California requires that manufacturers sell their guns in other states and nations with microstamping??
S&W and Ruger give up on selling semis in California
- Thread starter Twiki357
- Start date
- Status
California requires that manufacturers sell their guns in other states and nations with microstamping??
I was saying that I hope if they are going to sell in California, they do make a California specific model and leave microstamping and any price increase it would bring out of free America.
Ivy Mike
Member
They are corporations who exist for one reason alone.
Profit.
They don't care about you or your concerns.
medalguy
Member
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.
Ivy Mike
Member
We already give them away to cartels in Mexico.
^^^ what he said. Talk is cheap, actions speak volumes, if you have ideals, they should take president over your business decisions. Unless it will put you out of business, and cost people jobs.
If enough people thought that way, then California would have no alternative other than to give up the ridiculous stand it takes on guns.
All the firearms company's should refuse to sell to any state that refuses it's citizens the rights given to them by our Founding Fathers.
But what one person sees as the right thing to do, another sees as a business opportunity.
If enough people thought that way, then California would have no alternative other than to give up the ridiculous stand it takes on guns.
All the firearms company's should refuse to sell to any state that refuses it's citizens the rights given to them by our Founding Fathers.
But what one person sees as the right thing to do, another sees as a business opportunity.
Going back to the discussion regarding "are LEO exempt from the law?" I'd say the big answer is yes. LEO and Military are not subject to any restrictions on what type of weapons they can purchase, manufacture, or stockpile. The Army can get artillery, machine guns, missiles, bombs, and even weapons we don't want to use for fear of breaking international rules of war.
Meanwhile, citizens have to prove we're innocent to buy a gun, when the fact that we're not in prison should be proof that the government doesn't consider us a danger to society (because if we were, we would be in prison). If we want a full-auto weapon, we have to get special approval and only buy weapons made in a specific time period.
Citizens are absolutely second-class next to LEO/Military when it comes to purchasing firearms. Look at the NY Safe Act. NY legislators forgot to write an LEO exemption into the bill, so they just figured they wouldn't enforce that part of the bill on LEO. This means that not only are government agents given a pass in terms of what's usually written into law, but if a law DOES interfere with the ability for LEO to do their job, the law can be just ignored.
The problem is, like has been said elsewhere, until we get our full second amendment rights back, we will always be second class citizens. Any time I have to do anything other than being a free person with the money for it in order to buy a firearm, the antis win. This is both a win and a loss for CA. It's a win in that it shows our manufacturers are willing to take a stand, and might result in an appeal regarding the law. It's a loss in that if the law stays, it will make it harder for CA residents to exercise their rights.
Meanwhile, citizens have to prove we're innocent to buy a gun, when the fact that we're not in prison should be proof that the government doesn't consider us a danger to society (because if we were, we would be in prison). If we want a full-auto weapon, we have to get special approval and only buy weapons made in a specific time period.
Citizens are absolutely second-class next to LEO/Military when it comes to purchasing firearms. Look at the NY Safe Act. NY legislators forgot to write an LEO exemption into the bill, so they just figured they wouldn't enforce that part of the bill on LEO. This means that not only are government agents given a pass in terms of what's usually written into law, but if a law DOES interfere with the ability for LEO to do their job, the law can be just ignored.
The problem is, like has been said elsewhere, until we get our full second amendment rights back, we will always be second class citizens. Any time I have to do anything other than being a free person with the money for it in order to buy a firearm, the antis win. This is both a win and a loss for CA. It's a win in that it shows our manufacturers are willing to take a stand, and might result in an appeal regarding the law. It's a loss in that if the law stays, it will make it harder for CA residents to exercise their rights.
Everyone who says that these manufacturers should stop selling to LEOs in California simply don't understand how things work. By and large, LEAs do not purchase directly from companies like S&W or Glock. They make their purchases from large distributors, or they make their purchases from local FFLs who are likely making their purchases from the large distributors.
Currently, we can get a number of guns in CA that would otherwise be illegal through the Single Shot Exemption. If manufacturers somehow managed to block their guns from coming to CA FFLs, it would cut us off from those guns.
I appreciate what Mr. Barret did, when he cut of CA LEA. When I move to a freer state I fully intend, as soon as money allows, to purchase one of his fine guns, simply as a thank you. However, as a practical matter, I hope nobody is under the impression that it is now impossible for CA LEA to obtain a .50 BMG, they simply can't purchase it directly.
Currently, we can get a number of guns in CA that would otherwise be illegal through the Single Shot Exemption. If manufacturers somehow managed to block their guns from coming to CA FFLs, it would cut us off from those guns.
I appreciate what Mr. Barret did, when he cut of CA LEA. When I move to a freer state I fully intend, as soon as money allows, to purchase one of his fine guns, simply as a thank you. However, as a practical matter, I hope nobody is under the impression that it is now impossible for CA LEA to obtain a .50 BMG, they simply can't purchase it directly.
No but they will take govt bailouts like Harley. GM etc. so they can make "profit"
At some point a person must take a stand, everyone has a different tolerance level. But at some point you are either in or out. It's dehumanizing to allow certain things to occur in the name of Government Compliance. We did not agree that these "elected" officials had rights that superseded our own. They are supposed to represent "us" not themselves or their elitist parties or subdivisions there of. It is foolish to think that some anti gun beaurocrat can change the course of a society whose very building blocks are being called into question by people with an agenda that would not have lasted 5 minutes with the people who fought and died to protect these very rights.
And are willing to do it again if that time should ever occur.
And are willing to do it again if that time should ever occur.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Does microstamping even exist? I thought it was still a theoretical (read: imaginary) technology like "smart guns" or heat seeking bullets? 
I am also curious what legal authority there is for requiring any safety features on firearms; I'm not aware of any regulation requiring a safety, nor a safe design. Just that a damaged customer could sue if they felt wronged. I know California has gotten away with safety regs for years, I am just curious in what base constitutional (state or federal) authority they are rooted.
"At some point a person must take a stand, everyone has a different tolerance level."
Just be sure we were out voting and marching and demonstrating peacefully to the full extent of our ability, long, long before rebellion became the only option, and we might --might-- be able to claim legitimacy for what you are hinting at. Still won't make the outcome better (or any different), but we wouldn't be hypocrites.
TCB
I am also curious what legal authority there is for requiring any safety features on firearms; I'm not aware of any regulation requiring a safety, nor a safe design. Just that a damaged customer could sue if they felt wronged. I know California has gotten away with safety regs for years, I am just curious in what base constitutional (state or federal) authority they are rooted.
"At some point a person must take a stand, everyone has a different tolerance level."
Just be sure we were out voting and marching and demonstrating peacefully to the full extent of our ability, long, long before rebellion became the only option, and we might --might-- be able to claim legitimacy for what you are hinting at. Still won't make the outcome better (or any different), but we wouldn't be hypocrites.
TCB
the man who is funding my enemy is my enemy, too. 20 million active adults in CA, averaging paying 30k per year to the enemy, in taxes, at least. Average annual US income is like 50k per year, and well over half of it goes to taxes. What a lot of people don't understand, you see, is that property taxes raise rents. There's sales tax. SS is a tax, (15% of every dollar that you make) There's taxes that mean half of the price of gas.
HALF or more of the price of nearly everything else that you buy is tax, because the makers, sellers, transporters have to pay tax. so they pass that cost on to the final consumer, (ie, you). So yes, those 20 million send 600 billion, with a "b" dollars to Big Bro, every year. Ok, half of it stays in their city, county, and state, or their contingent states. but half of it goes to the Feds. and the Feds are the problem, not just CA. Just ask the people who are still going to Federal prison for having marijuana, along with the ones still sitting in prison, having been sentenced to 20 years, for nothing more than pot.
HALF or more of the price of nearly everything else that you buy is tax, because the makers, sellers, transporters have to pay tax. so they pass that cost on to the final consumer, (ie, you). So yes, those 20 million send 600 billion, with a "b" dollars to Big Bro, every year. Ok, half of it stays in their city, county, and state, or their contingent states. but half of it goes to the Feds. and the Feds are the problem, not just CA. Just ask the people who are still going to Federal prison for having marijuana, along with the ones still sitting in prison, having been sentenced to 20 years, for nothing more than pot.
Suppose the gun owners of CA demanded that the new law apply to police guns. Surely, in a police shooting it is necessary to determine if the gun that fired a shot was a police gun or one owned by a criminal. In many cases, that determination could alter the nature of the incident.
Of course, the police would never allow that - they demand exemption from all the laws and rules they enforce on the rest of society. But even trying to eliminate the exception would show how hypocritical the police and the CA government is.
Jim
Of course, the police would never allow that - they demand exemption from all the laws and rules they enforce on the rest of society. But even trying to eliminate the exception would show how hypocritical the police and the CA government is.
Jim
The only relief California gun owners can look forward to is going to come from the courts. Kevin de Leon makes a complete fool of himself and he will be rewarded by being made Senate pro tem. This state is completely off the rails, and any overreach that gets us closer to an advantageous court ruling is a good thing. I hope Glock does let their guns fall of the roster. That way we can challenge the roster itself on 2A grounds.
Similarly, an overreach by the City of Santa Clara might help end the 10-round magazine limit.
Similarly, an overreach by the City of Santa Clara might help end the 10-round magazine limit.
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,713
There. Fixed it for you.
danez71
Member
Yes.. and No.
They care if I buy there products. And they should be seeing this as a business decision in 'long ball' terms.
IOW, they have reaped the rewards of robust sales over several years. And its time to reinvest, otherwise loose sales forever.
The short term loss of sales will not be as painful as loosing CA as a market forever and not as painful as implementing the micro stamping technology forever.
gbran
Member
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.
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.
TwoEyedJack
Member
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.
mgmorden
Member
One wonders if the microstamp would even survive a quick hit from some fine-grit sandpaper. Or a firing pin from a non-stamped gun just bought somewhere else. There certainly aren't any background checks or limitations on buying firing pins.
It seems like this is a lot of trouble CA is going through for a measure that is easily circumvented.
danez71
Member
Nope.
ECVMatt
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,870
California is a complicated situation. I know a lot of people hammer on us our here, but we are good folks too. Many of us can not leave or do not feel that we should be forced to leave a place where we were born.
S&W and Ruger are actually helping the cause. We have a complex, but SLOWLY winning strategy. The more draconian laws the Democrats pass out here, the better chance we have to defeat them. We recently won a preliminary case to eliminate our 10 day wait. I suspect that will go way soon. We already have a case pending about the, "Safety Roster", and with Ruger and S&W pulling out of CA, it only strengthens our case.
We have very carefully selected cases that we feel we can win. While it seems like times could never be worse, we are actually in a pretty good place. We are fighting a war, not a battle, so our outlook is long term.
Please stand with us in our endeavors.
Thanks,
Matt
S&W and Ruger are actually helping the cause. We have a complex, but SLOWLY winning strategy. The more draconian laws the Democrats pass out here, the better chance we have to defeat them. We recently won a preliminary case to eliminate our 10 day wait. I suspect that will go way soon. We already have a case pending about the, "Safety Roster", and with Ruger and S&W pulling out of CA, it only strengthens our case.
We have very carefully selected cases that we feel we can win. While it seems like times could never be worse, we are actually in a pretty good place. We are fighting a war, not a battle, so our outlook is long term.
Please stand with us in our endeavors.
Thanks,
Matt
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?
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?
- Status
Similar threads
