Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Tell the gun-makers - sell to Cali, or sell to the OTHER 49! (Microstamping)

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by Green Lantern, Oct 14, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Green Lantern

    Green Lantern Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,665
    DELETE plz - I just "jambogged!" :(

    Well, the "Governator" proved that his common sense has long since been "Terminated." He signed the Microstamping bill in California.

    Rather than wait and see what kind of stuff hits the fan in 2010, I say we take the PRO-ACTIVE approach right now! Namely, contact ALL gun-makers (esp any that are big sellers to the California gov't) and let them know that you WILL boycott their products if they come out with ANY Cali-approved Microstamping guns!

    Thoughts???

    ETA - when contacting them, it would be wise to point out the numerous flaws in the 'microstamping' system as a crime-control measure.
     
  2. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    My thought is that the gun makers hate this more than you do, it will cost them a fortune.

    I think everyone is pissed off about this but taking it out on a company that is obeying the law makes no sense.

    Should we boycott Bushmaster since they won't sell me a full auto AR?

    Should we boycott Chevrolet since the DOT made them install seatbelts?

    Go after the real cause of this.
     
  3. Green Lantern

    Green Lantern Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,665
    It WON'T cost the gun makers a fortune if they COLLECTIVELY tell Cali to "shove it" and refuse to do business with them. Then when their cops start needing new handguns, the law gets repealed.

    ....Or, just added with an exemption for .gov guns only.. :(
     
  4. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    First off there is already an exemption for Law Enforcement and second, read what you wrote....

    How you figure not selling as many guns is not going to cost a gun maker money?

    You can guarantee that FN, SIG, and probably Glock will all do this no matter what since the LE market is such a large portion of their revenues.

    So a boycott only hurts the small manufacturers. Not selling any guns into California is a lot bigger monetary loss than any boycott would be.

    Again, we have to go after the REAL cause of this.

    Look, this deal sucks but there's no way a boycott of law abiding companies is going to get this changed.

    If a boycott of someone that didn't even cause it and angry lashing out response is all we can muster over this then the anti's have won anyway.
     
  5. only1asterisk

    only1asterisk member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,412
    That is a silly thing to say. Can you back that with numbers?

    I'm not looking to get it changed. It isn't going to change except to get worse.

    David
     
  6. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    I don't have to. This was tried before on Smith and Wesson after the agreement with Clinton.

    Didn't hurt them really. They are still around, the locks are still in place. Nothing changed. Nothing.
    That boycott didn't do a darn thing and it was all targeted at one specific manufacturer.

    You want to target what will probably be eventually most of the handgun makers in the country.

    There are not enough of us to make an impact in the ways you suggest.

    The motivated, active, 2A shooter is a small portion of an already small portion of the population that shoots and hunts at all.

    All boycotts have done in the past is give people a place to take out their frustrations.

    They start off real strong, then people forget, more and more get passive, then they start buying again and before long the boycott is a faint memory.

    And you think that, even if they would work, a boycott hurting the makers of guns, a shrinking business anyway, doesn't make things worse?
     
  7. BlkHawk73

    BlkHawk73 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,365
    Location:
    Maine
    Seems the one's upset the most ae those in CA. If it effects them so stronly that they feel the need to call in the rest of the country for thier cause in boycotting any companies that manufacture CA-approved micro-stamped model then maybe they should have the same enthusiasm in simply leaving that state. Oh but I live here. My job's here, my family is here, etc... Can't have your cake and eat it too. if you feel so strong about it...leave!
     
  8. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    Oh I'm in Texas and I am way passed pissed about this.

    I'd do anything that I thought would help with this mess because I do believe that the gun makers will eventually have to make some models with microstamping in order to stay in business.

    You can bet that NJ, IL, and maybe a couple of others will fall in line now that it's happened once.

    I just think we have to be real careful with our response.

    We might be able to pull one big push together to make a difference, but we have to make sure it's the right push and will be effective.

    This will effect everyone on some level.
     
  9. Green Lantern

    Green Lantern Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,665
    DOH.....:banghead:

    Well.....if you got a "Plan B" for someone that does not actually have a ballot to cast in that state, now would be a good time to tell us! :(
     
  10. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    I wish I knew right now, I just don't think a boycott will do much good. It did squat for us over the Smith and Wesson thing and I don't have confidence it would do any better here.

    It's depressing.
     
  11. only1asterisk

    only1asterisk member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,412
    Of course it hurt them. Thousands of guns that would have been sold weren't. I would have bought no less than 6.

    It didn't break the company, but they lost enough sales to notice. Look at their financials from the period. The owners had to sell the company. In the end they made a cost/benefit analysis. They looked at their investment and made the decision to ride it out. They judged most gunowners right and profited.

    We are fools to let that happen again. If we support gun makers that will bow to a single state government (and make us pay extra for it) we are done.

    David
     
  12. Crunker1337

    Crunker1337 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,168
    I will not purchase firearms from a company that sells non-microstamping pistols to California LE. If a company wants to make microstamping pistols, that's their decision, but I'm not going to give them money if they treat LE as a ruling class.

    On a similar note, should we boycott Class III gun-dealers that sell post-86 machineguns to LE?
     
  13. Smurfslayer

    Smurfslayer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,296
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
    Crunker,

    That's exactly the right idea. Make their LE abide by the same rules their citizens have to, no exceptions. DOD has a legit need for machine guns, LE has the presumption of innocence to deal with.

    Let's ZUMBO them.
     
  14. kludge

    kludge Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,634
    Location:
    Indiana
    Why would we want to stick it to the gun makers?

    Isn't this the fault of the politicians/voters?
     
  15. mordechaianiliewicz

    mordechaianiliewicz Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,718
    Location:
    Western Missouri
    This sounds silly but what needs to be done, is for Cali gun owners to declare they will leave California. They should start sending in letters, to their state reps and the governor's office, explaining why, then stating approximately how much they make, and why the state of California doesn't deserve their taxes. Then, say which state you are moving to.

    Vote with your feet if you live in Cali, and you own guns. (Granted, you should have left a while back)
     
  16. only1asterisk

    only1asterisk member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,412
    Who wants to stick it to gunmakers? All needs to happen is for us to remind them that their future as gunmakers depends on having us as customers. It is in the best interests of both gunmakers and gunbuyers to fight gun control together. I'd rather buy guns from companys that were investing in the future of the RKBA (and their own best customers) than taking advantage of a bad law to make a little short term profit.



    David
     
  17. Blackbeard

    Blackbeard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,722
    Location:
    Behind the Daley Curtain (IL)
    Since non-mircrostamping firearms are added to the definition of "unsafe guns" in **********, are they saying that the cops get to use unsafe guns in their official duties?
     
  18. Hawk

    Hawk Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,512
    Location:
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Anybody besides me wondering how this microstamping stuff managed to push biometric personalization smooth off our collective radar?

    It's not like NJIT hasn't been busily beavering away using taxpayer dollars. They've produced some lovely prototypes.

    An interesting alternative to the observation that no manufacturers were working on the technology for NJ - just throw public funds at the issue. I guess California could do likewise if the manufacturers drag their feet.

    Anybody besides me starting to wonder if our priorities are getting skewed or is it simply more likely that CA stuff will metastasize into the flyover states more quickly than NJ stuff? I'd concede that's not altogether implausible.

    Or is it perhaps that biometric personalization is simply seen as a relative "good thing" in comparison to microstamping?
     
  19. The Wiry Irishman

    The Wiry Irishman Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,178
    Location:
    West Lafayette, Indiana
    How about pressuring gun companies to sell only one model gun in California - make CA LE pay the same inflated micro stamping price as its citizens.
     
  20. Geno
    • Contributing Member

    Geno Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    15,034
    The problem is this...the companies cannot afford to have two standards, two models...stamped and traditional. They will make all autoloaders stamped. Either we fight this fight at all levels, and defeat it, or all autoloaders will have the stamped whatever piece.

    I seriously doubt Glock would turn its back on the American handgunner to keep their LEO contracts. But, in the event that they would, I would not want their pistols either.

    JMHO
     
  21. Grey54956

    Grey54956 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    632
    Location:
    IN
    I think the best way to deal with this is to require law enforcement to adhere to the safe definitions of "unsafe handguns" as the rest of CA's citizenry. We do not want police and state officials to be using or buying unsafe handguns. Likewise, any and all AW bans, magazine limitations, and so on should also apply to civilian law enforcement agencies in CA. These are not military organizations, so they shouldn't need full cap magazines or Evil Black Rifles.

    The NRA and gun manufacturers should be pushing for legislation to this end, using the same justification as was used to push microstamping: public safety. Force the police organizations and CA gov't into a corner and say that these weapons are necessary for the safety of the officers and community, due to their safety, efficiency, and efficacy. Once they've said it, introduce legislation to turn back the clock.
     
  22. Hawk

    Hawk Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,512
    Location:
    Grand Prairie, TX
    I'm in an uncharacteristically cynical mood so I'll offer the observation that California shooters will, for the most part, suck it up and adapt. It'll be forgotten in two years.

    California might listen if there was negative financial impact - not likely but they might. However, they've learned that gunnies make empty threats and don't follow through.

    Allow me to take us back to August of 2004, AB-50, where we find this:

    OK, fast forward to October of 2007, we check EDM's contact info and find:

    I'm sure Ritchie is a great guy and honorable businessman but the one threat of actually causing economic harm associated with AB-50 and what materializes? Nothing.
    No unemployment.
    No loss of business to a "wide range of vendors in our area".
    No empty building.
    Nothing.

    Why is he still there?

    Sorry guys, I just stumbled across the receipt where I sent 500.00 of my money to help fight California's AB-50 issue, due in no small part to Bill Ritchie's principled stand. I checked to see where he relocated the business and the net result is a mini-rant.

    But seriously, why would anybody believe him or someone in a similar position again? It was empty chest thumping. Unless of course the California address is a DBA for an out of state business, then I will be pleased to have a heapin' helpin' of crow.
     
  23. Nix

    Nix Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    118
    lol you guys dont get it... this is there way to stop gun production... the gun makers are not going to want to microstamp (a lot more money) so they will only make LE weapons in california now... heh... chalk one up for "the man"
     
  24. frogomatic

    frogomatic Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    522
    I have mixed feelings on this idea. I want to take action against this stupid bill, but at the same time, I don't want take a particular action just for the sake of taking action. We shouldn't punish gunmakers for what the politician's have done anymore than the politicians should take away our guns because of what a few criminals have done.
     
  25. Crunker1337

    Crunker1337 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,168
    Yes, we should punish gunmakers for going out of their way to please the insatiable desires of anti civil-rights activists. I do not tolerate that kind of crap and I won't support any entity that does.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page