Posted on 01/23/2014 6:36:21 AM PST by Greystoke
On January 22nd renowned gun maker Smith & Wesson joined Sturm, Ruger, & Co., by announcing it would cease California sales of its semi-automatic pistols due to microstamping requirements that went into effect last year. Ruger made the same announcement earlier this month.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Microstamping. Another way to get around the REJECTION, by the VOTERS, of Proposition 15 back in 1982. That was a proposal to ban the sale of handguns in California.
Since that day, Politicians have been trying to find other ways to outlaw the sale of handguns, and now long guns.
microstamping can be defeated with a piece of fine emery cloth or valve lapping compound.
Demand is still there. Lots of demand. Therefore, honest folks will just end up becoming lawbreakers.
So, if S&W had knuckled under and added the microstamping, which would have affected gun purchasers in every state in the union, you’d call that a win? Really?
Just no pleasing some folks, I guess.
Well, I knew S&W made revolvers, but didn't know they weren't part of the microstamp thing (which actually is logical, since revolvers don't leave spent brass behind, unless the perp is VERY stupid and reloads w.o. pocketing the empties). So your comment is good info.
But it still doesn't address the issue of whether S&W will continue to sell semi-auto firearms that ARE covered by the microstamping regs to groups like police??
I admire the folks in Colorado who basically said "if I can't sell to your law-abiding citizens, I won't sell to police either". One could hope that S&W has the balls to do the same.
My understanding is the requirement includes semi-autos bought by Police, and S&W’s problem is they don’t want to have to make them at all. I don’t think S&W or Ruger will sell to the Police, either. It’s a bit academic, because the service pistols are Glocks.
I really want CA to fail at this, because if they can force the gun makers to fit pistols with the microstamps, they’ll have to make them like that for everybody in the country, kicking the price of guns up by a lot.
(I was being a bit of a wise guy. Sorry.)
I believe that the handguns that are already on the ridiculous "not unsafe" roster are exempt from the requirement for micro-stamping. For reasons that are now becoming obvious, the registrations of "not unsafe" handguns expire and have to be renewed, at some expense, by the manufacturers. I'm not sure but I would guess that handguns that fall off the roster probably have to be "upgraded" to the newest requirements to be put back on.
As far as I'm concerned, firearms manufacturers should have fought the requirement that guns have serial numbers decades ago. Almost all of the pernicious infringements of the Second Amendment require serial numbers in order for the law to even make sense. How, for example, would one register a gun without a number on it; take a picture and send the picture into the government?
I believe that they are playing now an important role in helping to re-establish the Second Amendment; by over-reaching and sending their forces "a bridge too far".
By going overboard in Illinois with their complete ban on concealed carry, it made it much easier for the courts to completely set aside their law.
The law in Illinois, at least on paper, is far more in keeping with the Second Amendment than Kalifornia's "shall issue" law which permits the local law enforcement chief to deny those without "good cause". The effect in Kalifornia is that some counties are effectively NO-ISSUE, and yet this law remains on the books (though it is under challenge).
It's my hope that the "not unsafe" handgun roster will, because of the more unreasonable requirement for micro-stamping, be completely thrown out. Such might be more difficult if the requirements are for hammer-blocks, external safeties, and loaded-chamber indicators.
The Ninth Circus Court seems to have stalled on delivering gun-related decisions lately. I'm hopeful that it is the relatively clear language of Heller and McDonald which is making it difficult for them to find a way to uphold the various infringements brought to their attention.
I think it depends on how many other states jump on the bandwagon. If it is just CA, even all sales to that state, as large as the population is, are a tiny fraction of gun sales to the rest of the states. I think the mfgs will balk, and tell CA politely to "go to hell".
The problem for the gunmakers is they’d have to develop “boutique guns,” specially made by state. That would *really* drive the prices up, so some sort of standardization would have to be developed, all to the detriment of the right to keep and bear arms. All the while, the science is dubious. You don’t even need to be a gunsmith to defeat the microstamp. Just run a couple thousand rounds of good ammo through the gun and the mark is illegible. Or go at the firing pin for a couple minutes with some emery. Online sales of replacement firing pins will become a cottage industry.
It’s like gasoline: California demands certain blends of fuel, and the people living in the nearby states all have to burn it (and pay extra), even though they had nothing to do with mandating it. Taxation without Representation.
Meanwhile, two major gunmakers just told CA to, as you put it, “Go to Hell.” Good for them.
Not quite the same. California has quite a bit of oil and hence a number of refineries. If those refineries expect to stay in business, they pretty much have to dance to the tune of the California fruits and nuts on whose real estate they sit. The neighboring states have neither oil, nor refineries, so they are sort of SOL, and have to take what California provides.
Does CA have ANY gun manufacturers "in-state"? I'm certainly not aware of any.
Absolutely no knuckling under and cooperating with the nearly undoable microstamping! They should have announced termination of all business to state agencies on the condition that the CA legislature backs off. Just the same as Ronnie Barrett did.
CA government doesn’t want the “benefit” of microstamping, they just wants less guns in the hands of civilians while the government remains armed. Without shutting CA government out of the arms market this is just a win for the left.
I’m looking forward to the response of the other manufacturers reaction to this. A little solidarity would go a long way toward slowing down this landslide of disappearing liberties. It worked for the PA outdoor show.
I agree with you. However, one must keep in mind both S&W and Ruger are private companies, bound by any existing contracts with the State of California. Suddenly demanding microstamping of all semi-auto handguns being sold to the state would constitute a breach of contract, and the gun companies would be free to stop selling them.
Since most cops in CA (that I know of) are issued Glocks, then I have to assume these are private purchases *by* cops, and they sometimes get special deals because of that. I would expect both companies to cease these particular sales because they wouldn’t be covered under any state contracts.
S&W and Ruger won’t be making these sales, I am sure, because the issue is manufacturability, not politics.
As to the wisdom of continuing to sell guns not covered, as a property-rights loving conservative I leave that up to the companies if they want to embargo people in California or not.
I get you. A contract is a contract. I’m not for embargoing the people of CA, but government only. Next contracts should have stipulations, but of course, it is up to the private companies, and it is up to the consumer also to vote with his dollars.
I like how some companies have told NY cops to go pound sand when they wanted guns with magazines larger than six rounds. “You don’t need more than seven rounds to kill a dog.”
:^)
If the cops need a weapon of different specifications than what is legal for you and me, then we need them too. Police are supposed to have firearms to defend themselves, and standard capacity magazines are appropriate for self defense, whereas limited capacity magazines are a recipe for disaster. And another thing, cops don’t need select fire ANYTHING! any more than you and I do. If I can’t buy ‘em, then they can’t have ‘em.
I agree with you, but the lovely people writing the laws don’t. We’re not allowed to have stuff as good as the cops can get. Try and buy a flash-bang grenade. Or Teflon-coated rounds.
Yep. A component of tyranny.
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.