Selling guns in California

[Chukpike]

Superlite27 quote:
I personally believe that "people deserve the government they live under" (I think this is a quote)..

Sounds like you would be perfectly happy had Germany and Japan won WWII.

California gets the brunt of your disdain, but you ignore states with even more restrictive laws than California. New York, New Jersey et al.

Superlite27 quote:
"As a matter of fact, I think ALL firearm sales to California should be halted."

So much for free trade.

You do not believe that the manufactures should operate their businesses as they see fit, because you do not like the residents of California even if they are pro gun.

I guess I do not want you as Dictator.

 

[ChronoCube]

How about we extend this to other examples. What if the California government mandated an environmentally conscious filter in cars? What about 1 gallon-per-flush toilets? Should car makers and toilet makers refrain from selling to California?

 

[kermit315]

No, excuse you. You stated that if we cared about our rights, we would vote like it. well, you seem to forget that California gun owners/enthusiast are outnumbered by about 3 to 1 (that is a rather conservative number) and the districts here are gerrymandered to keep anti Democrats in office. So, I say that if Obama starts grabbing guns, its your fault, just like it is the gun owners fault in California that we have a gerrymandered state (which WAS fixed last election to get the districts redrawn...but what do I know, we arent doing anything to try to fix the problem).

 

[JWarren]

I don't particularly like how this poll is worded.

Do I want to see firearms sold in CA? You bet.

Do I think NOT selling firearms in CA gives the gun-grabbers what they want? You bet.

Do **I** want to be the one selling them there? Hell No.


Most of us answering this are not gun dealers. We are ordinary citizens. Many of us HAVE sold firearms via FFLs across state lines, but we are not experts on this.

But even so...


I don't feel that ANY one of us-- CA resident or not-- can demand that ANYONE sell in a market that they do not want to be it, or exposed to.

The last time I checked, there was still SOME vestige of freedom in this country.

We can say all day long what a person or a dealer SHOULD do, but that means exactly squat. It is thier choice.

If someone sees the reward outpacing the risk, let them have it. If one sees the risks as too great, it is their choice.

Many of us forget that people are in the business to make money and to represent THEIR best interest. And if an individual sells, they are doing the same thing.


Our talk is cheap. After all, we are talking about someone ELSE'S risk, right? That's the American way, after all.

I'm not willing to expose my family's future to the capricious legal system of CA. I have more responsibility to them than that.


I see some CA residents being critical of those that feel as I do. But I want to ask them this...


Someone on this thread mentioned that CA has more gunowners than some states have populations. I don't doubt that. And that sounds like a very powerful force if organized.

Instead of complaining about US, why has NONE of these CA gunowers organized and created a LEGAL DEFENSE FUND that they contribute to and agree to 100% fund the legal defense and accept liability damages for the dealers that sell into the state of CA???


You want to do something other than complain, well that's a start. And it would send a POWERFUL message to both dealers AND politicians.

But it is much more rewarding to complain and blame it on the ones that have to assume the responsibility than it is to make the effort to organize and then pony-up the money to support it.


When YOU have the problem, it is YOUR problem to fix. If dealers are afraid to come in because of liablity, it is YOUR responsiblity to find a way to take that liability from them-- either by changing the laws or insuring them.


-- John

 

[kermit315]

Go to Calguns.net and peruse the 2a forum. You would be greatly surprised by the number of legal cases that go on in California that never make the national headlines, because they get counted as losses for DOJ. CGF ( The Calguns Foundation) has been set up to go after 2A issues in California, and even before they have their 501(c) they have done great things. We have the first case up for incorporation of Heller in the 9th Circuit. We have gotten AR-15's and AK clones back into the hands of california residents. We are substantially closer to killing the "Safe Handgun List". We are working on standardized may issue, while pursuing shall issue at the same time.

And, as mentioned, there are other states with WORSE firearms laws than California. NY, NJ, just to name a couple. As I said in the other thread, there is nothing different in a private party selling to a resident in California. You still send the gun to the FFL in california. You still get your money.

People that dont sell to California are giving Californians the middle finger, and helping the gun grabbers win by proxy. I am not saying "sell exclusively to CA", I am saying dont cut us out just to make a political point, because the only point being made is that you are on the side of the gun grabbers.

 

[expvideo]

No, excuse you. You stated that if we cared about our rights, we would vote like it. well, you seem to forget that California gun owners/enthusiast are outnumbered by about 3 to 1 (that is a rather conservative number) and the districts here are gerrymandered to keep anti Democrats in office. So, I say that if Obama starts grabbing guns, its your fault, just like it is the gun owners fault in California that we have a gerrymandered state (which WAS fixed last election to get the districts redrawn...but what do I know, we arent doing anything to try to fix the problem).

Do you see this? It's world's smallest violin...

 

[Duke of Doubt]

expvideo, I liked that line, too, but it isn't the same without Charlie Sheen rubbing his thumb and forefinger together.

 

[TAB]

Why would we need such a def fund for dealers? As dealers is that they already except the liabilty of shiping guns across state lines. CADOJ( and I'm sure the ATF does as well) already has both a hot line and info on thier website about what can and can not be shipped here. I personally own 3 companys: construction, property maintance and a ADA consulting company. I always do my "home work" when it comes to the laws. Protecting myself against liabilty is the main reason for that. Why would a FFL be diffrent? There is no extra paper work on the shiping end. If they did what they were supose( part of having an FFL is fallowing both state and federal laws) there is zero liabilty.

 

[JWarren]

I am saying dont cut us out just to make a political point, because the only point being made is that you are on the side of the gun grabbers.

I am on the side of MY family.

I have no doubt that there are groups that do good things in CA.

But JUST like the NRA, those groups pick and choose the cases they will take to court.

PLENTY of gun cases don't get assistance.

And ONE can ruin you. So, I am telling you this...

If gunowners there won't insure the dealers against CA law, they have NO right to expect them to sell a single firearm there.

And the same can be said for NJ.


BTW... insuring is common practice in the investment world. If you issue bonds and they are considered risky, you may insure them against default in order to obtain an AAA rating-- even if your organization is in trouble.

CA is in trouble. Insure or quit complaining.


-- John

 

[JWarren]

As dealers is that they already except the liabilty of shiping guns across state lines.

They don't HAVE to accept liability of selling to CA.

Otherwise, this thread would have never existed.


-- John

 

[TAB]

If they fallowed federal law, they have zero liabilty from CA.


see above post.

( federal law says that ffl must comply with both state and federal laws.)

 

[JWarren]

Tab, I am really talking about manufacturs that choose to not expose themselve to that legal envirionment.

I was not talking about FFL's that sell in CA.

I should have been more specific.


-- John

 

[kermit315]

Like I said, and has been said on this very board before, "As goes in California, so goes the country". I am sure, with your attitudes, this will see fruition. There is nothing special in selling a gun to a California resident versus an Iowa resident, Illinois resident, Texas resident, etc.

 

[TAB]

no one has ever been sued under that law and no one ever will be.

 

[Dominus]

I don't like the idea of manufacturers capitulating to Calif.
I can see that BS spreading to other states and before you know it, we're limited to black powder muskets.

 

[JWarren]

Tab,

We would not be having this discussion if there were not a real liability issue.

Capitalism dictates that when the rewards outweigh the risks, a market exists. If people who do this for a LIVING see the risks as too great, that is telling.

Logic dictates that when such a condition exists, only two things can occur to alter it:

1.) The reward must rise to overcome the risks, or

2.) The risk must be lowered to justify the level of reward.


It's a choice.


Kermit wrote:

"As goes in California, so goes the country".

On many levels, I reject that notion.

However, you may be right....

CA's going bankrupt. The country probably isn't far behind that.


-- John

 

[ChronoCube]

I don't like the idea of manufacturers capitulating to Calif.
I can see that BS spreading to other states and before you know it, we're limited to black powder muskets.

I fail to see how a manufacturer boycott will prevent that.

 

[notorious]

I voted according to my conservative beliefs. We got soundly defeated by style over substance. I am stuck in CA for a while because I work in a field that is heavily regulated and my licenses don't hold in other states without a lot of loops.

Once I find a way, I will move out of California but gun laws will only be one reason. Heavy taxes, crazy environmentalism, rampant liberalism, and the overall mood of this area all contribute to the decision.

As for businesses who choose not to sell to CA. It's their own choice to cut out one of the most lucrative markets in the union. While I wish it weren't so, it's their choice to make. In the end, they will have a Pyrrhic victory while the anti-gunners will have the real victory.

 

[kermit315]

This whole situation devolved in July when California required dealers to comply with CFLC. That is when everybody decided "I dont want to jump through the hoops to deal with California". Thing is, CFLC doesnt apply to non license holders shipping to FFLs in California, and it is a 2 minute FFL check for the FFL's to ship in.

We arent asking anybody to redesign anything to ship in, just sell us the stuff that is already legal here. Hell, even the SR9 is on the list here.

I dont see auctions saying "No sales to NJ, because you got the government you deserve". I see everybody talking about California, which has less restrictive gun laws than NJ or NY.

 

[MP3Mogul]

Komifornia is the most liberal state in the Union.... they wanted it, they voted for it.... who cares? If you don't like Komifornia... move.

 

[Doc_Jude]

One thing that pisses me off is that some sellers, different online auctions, etc, aren't willing to sell to me, even when I'm attempting to purchase a gun that I'm absolutely able to purchase with my Curio&Relic license. They claim that they aren't willing to work with me, even when I'm willing to cover every single fee.

 

[Superlite27]

I'm still torn on whether manufacturers should sell their products to states with restrictive laws. All it does is CONFIRM that if you place stupid restrictions on firearms owners, they'll bow and scrape and follow right along like good dogs. Those who live under the restrictive laws start justifying. Yeah, it's bad. But not as bad as it COULD be. So there are more stupid laws passed. Then manufacturers conform to those. If they refuse to conform, they suddenly become the bad guys for avoiding the liability. Gun owners in restrictive states yell and shout, "Hey! What about us? Do you really expect us to pack up and move? Just for a few little requirements?"

Yeah. It's too bad you folks in CA can't swap mags in your AR-15's. Too bad you can't just drop in your local gun shop and pick up one or two AK's either. Keep bad mouthing manufacturers who refuse to ship to CA. You guys really should check out STI's 1911 platforms. REALLY ACCURATE! Those Barrett 50's are a BLAST too!

Am I a bad guy for believing NO guns should enter California? You play the heartstrings pretty well with your "Woe is me! I can't help where I live!" act and accuse me of catering to what the anti-gunners want by advocating the complete denial of firearm availability in restrictive states, but who is really catering to the anti-gunners? Those who write off California, or those who alter their designs to comply with the eternally increasing strangulation?

What WOULD happen if manufacturers stopped selling to California? I'd love to hear input on this. What would the actual result be if ALL gun shops just quit? Law enforcement would take a HUGE hit, wouldn't it? When duty weapons wore out, when SWAT teams broke firing pins, when excessive range use took its toll, wouldn't they need NEW STUFF? What if it wasn't available? Wouldn't they start crying for guns? Civilian gun owners would also be galvanized, right? NO MORE GUNS IN CALIFORNIA. Don't you think there'd be some politicians tossed out of office over that? Especially if there are more gun owners in California than some states populations as I've seen claimed?

 

[kermit315]

So, like I said, you advocate NOT selling something completely LEGAL to make a point. Then only point being made is that you are on the side of the gun grabbers that California residents dont need those awful guns.

Great job.

 

[Shytheed Dumas]

Not only do I think it's right for somebody to exercise peaceful civil disobedience by witholding gun sales to California if they so choose, I think many industries that are beaten down by CA's emotion based environmental policies such as those affected by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) should quit selling there as well.

California has a way of setting the bar for the rest of the country, and frankly it is a bar-setting state that is completely out of control and is in serious need of some reality. Major public outcry by citizens unable to purchase every day items is one of the best ways of sending some reality to their elected officials that I can think of.

That said, if you disagree, then go ahead and sell there if that's your thing - no big deal to me.

 

[harrygunner]

Consider these aphorisms:

1) Visitor question: Why is that hound dog sitting on that nail?
Owner's answer: It doesn't hurt enough for him to move.

2) Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

So, what if Californians supported other states boycotting firearms sales to state government employees and to private citizens.

Could doing this different thing cause the nail to hurt enough for the majority of people to turn on Sacramento?