Arnold is a traitor. Don't let your gunmaker be too

[The_Antibubba]

So the microstamping law passed. Once again the Austrian SOB has failed California shooters. Soon, any new semiauto sold in the PRK will require gun parts that have unique identifiers that will stamp your brass. The fact that this technology has failed in every unbiased test means nothing.

But maybe there is something you can do, even those of you who live in the other 49. Remember when the .50 caliber ban was passed, Ronnie Barrett refused to sell to or service any Barrett rifles in CA LE hands? You, the shooters of the United states, need to let the other manufacturer's know how much you admire that stance.

Currently, Smith & Wesson supplies the various State Police agencies with their semiauto sidearms. Call S&W, and let them know that how displeased you are about the new law. Explain to them that if they make semiautos to comply with the new law, you will boycott them. Explain that if they continue to service the existing pistols you will boycott them.

S&W's contact number is 800-331-0852.

Colt supplies AR and AR-style rifles to a great many State and local agencies. Let them know that if they continue to service and supply those agencies, you will boycott them. You don't have to worry about them microstamping the ARs themselves, since they're considered Assault Weapons here and are illegal.

Colt's Corporate contact number is 860-244-1442.

Glocks make up a high percentage of semiautos for police and Sheriff's departments in California. Let them know (do I have to repeat this again?)...

Glock's contact number is770-432-1202.

H&K's number is 205-655-8299.

Springfield's number is 800-680-6866.

Ruger's is 203-256-3367.
Mossberg's is 203-230-5420.
Remington: 800-243-9700.
Winchester doesn't post a number on their website, but there are talented souls here who can find and post it.

Call them all, and tell them all: If they make firearms that comply with the Microstamping law, YOU WILL BOYCOTT THEM. Tell them that if they continue to service and sell existing firearms to California LE agencies, you will boycott them.

This matter is too important to leave in the hands of government. Let the gun makers know that their bottom line is at stake.

Feel free to copy and spread this idea. Send it to the NRA, for as little good as they've been to California gun owners. Send it to your favorite bloggers. Send it to Ted Nugent. Send it everywhere. And call them.

David

 

[Diamondback6]

Crossposted to both AmBack and the WA-CCW Yahoo! Group. Bump.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Call them all, and tell them all: If they make firearms that comply with the Microstamping law, YOU WILL BOYCOTT THEM. Tell them that if they continue to service and sell existing firearms to California LE agencies, you will boycott them.

Remember what Ronnie Barrett did to the CA PDs? None went out of business. It was a good stance involving a few rifles, nothing more.

So you want us to boycott every gunmaker that complies with the law? CA is a niche market and now you want to do harm to gunmakers who operate within the law and try to turn a profit in a highly specialized niche market because you don't like the state's law? You want everybody else in the US for to force gunmakers to do what Californians could not?

I am sorry you people in CA could not get your act together and stop this microstamping nonsense, but there isn't any reason to punish the gun companies or other American shooters for your shortcomings. What you are suggesting would drive prices sky high for everyone.

On top of that, you are suggesting that we potentially put thousands of non-Californian people out of work because Californians were incapable of taking care of their own business.

PUNISHING THE GUN COMPANIES AND OTHER AMERICANS FOR A CALIFORNIA LAW IS STUPID!

You are NOT addressing the problem by suggesting this boycott.

 

[The Annoyed Man]

I confess my ignorance...

Can somebody please explain what exactly is involved in microstamping? I moved away from California in April of '06, and this issue has just not been on my radar. Also, I have another, perhaps related, question...

Since arriving in Texas, I've purchase two pistols. One of them is a Sig CPO gun (certified pre-owned), the other is a brand new HK. The HK came with a proof fired cartridge case in a sealed envelope. When I asked about it, the salesperson told me that some states require that, upon purchase of the new pistol, that proof fired case be sent to state authorities so that the gun can be "traced" if it is ever used in a crime. In Texas, that is not a state requirement, so you get to keep the little envelope with the proof fired case when you buy the gun. The question is this: Due to metal wear under regular usage, and due to the fact that the owner might use different cartridge brands, each of which uses cases of varying materials and hardness, isn't the idea of archiving a proof fired case an exercise in futility? And, if microstamping involves the idea of modifying a pistol's chamber so that it stamps some kind of identifying number into a chambered case as it is being fired, then won't that same wear and tear under normal usage combined with different case hardness from manufacturer to manufacturer conspire to eventually defeat the microstamping?

Don't get me wrong, if microstamping is what it sounds like, then it is 100% wrongheaded. But in the long run, given the nature of guns and cartridges, isn't microstamping ultimately self defeating?

 

[41magsnub]

That is sort of the point. I think the goal is that if micro-stamping proves to not work (the mechanical not work, not the way we all know it will not work) then pistols simply will not be able to be sold in CA. It's a back door pistol ban tool.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

PUNISHING THE GUN COMPANIES AND OTHER AMERICANS FOR A CALIFORNIA LAW IS STUPID!

Completely redesigning and retooling for a "highly specialized niche market" will force the companies to raise their prices on CA models, although an across the board raise wouldn't be unheard of in order to pay for the new costs.

Furthermore, if CA is so corrupt that it can't be changed from within, then I don't see anything wrong with applying a bit of pressure through legal means (united we stand and all that). I think that refusal to produce and sell microstamping firearms could force CA to repeal this atrocity of a law and I would certainly support any company that does so.

A question about the law, are military and police agencies required to abide by said law?

 

[eflatminor]

Double Naught Spy, I disagree with you. I don't see how putting pressure on manufacturers would drive up prices. If the companies refuse to retool for CA citizens AND law enforcement, they will suffer a few less sales than before the new law but they will save the investment needed to produce microstamping guns. Please explain how you think this will drive up prices.

For what it's worth, I don't think any company will even bother trying to make the technology work. The microstamping law is a back door ban on pistols. I wonder if the current supreme court would see it that way?

For what it's worth, I live in California...but not for long. This is the last straw for me. I'm out of here!

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'm sorry, I just don't see how blaming manufacturers for following the law in order to stay in business makes it their fault.

I get a spent case in each handgun I buy, that's not Texas law but it's cheaper for them to do it across the board.

Is it a real shame? Yes
Will I buy ANY handgun that is microstamed? No

But you can't call for a boycott for a company that is following the law and trying to stay in business, that's just wrong.

"I hate this law, I will punish anyone that obeys it"

 

[Ieyasu]

But you can't call for a boycott for a company that is following the law and trying to stay in business, that's just wrong.

"I hate this law, I will punish anyone that obeys it"

The trouble with the new law is that it exempts CA LEOs. That's how CA gets all of it's dumb gun laws passed.

The idea of a potential boycott is to target those mfgrs that sell the "regular" guns to LEOs.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The idea of a potential boycott is to target those mfgrs that sell the "regular" guns to LEOs.

Once again you want to punish a law abiding company that is trying to stay in business because we failed to stop the law in the first place?

It makes no sense and helps in no way at all.

Gun makers are having a hard enough time as it is.

Everyone talks about Ronnie Barrett and how great what he did is.

Barrett is a niche market/boutique maker. He's a nice guy and good for him for doing what he did, but he's in a very rare position in business. There are very few companies that could keep their doors open doing what you suggest.

You are mad, I am mad but the problem here is some are feeling to need to punish someone, ANYONE, over this.

The gun makers are not the ones that should be punished.

You have any idea what this is going to cost them already? There will be some gun makers that won't be able to survive this transition.

That makes you feel better go ahead but all it does is confirm the stereotype that gun owners are just angry and they don't care who they are angry at.

 

[GRB]

PUNISHING THE GUN COMPANIES AND OTHER AMERICANS FOR A CALIFORNIA LAW IS STUPID!

As a matter of fact, it is not punishing the gun makers, it is punishing California. If enough people took part in such a boycott maybe the arms manufacturers would refuse to sell to California, or raise the prices so high for arms meant for police forces and the state's natiuonal guard, that the state would suffer. This would very likely make them reconsider changing policy. This would be a grassroots movement, in which the arms makers could participate if they choose, or loose money if they choose.

 

[Ieyasu]

I understand your points TR.

However, a boycott would allow a national focus of strength, and if successful (granted, a huge "if), it's really the only chance there is of getting the law repealed. Sure, it's possible that the law could be revised to include LEOs, but then the boycott would be lifted.

 

[AirForceShooter]

What ever made you think Arnold was on our side.
He grew up as a Communist. His Dad was a mamber of the Nazi Party.
Do you really think he's in favor of the sheep having guns?

AFS

 

[GRB]

Arnold was pretty much an avowed socialist and liberal when he ran for office as a Republican. For the life of me I do not understand how anti-gun guys like him and Bloomberg are allowed to register then run as Republicans.

 

[Ed Ames]

You've got to remember that California politicians don't mind costs going up.

Taxes are a form of social control. The power to tax is the power to destroy. They like having a reason to raise taxes. If at the same time it raises the costs of guns that works too. They get fewer guns sold (which is their stated purpose) and more revenue on the guns that are sold. A boycott won't hurt them at all. Worst comes to worst they'll just pull a costco when buying (costco is notorious for buying through third parties, even in other countries, and going through hoops that include exporting/reimporting US-made items to get around manufacturer restrictions).

The real problem isn't Arnold or any legislator. The real solution isn't boycotts. The problem is that gun owners are a silent de-facto minority in California. They hide their gun ownership, they never talk, they are bombarded with negative images about themselves in the form of anti-gun propaganda. There is very little positive about owning a gun in California. The solution is taking Californians shooting. It is showing them a positive gun culture instead of the media saturated shooting everywhere. It is making guns affordable and current instead of things grampa hid in the attic for 40 years.

It's an important lesson because California really is just an early indicator. What happens on the coasts moves inland eventually. If you don't learn to address the problems positively and form a strong and positive culture of ownership you will be chased from state to state until finally North Dakota is just as as bad as Southern California and gun ownership is illegal everywhere. You can't run away from this problem and win, and you can't attack it with petulance. You've got to provide positive and accessible images for voters. You've got to make it a healthy part of the culture. If you can't figure out how to do that then eventually gun ownership will go the way of the family cow.

 

[Kimber1911_06238]

too bad the other politicians that voted this bill to arnold's desk won't be held accountable since CA is mostly anti-RKBA

 

[Ieyasu]

The problem is that gun owners are a silent de-facto minority in California.

It's a part of the problem. Not only silent, but apathetic and un-informed. But still that's only a part. (Again that excludes 99% of CA-THR posters.)

 

[TexasRifleman]

It's an important lesson because California really is just an early indicator. What happens on the coasts moves inland eventually.

This one has been repeated often for years and has not turned out to be true.

In most cases it's been the other way around. While California is out there doing its' thing other states are adding concealed carry right and left.

There are states that are always going to be more restrictive. CA is one, IL and NJ are others. Their extreme point of view just doesn't ever seem to make it to mainstream.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant, but the whole "so goes California so goes the rest of the country" only seems to apply to clothing styles.

 

[Clipper]

Everyone has their price...I would have left CA long ago, but obviously some are willing to stay and dance to the insane music of an asylum that's run by the inmates. Perhaps this will cause more to leave. I myself would like to see the gun manufacturers get together and draw the line at the CA border and simply as a group refuse to do any further business in CA. Sure it would cause a hardship for gun owners who stay there, but I have no sympathy for 'em anymore. Get out. Leave that disease of a state to become the mecca for wierdos, hippies and druggies, gang-bangers and all the other self-deluded idiots nobody else wants, and when the whole place falls into the ocean, we'll get to quit dealing with them at all. For those who make the decision to value whatever hoops they have to jump through over what wonderful RIGHTS they could have elsewhere, all I can do is shake my head.

BTW, it's not the NRAs fault this passed, it's the fault of those who sat around and expected the NRA to do THEIR job for 'em and never bothered voicing their own opposition, though I'm sure there was a large "I don't own handguns, so it doesn't affect me" contingent of idiots. The members of this group are a tiny, infitesimal part of the gun-owning world, and we all know how apathetic people are. Even now they're sitting there dumb and happy with no real idea what this will mean in the long run to them until the day they personally are affected by it, when they will look up in amazement and ask "When did all this happen?"

Those with the capacity for inteligent thought have a few years to get yourselves relocated. Those who stay deserve what they get...

 

[Ed Ames]

This one has been repeated often for years and has not turned out to be true.

Huh? You are just looking at things over too short a timeline. California got lawful concealed carry (CCW permit) laws in 1923. Texas got CCW in 1993? Think about a seventy year lag and tell me California isn't a glimpse of your future. Or your grandkids' future anyway.

 

[TheArchDuke]

So to those who are against the boycott, what do you suggest should be done?

 

[riverdog]

If it's good for CA it's good for the rest of the states too. A refusal by the manufacturers to make pistols that meet this spec means the law will fail and the other 49 states won't have a reason to adopt a similar law. You're right, we in CA are already screwed; you guys just need to ensure we're the only state that's screwed.

You guys had better start thinking nationally. Democratic Senate and House with Hillary as Prez. . . I can see this going national and no gun company will honor a boycott at that point.

 

[TexasRifleman]

California got lawful concealed carry (CCW permit) laws in 1923. Texas got CCW in 1993?

LOL You gotta be kidding me right?

MAY issue vs SHALL issue and you are gonna tell me CA is ahead of things?

Once again a THR favorite, comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Autolycus]

Its funny to me that you say its not the NRA's job however people have been saying that they are the ones who get things done. Either they do or they dont.

As someone else stated, Arnold has never been a friend to gunowners and I dont believe he ever claimed to be. So in my opinion the traitor label is off.

As for the idea of a boycott, I like the idea. We have to influence the lawmakers somehow. I would fully support CA and their microstamping ban if it did not exclude law enforcement. I have to ask why the government wants its agents to have untraceable weapons? Are they hit men or something?

CA maybe a niche market but it is a big one. By exerting pressure on gun manufacturers hopefully they can see that they are cooperating with a system that we oppose. And are LE contracts more profitable then civilian sales? I doubt that due to sheer quantity alone for some manufacturers. However if we could get it so that it becomes costly for LE to buy weapons from outside dealers maybe they would reconsider. All it would do is leave LE with outdated weapons and old equipment which is fine since they dont want to get on the bandwagon and get microstamped weapons.

Ask yourselves why the government wants to be able to trace all civilian sales and why they want to have guns that are untraceable (according to their standards)? Get community leaders who rally people against LE brutality on your side. Explain to them that the government wants guns that cant be traced and see what happens. Thats how they are painting gun owners. It sounds unreasonable that gunowners want to have weapons that cant be traced and registered. Ask the people why the government needs those things.

I apologize if I am rambling as I am a little drunk still.

 

[AF_INT1N0]

Yeah,
I heard about this bill. There wasn't much I could do, because I don't vote in this country( the PRK).

I personally would love to see gun companies pull a Barrett. But I don't see it happening.

As far as California getting CCW in 1923 and Texas getting it in 1993. I would submit to you that California doesn't have a CCW program. It's more like a Caste system where the rich carry and the serfs get hosed. (Note: Some county sheriffs are turning that around but sadly because it's a county by county thing there is no unified front.)

The main problem as I see it is Gun ownership is demonized even by those who have them. My wife won't shoot with me here because she says it doesn't feel fun. (like the ranges are over controlled) Even folks that have permits in the state (not all) are not for Shall issue. The folks that are for shall issue, are stuck in Gun free craptopias. (I'm in the Bay Area for instance) I have about the same chance of being struck by lightning as I have of being issued a CCW in my county.

Fortunately I am only here temporarily. I'm looking to go to Georgia, Florida, Texas, or Utah next (assuming I can find a job there).