STI joins Barrett and Refuses to sell to Ca
- Thread starter Jim Diver
- Start date
- Status
Easy. If a small company like STI or Barrett's sales go up because of this stand, and S&W or Kimber belives their sales will go up with the other 49 states, then they'll do. Companies make strategic financial decisions all the time based on marketing.
Yeah, I only spent 5 years as a financial analyst for a Fortune 500 company. I'm definately an idiot on that topic.
mike6161
Member
Are you kidding me STI has done what the anti gun people wonted. if no gun company will sale to dealers in California
Then guns are harder to get so gun people will move. then it will be easy for the antis to be able to pass laws to band gun from the stat and then it will be just that more easy to do it to the country then the little thing STI did will be remembered as the thing that got guns band.
So they should go back to selling and raise the price for LE or if all the gun companies and owners just say no and the companies just make gun that do not have the number then what are they going to do.
Then guns are harder to get so gun people will move. then it will be easy for the antis to be able to pass laws to band gun from the stat and then it will be just that more easy to do it to the country then the little thing STI did will be remembered as the thing that got guns band.
So they should go back to selling and raise the price for LE or if all the gun companies and owners just say no and the companies just make gun that do not have the number then what are they going to do.
Correia, what does it matter if you were a financial analyst, a physical therapist or a pig farmer, when you judge the "message" sent?
If STI's sales go up, and California's moonbats get what they want -- fewer and fewer guns available in California -- so other states follow suit, how does that help gun rights?
Massachusetts looks at CA and says, "Hey! They chased away even the guns they didn't ban!" Then Illinois, New York, Maryland... So STI says, "We won't sell there, either!" So you'll be able to sell STI's in Utah, Arizona and Idaho. Whoopee! That's great for STI and great for RKBA.
So their "stand" does WHAT for gun rights?
As I said, STI wasn't selling guns here anyway, so they figured they could turn that into PR points. That's completely different from what Barrett did, even if Barrett isn't really hurting LE much -- and Barrett still sells to civilians here.
If STI's sales go up, and California's moonbats get what they want -- fewer and fewer guns available in California -- so other states follow suit, how does that help gun rights?
Massachusetts looks at CA and says, "Hey! They chased away even the guns they didn't ban!" Then Illinois, New York, Maryland... So STI says, "We won't sell there, either!" So you'll be able to sell STI's in Utah, Arizona and Idaho. Whoopee! That's great for STI and great for RKBA.
So their "stand" does WHAT for gun rights?
As I said, STI wasn't selling guns here anyway, so they figured they could turn that into PR points. That's completely different from what Barrett did, even if Barrett isn't really hurting LE much -- and Barrett still sells to civilians here.
While Bill and I differ on a lot of items, he has it nailed here. Corporate America is not going to solve any California problems and certainly none of Americas.
Standing up for what is right is the responsibility of the citizens. The sooner all gun owners organize and quit breaking into little factions of red state/blue state nonsense then maybe we can fight against this crap. The only reason it's been allowed to get so bad is because we as gun owners have basically done nothing to stop it, not just in California but everywhere. The problems in California or Maryland or Massachusetts will eventually bleed into other states, why not help us to end it here before it gets to you?
Standing up for what is right is the responsibility of the citizens. The sooner all gun owners organize and quit breaking into little factions of red state/blue state nonsense then maybe we can fight against this crap. The only reason it's been allowed to get so bad is because we as gun owners have basically done nothing to stop it, not just in California but everywhere. The problems in California or Maryland or Massachusetts will eventually bleed into other states, why not help us to end it here before it gets to you?
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Actually Mike, lots of people from this forum think we need to boycott all the other gun makers until they commit to not selling to California. See http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=309136&highlight=barrett+california
They think we should work to change things in California by punishing gunmakers who would dare comply with the law and sell there.
billwiese
Member
Correia,
Whatever your experience as a Fin. Analyst, it doesn't change the fact that CA is ~16+% by share, probably 18-19% by dollar, of the US personal commercial firearms market.
The biggies (Glock, Sig, HK, S&W and Ruger etc) will adapt their firearms for the CA market - no one leaves that money on the table, esp as margins are higher out here.
For example, Glock could not show enough sales increase in the rest of the country to justify "banning CA". It's just stupid. We gunnies need to get our heads outta the sand.
Veering back towards the topic...
(1) STI made this statement even though it hasn't, and can't, generally sell guns in CA regardless of the events (microstamping) that prompted this statement and which don't kick in for several years minimum (and perhaps not even 20 years or more);
(2) LEs can buy STI guns in CA whether or not STI likes it. An intermediating FFL or distributor can provide these services whether or not STI likes it. (Howdya think we got all those legal 'off-list' AR lowers in CA when the mfgrs were cowed by DOJ threats to mfgrs to not send them in?)
(3) While the CA microstamping law is bad, it appears to be unenforceable and depends on surrender of various patents and no patent fights on lithography. I don't think our yokels in our DOJ Bur. of Firearms want to (let alone have the mental capacity to!) meddle in that.
(4) In CA we were shot down on the microstamping law because of "friends" - Gun Owners of California stupidity started a ruckus about lead ammo issues, and created a controversy right when 2 gun bills were on the governor's desk. Legislative staff were recommending against it, and all feedback was that it would be quietly vetoed. This vote wasn't about 'liberalism', 'gun control' etc - it was payback to gun people and NRA had to take blame for GOC embarassment.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
Whatever your experience as a Fin. Analyst, it doesn't change the fact that CA is ~16+% by share, probably 18-19% by dollar, of the US personal commercial firearms market.
The biggies (Glock, Sig, HK, S&W and Ruger etc) will adapt their firearms for the CA market - no one leaves that money on the table, esp as margins are higher out here.
For example, Glock could not show enough sales increase in the rest of the country to justify "banning CA". It's just stupid. We gunnies need to get our heads outta the sand.
Veering back towards the topic...
(1) STI made this statement even though it hasn't, and can't, generally sell guns in CA regardless of the events (microstamping) that prompted this statement and which don't kick in for several years minimum (and perhaps not even 20 years or more);
(2) LEs can buy STI guns in CA whether or not STI likes it. An intermediating FFL or distributor can provide these services whether or not STI likes it. (Howdya think we got all those legal 'off-list' AR lowers in CA when the mfgrs were cowed by DOJ threats to mfgrs to not send them in?)
(3) While the CA microstamping law is bad, it appears to be unenforceable and depends on surrender of various patents and no patent fights on lithography. I don't think our yokels in our DOJ Bur. of Firearms want to (let alone have the mental capacity to!) meddle in that.
(4) In CA we were shot down on the microstamping law because of "friends" - Gun Owners of California stupidity started a ruckus about lead ammo issues, and created a controversy right when 2 gun bills were on the governor's desk. Legislative staff were recommending against it, and all feedback was that it would be quietly vetoed. This vote wasn't about 'liberalism', 'gun control' etc - it was payback to gun people and NRA had to take blame for GOC embarassment.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
billwiese
Member
DoubleNaughtSpy said:
This is stupidity we need to avoid. When ideological purity kills practicality and has long-term negative consequences, it's bad.
You're punishing CA gun owners WHO VOTE AND ORGANIZE AND FIGHT THIS BS even though the votes of others brought it into play.
All this is a function of time, demographics and districting. Y'all may think you're immune but as your population changes and metro areas grow, it's coming to you - you just are 10-20 years away from it.
And if you dry up supply of guns, there's (over time) less new shooters, less new hunters, less people-seeing-guns-being-used-safely and it's easier to further isolate and demonize them and pass even more laws.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
I'm trying that but unfortunately I'm stationed here.
I buy most things online, or commissary. I registered my Car in Texas (read Home state) And I only buy gas on Base.
I do have a Trojan 5.0, and was debating either a SA Stainless Champion, Kimber Pro II, or Ranger.
I guess the Ranger Wins. Wonder if they'll ship to my moms house?
My letter to STI
I would like to congratulate you on your recent decision to stop sales to Ca. More so due to the law enforcement sales. I understand that law enforcement officers need these tools to survive. So do civilians.
As a result of your new policy relating to Ca sales, my next purchase will be an STI pistol.
Thank you for standing up for your customers' rights and not stabbing them in the back as many other gun manufactures have.
Sincerely
Mot
I would like to congratulate you on your recent decision to stop sales to Ca. More so due to the law enforcement sales. I understand that law enforcement officers need these tools to survive. So do civilians.
As a result of your new policy relating to Ca sales, my next purchase will be an STI pistol.
Thank you for standing up for your customers' rights and not stabbing them in the back as many other gun manufactures have.
Sincerely
Mot
I was never a pig farmer. Grew up on a dairy farm though... In California of all places, before it devolved into the cesspool that it is today.
I'm not in favor of hurting regular gun buyers. STI hasn't sold guns to regular people (I won't use the term civillian) since the idiotic drop testing went in. I'm in favor of hurting LE. If a couple of big companies make the jump to not selling or supporting departments, then it will make a statement. This latest move only cut off cops.
Of course, by that point HK will be glad to step in and sell to every department in the state. But that's because they hate us anyway.
Bill, I'm familiar with the numbers. My ex-mega corporation had an office in California. I could have made another 120% in pay, but chose to stay in a place that didn't suck.
As for hurting California gun owners, guess what? Ya'll had your chance to stop this. You lost. The rest of us red "welfare" states, (and those numbers are twisted anyway), don't want .50 bans, drop testing, and micro stamping to spread to us. Supporting manufacturers that stand up to your pathetic legislature is the only weapon the rest of us have at this point.
How you lost is irrelevant. The rest of us don't plan to lose. And if that means that gun owners in states like California take a hit, sorry. You had your chance. The rest of us in flyover country aren't going down like that.
So I fully plan to reward manufacturers that take a stand. No matter if it is small, or symbolic, because until the people of California decide to stand up and stop this nonsense, that is what the rest of us are left with.
Sorry if this hurts your feelings. But at the end of the day, it is your people, your neighbors, that hurt you. Not us. Not Ronnie Barrett. Not STI. When guns are eventually banned in California, you won't be able to come back and say that it is our fault, because guess what? We can't vote there. Only you can. 40 out of 50 states are getting better every year in gun rights.
We didn't "band" your guns. And I don't care if this is what your antis want. They're a bunch of delusional parasitical freaks of nature. Us red states are going to reward manufacturers that tell the .gov in California to take a flying leap.
I'm not in favor of hurting regular gun buyers. STI hasn't sold guns to regular people (I won't use the term civillian) since the idiotic drop testing went in. I'm in favor of hurting LE. If a couple of big companies make the jump to not selling or supporting departments, then it will make a statement. This latest move only cut off cops.
Of course, by that point HK will be glad to step in and sell to every department in the state. But that's because they hate us anyway.
Bill, I'm familiar with the numbers. My ex-mega corporation had an office in California. I could have made another 120% in pay, but chose to stay in a place that didn't suck.
As for hurting California gun owners, guess what? Ya'll had your chance to stop this. You lost. The rest of us red "welfare" states, (and those numbers are twisted anyway), don't want .50 bans, drop testing, and micro stamping to spread to us. Supporting manufacturers that stand up to your pathetic legislature is the only weapon the rest of us have at this point.
How you lost is irrelevant. The rest of us don't plan to lose. And if that means that gun owners in states like California take a hit, sorry. You had your chance. The rest of us in flyover country aren't going down like that.
So I fully plan to reward manufacturers that take a stand. No matter if it is small, or symbolic, because until the people of California decide to stand up and stop this nonsense, that is what the rest of us are left with.
Sorry if this hurts your feelings. But at the end of the day, it is your people, your neighbors, that hurt you. Not us. Not Ronnie Barrett. Not STI. When guns are eventually banned in California, you won't be able to come back and say that it is our fault, because guess what? We can't vote there. Only you can. 40 out of 50 states are getting better every year in gun rights.
We didn't "band" your guns. And I don't care if this is what your antis want. They're a bunch of delusional parasitical freaks of nature. Us red states are going to reward manufacturers that tell the .gov in California to take a flying leap.
billwiese
Member
eliphalet said:
Fine. To help you make your promise complete, I guess we can expect you to pledge not to use any biotech products/medicines for you or your family members. Many of those come outta CA. Oh - no new AMD or Intel chips for your computer, either, and throw out the iPod - they were designed here.and don't rent any videos produced in Hollywood. Also, you need to surrender the portions of your 401K & pension plan that are invested here (I'm sure you can live with the reduced returns since you'll have a shorter life expectancy due to not using biotech products developed in CA.)
And since folks Red States live 'net income' states - they take in more money from Feds than their production compensates for, we Californias (a 'net producer' state) are friggin' *producers(, baby, and we're tired of carrying y'all. Despite all our issues - liberal gov't, illegal immigration, taxes. etc. - we make and sell more stuff than our overhead.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
billwiese
Member
Corriea said:
Either you think you can control demographics or think CA demographics won't come your way.
So you must either (1) have a collection of nice mobile execution chambers to deal with that, or (2) you're living in la-la land, and you're only 10-20 years out from our situation because metro areas grow and things get redistricted. You're already seeing inklings of it happen in Florida and AZ.
correia said:
This is legally impossible and again a useless symbolic gesture. I'm sure if LAPD wants a Barrett 50 it can just have any of dozens of LE distributor FFLs throughout USA acquire one for it. Any company that uses distributors or resellers can't really control who their customer base is.
For example, Colt officially doesn't/won't ship in a Colt Match Elite AR receiver into CA. They still think it's illegal. CMMG and others won't ship AR receivers into CA either. Which is fine, an intermediate FFL or distributor who understands the law will just jump in the middle for a small profit - no biggie. 3 other people and myself helped lay the groundwork for all of this 'off list' rifle biz in CA - you think a PD won't find a way to buy guns?
If our agencies want new guns, they go thru an LE distributor who can also handle resale of old guns. Hell, the gun mfgr may not even know when the order is shipped/written if selling out of distributor's inventory - most depts don't replace all guns at once and phase things in so these orders are, individually, just blips on the radar.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
Crunker1337
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,168
Correia, I don't like the way you think that pro-gunners not from California can isolate themselves from Californian pro-gunners.
It's our COLLECTIVE problem, and infighting is not the answer at all.
Remember, a house divided cannot stand.
It's our COLLECTIVE problem, and infighting is not the answer at all.
Remember, a house divided cannot stand.
billwiese,
It's no use trying to explain it. Seems they're all so blinded by their hatred for California that they just can't see STI's "boycott" is just a cheap publicity stunt. Kind of like trying to talk sense to an anti gunner. Or my three year old grandson.
It reminds me of a Texan i used to work with back in the '70's. Always bragging about Texas and putting California down. So i ask him one day "Carl, if Texas is so great, then why did you move to California?" "'Cause i couldn't find no work in Texas." Well then, it seems Texas ain't so ****ing great after all now is it?" He never did have an answer for that one.
It's no use trying to explain it. Seems they're all so blinded by their hatred for California that they just can't see STI's "boycott" is just a cheap publicity stunt. Kind of like trying to talk sense to an anti gunner. Or my three year old grandson.
It reminds me of a Texan i used to work with back in the '70's. Always bragging about Texas and putting California down. So i ask him one day "Carl, if Texas is so great, then why did you move to California?" "'Cause i couldn't find no work in Texas." Well then, it seems Texas ain't so ****ing great after all now is it?" He never did have an answer for that one.
Sadly Bill Wiese is right. There is too much money in the State to not sell to CA. And quite frankly you need as many guns sold in this Anti-Gun Craptopia as possible, the main reason is that the more shooters you have the less of this Leftist crybaby crap you have to put up with. Look, like it or not California is like a cancer. It will spread. Maybe not directly to Arizona or Florida, but to the little wannabe California's like Denver, and Madison, and Lincoln. and Whether it be the San Fransisco suburbanites who retire and sell their 200 square foot apartment for $3Million, and move to Arizona or the folks that that can't stand the gangs or the traffic and move to Colorado to screw up the highways there; California spreads. Manufacturers alienating potential shooters is just gonna make more anti-gunners.
Believe it or not pro-gunners are making progress in the State. (I mean don't get me wrong, its still the PRK for a reason) but they are making progress.
I don't have an answer as to what to do.
But not selling to Cops wouldn't work anyway. Cops are going to get guns just like everyone else gets guns.
Not selling to cops is not going to disarm the Cops any more than not selling to Gang bangers is going to keep them from getting guns.
Well I guess I ranted enough today.
AF_int1n0
Believe it or not pro-gunners are making progress in the State. (I mean don't get me wrong, its still the PRK for a reason) but they are making progress.
I don't have an answer as to what to do.
But not selling to Cops wouldn't work anyway. Cops are going to get guns just like everyone else gets guns.
Not selling to cops is not going to disarm the Cops any more than not selling to Gang bangers is going to keep them from getting guns.
Well I guess I ranted enough today.
AF_int1n0
Doggy Daddy
Member
There are still those who choose what's right and leave the tainted money on the table.
Case in point. Correia, I'm sorry I can't donate to your house payment in response to your principled stand, but you do have my respect... for what it's worth.
john219
Member
I don't think the State of California can be prevented from using straw purchasers to acquire Barretts or anything else.
I don't know if it will anger many voters who wouldn't be angry without the move. There are other ways to pressure government officials. This is one of those ways. Sometimes more direct actions like this will have a stronger effect than trying to influence voters. Would enough California voters really care?
waterhouse
Member
As an aside, is this actually illegal? Exxon puts money towards researching corn as a viable fuel source. They say they are "planning for the future." I'd argue that a company (not necessarily STI, but any publicly traded company) boycotting sales to CA in an attempt to get CA to change their laws could argue that they are "looking towards the future" of sales, and thus doing their best to increase profit.
Whether or not this is a PR deal or not, STI is hugely supportive of shooting sports, they sponsor many, many shooting events, and the company is made of great people from the president to the secretaries.
modifiedbrowning
Member
What if gun manufacturers only sold micro stamped pistols in CA? I mean to police as well as the general public. Seeing as they are exempt from the microstamping requirements, maybe they would raise a stink if that was all they could buy.
no, it's not illegal at all. companies do all sorts of things that aren't DIRECTLY attached to profit, such as donating to the United Way. Heck, California companies pioneered the ill-fated "who needs revenue? we just want clicks" dotcom business models.
I agree with Corriea.
manufacturers have all sorts of contracts with distributors that govern sale and marketing of their products. for instance, some don't allow resellers to advertise their products below MSRP. obviously, this is legal, and there's nothing preventing a mfg from telling their distributors they may not sell to CA LEOs.
I'm not trying to screw the poor CA citizens for whom rights are less important than living in CA, but things have to get a lot worse there before they get better. the sooner they get worse, the sooner they get better. you know what predictions are worth, but that's mine.
i bought a barrett M95 after ronnie's letter. i'm betting i'm not alone. I'm not interested in an STI at the moment, but I'll bet they get more business out of it than they lose from CA. they'll deserve it.
I agree with Corriea.
manufacturers have all sorts of contracts with distributors that govern sale and marketing of their products. for instance, some don't allow resellers to advertise their products below MSRP. obviously, this is legal, and there's nothing preventing a mfg from telling their distributors they may not sell to CA LEOs.
I'm not trying to screw the poor CA citizens for whom rights are less important than living in CA, but things have to get a lot worse there before they get better. the sooner they get worse, the sooner they get better. you know what predictions are worth, but that's mine.
i bought a barrett M95 after ronnie's letter. i'm betting i'm not alone. I'm not interested in an STI at the moment, but I'll bet they get more business out of it than they lose from CA. they'll deserve it.
Have you read nothing here?
They DON'T SELL anything in CA. They will lose nothing (in the short term) because they have nothing to lose.
Therefore, this is a publicity stunt, no cost to them, and they hope people like you will buy their guns because of it.
Now which companies can help kill microstamping? The ones that stay in the marketplace and sue the state over patents, etc. as above. Are YOU going to sue California, or are some of the larger gun companies?
Who has ponied up to fight lawsuits against gunmakers that pose a real threat to RKBA? You? Or those gunmakers? Not STI, anyway.
And it's been a LOT of money they've had to spend.
apparently. if they don't sell anything in CA, then business lost is zero. if they gain any business in the part of the country that still has the RKBA, then that is greater than zero, and my bet is a winner.
i'm not following your questioning of my reading comprehension.
I pony up my share, thanks.
First off, of the companies I listed, only one is publicly traded: S&W. Sturm, Ruger is the other publicly traded firearm company.
Olin Corp (NYSE:OLN) manufactures and sells Winchester ammunition. Part of the Winchester line is Ranger T "Law Enforcement Only" ammo. According to you, Olin's management should be fired since they are ignoring the civilian market.
What of the numerous insurance companies that refuse to write policies in certain states? Or refuse to write individual policies? More ignored markets.
Pay attention. Correia has already stated he has sold STI products to California residents. I don't think he's lying, but I suppose anything is possible.
Ad hominem attacks aside, it is not illegal. Management has a duty to ethically maximize profits. If they deem certain markets or selling practices as unethical, that is their choice. It is not illegal.
Incorrect. There are countless corporations that are not-for-profit.
Citation please.
- Status
