Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: CA microstamping law

  1. #1
    Regular Member DaveT319's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    283

    CA microstamping law

    I've seen in recent months that California has passed a law mandating firing pin microstamping on all new firearms. It's almost a good idea in theory, but the problem is that the technology is not working as advertised. More often than not - much more - the stamping does not clearly transfer to the primer, making it all but useless. On top of that, the stamping is cost-prohibitive, and would cause prices to rise considerably.

    That didn't stop California from making it a requirement for new guns sold in the state. As a result, Ruger and Smith & Wesson have decided to no longer sell in California.

    Now, one could say this was the actual goal of the legislation: to make it too expensive to continue to do business in CA. When coupled with other recent manufacturing requirements, it seems very likely.

    The problem here is that Ruger and S&W are playing right into their hands. By deciding to no longer sell in CA, they are effectively disarming the citizens, which is the ultimate goal of the CA legislature. And I believe sales to law enforcement are exempt from microstamping, meaning that Ruger and S&W are still free to sell to LEOs. I have not seen anything where they won't continue to sell to law enforcement, only that they will no longer sell in the civilian market.

    Rather than buckle to this law and turn their backs on the people, Ruger and S&W should instead refuse to sell to any CA government agency. THAT would really send a message to the legislature.

    Since those companies have decided to boycott the people of CA, I have decided I will boycott those companies. I would also encourage everyone to do the same.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    why any gun man would sell to ANY gov't agency is the question ...

  3. #3
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    why any gun man would sell to ANY gov't agency is the question ...
    Capitalism my friend.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  4. #4
    Regular Member MackTheKnife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveT319 View Post
    I've seen in recent months that California has passed a law mandating firing pin microstamping on all new firearms. It's almost a good idea in theory, but the problem is that the technology is not working as advertised. More often than not - much more - the stamping does not clearly transfer to the primer, making it all but useless. On top of that, the stamping is cost-prohibitive, and would cause prices to rise considerably.

    That didn't stop California from making it a requirement for new guns sold in the state. As a result, Ruger and Smith & Wesson have decided to no longer sell in California.

    Now, one could say this was the actual goal of the legislation: to make it too expensive to continue to do business in CA. When coupled with other recent manufacturing requirements, it seems very likely.

    The problem here is that Ruger and S&W are playing right into their hands. By deciding to no longer sell in CA, they are effectively disarming the citizens, which is the ultimate goal of the CA legislature. And I believe sales to law enforcement are exempt from microstamping, meaning that Ruger and S&W are still free to sell to LEOs. I have not seen anything where they won't continue to sell to law enforcement, only that they will no longer sell in the civilian market.

    Rather than buckle to this law and turn their backs on the people, Ruger and S&W should instead refuse to sell to any CA government agency. THAT would really send a message to the legislature.

    Since those companies have decided to boycott the people of CA, I have decided I will boycott those companies. I would also encourage everyone to do the same.
    How many departments use Ruger or S&W? I believe Glock, Beretta, Kimbers are prevalent. However, why would these two companies jack up overall prices for everyone just to satisfy California?

    Sent from my Kindle via the NSA.
    Mack The Knife sends.

    "Laech cach fer co bas" (Gaelic- "Everyman a warrior until death")
    "Bas no beatha" (McLean war cry- "Death or life")

  5. #5
    Regular Member DaveT319's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    283
    Few use Ruger, but more are starting to go with S&W M&P line

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveT319 View Post
    Few use Ruger, but more are starting to go with S&W M&P line
    Yup..M&P getting many PD sales

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveT319 View Post
    Now, one could say this was the actual goal of the legislation: to make it too expensive to continue to do business in CA. When coupled with other recent manufacturing requirements, it seems very likely.
    One could indeed say that, but a quick read through a decade of literature, both from the politicians and about them, from both pro-gun and anti-gun sides, reveals that it's not likely, as in "no way." What the literature does say is the politicians actually believe the microstamping drivel, along with most of the rest of their hair-brained ideas, including electronic trigger rings, mandatory storage in home safes, and even 911 authorization required for the release of your firearm. <--- Yes, that's been proposed.

    Since those companies have decided to boycott the people of CA, I have decided I will boycott those companies. I would also encourage everyone to do the same.
    Since this isn't the case at all, I have decided I will give these companies my patronage. I will encourage everyone to use reliable information, logic, and sound reasoning to make up their own minds with respect to whether or not they choose to support them as well.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Capitalism my friend.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Soon these capitalists will learn that its better for their bottom line to push back hard rather than sit on the sidelines.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveT319 View Post

    Rather than buckle to this law and turn their backs on the people, Ruger and S&W should instead refuse to sell to any CA government agency. THAT would really send a message to the legislature.

    Since those companies have decided to boycott the people of CA, I have decided I will boycott those companies. I would also encourage everyone to do the same.
    First, they aren't boycotting the state. They are refusing to jump through idiotic hoops that make their guns more and more expensive. Remember, if it becomes expensive enough then the people can't buy it and it can actually hurt the company (cost to develop the technology followed by people not buying the stuff for them to recoup the costs), and this is what the politicians want. Also by them refusing to comply it can actually help the citizens of the state in the long run by letting them file a suit and showing that the various laws make up a defacto ban on the right due to costs (can make an agrument it is similar to the poll tax of old).

  10. #10
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    First, they aren't boycotting the state. They are refusing to jump through idiotic hoops that make their guns more and more expensive. Remember, if it becomes expensive enough then the people can't buy it and it can actually hurt the company (cost to develop the technology followed by people not buying the stuff for them to recoup the costs), and this is what the politicians want. Also by them refusing to comply it can actually help the citizens of the state in the long run by letting them file a suit and showing that the various laws make up a defacto ban on the right due to costs (can make an agrument it is similar to the poll tax of old).
    Good reasoning. A more recent example would be what they tried doing in Washington, D.C.: making it EXTREMELY cost-prohibitive to own a firearm by requiring all types of insurance for it, essentially discriminating against all but the wealthiest, as well as
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •