STI joins Barrett and Refuses to sell to Ca

[ArmedBear]

Not your reading comprehension. Your having read anything earlier in the thread, regarding STI's sales in CA. Your comments made no sense in light of the facts.

So people hate California, and gun owners in California. Whoopee. We're all really impressed.

The fact is, Barrett did something that may not have much of a practical impact, but did make a statement. I really support their doing it.

So, STI thinks, "hmm, this is a way to turn the fact that we don't sell in California into a PR thing, and maybe we'll get some dumb people to think we're really making a statement, too."

Three big differences between them and Barrett: they won't sell to civilians in California, either -- of course they didn't, anyway; this means they are doing nothing that will help have microstamping thrown out by the courts, so they save money on lawsuits while claiming they're pro-RKBA, and people like you actually believe them; they're doing exactly what the anti's want to accomplish by making it harder to sell guns to civilians: they're not selling civilians guns.

If every gunmaker follows suit, the anti's win.

But hey, "Rah, rah, California sucks, guns rule! Yay!" That's the mentality of too many here.

Like I said, I support Barrett. What they did was different, even if symbolic.

 

[ArmedBear]

strat81, how many nonprofits are publicly traded? I think I'd avoid becoming a shareholder...

Maybe not, though. Guess I'll have to grab the Journal and check how the Nonprofit Index is doing today...

16% is about right. Look it up if you want.

It shouldn't be a surprising number if you think about it for two seconds. California has about 1/8 the population of the US, and a slightly larger proportion of the wealth. People buy guns here at about the same rate as any other part of the US, and have more money to spend on them than in a lot of places.

Our gerrymandered legislature has a lot more to do with anti-gun legislation than a lack of interest in guns or gun rights among our citizens. Bill Weise is dead on. It's coming your way, and you'd better be ready for it.

This isn't just about California. People in some places are just too blind to see it.

California was a Republican state, not too long ago. Where I grew up felt like parts of Idaho do now. Think the ex-hippies and Hollywood types can't buy their way into your state house? Think again.

Think that you can't have shall-issue laws on the same books as a semiauto ban? Think again -- and look at some of our contradictory laws for a model.

Consider this: California now has a "Katrina Protections" law. Signed at the same time as the microstamping law was signed. Arizona's "Katrina Protections" law was vetoed, but open carry is legal essentially everywhere, and guns are otherwise as unrestricted as anywhere in the US.

Don't get complacent because your state has some better gun laws. That can change quickly, and it doesn't have to make sense, either.

 

[Leitmotif]

Does anything good come from California? Well, if you're a wine drinker, the alternative probably comes from France... so that's a tough call!

Well, some good wines come from Australia, the latest gun-banner's paradise. South Africa produces wines which California couldn't hope to match, and does allow self-defense... sorta/kinda. Some big chief seems to have taken into his head to institute bureaucratic disarmament by making the permit application process long and tiresome.

France overall has reasonable gun laws, or at least some of the better laws outside the US. You really don't want to be knocking France here, even as a joke.

The worst thing to come from California, though, is the film industry. Haven't watched a Hollywood travesty at the cinema in ages. It's just incredible to see how the elitist anti-gun disease has spread in that place. For that reason alone I'd have to say California is a worse enemy than anything else, considering the reach of their propaganda.

Oh, and a lot of biotech is coming from the far east nowadays. Britain's also a huge producer. California mostly just has name-brands behind the actual work done in other countries entirely. The same goes for microprocessors.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

STIs boycott of California is about like a Protestant diabetic giving up sugar for Lint. If you don't know they are Protestant and diabetic, it sounds really impressive as that can be a considerable sacrifice for a good Catholic. Then you learn they aren't Catholic and weren't consuming much sugar anyways.

 

[Conqueror]

What you are asking for is illegal, bright boy. A shareholder-held company can't really say "we're abandoning sales/profit" -they have a legal "fiduciary obligation" to their shareholders to try to maximize sales/profit.

This is total nonsense. You're basically saying no company would ever willingly lose money. That's a ridiculous statement. Big business CONSTANTLY gives away money. Big Pharma (all publicly traded) gives away billions of dollars in drugs, research grants, and medical care every year. The NFL pours money into United Way. Even small companies sponsor little league teams and give thousands of dollars to charity. You know why? To build goodwill. Sometimes it makes sense to lose money if the decision will increase your publicity and public image. Look how many people are buzzing about STI and Barrett and pledging to buy their products because of this stand - and they are small companies! If Glock pledged to stop CA sales, the buzz would be ENORMOUS and the goodwill created among non-CA gun owners would be immense.

It also pays to lose money to protect your future business. As many in this thread have stated, CA is killing the gun industry through "death by a thousand cuts." Eventually there will be no CA gun sales anyway, if the trend continues. It is worth losing some measure of money now to protect the existence of a market in the future. It's incredibly myopic to say that corporations are only in it for the money - they're also in it for longterm survival, and if they comply with every future CA gun restriction just to save an increasingly small amount of profits, they will soon find themselves out of the state anyway.

 

[strat81]

strat81, how many nonprofits are publicly traded? I think I'd avoid becoming a shareholder...

I know. But Mr. Wiese seems to think that anything owned via shares of stock (i.e., a corporation) has the sole purpose of generating profit. Hence the reason I quoted. If he is going to start slinging insults at people, he should at least be articulate with what he says.

16% is about right. Look it up if you want.

I did, and a cursory search didn't reveal much. I'm just asking for a citation, not calling anyone a liar. While I agree that California has quite a few dollars floating around, $$$ does not mean they'll have stuff in proportion to the rest of the country.

 

[Correia]

Okay, STI group buy is on. I've worked out details and will post them in Group Buys later tonight.

And I just spoke with some industry contacts. (basically this isn't a big business, and everybody knows everybody else). A couple of other companies are also thinking about boycotting California sales also.

 

[MikeB]

Correia, can the group buy be for their LS9's or LS40's? Please? Ok just kidding, I've just been wanting one of those for awhile.

I'd be in for the group buy; ever since I saw this thread I've been talking with the FFL I deal with the most about ordering a STI.

 

[Hook686]

Interesting .... yet I wonder if this will really impact California LEO's ... If Arnold needs 50,000 .45 autos, will he be obliged to buy microprinted ones, or can he just go for the lowest bidder ?

 

[FieroCDSP]

The idea of offering only the micro-stamped pistols to LE in California is interesting. Overly expensive, and the tech doesn't work anyway. Hey, instead of burning down the houses of all the cops involved in a white on black shooting, the protesters can burn just the ones whose stamped bullets are pulled out of the corpse. Perhaps this is an exageration, but you get the idea.
Suddenly, the LE in CA is in the hot-seat. After all, why isn't something that's "good" for the people just as good for the cops.

I think there's merit to trying to hit the LE agencies in the wallet, as many of them were backing the legislation, or trying to prevent it from affecting them, which succeeded. I'm not a cop hater, and if there's a way to back them off of the legislators sides, their wallets are where it's at. Add another $30,000+ expenditure to a police budget and you start to see some people wince. That's not to say they can't go elsewhere, but what if the majors take the hint from us and stop doing LEO discounts to CA, and maybe tack on a "handling" charge. More money. It adds up if done all at once.

If Correa says he's sold a bunch of STI's to CA LEO's before, I believe him. That means there IS a market for STI in CA, despite their not actually selling directly. Small potatos, perhaps, but it's still there, and some cops want great guns, just like us.

Regardless, do those of you in CA actually see your state getting better politicaly in the next 10 years? As long as the kooks, nuts, and environmental wack-jobs that flock to CA as their Mecca are still voting against the rational people that are left (which are out numbered), nothing is going to change for the better. Unfortunately, since we have no say in the political arena there, the rest of us have to come up with clever ways to prevent the virus from spreading into our own states. If that means setting an example of CA LE by urging companies not to do business there, then that's what we can do. Sorry.

 

[Autolycus]

Good for them.

 

[Correia]

Done.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3895331#post3895331

I called my STI rep earlier today and warned him.

 

[eliphalet]

Some of you are sadly misunderstanding IMO, I don't "hate California" I doubt many others do either. I grew up there, have spent over 25 years of my life living within Ca's borders. I will buy products from there when and only when it is ABSOLUTELY necessary and at no other time, and will support others that feel the same buy or sell. That policy is my own personal protest like not buying products form any anit freedom/firearm company if I can help it.
I doubt near as much but like Correia it cost me plenty monetarily, so what, my firearms and freedoms are far more important, life is too short to not leave IMHO. I have never been sorry.
I don't know what to tell you guy;s living in such areas and are firearm enthusiast when your choice is to stay, but I do agree with what Correia and others have been posting almost 100%.
Get out or put up with the it. It;s your life and your freedoms, like most things in life make your own choices, choose what for yourself is the most important.
We're all pretty much free to live where we want or buy/sell from who we want in this country.
It's all up to you.

 

[strat81]

the protesters can burn just the ones whose stamped bullets are pulled out of the corpse

The bullets are not stamped, the shell casings are. But I appreciate the sentiment, although I doubt a PD would ever release that info.

Regardless, do those of you in CA actually see your state getting better politicaly in the next 10 years?

I'm not in CA, but from the outside looking in, I do not. The CA folks are upset by STI's & Barrett's decisions, as well as those of us who support those decisions. They say, "it's what the antis want... no more guns sold in CA!" You know what? Glock could GIVE AWAY firearms to anyone that wanted one in CA and not a thing would change.

 

[ozarkhillbilly]

After reading 5 pages of replies, I have come to the conclusion that there are a lot of people from CA with anger problems and very little understanding of economics or population trends.

STI said, if they could not sell to CA citizens then they would not sell to CA law enforcement.