STI joins Barrett and Refuses to sell to Ca

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some of you guys make me laugh. A company stands up and makes a statment, but for you, it isn't good enough. You know what? I'm willing to bet that there are more STI pistols in LE holsters than there are Barrett rifles in LE arms rooms. (I know, I've sold a few of them to California cops)

Good for Barrett, good for STI. Bravo. Stand up and be counted.

And if STI isn't selling to civillians in California, that's because the idiotic drop testing isn't worth it to them. Once again, good.

Some of you people surprise me. Do you ever hear anything without coming up with some sort of super negative reason why it is actually lame and then immediatly post it on the internet? If a big manufacturer like S&W said no guns to California, you would be like, oh, but Glock is still doing it! If a giant meteor fell on Sacramento while the legislature was in session, you would be like, oh, the meteor was the wrong color! Boo friggin' hoo.

SVI and STI are two different companies.

I'll say this for STI, I get to deal with a lot of gun companies, and they are, by far without a doubt, the finest bunch that I've ever dealt with. I like everybody I've ever worked with there. I'm an STI dealer, like I'm a dealer for about a dozen other companies, and I'm proud to associate with them. I've sold about 40 STI pistols to THR members over the last year and a half in various group buys, and I couldn't ask for better sales reps or customer service folks.

And my STI 4.15 Tactical is the nicest pistol I own.

You guys up for another STI Group Buy? :)
 
This thread really cracks me up. A company that doesn't even sell to California is boycotting California? And you all think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread? Isn't that like your gardener saying i don't like the color of your house so i'm no longer going to your wash your car?

Earlier this year the California Highway Patrol ordered 9,700 model 4006TSW from S&W. Do you really think any firearms company is going to loose millions of dollars selling to an agency that is exempt from state gun laws? S&W already has over 100 different models that are exempt from micro stamping legislation. Glock has 47. Sig has 100. Beretta has 57. And on and on.

The only thing manufacturers would accomplish by boycotting the state is exactly what the anti's want, no more guns in California. Instead of encouraging manufactures to boycott California you should encourage them to lower their prices so more people could afford to buy more guns. Now that would really get their attention without depriving honest citizens of their constitutional and God given rights to self defense.
 
How many great events began as useless gestures? Take the Boston Tea Party for example.

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step..."
--Lao Tzu

Kudos to STI.
 
Looks like I'm going to have to take the Trojan and Spartan to the range this afternoon. I agree with Correia, STI is some of the best folk in the business.
 
Magsnubby, let me break it down for you.

STI was not selling to California due to the idiotic drop tests already. However, since LE was exempt, they were selling guns to cops. And they were selling quite a few guns to cops too, because any cop can get a personal exemption letter from his department which allows him to purchase whatever he wants. (seen plenty of the letters on department letterhead as a dealer myself) I've sold STIs to California cops as part of my groupbuys here on THR.

So STI isn't a huge dealer. Neither is Barrett. But if a bunch of folks (outside of California) buy STI pistols instead of a competing model from S&W, Kimber, or Springfield because of that stand, it does force those companies to examine their own policies.

Every small company that makes a stand forces the big companies to examine their own bottom line. As soon as it makes economic sense for the big companies to say screw California LE, the better.
S&W already has over 100 different models that are exempt from micro stamping legislation. Glock has 47. Sig has 100. Beretta has 57. And on and on.
Click to expand...
Those are for LE sales. Come 2009, none of those guns are exempt for civillian sales, and Californians get screwed by a de-facto gun ban. And LE sales are not the key to success. There are only like half a million cops in the country, vs. 80 million gun owners. You tell me which is a more valuable market. (and trust me on this one, I do a lot of LE sales, there is no comparison).

Instead of encouraging manufacturers to boycott California you should encourage them to lower their prices so more people could afford to buy more guns.
Click to expand...
I don't think you have any idea how thin the margins are, nor how competitive the companies are in the gun business. Adjusted for inflation, you are now paying the lowest prices ever for guns. And even if they made them cheaper, California would just pass another law saying that guns under $500 are now Saturday Night Specials. :scrutiny:

California's legislature is intent on banning guns, and they're doing it with a death by a thousand cuts. Not selling to LE is the only weapon the rest of the country has at this point to say no to that nonsense. We sure can't vote for your idiot politicians.

Now I don't hold out much hope for Glock & HK to stop selling to cops in California anytime soon, but if enough manufacturers would stop selling and supporting California LE, then we would have the momentum for a boycott, because even if HK had every single LE contract in the state, they would go bankrupt with out civillian sales in the rest of the country.

If California LE couldn't get guns, parts, or service, do you really think the legislature would be able to keep raping the gun industry at will?

And even if nothing comes of this at all, it is nice to see companies saying forget you California, we don't need your money. All of us California refugees living in flyover country are sick and tired of that old BS maxim "wherever California leads, the rest of the country follows."

Not anymore.
 
It's more symbolic than anything else

We need bigger companies to stand up and refuse to deal or even put pressure to go after the state for interfering with interstate commerce.

It's more than most any other company has done.
 
Buy STI instead of that other gun you were going to buy. Sure, they're small, but if this stand is helping them take business from less principled manufacturers, maybe it will open a few eyes and ears to this.
 
IMHO only half assed legislation.... Only new guns and only people who buy new guns. That most assuredly is not 99% of the people who use a weapon in a comission of a crime. So stupid....
Oh well, I know i'll have to escape Ca someday.... I'm just happy they haven't clued to the fact of Curio and Relic items.

-bix
 
I could be wrong but I believe I may have found marketing that stands in stark contrast to STI's right here.

Too new for me to be certain, but it sure looks like:
1. A firearm designed and marketed specifically to an elite California LE agency.
2. Bereft of firing pin block.
3. Not on the current CAL-DOJ roster.

If no FPB, it probably will never be on the list the California masses can buy.


But I'd bet a donut that, within ten days max, THR will see a flurry of posts from those wondering about buying the "SIS" (with no small number bagging on the slide serrations).

If every swinging richard that winds up buying a "SIS" or "LA SWAT" bought, say, an STI Lawman instead, some real results might be noted. The STI Lawman wouldn't even be priced much higher than the SIS given the resources the THR membership enjoys <cough>. FBMG.

Edited to add: I'm doing my part. FFL just called - my Texican just showed up - I'm off to pick 'er up.
 
I sort of like the idea, but isn't this what the government wants, no guns sold in California?

I understand that not selling to law enforcment might anger the government, but they will be happy no civilians are getting guns from them either
Click to expand...

Perhaps. And I'm sorry for anybody affected in Calif. But Calif can drive a gun issue nationwide. If firearms have to be manufactured to fit some loon law out there, we all wind up with the same less desirable, more expensive guns. I'm glad some are finally saying "NO" to their BS.

Tuckerdog1
 
STI not selling firearms to California LE is pointless. The solid majority of LE does not even use them. If this was Glock stating so, I would be impressed because it would have an impact directly in California. Until then it is waiting time until other huge firearm manufacturers refuse to sell to LE here in this state, or enough people buy enough STI products (outside of California because we cannot do so here) to do just that, another thing which I severely doubt. However, I believe that time will come only after the civilians get screwed in the process, such as we already are. STI is not selling anything to California, big whoop. A company with literally no market share in the state whatsoever refusing to do business. It's more symbolic than anything else. When Colt, Glock, and S&W do the same, then I will have hope. Until then the Antis get what they want.
 
Please just read this msg from STI as 'irrelevant' since THEY DON'T SELL ANY GUNS IN CA - AND HAVEN'T FOR AWHILE.

They just wanted some free PR for an irrelevant matter and took advantage of recent news.

All this crowing about "telling CA to go to hell" is fine except when it hurts CA gunowners.

The antis *WANT THIS*. Hell, they'd like ALL gun sales to stop.

However, this will never be realized. CA accounts for ~15+% of national gun sales by volume - by dollar, likely somewhat higher because due to higher prices and also due to higher incomes (as we often buy better-than-average guns - the Sig to Ruger P89 skew at the average CA gunshop is gonna be far higher than in shops in many other areas of US).

Large vendors are not gonna give up this market, and given that many are publicly-traded they have a fiduciary obligation to continue to sell, and to continue to seek sales, within CA. Also many vendors run thru distribution channels and can't legally direct or control the sales out of these distribution channels.

Even if Company X said "we're not gonna sell to LEOs in CA" and a distributor of Company X's products were to instead do so, Company X couldn't legally do much about it - if it did all sorts of restraint of trade issues would apply.

We're of course fighting behind the lines here to stop this BS. We almost had microstamping shot down before GOC (a GOA affiliate) leadership screwed the pooch with some strategic idiocy on some lead ammo matters, and pissed off Arnie enough to sign two gun bills. (We had a variety of sources indicating legislative staff was against it and if no drama had occurred these woulda slid toward vetoes. More info about this is on Calguns.net.]

* * * * * *​

I also have to add this comment in rejoinder to the smarmy remarks I keep hearing here about CA: many of you whining about CA from your 'Red state' bastions are on de facto welfare on a state-wide basis - as you reside in a "net income" states when total money going in the state vs. production output is considered. California is a "net outflow" state - despite all our stupid liberal overhead, illegals, etc. we produce substantially more than we consume - as we subsidize a helluva lotta red states with our Fed dollars. The SF Bay Area alone is directly responsible for ~3% of US GNP and indirectly another ~2.5%.

Maybe California should withhold our biotech products from folks in Red states? Let them go to Oral Roberts University for faith healings or the local state university ag school for new medicine development? Bwaaah.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
 
Last edited:
Bartkowski said:
I sort of like the idea, but isn't this what the government wants, no guns sold in California?

I understand that not selling to law enforcment might anger the government, but they will be happy no civilians are getting guns from them either.
Click to expand...

What woud make a bigger impact is if the companies would offer a special discount to any person in CA wanting to purchas one of their products. That way we put more guns in the hands of gun owners in CA. Now that would piss off the ca liberials. Would it not.
 
While this is symbolic, it will have an effect. I have already discussed purchasing an STI with Larry and intend to follow through in the next few months (Xmas needs to get handled first!). I intend on forwarding a copy of the receipt to Springfield and S&W (of which I am a shareholder). I'll attach a letter letting them know that the sale could have been theirs if they decided to stand up to states like CA.

If the big LE manufacturers (Glock, Sig, HK, S&W, Beretta, SA) stood together, things would change. The microstamping fight was lost, now we must focus our efforts on the manufacturers.
 
strat81 said:
If the big LE manufacturers (Glock, Sig, HK, S&W, Beretta, SA) stood together, things would change. The microstamping fight was lost, now we must focus our efforts on the manufacturers.
Click to expand...

You're high.

Why would publicly-traded/stock-held companies avoid their fiduciary obligation to their shareholders and refuse to sell to a large part of the market and risk a shareholder lawsuit or board revolt? I can tell you that if I were a board member and heard of such a 'reverse boycott' being planned, there'd be new mgmt installed the next day. No rational company kisses away sales.

STI has sales of 2 or 3 or a dozen guns to gain and none to lose since they're (1) privately owned (2) small-volume, and (3) don't sell any handguns in CA anyway.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
 
"Why would publicly-traded/stock-held companies avoid their fiduciary obligation to their shareholders and refuse to sell to a large part of the market and risk a shareholder lawsuit or board revolt?"

Well I dunno, maybe because it's the right thing?
The goal of gun control is the eventual banning of all handguns to civilians, so taking a stand against things that will snowball into that is profitable for gun companies in the long run.

I really wish more companies would see that it is their moral responsibility to not allow LE to think that they're better than civilians allowing them superior firerarms exclusively.
 
bwiese said:
Why would publicly-traded/stock-held companies avoid their fiduciary obligation to their shareholders and refuse to sell to a large part of the market and risk a shareholder lawsuit or board revolt?"
Click to expand...

crunker1337 said:
Well I dunno, maybe because it's the right thing?
The goal of gun control is the eventual banning of all handguns to civilians, so taking a stand against things that will snowball into that is profitable for gun companies in the long run.
Click to expand...

More gunshop naivete.

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.
 
Insult aside, I was unaware of that, and thanks for informing me about that.

What if 50% of the share holders said that they didn't want the company to sell to CA LEOs? Then wouldn't the company have an obligation to listen? Or would that be only if there was a single owner of 50% of the shares.

Using personal insults on a forum with rather strict guidelines and a community that doesn't tolerate such crap is a good way to get banned.
 
Whatever.

What if 50% of the share holders said that they didn't want the company to sell to CA LEOs? Then wouldn't the company have an obligation to listen? Or would that be only if there was a single owner of 50% of the shares.
Click to expand...

51% of the *number* of shareholders, or 51% of the shares? Yours and my 1 or two or 10 or 100 shares don't count for much against pension funds, investment banks, etc. that own h undreds of thousands or more shares. They get a bigger vote.

Share-held companies are organized for profit, not political correctness (and we progunners can unfortunately have our own political correctness).

It's also highly unlikely a company could say "We don't sell to cops" - that's not far from "We don't serve blacks", "We sell guns to those over 30 years old only", etc.

Sure, they can avoid general CA sales by not setting their guns up for approval. But LEO can still buy them in CA. And since most guns (except for small companies like STI and Barrett) are sold thru distribution, the distributor is free to sell them to wherever he legally can - and a mfgr cannot legally tell the distributor he can't sell into a given state - "restraint of trade", etc.

Bottom line, all the idiots recommending not selling into CA (1) hurt CA gunowners who are fighting tooth & nail to stop bad laws and (2) does zero good - it does NOT 'send a message" because it's easy to go around.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
 
STI wasn't selling any guns in CA anyway, so they figured it would be some good PR to claim they were taking a stand like Barrett.

Bill is right, and STI is full of ****, to boot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
STI Stops Sales to CA: "Enough is enough"
Replies
22
Views
1K
Matt-man
M
N
  • Locked
Barrett boycot ineffective?
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Notch
N
Superlite27
  • Locked
  • Poll
Selling guns in California
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
G
  • Locked
ALL NON-CA residents.
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
glockman19
G
G
  • Locked
Don't say I didn't warn you all (Kennedy bill)
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
jungleroy
J
Back
Top