to face' sales.

Let us assume that these figures indicate a new gun every time (that is also false-to fact, but there is no way to separate sales from dealers - 'new' guns - from sales from one person to another, with no net change in the number of guns).

Before 1991, there were 3.6 million handgun transactions reported through DROS.

1991 through 2011, about another 9 million guns were sold - none of which have microstamping.

So, we have a pool of about 12 million guns that have run through DROS. There are also guns moved into the state, transferred among family members, inherited - and whatever guns in the state that have not been transferred at all through a CA FFL, including some unknown number of transfers that violate CA's 'use an FFL' law.

And, for now, guns already on the Roster may still be sold and need not have microstamping.

Given millions of guns without microstamping, what is the likelihood that one of the as-yet-non-existent semiautomatic handguns would be used in a crime, not actually recovered at the scene, leaving behind a micro-stamped casing which even could be used as the start of an investigation?

And then we try coming back to reality, where we have questions on the actual effectiveness of case marking, the likelihood of 'abrasive therapy' to defeat the marks, and the consequences of using stolen guns to break the 'chain of ownership' which might be used for investigation.

And I personally sent that information, by mail, to a large portion of the Legislature when that bill was being considered.
 
I see an upside to this for the rest of us.

California has been forcing their rules on other states due to the practical aspects of mass production. It is expensive to make something just for CA so just make the CA approved part and sell it in Texas also.

Why should I in Texas have to have CA compliant doo-dads added to my guns? Well fortunately S&W and Ruger have said no Pete, you don't need to buy CA approved stuff added on your guns so we just won't sell our new stuff there.

I say Hats off to S&W and Ruger for doing so. I hope the rest of the industry does the same and frees the other 49 states from the tyranny of California over the rest of US! Look at what they are trying to do to Lead, look under the hood of your car someday and ask how much of that stuff is due to California?
 
They are corporations who exist for one reason alone.
Profit.

They don't care about you or your concerns.
Click to expand...

Spoken in the true colors of what you've recently admitted to being. You sound like Tim Robbins. :rolleyes:

Yes, bottom line is all important to any company. To equate that with not caring about their customers is, however, very naive (to put it nicely). PR is a very important aspect of sales, and in the case of gunmakers, the PR moves often go beyond just being PR, actually speak to the values held by ownership/management (case in point, Ronnie Barrett, among others). Owners of firearms companies that are the founders or descendants of founders tend to be strongly pro-2A from a personal standpoint.

Magpul could have remained in CO; the legislators pandered to them with an "export" manufacturing exception. But Rich, Doug & Mike stood fast, and spent millions making a statement. He didn't have to, and it really wasn't in his company's best interest financially-at least not short term. He could have said nothing, continued with the planned expansion in this state, and I doubt more than a tiny handful of people would have boycotted. But he did stand up, and he did follow through.

Still wanna maintain that the "greedy corporations only care about profit"? I can keep going with countless examples, if you wanna have this out...
 
Did anybody else notice how the article says microstamping is patented? That means for every single handgun sold in CA under this law, the company that owns the patent will get a paycheck. I'd be surprised if none of the legislators have an investment in that company.
 
Librarian said:
I'll agree with 'Nope', but let me offer why.

Let us suppose for discussion that the technology works; I think that is false-to-fact, but go with it.

This applies only in California. It applies only to semi-automatic handguns - revolvers, and all long guns are exempt.

It applies only to semiautomatic handguns sold after May 17, 2013, and only to those which were placed on California's Roster after that time, that actually have the microstamping. (People keep asking 'Except LEOs?' - yes; LE are exempt from the Roster limitation, so microstamping and such are not a concern for them as the law is in 2014.)

Here is the CA DOJ publication on guns run through DROS.

CA has required dealers to report handgun sales since 1923; this data starts with 1972. In 1991, substantially all gun sales were required to run through CA FFLs - no more 'face to face' sales.

Let us assume that these figures indicate a new gun every time (that is also false-to fact, but there is no way to separate sales from dealers - 'new' guns - from sales from one person to another, with no net change in the number of guns).

Before 1991, there were 3.6 million handgun transactions reported through DROS.

1991 through 2011, about another 9 million guns were sold - none of which have microstamping.

So, we have a pool of about 12 million guns that have run through DROS. There are also guns moved into the state, transferred among family members, inherited - and whatever guns in the state that have not been transferred at all through a CA FFL, including some unknown number of transfers that violate CA's 'use an FFL' law.

And, for now, guns already on the Roster may still be sold and need not have microstamping.

Given millions of guns without microstamping, what is the likelihood that one of the as-yet-non-existent semiautomatic handguns would be used in a crime, not actually recovered at the scene, leaving behind a micro-stamped casing which even could be used as the start of an investigation?

And then we try coming back to reality, where we have questions on the actual effectiveness of case marking, the likelihood of 'abrasive therapy' to defeat the marks, and the consequences of using stolen guns to break the 'chain of ownership' which might be used for investigation.

And I personally sent that information, by mail, to a large portion of the Legislature when that bill was being considered.
Click to expand...
As a "case example" ... New York State has spent over 20 years and many many Million$ of tax payer dollars tracking "shell casings" .... and has yet to have A SINGLE HIT during any criminal investigation.
 
weissensteinburg said:
Did anybody else notice how the article says microstamping is patented? That means for every single handgun sold in CA under this law, the company that owns the patent will get a paycheck. I'd be surprised if none of the legislators have an investment in that company.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't. Members of Congress have been doing "insider trading" for decades. And it's been perfectly legal.
 
medalguy said:
What happens when a LEO vehicle or a range house is broken into and an unstamped firearm is stolen? We know that never happens. LEOs should come under the same laws as the rest of us peasants.
Click to expand...


I agree. But the minute guns are manufactured and sold with a stamp imprinted on the firing pin, there will become a black market for replacement firing pins(that's only if the guns in CA. take a different type than those sold outside the state), and there will be countless numbers of youtube videos showing folks how to file the stamp off. Sure it will be against the law to possess an altered restricted gun.......like criminals care about breaking the law.

That, and the first thing most folks will do when they buy a microstamp gun is to report it stolen.
 
MachIVshooter said:
Spoken in the true colors of what you've recently admitted to being. You sound like Tim Robbins. :rolleyes:

Yes, bottom line is all important to any company. To equate that with not caring about their customers is, however, very naive (to put it nicely). PR is a very important aspect of sales, and in the case of gunmakers, the PR moves often go beyond just being PR, actually speak to the values held by ownership/management (case in point, Ronnie Barrett, among others). Owners of firearms companies that are the founders or descendants of founders tend to be strongly pro-2A from a personal standpoint.

Magpul could have remained in CO; the legislators pandered to them with an "export" manufacturing exception. But Rich, Doug & Mike stood fast, and spent millions making a statement. He didn't have to, and it really wasn't in his company's best interest financially-at least not short term. He could have said nothing, continued with the planned expansion in this state, and I doubt more than a tiny handful of people would have boycotted. But he did stand up, and he did follow through.

Still wanna maintain that the "greedy corporations only care about profit"? I can keep going with countless examples, if you wanna have this out...
Click to expand...
MagPul had earned my respect by putting their business at risk with a massive facility move like they did. But they honored their promise to Gov. Hickenlooper that they would move out of Colorado if the draconian anti-gun laws passed there.

Hopefully Gov. Hickenlooper has a plan in place to offset the lost tax revenue from MagPul as well as the lost jobs. I don't think taxes collected from the legalized dope sales will cover it.
 
hovercat said:
Given me limited understanding of this, someone please correct me if I am wrong. The gun mfg cannot just machine a little mark on the pin and chamber wall. They would have to use, under a no doubt expensive license, one of only 2 approved proprietary processes.
Given that expense, and the record keeping involved, I cannot blame them for pulling out. I would also be thinking of the long term liabilities. CA might require that the manufacturer replace microstamping parts that no longer stamp. Can you imagine Ruger having to replace thousands of barrels (or re-microstamp them) because the stamping does not last?
Click to expand...


The patent is expired.

As to the few posts above this one.... the patent is expired and therefore there is no money trail to follow.

Sorry guys. This isn't about greedy politician and money .... its ONLY about control. ;)



ETA: Thanks Librarian for your explanation/input.
 
SharpsDressedMan said:
I'd be more impressed if they quit selling to CA law enforcement also.
Click to expand...
We've adopted the position that we will not sell any products to LE that cannot be possessed by the citizens in their state.

We've lost some sales as a result, but our primary customer base is the average everyday citizen and it makes no sense to us to sell an item to a LE officer that their neighbor cannot possess legally.
 
Hopefully Gov. Hickenlooper has a plan in place to offset the lost tax revenue from MagPul as well as the lost jobs. I don't think taxes collected from the legalized dope sales will cover it.
Click to expand...

He does not, and the marijuana thing is an absolute joke. It's currently costing the taxpayers quite a bit of money to fund an ill-conceived and hastily contrived "pot bureau" that has, thus far, failed miserably in every regard.

Chickengoober is finished, he knew it the minute he signed those bills.
 
gbran said:
The intent of the microstamping law was never about promoting or requiring microstamping. The intent was always to make it prohibitive to manufacture SA handguns and offer them in CA. S&W and Ruger are just the first to throw in the towel. All the rest will follow and there will be no new SA handguns in CA.

Next it will be expanded to SA long guns. Gun grabbers around the country will salivate at this HUGE win and most other anti-gun states will follow suit.

Wipe out all SA firearms without ever passing a law banning them. The anti's will be orgasmic over this.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Also look at the history of failed useless and wasteful laws.
The old laws requiring a signature for ammo in NJ
Never solved a crime
So many more just to inconvenience,delay , harass and intimidate folks. Plus compile list for future confiscation.
Adolph did it and now our Fuher follows the plan which worked.
 
TwoEyedJack said:
One wonders if the evidence from a microstamped casing would even be admissible in court, given that after the gun leaves the manufacturer, it goes to unsecured facilities in distribution and retail. Major problems with chain of custody between the manufacturer and customer.
Click to expand...

NOT LEGAL ADVICE:

Irrelevant to the stated purposes of microstamping. The point is not to tie a casing found at a crime scene to a gun manufacturer. The point is to tie it to a particular gun. There are technical problems with it, but the route of the gun from the manufacturer to the shooter is immaterial.

People use the term "chain of custody" a lot. There is a lot of misunderstanding about it. The concept of "chain of custody" is related entirely to demonstrating that a piece of evidence (a spent casing, a rock of crack cocaine, a human blood sample) collected from the real world (a crime scene, a medical examine, a police search) is the same piece of evidence that is being introduced into evidence in court. IOW, if you're talking about a simple drug possession case, the chain of custody would show that the same ziploc bag of weed had passed from the arresting officer to the testing lab and then to the person handling it for the prosecution (maybe with 2-10 more steps along the way). And then the prosecution can use that chain of custody to prove that the bag of weed being used as evidence in court is not some random bag of weed, but actually the same bag of weed taken from the defendant.

The only way "chain of custody" would matter to microstamping is that, when the police find a spent casing at a crime scene, they will need to track the custody of it. And then when they seize a gun from the defendant, they will need to track custody of it. When the forensics folks determine a match between the casing and the microstamping element of the (I'm not saying any of this is realistic, just playing out how microstamping would theoretically be used), then the prosecutor can show that the casing really did come from the crime scene and the gun really did come from the glove box of the defendant. That's all.

Make sense?
 
MachIVshooter said:
Spoken in the true colors of what you've recently admitted to being. You sound like Tim Robbins. :rolleyes:

Yes, bottom line is all important to any company. To equate that with not caring about their customers is, however, very naive (to put it nicely). PR is a very important aspect of sales, and in the case of gunmakers, the PR moves often go beyond just being PR, actually speak to the values held by ownership/management (case in point, Ronnie Barrett, among others). Owners of firearms companies that are the founders or descendants of founders tend to be strongly pro-2A from a personal standpoint.

Magpul could have remained in CO; the legislators pandered to them with an "export" manufacturing exception. But Rich, Doug & Mike stood fast, and spent millions making a statement. He didn't have to, and it really wasn't in his company's best interest financially-at least not short term. He could have said nothing, continued with the planned expansion in this state, and I doubt more than a tiny handful of people would have boycotted. But he did stand up, and he did follow through.

Still wanna maintain that the "greedy corporations only care about profit"? I can keep going with countless examples, if you wanna have this out...
Click to expand...
A liberal? A very left leaning anarchist? Not really much of a secret, especially since I post my signature in every post. Thats kind of like saying the president recently admitted being married to a black woman. Not exactly a shocking revelation.

I didn't say gun makers didn't care about customers, I said they didn't care about your concerns. If you think Smith and Wesson is concerned about the M&P you might buy from them once every few years, you are sadly mistaken. They care about their customers, the customers that buy lots of guns. When I was at SHOT show this year (last year two years too) S&W had one of the largest booths in the exhibit hall and having seen what they paid for much of it (I work for the Sands Expo) in services, I can promise you that government contracts are their bread and butter. S&W and Ruger care very much about those customers.

Ronnie Barrett may have made a statement but I can tell you exactly what he would be without selling millions of dollars of weapons and parts and service to government contracts.
Unemployed.

Ruger didn't think twice about selling us all out leading up to the assault weapons ban. They flat out said people didn't need high capacity magazines. They didn't equip their weapons with them before the AWB even took effect.

If you want to pretend that they have your 2nd amendment rights at heart, go ahead and think that. Just remember they will have no trouble selling a mountain of guns to the same government willing to strip you of your rights at a moments notice. Just ask FN to stop selling machine guns to the US Military unless congress agrees to repeal the NFA. See how far you get.
 
ATLDave said:
NOT LEGAL ADVICE:

Irrelevant to the stated purposes of microstamping. The point is not to tie a casing found at a crime scene to a gun manufacturer. The point is to tie it to a particular gun. There are technical problems with it, but the route of the gun from the manufacturer to the shooter is immaterial.

People use the term "chain of custody" a lot. There is a lot of misunderstanding about it. The concept of "chain of custody" is related entirely to demonstrating that a piece of evidence (a spent casing, a rock of crack cocaine, a human blood sample) collected from the real world (a crime scene, a medical examine, a police search) is the same piece of evidence that is being introduced into evidence in court. IOW, if you're talking about a simple drug possession case, the chain of custody would show that the same ziploc bag of weed had passed from the arresting officer to the testing lab and then to the person handling it for the prosecution (maybe with 2-10 more steps along the way). And then the prosecution can use that chain of custody to prove that the bag of weed being used as evidence in court is not some random bag of weed, but actually the same bag of weed taken from the defendant.

The only way "chain of custody" would matter to microstamping is that, when the police find a spent casing at a crime scene, they will need to track the custody of it. And then when they seize a gun from the defendant, they will need to track custody of it. When the forensics folks determine a match between the casing and the microstamping element of the (I'm not saying any of this is realistic, just playing out how microstamping would theoretically be used), then the prosecutor can show that the casing really did come from the crime scene and the gun really did come from the glove box of the defendant. That's all.

Make sense?
Click to expand...
More to the point, a spent shell casing will not lead directly to a prosecution, without testing of the firearm first. IOW, they aren't going to hold up a spent casing and say, look, this serial number is the same one as the one on this DROS form registered to this guy, convict, it's going to be, look, this serial number is the same one as the one on this DROS form registered to this guy, give us a warrant to investigate further.
 
Clean97GTI said:
They care about their customers, the customers that buy lots of guns. When I was at SHOT show this year (last year two years too) S&W had one of the largest booths in the exhibit hall and having seen what they paid for much of it (I work for the Sands Expo) in services, I can promise you that government contracts are their bread and butter. S&W and Ruger care very much about those customers.
Click to expand...

Do you have even a tiny bit of evidence to support that statement?

When was the last time Ruger won a sizable government contract?

S&W got the LA Sheriffs dept contract in 2013. They are the worlds largest Sheriffs Dept and the 2nd largest policing agency. They have 13k employees/officers that get issued guns but the press release didn't say how many or how much the contract was for. I know for a fact that all 13k wont be getting a new gun.

Their sales in 2013 were almost $140 million.

In 2012 their press releases indicate they got 3 LEA contracts for a total of 1177 pistols.

Its not like the Govt is buying new guns for all of their employees every year.

The gun mfg'rs go after to LEA contracts as a marketing tool to convince us they firearms are great. Its even been cited in books in regards to Glock.


S&W and Ruger's bread and bitter comes from consumer sales, not Govt sale.
 
Last edited:
danez71 said:
Do you have even a tiny bit of evidence to support that statement?

When was the last time Ruger won a sizable government contract?

S&W got the LA Sheriffs dept contract in 2013. They are the worlds largest Sheriffs Dept and the 2nd largest policing agency. They have 13k employees/officers that get issued guns but the press release didn't say how many or how much the contract was for. I know for a fact that all 13k wont be getting a new gun.

Their sales in 2013 were almost $140 million.

In 2012 their press releases indicate they got 3 LEA contracts for a total of 1177 pistols.

Its not like the Govt is buying new guns for all of their employees every year.

The gun mfg'rs go after to LEA contracts as a marketing tool to convince us they firearms are great. Its even been cited in books in regards to Glock.


S&W and Ruger's bread and bitter comes from consumer sales, not Govt sale.
Click to expand...
It isn't just the new guns. It's parts and service after the fact. Huge portions of the S&W website are dedicated to the LE and Military departments of these companies. S&W doesn't thrive off single gun sales. They sell to other distributors who then push the guns out to the rest of us and in large numbers to LEA and Mil/Gov sales.

Ruger sold something like 5000 guns to the US Army for distribution in Iraq.
 
Clean97GTI said:
...I didn't say gun makers didn't care about customers, I said they didn't care about your concerns. If you think Smith and Wesson is concerned about the M&P you might buy from them once every few years, you are sadly mistaken. They care about their customers, the customers that buy lots of guns. When I was at SHOT show this year (last year two years too) S&W had one of the largest booths in the exhibit hall and having seen what they paid for much of it (I work for the Sands Expo) in services, I can promise you that government contracts are their bread and butter. S&W and Ruger care very much about those customers.

Ronnie Barrett may have made a statement but I can tell you exactly what he would be without selling millions of dollars of weapons and parts and service to government contracts.
Unemployed.
...
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you in that the government sales, directly or indirectly, are of large importance to the larger firearm companies. Historically S&W and Colt's had the majority of the market, and then when autoloaders came common, the market share slid down. It would be important for at least S&W to try to reclaim part of this if it is possible for them financially, as it is known to assist drive retail sales.

As to the one company you mentioned making a statement. These companies cant have it both ways. I forget the name of the place that has the border patrol shotgun contract, but they made a statement similar about not selling to California, but yet they evidently keep selling to the feds, which last I checked, border patrol worked California as well. Plus there is the surplus property distribution system, so by selling to the feds, the gun may later be transferred to a state or local agency in a restricted state. I also didn't see the same companies stop selling to the feds during the 94 AWB either. Where were they then? Don't want to sell to LE in ban states? Cut the feds and military off as well.
 
Clean97GTI said:
It isn't just the new guns. It's parts and service after the fact. Huge portions of the S&W website are dedicated to the LE and Military departments of these companies. S&W doesn't thrive off single gun sales. They sell to other distributors who then push the guns out to the rest of us and in large numbers to LEA and Mil/Gov sales.

Ruger sold something like 5000 guns to the US Army for distribution in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Well of course they don't... they cant sell single guns to people. They have to sell through distributors.

Ruger sold 5000 to the Army for Iraq....???.... And how may 100's of thousands of LCPs have been sold? And that's just one pistol.

I think Ruger produced about 2.5 millions guns last year or in 2012.

A 5k unit sale to the Army barley registers on the sales reports.


If you think the portion of a web site is proportional to who is opening their wallets.... you must think that kids ages 5-12 are the ones actually paying for Disneys products based on their website.


Private citizen buyers are the bread and butter for the entire economy; including regular firearms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
S&W / Ruger And CALIF Micro Stamping
Replies
4
Views
468
thefish
T
T
  • Locked
Supreme Court gives Mayor Bloomberg the brush off.
Replies
10
Views
1K
Old Fuff
O
H.m.B
  • Locked
I just don't get it
2 3 4 5
Replies
111
Views
5K
bikerdoc
bikerdoc
M
  • Locked
Smith & Wesson sales jumps 40 percent in quarter
Replies
3
Views
1K
berettaprofessor
berettaprofessor
Reloadron
  • Locked
Smith & Wesson misfires on Wall Street
Replies
18
Views
2K
jakk280rem
J
Back
Top