So you want to fight California gun laws?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Firstly, it appears many co's guns are sold to CA LE agencies thru distributors. The recent CHP S&W vs Sig bid scandal seems to indicate they go thru a dealer/ distributor and not Smith directly. (Some other companies might or might not, not sure how prevalent the practice is). There may be some legal issues about a mfgr telling a distributor who its (otherwise lawful) customers may be. Imagine if Ford directed its (independent) dealer base that F150s would only be sold to those with hunting licenses, and if dealers didn't comply they'd get no new supply. There may be something that could be done with warranty support, dunno...


Distributors WILL listen to manufacturers..... the distributors I deal with are scared $hitless of just infringing on the mfr's MAP agreement..... I'm sure something more significant would be listened to and respected, even if just out of fear.

The trick would be getting the mfr's to do this.... the boycott would not have to be the entire CA market, just anything government-related. I've heard rumors (unsubstantiated) that Glock has threatened to void warranties on all of their LE arms if this thing passes and Glock is not granted an exemption.

If it were me I would re-tool to comply and sell only to private citizens.... LE would be on my ineligible list....
 
Publicly-traded companies must act in the fidciary interest of the shareholders.

Ruger, S&W and others can't just be politically-correct-to-gunnies and say "we're not doing biz with Agency X or state Y no matter what". They are not allowed to turn down business that would be at expense of shareholders.

A gun company forcing a distributor to not do biz with another entity (state, agency, etc.) would be attacked so fast it's pitiful.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top