.
Posted on 01/22/2014 12:42:53 AM PST by Redcloak
Tony Canales reported from the SHOT show last week that Ruger will be allowing its handguns to fall off of the California "not unsafe" firearms roster.
Now we learn that Ruger isn't alone. Smith & Wesson will be allowing its M&P handguns to fall off of the roster as well.
(Excerpt) Read more at sanfernandovalleynra.org ...
Don't you just hate being right about these things?
devious bastards those that think these things up.
The anti-gun wingnuts in Sacramento originally called it a “safe” list. But then they realized that sounded too much like the State would be endorsing the guns on the list, so they walked it back to “not unsafe”.
That’s what I thought, but it’s late, I’m tired and my brain just couldn’t “get it”
“Not unsafe”
That must be one of those double negatives my English teachers warned me about, now also known as doublespeak.
It’s doubleplus good newspeak,
But will they still be able to sell to cops/agencies? Or are they also out of that business with this monkey business?
They must have stolen that from Maryland.
If and when one passes the background check for a handgun, the paperwork comes back "Not Disapproved".
No guns, no parts, no training, no ammunition.
In the battle between good and evil, only our side is constrained by integrity. If we give that up, we automatically lose. If we stick with it, we may be overpowered.
Exactly. Let them 'go Bobbie', nightsticks.
.
No guns, no parts, no training, no ammunition.
The problem is that bids for supplying state agency contracts often come from 3rd party companies which are not primarily identified as firearm wholesalers, but as "public safety supply" sources. These vendors sell everything from guns and ammo to uniforms and shoes.
I agree that manufacturers who deal directly with law-enforcement agencies should cut off California, but these alternate sources make it very tough to shut that state out completely. Now, warranty service... that might be easier to limit. The rest of the industry should follow Barrett's example there.
It was guaranteed to pass! The Brady bunch were popping the champagne corks! CBS even put on a special anti-handgun show the night before to sway the voters!
The bill failed 2-1. The politicians were stunned! It was supposed to pass!
The VOTERS had spoken! NO handgun bans in California.
So the politicians started finding little ways to deny the right to own guns by passing nitpicking laws on “safety”, what they can be made of, number of cartridges, lead bans. high dollar cost to get ammo.
Now it it micro stamping. Everything is designed to bypass Prop 15. You can defeat micro-stamping with a piece of very fine emery cloth or valve lapping compound.
But notice, the VOTERS have never been let near a ballot to decide such an issue since.
In theory, local agencies can buy not "not unsafe" handguns. However, I wonder how many city attorneys want to risk liability from an officer involved shooting with a gun the State calls unsafe.
I’d love to see some more manufacturers pull a Ronnie Barrett.
I am a firm believer in states rights. If Californians don’t want handguns in their state they should have the right to ban them. If a majority of people want handguns then they should live in the 45 or so states that support individual ownership.
The voters TURNED DOWN A GUN BAN (Prop 15)! The politicians have been working overtime trying to circumvent the will of the people.
The voters keep electing the same people who want to pass the gun ban, so tell me what it is they want. Do they even know what they want? Is welfare more important to them than freedom? Evidently so.
Those who think that we can compromise with these people are simply delusional. They don't compromise. No group of people who've been willing to work for decades to overrule the will of the People are going to compromise; not one bit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.