Microstamping Bill causes STI to pull out of California

[Eightball]

I wish all companies would stop selling to their agencies until this microstamping crap was finished with--firearms manufactureres as well as ammunition sales.

When their police are effectively dead in the water and their budget for ammo skyrockets because they're importing from russia, let's see how their SWAT teams and such enjoy the less-than-stellar options they have. I mean, no offense to LEOs and the LEAs, but if they don't get vocal, no politicians will care.

 

[Zoogster]

Anyone who promotes or supports law enforcement exemptions for anything is encouraging the erosion of thier own rights, and encouraging the demise of the civilian market, one of the largest in the world, including companies that greatly benefit from that market.

Well STI has been selling to law enforcement exclusively for awhile now in CA, so to be quite honest few citizens in CA are going to notice at this point. It is simply a publicity stunt now for business elsewhere in other states. If it was for moral principles or even firm business principles they would have done it when they stopped selling to civilians in CA, like Barret.
Too difficult to sell to civilians? (which police technicaly are by the way) Then no LEO sales either.

LEO are a vocal group, they need affordable, capable and reliable firearms. They have credibility with the biased media. Stop making them special citizens and force them to stand up for all of our rights, not cover thier ass and let a political spokesperson say "good for us, bad for you" on any topic firearm related.
They are citizens like the rest of us, and civlians, and any population that allows them to have firearms that are more restricted for civilians results in a unfree society.
No post '86 machineguns for civilians, then none for LEO either, they are civilians last I checked. Have to have a mag disconnect that may put your life in danger during a firefight?
Well then so do LEOs.
Have to incorporate numerous features that reduce the liability of the firearm without increasing its performance or really adding tangible benefits.
No LEO exemptions.
Magazine capacity limitations for civilians?
No LEO exemptions (honestly LEO have less need for high capacity than a civilian since they often outnumber the perps by a wide margin in most situations, in direct contrast with a private citizen.)

When LEO start whining the law limits thier ability to protect thier officers, it will highlight that the law is limiting the ability of civilians to defend themselves, and it will be done by a credible agency the sheeple respect, not someone from the NRA the media gives a negative image.
At that point unjust and dangerous laws can be properly repealed for all, for we are all equal citizens under the law, right? Or are some more equal than others?
Or are we going to 'knight' some and give others what amount to "titles of nobility" which the founding fathers specificly forbade.

 

[damien]

If heller goes our way we should just move for a federal bill that preempts all infringing aspects of CA law.

While we are at it we should charge every Californian a 10% jackass tax.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

How many LEO agencies are buying STI?

To my knowledge, STI doesn't have any full department contracts, although there are some police agencies that will allow their officers to carry an STI.

Funny how with 3.5 month old news, the same issues are getting rehashed.

Hey, anybody have any news on just what impact STI has made in the last 3.5 months of refusing to sell in California?

 

[sonyhoppes]

Why, just because you don't like it? Here's a tip. Don't keep clicking on the thread if YOU think it's useless to YOU.

 

[ctdonath]

[Deleted per deletion of referenced post.]

 

[sonyhoppes]

I see he conveniently deleted it.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Their decision to pull out of CA gets no respect from me. They were more than happy to keep doing business with CA LEOs/Govs after CA restrictions killed their civilian market. As they said, money is money. They are not dropping CA over any morality problem with the laws but because of their paranoia over being sued as a result of the most recent restriction. Their decision isn't close to that of Barrett.

 

[romma]

Gee, doesn't micro-stamping violate interstate commerce laws?

No you say? How convienent...

 

[Hawk]

It is old news but there's one minor issue I wonder about. If there are no sales to California one assumes that would include the Texican.

Not much of an issue at this point as they've got a 16 week backlog and their CT supplier isn't shipping much product but I thought CA had a lot of cowboy action shooters and giving up that market could hurt STI... eventually.

I'm rather of an STI fanboy generally but if the Texican is exempted from the "No CA sales" policy just because revolvers are exempt, it wouldn't be much of a principled stand.

Then again, how could STI hope to control it? Couldn't anybody in CA just order from Dawson or Fuzzy Bunny?

I believe SAA replicas are exempt from CALDOJ's roster requirement but if not I'll take an Emily Litella.

 

[billwiese]

If there are no sales to California one assumes that would include the Texican.

Not much of an issue at this point as they've got a 16 week backlog and their CT supplier isn't shipping much product but I thought CA had a lot of cowboy action shooters and giving up that market could hurt STI... eventually.

I'm rather of an STI fanboy generally but if the Texican is exempted from the "No CA sales" policy just because revolvers are exempt, it wouldn't be much of a principled stand.

Then again, how could STI hope to control it? Couldn't anybody in CA just order from Dawson or Fuzzy Bunny?

I believe SAA replicas are exempt from CALDOJ's roster requirement but if not I'll take an Emily Litella.

The drama surrounding STI vs CA matters - aside from their idiocy in not realizing they've been Federally protected by PLCAA (Prot. of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) for awhile now - is just for semiauto pistols. Whether STI wants to sell 'em is one thing, but they're hassle-free to get into CA legally.

Revolvers must be drop tested for new FFL sale in CA, but do not need special safeties.

Single action revolvers (min 3" bbl, min 7.5" OAL, min 5 shots) are completely exempt from safety Rostering/testing. If STI is selling some sort of SAA clone revolver, it is CA legal without testing or special features, etc.

Single shot pistols (6" bbl, 10.5" OAL) are also exempt from Rostering/testing.

[The CA SA wheelgun exemption has a sad story behind it. It was a pyrrhic victory, winning the battle to lose the war. The whole drop test law wouldn't've passed if CRPA lobbyists had united with NRA in opposing it; the local SASS legislative liason idiot got bought off by protecting his sacred SAA clones. Lack of unified opposition left fence sitter politicians feeling it was a 'safe' antigun vote. I believe CA NRA is still p*ssed at these orgs for being stooopid. We actually have all this BS - the vote margin was *thin* - because folks supposedly on our side sold us out.]

Yes, there are a ton of SASS types in CA. Lotsa Colts, USFirearms and also Ruger SAs, a few Beretta Stampedes & Taurus Gauchos. I imagine the biggest fraction is Rugers just because of price/safety/common availability, but with CA income demographic there's a lotta SA

Most guns are sold thru distribution anyway, so STI's stance is again stupid.
They can't control what an intermediary does. If Joe Blow FFL decides to acquire a batch of STIs to legally sell into CA in some form, he can do it and STI can't say a thing (well, they can, but from their past statements they're best off keeping their mouth closed).

If I want a non-Rostered STI, I can just find someone moving into CA with one, or have an intermediary FFL drop a Pachmayr Dominator/Springfield SASS upper on one to make it an exempt single-shot and then sell that upper later after I take possession, or get a cop friend to acquire one thru a CA FFL and then sell it to me via legal papered "PPT" (private party xfer). Problem solved, voila.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

 

[tmajors]

We simply believe that some things are more important than profit.

That one sentence speaks volumes.

 

[phoglund]

Bill W

If I want a non-Rostered STI, I can just find someone moving into CA with one, or have an intermediary FFL drop a Pachmayr Dominator/Springfield SASS upper on one to make it an exempt single-shot and then sell that upper later after I take possession, or get a cop friend to acquire one thru a CA FFL and then sell it to me via legal papered "PPT" (private party xfer). Problem solved, voila.

This doesn't sound a bit onerous to you? Not to mention the second suggested method is generally known as a "Straw Purchase".

Also, it seems you lay it on pretty thick about the relative "wealth" of California.

STI would sell more handguns, at a higher price, to folks in CA than to OR, WA, ID, UT and NM combined. Go to a CA gunshop, and new HKs, Glocks and Sigs and higher-end 1911s outsell Ruger P89s and S&W Sigmas by a large margin: go outside CA, and the skew is much smaller (or even inverted).

(Bold text mine)

I doubt you have any empirical evidence to support this theory.

I did my time in California. You can keep it wealth or no. It is not just the restrictive gun environment I find objectionable about that state. Particularly the Southern Half of it.

Your arguments have merit related to the decision by STI not to sell and the facts of the relevant law. Acting like California has some kind of corner on wealth is a bit hard to stomach.

 

[billwiese]

This doesn't sound a bit onerous to you? Not to mention the second suggested method is generally known as a "Straw Purchase".

As to the first part, Um, yes, but it's part of the fight.

And, no, it's not a 'straw purchase'. A straw purchase is for someone that's a prohibited person. The path I outlined is a legit transfer complying with all laws.

[Straw purchase clarification: there was a case in Michigan awhile back. Dude wanted to buy a gun but hated to be 'on paper' and was not a prohibited person. So he gave money to a friend to buy it for him. Friend buys it, dude gets nailed for 'straw purchase'. After all said & done, it was perfectly legit because dude was not an ineligible person.

Since then 4473 has changed and you are asked, "Are you the actual purchaser...". In the case of an LE exempt purchase I was discussing, the LE dude buys it and then turns around and sells it to you. He purchased it and decided to sell it.] Papered resales are perfectly legal. (In CA, the seller can only do that a 6 or 7 times per year, but still...)

it seems you lay it on pretty thick about the relative 'wealth" of California....
acting like California has some kind of corner on wealth is a bit hard to stomach..

Well, we have more people making more disposable income than multiple other states combined, and are the 5th-7th largest economy in the world depending on phase of moon and measurement methods. Hell, the Calif SF Bay Area alone accounts for about 2.4% of US GNP, directly (with another 1+% or so of indirect contribution).

Again, when I go to other states' average typical gunshops (something I do whenever I can) the product skew is clearly different: as an example, look in the pistol case of most CA gunshops and it's full of Sigs, HKs, Kimbers, S&W 629s, etc. and a few lonely Ruger P89s and P345s in the corner; when I travel to other western states it's usually (not always, though) the converse: tons of Rugers and S&W Sigmas, Charter Arms, etc. and more used guns, and just a few HKs and Sigs.

I'm sure you'll point out many exceptions, and they do exist, but the general trend I what I'm seeing.

In other words, STI had already given up a gun marketplace larger than a half dozen or more other states.



We have gun control in CA not because there's not a ton of gun owners, but because of demographics that will likely be coming to your state within a decade or so (or sooner). While we are getting favorable Federal traction, growing suburban/metro areas are at risk and risk throwing the state off if
the population is skewed toward metro/urban/suburban areas. I can see slop over of gun control into AZ, NM and FL very readily.

In Ca, this was combined w/a fair fraction of gunnies sitting on their arse and not joining NRA, and with some fraction being what I call 'John Kerry duck hunters' who didn't pipe up when something affects handguns or black rifles. [CA was full of "I don't need a semiauto to hunt" and "My 870 is good enough for home protection, I'm not big on handguns" types when the first AW ban passed in 1989. We also had what I call the "Thirty Caliber Idiots' who didn't speak up about the CA AW ban on Black Ugly Rifles, because their Garands and M1As were protected - even though later on another ban has gotten some of these M1A guys put in jail for having a flash hider.]



Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

 

[phoglund]

Ye Gods! A border fence should be built along the California border before the Mexican border. It's a greater danger to its neighbors!

 

[another okie]

"And, no, it's not a 'straw purchase'. A straw purchase is for someone that's a prohibited person."

You are wrong. Read the law. It is available here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

You could read the FAQs at the ATF website, if the words of the law are too obscure.

A straw purchase is any purchase from a licensed dealer in which the person completing the sale is not the true purchaser, either because they intend to resell or because they are using someone else's money. The legal status of the final transferee is irrelevant. If you buy a gun at the request of someone else (with the understanding they will pay) or with the immediate intention of reselling, you are engaging in a straw purchase.

Your belief that it's not a straw sale as long as the final transferee can legally receive the weapon is a common belief, but it is also a dangerous one.

But this is the internet, so you probably won't check the cite I have given or the ATF FAQ. Instead you'll probably just attack me. That's life.

 

[billwiese]

a straw purchase is any purchase from a licensed dealer in which the person completing the sale is not the true purchaser, either because they intend to resell or because they are using someone else's money. The legal status of the final transferee is irrelevant. If you buy a gun at the request of someone else (with the understanding they will pay) or with the immediate intention of reselling, you are engaging in a straw purchase.

But in this situation, due to CA law, the 2nd sale to the end party will still have to go thru an FFL so that is moot.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

 

[Double Naught Spy]

We simply believe that some things are more important than profit.

That one sentence speaks volumes.

It would if STI was actually cutting off much profit, but they aren't. Besides, for a company that is so dedicated to boycotting the state, it is rather interesting that they still list on THEIR WEBSITE a distributor and marketing rep.

Their distributor is Speedshooters and when you click the link STI provides for Speedshooters(http://www.speedshooter.com/), you go to their web site where you see that they are selling STI products.

So it is interesting that STI put this plan into effect 3.5 months ago and how important it is to them that they believe somethings are more important than profit but they still list a distributor on their web site and the distributor is still selling STI products. If they have really stopped selling in CA and feel so strongly about the issue, then why do they still list a distributor? STI does have a person that updates their web pages regularly, Kevin Solito, so I am sure this isn't just some oversight.

 

[GeezerwithGuns]

Another "end run" on the 2nd Amendment that is obviously working.

 

[SoCalShooter]

I am not surprised, california is about killing guns thats it, and they don't give a rats behind about small business either, gun businesses are not the only types of business moving out of this state.

 

[Zoogster]

If I want a non-Rostered STI, I can just find someone moving into CA with one, or have an intermediary FFL drop a Pachmayr Dominator/Springfield SASS upper on one to make it an exempt single-shot and then sell that upper later after I take possession, or get a cop friend to acquire one thru a CA FFL and then sell it to me via legal papered "PPT" (private party xfer). Problem solved, voila.

But in this situation, due to CA law, the 2nd sale to the end party will still have to go thru an FFL so that is moot.

However based on intent I think the LEO would still be commiting a crime, even though one for which they would not likely be caught and would be hard to prove.

Importing a handgun not on the approved list for the purpose of selling it is illegal. Just like purchasing a bunch of guns legaly out of state prior to moving to CA with the intention of selling them because they are not on the approved list in CA for profit. Bringing them over for personal ownership is legal for non CA residents moving to CA, however importing them for sale is not.
Bring them with you with the intent of personal ownership, and then selling them individualy at a later date as you no longer want particular ones is legal.
So it is all about intent.

Anyone bringing a pistol into CA is considered an "importer" and as such even has to pay for the privelidge of registering thier handguns if they move to CA within 60 days.

So it really is based on intent. The LEO would likely get away with it, as would a friend bringing one over. However based on thier intent they would be breaking the law even if nobody else knew by intentionaly importing a pistol not on the approved list for sale.

 

[another okie]

I was not expressing an opinion on your scheme, Bill, just saying that your description of a straw purchase was incorrect. I don't know whether your scheme is a straw purchase or not.

 

[Boomerang]

I have respect for STI's business practices and their decision to not sell to law enforcement in CA.
The sportsmen of Massachusetts put through a concerted effort to get the legislature to approve a Target exemption to the gun purchase laws. Part of the exemption allows for not having to drop test the gun.
The only manufacturer who bothered to have their guns put on the target exemption list was STI. No other company bothered.
So here in Massachusetts, I have respect for STI.

 

[billwiese]

The above commentary from another_okie about straw purchases - while having general elements of truth, still is incorrect, if there person is not prohibited from purchasing.

Refer to US. v. Pierson, US v. Polk in late 90s.... James Bardwell summary comments,

"... the defendant cannot be convicted of a straw purchase where the true purchaser, acting through the strawman, could have legally purchased the gun himself, as the defendant who orchestrated the alleged straw purchase at hand, could have. The court said there can only be a straw purchase where the true buyer, acting through the strawman, was legally unable to buy the gun.​

There's other material which further affirms this, just haven't dug it up. With new 4473 questionaire phrasing it's a bit harder.

In many cases, what the BATF says in a FAQ of suggests is not always completely accurate. And they often don't quote material where their arse has been handed to them, or indicate if a US attorney will even take a case.

Now, if you lie on a 4473, that's one thing, and the phrasing of questions on 4473s has changed a bit. But if no money changes hands before a legit sale occurs, and a few days later the buyer turns around sells to a secondary, nonprohibited dude and funds then exchange, then we're in a situation described as above.

Of course, if it's repeated and profits are made, then 'dealing without a license' of course becomes an issue. [Like the old guys that used to trade hundreds of guns a year at gunshows w/o FFL.]

And in the case I was describing earlier - using an exempt LE sale as an intermediary to get around the non-Rostered limitation - the gun again would go back thru a CA FFL via "PPT" transfer to be transferred to the subsequent buyer.

This is somewhat impractical though, and a better 'out' is just to use the single-shot exemption and borrow a Pachmayr Dominator upper, or fabricate an unramped 6" .22Short bbl into the STI pistol, and screw in a filler into the magwell (no mag catch) - in combination with a very stiff action spring. [Gun won't cycle, can't feed.] Such a gun is a 12133PC-exempt single shot and does not need Rostering or drop testing; the Rostering issue only applies at the moment of DROSing until after pickup, and such a gun can be modified after receipt into any other legal configuration, including a 5" autoloading 1911.

In fact, I think I will go out and get a used STI off Gunbroker thru my FFL - using a single-shot conversion - just to p*ss the idiots at STI ,and their lovers at Calif DOJ, off.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

 

[magsnubby]

How many times is this bull **** story going to be recycled? STI hasn't had any guns on the approved list for awhile. It's just an empty publicity stunt.