If they are, the numbers should be different. Unfortunately, gun owners really aren't as active as they claim.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Smith & Wesson, Ruger no longer submitting guns for approval to CA
- Thread starter Tom Servo
- Start date
No.Do the guns the cops have also require the micro stamping?
Microstamping is a 'gating factor' to get on the Roster.
LEO are exempt from the Roster when they buy handguns.
SHE3PDOG said:My main question is: why is refusing to sell better than compliance?
When gun manufacturers comply with state-specific requirements, every buyer in the country pays for it. Whether the manufacturers have separate production lines to meet state-specific requirements or produce a single national product that meets those requirements, the manufacturers incur additional costs that are passed on to the consumers.
Gun control advocates push for legislation that requires additional "safety" features in the (correct) belief that they can eventually render guns ineffective and/or cost prohibitive for the average person. The manufacturers -and the vast majority of gun owners- have submitted to that gun control strategy for too long. We did not complain to much about mandatory "features" such as firing pin safeties, internal locks, and loaded chamber indicators, but we are on the cusp of several states requiring microstamping and even "smart gun" technology.
At least Ruger and Smith & Wesson are willing to draw a line and fight back.
Theohazard
New member
Well, I guess that just means we need to convince more of them to vote. And by not selling guns to states like CA, the gun companies can help us do that.Tom Servo said:If they are, the numbers should be different. Unfortunately, gun owners really aren't as active as they claim.
Tom Servo said: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.
If voter participation is level across the population, that would still result in 21.3% of the voters being gun owners. And that is before considering what Bill Clinton has called the "intensity gap." Voter participation increases when people have a more direct personal stake in elections. The pain from California's gun control laws could be the incentive for more gun owners to turn out for elections.
That would require a significant number of voters in California to actually care enough about handguns, or government over-reach, to change the way they vote.Well, I guess that just means we need to convince more of them to vote. And by not selling guns to states like CA, the gun companies can help us do that.
There is no evidence to suggest that is likely.
Something not yet mentioned in discussion about CA gun owners & voting...
It isn't only the numbers of gun owners voting that matters it is the geographical distribution of the voters that matters too.
I understand the concept of "gerrymandering" is alive and well in CA (CA residents, if I'm wrong on this, please speak up).
SO, even if you could get that entire 21.3% (1 in 5, essentially) to vote as a solid block, every time, it would only have an effect on issues where the entire state wide public gets a vote.
This situation of the CA gun laws comes from the people being put in the CA legislature, and those are elected not by the state as a whole, but by the residents of each district. SO, no matter what you do, you are going to get anti-gun politicians, and just as bad, politicians who don't care one way or the other, and see gun control as a useful prop for their personal agendas.
I think it possible that some CA politicians support these laws primarily because the worst thing that can happen to them, personally is that they upset the 1 in 5 voter who wasn't going to vote for them anyway...and in return for passing yet another "reasonable, common sense law" they get some concession or support from the hard line anti gunners on something that matter to them, personally...
It isn't only the numbers of gun owners voting that matters it is the geographical distribution of the voters that matters too.
I understand the concept of "gerrymandering" is alive and well in CA (CA residents, if I'm wrong on this, please speak up).
SO, even if you could get that entire 21.3% (1 in 5, essentially) to vote as a solid block, every time, it would only have an effect on issues where the entire state wide public gets a vote.
This situation of the CA gun laws comes from the people being put in the CA legislature, and those are elected not by the state as a whole, but by the residents of each district. SO, no matter what you do, you are going to get anti-gun politicians, and just as bad, politicians who don't care one way or the other, and see gun control as a useful prop for their personal agendas.
I think it possible that some CA politicians support these laws primarily because the worst thing that can happen to them, personally is that they upset the 1 in 5 voter who wasn't going to vote for them anyway...and in return for passing yet another "reasonable, common sense law" they get some concession or support from the hard line anti gunners on something that matter to them, personally...
motorhead0922
New member
Gun owners don't have to vote as a solid block, they just have to go vote, period.
No group all votes the same. But, the tendency is there for gun owners to lean heavily in the pro-gun direction. This, coupled with the fact that elections are usually narrowly decided, say, 55% to 45% or closer, means that laws and candidates can be changed.
To those of you who don't (or rarely) vote, please go to the polls in the future.
No group all votes the same. But, the tendency is there for gun owners to lean heavily in the pro-gun direction. This, coupled with the fact that elections are usually narrowly decided, say, 55% to 45% or closer, means that laws and candidates can be changed.
To those of you who don't (or rarely) vote, please go to the polls in the future.
Last edited:
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Gun owners don't have to vote as a solid block, they just have to go vote, period.
No group all votes the same. But, the tendency is there for gun owners to lean heavily in the pro-gun direction. This, coupled with elections are decided, say, 55% to 45% means that laws and candidates can be changed.
To those of you who don't (or rarely) vote, please go to the polls in the future.
The trouble with this idea is that gun owners not only don't "all vote the same" but they vote in essentially the same exact ratios as the rest of the population. In other words, even if every single gun owner voted, you'd have more votes with virtually unchanged results.
If my time on TFL has taught me anything, it's that gun owners don't fit into a block of pro-gun voters. Recall the AWB, where one segment used the other as cannon fodder to protect themselves, and that's a specific gun issue. Don't expect gun owners to agree on ANY non-gun issue and don't expect them to prioritize the pro-gun vote.
I honestly don't believe that getting more "gun owners" to vote would be helpful at all, to the gun rights issue directly.
A dog is tethered to a 10 foot chain. He is loving life. Each month, the owner
removes one link from the chain. Fido doesn't notice. Slowly the dog has less freedom.
After a few years, the dog's life is restricted to four feet.
That is what is going on here. Little by little, law abiding firearm owners are
having their 2nd amendment rights removed.
Wholesale condemnation.
This ploy by our lawmakers will eventually succeed and we be happy that we have the right to own a single shot bolt action rifle.
removes one link from the chain. Fido doesn't notice. Slowly the dog has less freedom.
After a few years, the dog's life is restricted to four feet.
That is what is going on here. Little by little, law abiding firearm owners are
having their 2nd amendment rights removed.
Wholesale condemnation.
This ploy by our lawmakers will eventually succeed and we be happy that we have the right to own a single shot bolt action rifle.
all this is only temporary. either they will start trying to micro-stamp their gun parts, or after all the major players "leave", somebody will cross the line and go back...... so there is ruger and s&w, but I see glock, springfield, colt, and a few others on not pulling their support for California's laws....
Very true. I know gun owners in New York who voted for governor Cuomo because he promised to do this or that. I imagine the same is true with Malloy in Connecticut.I honestly don't believe that getting more "gun owners" to vote would be helpful at all, to the gun rights issue directly.
zincwarrior
New member
I'd proffer most gun owners, like everyone else in the US, are not single issue people.
Mike Irwin
Staff
I'd much rather see firearms manufacturers, suppliers, wholesalers, etc., refuse to deal with any state agencies in California.
Is not micro-stamping supposed to be an aide to help Police trace spent cases that are used in crimes? Yes I read the Wiki.
Since when do criminals follow the law? Won't they just replace the parts that are Micro-Stamped or modify the parts to remove the stamping?
Yes there will be crimes committed by unaltered guns and the stamping could help with tracking but, the biggest problem CA faces is the organized criminal gangs and cartels which will address this issue before it's a problem for them.
Since when do criminals follow the law? Won't they just replace the parts that are Micro-Stamped or modify the parts to remove the stamping?
Yes there will be crimes committed by unaltered guns and the stamping could help with tracking but, the biggest problem CA faces is the organized criminal gangs and cartels which will address this issue before it's a problem for them.
trophyrider
New member
Zincwarrior wrote
Exactly. There are a few politicians out there who might be gun friendly, but are not exactly the bastions of freedom on other subjects.
I'd prefer most gun owners, like everyone else in the US, are not single issue people.
Exactly. There are a few politicians out there who might be gun friendly, but are not exactly the bastions of freedom on other subjects.
Mike Irwin said:I'd much rather see firearms manufacturers, suppliers, wholesalers, etc., refuse to deal with any state agencies in California.
That would be the most effective way to get the attention of California's politicians.
I'd much rather see firearms manufacturers, suppliers, wholesalers, etc., refuse to deal with any state agencies in California.
I definitely think this would make more of a splash than simply refusing to keep handguns on the roster for regular Californians.
motorhead0922
New member
Seriously, some of you think non-gun-owners vote the same as gun-owners? That's absurd. Every gun owner in the office I work at voted against Obama, and of the non-gun owners, half voted for Obama. Small sample size? Of course. If you've got better stats, then post a link.
Of course it's true that groups are not single-issue voters. But they don't have to be in lock step. The vast majority of elections are closely contested, and if one group is believes 2 to 1 in one direction and goes to the polls, it will affect the outcome.
Of course it's true that groups are not single-issue voters. But they don't have to be in lock step. The vast majority of elections are closely contested, and if one group is believes 2 to 1 in one direction and goes to the polls, it will affect the outcome.
Fishing_Cabin
New member
Mike Irwin said:I'd much rather see firearms manufacturers, suppliers, wholesalers, etc., refuse to deal with any state agencies in California.
I honestly don't see how this would help either. Just being realistic. There are already firearms available through the fed system. Would just take another office and a few people to handle the order/procurement system at the fed level, and a few more to handle the distribution to the local/state agencies to handle increased volume.
ETA: Going beyond the fed system, there will still probably be a fair number of FFL's willing to sell to a state that is prohibited by a manufacturer if there is money to be made.
Last edited: