Smith & Wesson, Ruger no longer submitting guns for approval to CA
- Thread starter Tom Servo
- Start date
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Besides which, "people I work with" is such an impossibly small sample as to be less than irrelevant when we're talking about elections with 10s or even 100s of thousands of voters.
Voters who prioritize gun rights are a tiny minority. Frankly, there are more important issues even for me and gun rights are VERY important to me. Most gun owners don't even consider gun rights until something awful like NY's SAFE Act happens. It's not only not the "single issue", it's not even considered.
I can't tell you how many gun owners I know who voted for Cuomo and many politicians just like him in the past and are suddenly outraged that the SAFE Act passed.
Beagle45ACP
New member
While I stand by Ruger and S&W for their decisions, I have this sense of dread that we will see laws like CA's spread. As others have mentioned, it is backdoor gun control, and if it continues to work, other anti-gun states will possibly follow suit. Being that I live in Illinois, I fear that "our" legislators here will be the next in line to pass such a law to prevent as many guns as possible from being sold here.
The Legislature in California does not care about such trivia. Please be assured that in 2007 the legislators individually and collectively were informed of the practical difficulties and work-arounds. They passed the bill anyway.
The point of the Roster, and increasing requirements to place a gun on the Roster, is to reduce handgun availability in California.
It's working.
I got an email today from the NRA-ILA about this subject. S&W and Ruger did not refuse to keep their handguns on the roster, but they are being forced to let their handguns fall off due to changes made in their designs. So, they did not make a choice to stop selling their still legal handguns to CA, but they are no longer producing those guns.
That changes things for me, as I knew this would happen. I just thought it would take a while longer. The changes weren't stated, but I'm assuming that they were relatively minor things.
These changes prevent them from selling many of their semi automatic handguns (not all have been modified) to their CA customers, but Ruger's CEO, Mike Fifer, has personally claimed that he will do everything in his power to help CA overcome this ridiculous law.
Both companies have stated that they will not be adopting micro.stamping.
Despite my previous statement, I will continue to support them with my business...as much as I can from CA territory.
That changes things for me, as I knew this would happen. I just thought it would take a while longer. The changes weren't stated, but I'm assuming that they were relatively minor things.
These changes prevent them from selling many of their semi automatic handguns (not all have been modified) to their CA customers, but Ruger's CEO, Mike Fifer, has personally claimed that he will do everything in his power to help CA overcome this ridiculous law.
Both companies have stated that they will not be adopting micro.stamping.
Despite my previous statement, I will continue to support them with my business...as much as I can from CA territory.
armoredman
New member
I would have to say that even if every domestic producer of firearms collectively stopped selling to Cali LE agencies, there are any number of companies around the world, (many who exist under governments who make Cali look like Arizona), who would be more than happy to make up the difference. Sad but true, I think.
The simple fact is that CA elected them. They passed the law. The law cost the people the right to buy non-microstamped handguns.
Microstamped handguns are unprofitable to make, so non are being made (that might change if someone is willing to do it).
Who is at fault?
The people of CA!
Who can fix this wrong?
The people of CA!
Don't like it? Pack up your stuff and join the people of another state.
I say Good job S&W and Ruger!!!!
Microstamped handguns are unprofitable to make, so non are being made (that might change if someone is willing to do it).
Who is at fault?
The people of CA!
Who can fix this wrong?
The people of CA!
Don't like it? Pack up your stuff and join the people of another state.
I say Good job S&W and Ruger!!!!
That is precisely why the Cuomo's et. al. keep getting elected and why gun owners continue to have to fight battles.
The war to preserve the 2nd amendment will never be over until that idea changes.
Californians, you elected the people who created your mess and now it is up to you to elect people willing to clean it up.
Two major American gun manufacturers have given you ammunition to fight with. That is, they will no longer do business in your state. Shame on the other gun manufacturers for not following their lead. How much sales tax revenue will California lose from this action? Is this state not 'near bankruptcy' already? Politicians only care about the money. Show them what they stand to lose and you will get their attention.
If your representative voted for this measure or refuses to work to abolish it, work to vote him/her out of office. Alternatively take a look at Colorado and the results of their recall elections!
Mike Irwin
Staff
"There are already firearms available through the fed system."
Yep, that's the problem with that plan, Fishing Cabin.
Still it would hopefully make it more difficult and time consuming for state agencies to get what they want.
Yep, that's the problem with that plan, Fishing Cabin.
Still it would hopefully make it more difficult and time consuming for state agencies to get what they want.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
NY Times take:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/us/gun-maker-will-limit-sales-in-protest-of-california-law.html
From the usual suspects -
1. It will save lives
2. Gun companies have having a tantrum
The point about elected officials is that they were elected. It is not unknown for folks to elect those who will violate fundamental rights. Sometimes the SCOTUS overturns such. Wily old Bird Scalia thought some restrictions were reasonable. Cluck,cluck. Only in IL did there seem to be positive hatching of the eggs he laid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/us/gun-maker-will-limit-sales-in-protest-of-california-law.html
From the usual suspects -
1. It will save lives
2. Gun companies have having a tantrum
The point about elected officials is that they were elected. It is not unknown for folks to elect those who will violate fundamental rights. Sometimes the SCOTUS overturns such. Wily old Bird Scalia thought some restrictions were reasonable. Cluck,cluck. Only in IL did there seem to be positive hatching of the eggs he laid.
That's not correct.
such a simple thing, to get correct, but the NY times doesn't bother.
Also, I have to wonder about it "saving lives". Coming from the lips of one of the main anti-gun mouthpieces I should expect nothing different, but seriously, something that puts a number on the fired cases doesn't seem to me to be life saving.
Anyone shot & killed with a microstamping gun is already shot & killed by the time the police find the microstamped casing. Same as with a non-0microstamping gun. How is it that microstamping saving lives?
Might it aid in police investigations? Possibly. But other places where a system of keeping a sample fired case, so crime scene brass can be linked to a specific gun, and its owner traced have, to date (as far as I know) never materially aided in getting a conviction and essentially wasted millions of taxpayer dollars. With microstamped fired cases, the physical task of matching a fired crime scene cast to a specific gun is easier, but the overall principle is still the same, and it hasn't worked in other places, so I doubt it would work in CA.
armoredman
New member
Forgive him - he was using the "future dream" tense, of where he wishes firearms had to have an internal laser system that will stop every round on the way into the chamber, and scribe the serial number on the brass...imagine trying to carry such an equipped pistol concealed.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Micro-stamping and "ballistic fingerprinting" have been tried before. NY has ballistic fingerprinting for handguns.
The short answer is that it always (ALWAYS) costs factors of 10 more than they "project" and never solves ANY crimes. Last I knew, NY's ballistic fingerprint system had results in exactly 2 hits and one of those was intentional, TO SEE IF THE SYSTEM WORKED!
The short answer is that it always (ALWAYS) costs factors of 10 more than they "project" and never solves ANY crimes. Last I knew, NY's ballistic fingerprint system had results in exactly 2 hits and one of those was intentional, TO SEE IF THE SYSTEM WORKED!
High point:
Both my new XD handguns are labeled "Not legal for sale in CA", which just makes me feel better about them by default.
Question:
Any knowledge of any specific makes or models that *have* done this, and or ways to identify them.
Not so much because I plan on doing anything illegal, more so because I want to know if anything that would ever be tied back to me could have passed through my hands in the last few years.
I do not subscribe to the camp of "If you are not breaking the law, you should not mind them watching everything you do."
Both my new XD handguns are labeled "Not legal for sale in CA", which just makes me feel better about them by default.
Question:
Any knowledge of any specific makes or models that *have* done this, and or ways to identify them.
Not so much because I plan on doing anything illegal, more so because I want to know if anything that would ever be tied back to me could have passed through my hands in the last few years.
I do not subscribe to the camp of "If you are not breaking the law, you should not mind them watching everything you do."
Spats McGee
Administrator
Up until recently (last year?), microstamping technology was unavailable to manufacturers because of patent issues, IIRC. That meant that nobody was doing it.
As for the next comment, please bear in mind that I am neither a mettalurgist nor a gunsmith. It's my understanding that one of the reasons that microstamping is virtually worthless is that the markings on the firing pin would likely deform or wear within a relatively low number of rounds, a few hundred or maybe a thousand. IOW, you wouldn't really have to identify a pistol with microstamping. You'd just need to shoot maybe a thousand rounds through it before selling it.
As for the next comment, please bear in mind that I am neither a mettalurgist nor a gunsmith. It's my understanding that one of the reasons that microstamping is virtually worthless is that the markings on the firing pin would likely deform or wear within a relatively low number of rounds, a few hundred or maybe a thousand. IOW, you wouldn't really have to identify a pistol with microstamping. You'd just need to shoot maybe a thousand rounds through it before selling it.