Smith & Wesson, Ruger no longer submitting guns for approval to CA

[North East Redneck]

Theohazard- you may be right. I don't know that much about California. But here in MA, it appears that no matter how active proponents of RKBA are, we are overwhelmed by antis. The numbers simply defeat us. The vast majority of residents do not own guns. And many are not motivated to vote pro gun because of other liberal issues that take precedence over RKBA. I hope Cali is different.

 

[Technosavant]

That seems like it means any gun already listed on the roster can be kept on the roster without microstamping.

IIRC, though, I understand that California was expecting there to be NO changes at all to the guns. Not one thing on them can change. Maybe that's an incorrect understanding, but CA also lists mere differences in finish or grips as different models requiring separate certification.

You change the extractor, time to recertify, and WHAM- microstamping.


And I don't think you're being rude at all... I think this one is largely a judgment call. I see both sides as having valid points. Ultimately, though, it's up to a company to decide what to do. I imagine somebody will still sell semiautos in California. Wheelguns will remain available too. But the decision for things to be the way they are finally sits with the voters in the state. Even though firearm aficionados may be horribly outnumbered, they still suffer. I feel bad for them, but at some point manufacturers are likely to say "ENOUGH!" when regulation is slapped on top of regulation.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

IIRC, though, I understand that California was expecting there to be NO changes at all to the guns. Not one thing on them can change. Maybe that's an incorrect understanding, but CA also lists mere differences in finish or grips as different models requiring separate certification.

You change the extractor, time to recertify, and WHAM- microstamping.

True, and that includes COLOR.

 

[SHE3PDOG]

Theohazard, your logic assumes that it is gun owners who brought this upon themselves. According to the US Census Bureau, a mere 21.3% of CA's population are gun owners.

I was going to put something in here about the percentage of voters voting for politicians in here, but I realize that gun owners often transcend political boundaries, so I don't think it would be of much benefit.

Anyways, 21.3% certainly does not reflect a majority of the population. If you live in a military area like San Diego, you may think those numbers are way off, but the vast majority of military members aren't residents of the state in which they are stationed (like me). That means they aren't voting there. 21.3% of the population very well may have been voting for the "right" politicians, but that is not enough to overturn an extremely anti opposition.

So, I'm honestly not sure if this is going to help. There may legitimately be nothing that CA gun owners can do about this. They will simply be stripped of their rights. Courts cases may be the only way out, and I'm not sure how well those would work.

 

[SHE3PDOG]

IIRC, though, I understand that California was expecting there to be NO changes at all to the guns. Not one thing on them can change. Maybe that's an incorrect understanding, but CA also lists mere differences in finish or grips as different models requiring separate certification.

You change the extractor, time to recertify, and WHAM- microstamping.

Unfortunately, that part is true. I'm not sure if it could be something as simple as an extractor, but maybe. For instance, gen 4 Glocks are not available here, even though Gen 3 Glocks are.

 

[44 AMP]

When CA banned .50 cal rifles for mere civilians, Barrett not only stopped sales to CA govt agencies, he stopped service to any guns they already owned, AND (bless his heart) said so in his ads and why!

why is refusing to sell better than compliance?

Its a tightrope, the old rotten jungle bridge, and something else besides that the gun makers must walk daily. To stay in business you have to sell guns. BUT, when various localities (states in this case) pass laws that forbid the sale of your existing product, what do you do? Accept the loss of revenue, or make something that they will allow to be sold, and take what profit you can?

As I understand it, S&W and Ruger aren't refusing to sell the regular wares in CA (which now CA will not allow?) but are refusing to make a "CA compliant" product, that the CA govt will approve for sale there. Have I got that right?

If so, bully for them. I think its better to refuse to comply, even though good people will suffer. Sadly, the good people ARE going to suffer, either way. By not pandering to the CA requirements, the hope is that enough people will get motivated enough to change those requirements.

Consider the courage needed to take this stand. Yes, its going to hurt people who don't deserve to be hurt. Yes, its going to make a difference (and likely not a positive one) to the company's bottom line. Yes, a lot of people are going to blame the gun makers, and NOT the idiots in CA who are actually responsible for the laws.

Reason has been tried, and sadly failed. Now, perhaps its time to try something else. Like anger, perhaps?

I don't think a boycott of Ruger or S&W is proper, no matter how much you feel it would show support for our poor CA brethren. The gun makers aren't the reason the people of CA can't buy a certain product.

 

[Theohazard]

Theohazard, your logic assumes that it is gun owners who brought this upon themselves.

Sure, many gun owners helped bring that upon themselves. But they had help from non-gun-owners. And here's the thing, non-gun-owners often are against extreme anti-gun laws; they simply support what they consider "reasonable" gun laws.

There was a Rasmussen poll recently that said 17% of the country supports a ban on handguns. That means that 83% don't support a ban on handguns. But we all know that a lot fewer than 83% of the country owns a handgun; gun ownership in the country has been polled at lower than 50%. So that means that there's a huge number of Americans who don't own a gun but don't support a ban on handguns; they're not gun owners but they're on our side at least on that issue.

When states enact "reasonable" laws that manufacturers won't go along with, they are effectively passing extreme laws that ban large numbers of guns. And middle-of-the-road people -- gun owners and non-gun owners alike -- tend to not like extreme laws.

According to the US Census Bureau, a mere 21.3% of CA's population are gun owners.

21.3% is a huge percentage of voters. If they could all be mobilized to vote against anti-gun politicians, California's gun laws would be changed amazingly fast. And if the gun companies stopped catering to states like CA, it would definitely help mobilize those voters.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

California has always had an attitude that they are not just special, but MORE special than anyone else. The only way to deal with that is to call their bluff. If the law doesn't have a loophole an exemption for law enforcement, pretty soon the police in California won't be able to buy new guns. Then the howling will start.

Back in the 1980s, California got into a urinating contest with the national umbrella association for architectural licensing boards. For those who don't know, architects need a license, just like doctors and lawyers, to practice in each state. A LOOOOONG time ago, the NCARB (the national group) came up with a standardized test that every state used for qualifying applicants for a license. Like a lawyer passing the law boards.

California decided that they are the ONLY state that experiences earthquakes, they are the ONLY state subject to wind, and they are the ONLY state subject to a bunch of other things that happen all over the country and all over the world. So California came up with it's own test to get a license to practice Architecture in California. Fine. But then they demanded that the national board (meaning the other 49 states plus Puerto Rico) recognize the California test as equal to the national test, so that California architects could get licensed in other states.

To California's surprise, the NCARB said, "No." In fact, not just "No" but (not in so many words) "H--- no, and f--- you and the horse you rode in on." California responded by saying, "Okay, then nobody who took the national test can get registered in California."

And there it sat, for a period of maybe eight or ten years. Apparently, there were a LOT more architects in California who wanted/needed to work in other states than there were architects in the other 49 who wanted/needed to work in California, because California caved. First, they backed off and allowed licensed architects in the other states to apply for reciprocal registration in California. Then they worked out a deal with the NCARB whereby California dropped their own test, in exchange for which the NCARB made a minor concession by adding a couple of extra earthquake questions. It was all settled by around 1990.

That's what it takes. The solution to dealing with a bully is to stand up to him. California thinks they are so important that all the firearms manufacturers will roll over and play by California's rigged rules. I sincerely hope that ALL the manufacturers call their bluff.

 

[Theohazard]

That's what it takes. The solution to dealing with a bully is to stand up to him. California thinks they are so important that all the firearms manufacturers will roll over and play by California's rigged rules. I sincerely hope that ALL the manufacturers call their bluff.

Very well said! I think the bully metaphor is a perfect one; the state legislature has been bullying the gun companies and they've been giving in, and as a result the impact on voters has been softened. But if they stop giving in and more voters actually start to wake up and realize what's happening, they could mobilize and start voting against the anti-gun politicians.

 

[Librarian]

IIRC, though, I understand that California was expecting there to be NO changes at all to the guns. Not one thing on them can change. Maybe that's an incorrect understanding, but CA also lists mere differences in finish or grips as different models requiring separate certification.

You change the extractor, time to recertify, and WHAM- microstamping.

Almost - changing the extractor is viewed by the State as creating a new gun.

Guns on the Roster need not be retested, so long as they never change from the guns as submitted for testing. Pay the $200 annual fee for each model, continue to sell that identical gun. (If the state wants, it may retest up to 10% of the guns on the Roster each year.) As noted, there comes a time when separate production lines for CA and the rest of the country are not good business.

There is no question that attrition from the Roster is an intended effect of the law.

The long story is at the Calguns Foundation Wiki -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/The_Safe_Handgun_List

 

[SHE3PDOG]

21.3% is a huge percentage of voters. If they could all be mobilized to vote against anti-gun politicians, California's gun laws would be changed amazingly fast. And if the gun companies stopped catering to states like CA, it would definitely help mobilize those voters.

While it is a huge number of voters, many of them are likely already voting one way or the other based on their desire to protect their 2A rights. So, it isn't like 21.3% more voters would suddenly be rushing to support a 2A proponent.

You're handgun ban statistics are interesting though. To an extent, it proves that it is not only gun owners that care about this stuff. I also found some statistics that may or may not support your theory. It really depends on how you look at it.

According to a Gallup poll (Jan 5-8), gun control is ranked number 11 on the top non-economic issues that people care most about. That means that currently, most people aren't voting for politicians based on their 2A stance. Obviously, this isn't a good thing when it comes to situations like California's, but it does leave A LOT of room for improvement.

Do the non-gun owners sympathetic to the 2A care enough to bump the 2A stance of politicians up on their list when elections come around? I'm assuming that here on a firearms forum, we all own guns, so it is kind of hard to say.

As I understand it, S&W and Ruger aren't refusing to sell the regular wares in CA (which now CA will not allow?) but are refusing to make a "CA compliant" product, that the CA govt will approve for sale there. Have I got that right?

No new guns would be allowed on the roster without adopting the microstamping technology, and it was already widely assumed that no gun company would adopt this. However, guns listed on it already are allowed to stay on it without adopting the microstamping technology.

It is important to note that those guns would not be able to change in any way,including color, for their renewal to still be allowed without microstamping. Ruger has definitely stated that they are allowing their guns to fall off the roster, and S&W is letting its M&P series fall of the roster as well. So, they are not only not adopting the microstamping technology, as expected, but they are also allowing guns that are still legal in CA without further modification fall off the roster.

 

[Theohazard]

While it is a huge number of voters, many of them are likely already voting one way or the other based on their desire to protect their 2A rights. So, it isn't like 21.3% more voters would suddenly be rushing to support a 2A proponent.

The idea is to persuade as many of those people to put 2A rights higher up on their list of voting priorities. I know that as my gun rights have become more and more under fire, I've definitely moved 2A rights MUCH higher up on my list of voting priorities.

 

[SHE3PDOG]

The idea is to persuade as many of those people to put 2A rights higher up on their list of voting priorities. I know that as my gun rights have become more and more under fire, I've definitely moved 2A rights MUCH higher up on my list of voting priorities.

I understand that, I was just clarifying your statement. Its good to know that we're on the same page.

Librarian's post got me thinking about something. Have Ruger's handguns or S&W's M&P handgun series changed this year? If so, perhaps that is why they are allowing them to fall off the roster. I would most definitely have to reconsider my previous statement if that is the case.

 

[Tom Servo]

According to the US Census Bureau, a mere 21.3% of CA's population are gun owners.

I'm sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but that 21.3% is the percentage of gun owners, not voters. Gun owners don't vote at any greater rate than the general population, and that usually hovers well below 25%.

So, really, you're looking at a little over 4% of California's population that could get mobilized.

 

[SHE3PDOG]

I'm sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but that 21.3% is the percentage of gun owners, not voters. Gun owners don't vote at any greater rate than the general population, and that usually hovers well below 25%.

So, really, you're looking at a little over 4% of California's population that could get mobilized.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US Census draw from registered voters?

 

[Theohazard]

I'm sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but that 21.3% is the percentage of gun owners, not voters. Gun owners don't vote at any greater rate than the general population, and that usually hovers well below 25%.

Of course; that's actually my whole point. It's only 21.3% of the population, which doesn't seem like much until you realize how few people actually vote. So if you can convince more than 25% of gun owners to vote then they can have a much bigger impact than their 21.3% would indicate.

So, really, you're looking at a little over 4% of California's population that could get mobilized.

But it's not population that matters, it's voters. And I would argue that gun owners probably vote at a higher rate than the rest of the population considering the requirements for gun ownership coincide with many of the same requirements for being a voter. Also, gun ownership is a very political subject. So I would be willing to bet that gun owners actually make up more than 21.3% of the actual voters.

 

[Theohazard]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US Census draw from registered voters?

No, they try to draw from everyone.

 

[cheezhed]

Do the guns the cops have also require the micro stamping? If so will firearm
companies not sell to the police? Can the Cali market be so important that the gun companies stop selling to the agencies that carry firearms.

 

[KyJim]

Kudos to Ruger and to Smith and Wesson. I think they probably looked at two things:

1. Cost of design and manufacturing.

2. Possible adverse ramifications from the gun buying public in the rest of the country. Neither company wants to be boycotted.

Of course, it also occurred to me that Ruger and SW are also the largest revolver manufacturers in the U.S. and these do not have to be micro-stamped.

Sorry, it's the cynic in me.

 

[armoredman]

I doubt Cali LEOs will be affected. Remember when the unSAFE Act accidentally affected NYPD? It was changed in what, minutes flat after they figured it out? Trust me, the cops won't be required to play ball with any of these laws.