Microstamping news: STI Stopping Sales in Cali.: MERGED - Page 4

Herknav · November 24th, 2007, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nakanokalronin

What the politicans would care about is if it effected (sic) their LE weapons as California LE would be complaining up a storm. This is why gun laws don't effect (sic) LE as they are made to restrict law abiding citizens only.

That's why the major firearm manufacturers need to sign onto this. If Glock, Ruger, Sig, and some of the other big names would climb on board, it would affect LE. Ronnie Barrett made a bigger splash, because not a lot of other folks make .50 rifles. Unfortunately, too many gun companies are owned by people who are looking to make a buck, rather that caring about guns per se and the RTKBA.

Cheers,
Herk

KenpoTex · January 24th, 2008, 08:40 AM

don't know if this has been posted yet...nice to see someone with the guts to put their money where their mouth is.

Quote:

SOURCE = http://www.stiguns.com/CA-PressRelease.pdf

Cessation of California Firearm Sales

As a company, STI adhered to California’s drop test certification and DOJ listing process in 1998 for the people in competition shooting and for those who desired self-protection DESPITE the financial strain placed on a small company such as ours. Listing our two most popular firearm models was not an inexpensive undertaking.

We even redesigned our compensator systems to adhere to the CA “no threaded barrel” law. Then CA’s onerous liability laws were enacted and we chose at that time not to renew certification nor to sell to LEO and governmental agencies in CA, regardless of their exempt status, because there was no exemption from liability or legal fees which could bankrupt this company.

When federal law overrode CA’s liability laws, we resumed LE sales because we felt our product could be used to LE’s advantage. With the micro stamping bill, we as a company have decided enough is enough. While our sales to Law Enforcement agencies are not huge, all revenue sources are important to a company of our size and it hurts us to turn our backs on those revenues.

While we truly feel badly for the law-abiding citizens of California, we feel it is necessary to take a stand against irresponsible legislation designed solely to inhibit the American citizen’s right to keep arms. We are fierce proponents of the Second Amendment, and it is our hope that other manufacturers will follow our lead. It is time for the gun industry as a whole to take a stand against the insanity of the anti-2nd Amendment activists. We simply believe that some things are more important than profit.

In all honesty, when we made this decision we had no idea of the responses, both positive and negative, it would evoke. We just did what we thought was right and, because of our size, didn’t really expect much notice. Since we announced this new policy however, we have been deluged by customers contacting us to show their support and by others who consider it a “stunt” of some type. We greatly appreciate all of the supporting comments and would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to express, even contrary, opinions. We do understand that this action on our part will have little effect on California’s criminal or political element.

To our loyal supporters in California, we sincerely regret the measures we feel we must take and will continue to honor all warrantee obligations. We hope for a speedy resolution of this ill-conceived violation of the Second Amendment.

All items Copyright © 2007 STI International, Inc.
STI, STI International, and the STI Swirl are registered trademarks of STI International, Inc.

miklcolt45 · January 24th, 2008, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenpoTex

We do understand that this action on our part will have little effect on California’s criminal or political element.

I don't understand this sentence.

Are they saying that politicians and criminals are different animals???

I am confused.

ELCruisr · January 24th, 2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miklcolt45

I don't understand this sentence.

Are they saying that politicians and criminals are different animals???

I am confused.

It's just semantics....

purple88yj · January 24th, 2008, 11:22 AM

I keep hearing that it will be the Feds with their gun control measures that will be the ultimate end to 2A rights, but as Janq mentioned it will wind up being the states themselves that kill the 2nd and not the Fed. The Fed will drive the final nail and proclaim victory, but the battles will be fought in the state capitols. For once, Kalifornia is playing catch up to another state. In this case it is MA.

I applaud STI for their courage just as I did and still do for Barret. Unfortunately, their actions do take from the legal citizenry, but on the same note stands to prove point to the state that there are those that are willing to stand up for gun owners. Where it will effect the state is when the other manufacturers refuse to sell to LE departments both civil and state. It will be a shame that LEO's would be the ones effected the most, but perhaps when the state sees that their laws can not be effectively enforced because their departments are left with aging equipment with no one that will service because of their (the state) failings to acknowledge the Second and all it stands for. MA in this case has been ahead of the curve by limiting what their citizens may possess. It would be simple to remove a couple of models or manufacturers every year or so until nothing was left.

Fortunately, for now, I live in one of those states that allow for the sale and possession of whatever it is that a citizen desires.

Tangle · January 24th, 2008, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccw9mm

Net effect: If all arms manufacturers do similarly, then the California gun-grabbers will have won by proxy, achieving in a stroke what they could not have achieved legally.

I like the gesture. But, a gesture is all it is.

I agree - California has found a way to make manufacturers not want to sell guns in their state. How much more of a victory could they ask for?

azchevy · January 24th, 2008, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jualdeaux

Unfortunately, this is almost as much as a symbol (which isn't a bad thing) as when Barrett did it. Both are high end specialty manufacturers who probably didn't sell all that many there in the first place. I'd really like to see a Ruger, S&W, Glock type take this stand.

That will never happen because they are all sellouts to the almighty dollar and rights means nothing to them as long as their profit margins are good

January 24th, 2008, 11:22 AM	#35
purple88yj Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Piedmont Triad, NC Posts: 1,099	I keep hearing that it will be the Feds with their gun control measures that will be the ultimate end to 2A rights, but as Janq mentioned it will wind up being the states themselves that kill the 2nd and not the Fed. The Fed will drive the final nail and proclaim victory, but the battles will be fought in the state capitols. For once, Kalifornia is playing catch up to another state. In this case it is MA. I applaud STI for their courage just as I did and still do for Barret. Unfortunately, their actions do take from the legal citizenry, but on the same note stands to prove point to the state that there are those that are willing to stand up for gun owners. Where it will effect the state is when the other manufacturers refuse to sell to LE departments both civil and state. It will be a shame that LEO's would be the ones effected the most, but perhaps when the state sees that their laws can not be effectively enforced because their departments are left with aging equipment with no one that will service because of their (the state) failings to acknowledge the Second and all it stands for. MA in this case has been ahead of the curve by limiting what their citizens may possess. It would be simple to remove a couple of models or manufacturers every year or so until nothing was left. Fortunately, for now, I live in one of those states that allow for the sale and possession of whatever it is that a citizen desires. __________________ "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in ... And how many want out." British Prime Minister Tony Blair

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