Microstamping news: STI Stopping Sales in Cali.: MERGED - Page 2

packinnova · November 14th, 2007, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janq

Bingo!

This is exactly what has happened and is on going in MA.
We citizens, in MA, have very little choice thanks to a combination of the state govt. with it's crap 'consumer protection' laws as applied to firearms _and_ by mfrs. giving up on we buyers.
In CA for mfrs. to give up on that state Barrett style would mean those citizens in that state are to be left in the lurch with nothing but sticks, stones, and used market guns.

I hope mfrs. do not go the routs of STI and instead choose to comply _and_ actively track results of as much as related to future crime reduction (crimes actually solved by this means) and to later lobby legislature as a coalition to in the future end this requirement.

- Janq

edit: after re-reading my response it does sound a bit ...harsh, but I mean no offense to anyone here and am posting in its entirety anyway.

Regarding the emphasis I added in your post: Who's choice would that be? Those living there have the choice to: A) get the law changed, B) MOVE, C) create their own defensive tools and/or manufacturing corp that complies with the asinine law, or D) Stay there and act like the rest of the sheep.

I sincerely hope ALL the manufacturers pull out of CA as well as any that happen to have anything to do with NY, MA, MD, IL, NJ and any other non-Constitutional abiding state(even if it does drive up prices in the states left - I'm willing to pay it!). Left to their own devices they would crumble. LET THEM! How many times have we heard on this board..."it's not our job to save everyone else" in regard to why they carry? The same concept applies.

The problem(like your case in MA) is that not everyone has pulled out like they should. So it's left a hap-hazard void that no one has stepped up to fill yet.

This isn't just a firearm issue either. It's an individual freedom issue. If you were the maker of rocking chairs selling to folks in CA and they mandated that you must sell your chairs with built-in airbags, seat belts and other such nonsense to protect the brain-challenged, would you comply? Or would you say "Screw off! I'll sell my products else-where!"? Dunno about you, but I choose the latter.

I have a theory (may be right or may be wrong), but I think in essence countries should be treated like parenting (and no I'm not a parent so I have NO AUTHORITY in it -hence why it's just a theory). At some point there comes a time when the only way to solve the problem is to allow a determined and stubborn child to fail only so you can teach them how to pick themselves back up.

simon · November 14th, 2007, 04:04 PM

There are a lot of people that run the government agency's in Kalifornia,and live there as well,that do not give a hoot if another firearm ever sells there again....dosen't matter what type or who makes them....these people are magnum anti's (maganus anticus).

packinnova · November 14th, 2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon

There are a lot of people that run the government agency's in Kalifornia,and live there as well,that do not give a hoot if another firearm ever sells there again....dosen't matter what type or who makes them....these people are magnum anti's (maganus anticus).

Well, I do believe you just coined a new one...

clipse · November 14th, 2007, 04:30 PM

The way I see it, if I lived if CA and was going through this crap, I would be very active in trying to enlighten people. If people can't be enlightened and stupid laws continued then I would be moving. I have a couple of friends that moved for that very reason. They are now happily living in Texas. I commend STI and Barratt for taking a stand. They are actually doing something instead of just passing by quietly. If the .gov wants guns out of that state and people are stupid enough to elect them then let those poeple deal with the consiquences and get out. I live in a very conservative area. If I lived around people I didn't get along with then I would go someplace else.

clipse

simon · November 14th, 2007, 05:31 PM

Supertac45 · November 14th, 2007, 07:09 PM

Hopefully all companies will cease selling in California to everyone. Than maybe the laws will change, not until.

SCGunGuy · November 14th, 2007, 11:28 PM

If I misunderstood you, I apologize. When you said "In CA for mfrs. to give up on that state Barrett style would mean those citizens in that state are to be left in the lurch with nothing but sticks, stones, and used market guns." I understood you to mean that LE would have guns but other citizens would not. My thinking is that if all manufacturer's refuse to sell, including to LE, then sooner rather than later the CA legislature will come around, as politicians are very fond of being protected by heavily armed police while not caring about the rest of us.

And, when you said "I hope mfrs. do not go the routs of STI and instead choose to comply _and_ actively track results of as much as related to future crime reduction (crimes actually solved by this means) and to later lobby legislature as a coalition to in the future end this requirement." that you meant that if firearms makers gather data that shows that the requirement solves few, if any, crimes, that the politicians will be persuaded to drop the requirement. That's why I responded that antis have never cared about facts, as the facts have long been clear: gun control doesn't work except to disarm law-abiding citizens. Anti-gun politicians don't care. They have an agenda to push, facts be damned.

As to makers complying and thereby reducing the # of guns available on the black market, that's bunk. Criminals will get guns no matter if it's legal to sell them or not. The only people penalized will be law-abiding citizens.

The answer is not to go along w/ the anti's wishes by asking "how high?" when told to "Jump!" by the state legislature. The answer is to beat them at their game, and telling them "You won't let us sell guns to citizens unless we comply with your laundry list of requirements, but you want us to sell to your police forces guns not available to everyday Joes? I don't think so. This is a free country, and we are exercising some of that freedom in this fashion: Take your "list" and stick it where the sun don't shine. Go jump in a lake while you're at it. We will no longer sell any products, from holsters to spare parts to weapons, to any law enforcement agency or officer in your state until such time as you get a clue and honor your citizens' right to self-defense by removing all your illogical restrictions on what your "serfs" may buy."

If Colt, Armalite, Savage, FN, Ruger, S&W, Glock, Springfield, H&K, etc. all did this, and CA agencies saw their weapons becoming unserviceable while criminals continued to arm up, the legislators would feel heat like they've never dreamed of.

Idealistic and unrealistic? Probably. But, it's better than the alternative, IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janq

SCG,

The LEO and military markets have a wide range of tools and products available to them, always have and always will regardless of the consumer market and consumer applicable laws & regulations.

I'd said nothing about "facts" and antis (?).

As to opting out of selling to the state that will only steel legislators resistance to change their views, even when they are later proven to be obviously wrong. The situation with Maryland is a direct example of this.
Meanwhile while state legislature and manufacturers are playing a game of who'll blink first it is we the people who are left to hold the bag, and in some folks cases they are body bags be they anti or not.

If I were Mr. STI and assuming compliance to this new requirement is as the antis say an inexpensive and simple/easy application then I'd do just that and I'd for CA buyers include with every product sold (not just guns but accessory items too) an official statement of our position on this asinine legislative requirement and I as Mr. STi/CEO would sign my name to it on company letterhead. Further in that letter I would encourage the purchaser to get vocal in expressing their issue with this legislation appraising them of the situation in the event that single buyer might not know as much is in play and become law.

Rather than giving up on the market and the people there in, my show of defiance would be to fight and counter the actions of the antis who got this baloney law in place to start.
What they the antis want is for mfrs. to leave their market and thus reduce potential numbers of weapons sold to which by extension reduces the numbers of guns on the so called 'street' (in criminal hands). STI and others who have/will do same are in effect supporting the ultimate desire of those the antis.

- Janq

P95Carry · November 14th, 2007, 11:42 PM

Quote:

"This law is not going to stop criminals, it is only going to hurt law-abiding citizens in the state," STI's Pauletta Skinner told Bullet Points. "We felt like we had to take a stand against this law."

All I can say is ''kudos'' - there is a need to take a stand. Tho darned hard on the legitimate folks who want a particular handgun there.

The whole thing is a total joke IMO - just another nail in the casket of gun control.

*SA-XD4ME* · November 15th, 2007, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD

BUT, it does show the politicians that there are other ways to legislate the guns out of their state...

I don't know if I should applaud STI, or cry.

oh, man! this is some scary stuff. this was my immediate thought as well.

Nakanokalronin · November 15th, 2007, 05:59 AM

Its good to know firearm companies are doing this to show what nonsense their gun laws really are, but on the other hand this shows politicians a way of eliminating firearm sales as well.

The politicans really don't care about STI not selling anything to Cali. What the politicans would care about is if it effected their LE weapons as California LE would be complaining up a storm. This is why gun laws don't effect LE as they are made to restrict law abiding citizens only. A disarmed society is an easy society to control when the higher ups are the only ones armed. I have to wonder if the Cali LE will have micro-stamping on their firearms......probably not.

November 14th, 2007, 04:30 PM	#14
clipse Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 451	The way I see it, if I lived if CA and was going through this crap, I would be very active in trying to enlighten people. If people can't be enlightened and stupid laws continued then I would be moving. I have a couple of friends that moved for that very reason. They are now happily living in Texas. I commend STI and Barratt for taking a stand. They are actually doing something instead of just passing by quietly. If the .gov wants guns out of that state and people are stupid enough to elect them then let those poeple deal with the consiquences and get out. I live in a very conservative area. If I lived around people I didn't get along with then I would go someplace else. clipse __________________ AlwaysSafe.org <----A work in progress. MOΛΩN ΛABÉ

November 14th, 2007, 07:09 PM	#16
Supertac45 VIP Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Michigan's U.P. Posts: 2,952	Hopefully all companies will cease selling in California to everyone. Than maybe the laws will change, not until. __________________ Les Baer 45 Sig Man N.R.A. Patron Life Member M.C.R.G.O.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

November 14th, 2007, 04:04 PM	#12
simon VIP Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Oregon Posts: 2,414	There are a lot of people that run the government agency's in Kalifornia,and live there as well,that do not give a hoot if another firearm ever sells there again....dosen't matter what type or who makes them....these people are magnum anti's (maganus anticus).

November 14th, 2007, 05:31 PM	#15
simon VIP Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Oregon Posts: 2,414

November 15th, 2007, 05:59 AM	#20
Nakanokalronin Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: nowhere Posts: 48	Its good to know firearm companies are doing this to show what nonsense their gun laws really are, but on the other hand this shows politicians a way of eliminating firearm sales as well. The politicans really don't care about STI not selling anything to Cali. What the politicans would care about is if it effected their LE weapons as California LE would be complaining up a storm. This is why gun laws don't effect LE as they are made to restrict law abiding citizens only. A disarmed society is an easy society to control when the higher ups are the only ones armed. I have to wonder if the Cali LE will have micro-stamping on their firearms......probably not.