ELCruisr

From the NSSF:

MICROSTAMPING UPDATE . . . Effective immediately, STI International has halted all shipments of firearms to California. The company will no longer sell any firearms to civilians or law enforcement in the state. The move by STI comes after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed microstamping legislation into law. "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."

Let's hope other manufacturers will line up with them....

Maybe my next gun should be an STI!

__________________
If you stand up and be counted, from time to time you may get yourself knocked down. But remember this: A man flattened by an opponent can get up again. A man flattened by conformity stays down for good. ~ Thomas J. Watson, Jr.

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.

pogo2

Not to diminish STI's principled stand on microstamping, but STI does not presently have any guns approved for sale in California, as can be seen by reviewing the CA Dept. of Justice list of handguns certified for sale in California:

CA DOJ list of Certified Handguns

This means that ordinary CA consumers could not buy a new gun from STI and have it shipped to a FFL dealer in the state. A law enforcement person could buy one in CA, but this is probably a rare event.

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.

__________________


Looking for something else to read? Check out the DefensiveCarry.com Blog Section

Forum Customs & Courtesies

Forum Usage: Tips and Tricks

friesepferd

one more reason not to move to CA

Pitmaster

G. Gordon Liddy had the president of STI on his show today to discuss this issue. They have some market in CA and were working on a contract with a couple of LE organizations in CA. He doesn't know if there position will have any following and frankly doesn't care.

I agree its a stupid solution that won't have any impact on solving or preventing crimes.

__________________
Pitmaster

HELGA: Where are you going?
HAGAR: To sign a peace treaty with the King of England.
HELGA: Then why take all those weapons?
HAGAR: First we gotta negotiate...

BigEFan

As a CA Resident I applaud STI and hope that every Manufacturer would do the same.

__________________
Lex et Libertas — Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis!

"Not only do the people who put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us deserve better, we all deserve better than to have our own security undermined by those who undermine law enforcement." -Thomas Sowell

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

__________________
"Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy
Monday, March 12, 2007 -- Op Ed -- The Washington Post

SCGunGuy

Not if the companies refuse to sell to LE as well; that would not sit well with the pols who want to be protected by militarized police forces.

And, when have facts actually mattered to antis?

I understand your sentiments, but think all firearms makers taking a principled stand and refusing to sell to CA would certainly lead to the law being reversed.

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

__________________
"Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy
Monday, March 12, 2007 -- Op Ed -- The Washington Post