Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: No more Glocks for California...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NoVa by way of Chesapeake, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    FINALLY a Gun Manufacturer is saying...NO !!!!!!

    Commifornia.

    I hope that all the other Manufacturers does the same

  3. #3
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    A lot of holes in this bill. Many doubt it will ever be implemented:

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ad.php?t=72049

    What's more immediately pressing is the requirement that newly purchased hand guns in CA must have a loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect (and since 2000 are limited to 10 RD mags).


  4. #4
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    A lot of holes in this bill. Many doubt it will ever be implemented:

    Still, we have to hammer the NRA for this stupid bill. For all we know, Wayne LaPierre not only Compromised with the Cali state legislature, he probably made a sweetheart deal with Schwarzenegger to guarantee that the anti-2A-enator would sign the bill. And what do we get out of it? More soliciations for contributions!


    cato wrote:
    What's more immediately pressing is the requirement that newly purchased hand guns in CA must have a loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect (and since 2000 are limited to 10 RD mags).
    More unadulterated and indefensiblefailure by the NRA (negotiate rights away). Would the GOA have let this happen? I think not...

  5. #5
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    delete dupe post

  6. #6
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post

    OK, as I read this bill, it will require newly designed pistols to have the technology. So, if you have a Glock 17 which was designed decades ago, it would not be required to meet the microstamping requirement. This bill does not force existing pistols to have the technology, but if you bring a new pistol to market after a certain date (I think the cutoff date is in 2010 or 2011) it must have the technology to be sold in CA. This will not affect the current line of Glock pistols.

    What does this mean? It means that Glock can continue producing all the current line of Glock pistol products and sell them in CA w/o the stamp technology. If Glock comes out with a new model, let's just call it the "Glock 43" in the year 2015, it must have microstamp technology to be sold in CA, as it's a new design after the cutoff date.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    nakedshoplifter wrote:
    OK, as I read this bill, it will require newly designed pistols to have the technology. So, if you have a Glock 17 which was designed decades ago, it would not be required to meet the microstamping requirement.
    That's just one more hole showing that it is completely illogical to even suggest such legislation.

    I'm proud of Glock for TRYING to talk some sense into others and taking a stand as needed.

  8. #8
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    I'm proud of Glock for TRYING to talk some sense into others and taking a stand as needed.
    Proud? That's an odd way to put it.

    You gotta remember that GlOCK hasself-interest to motivate it to argue against the legislation both publicly and privately.

    I would not be surprised to learn that other manufacturers (S&W, Ruger, Kimber, etc.) have done the same things that GLOCK has done to oppose the legislation. Actually, I'd be very surprised if they did not. It's a no-brainer.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Maryville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    Good for Glock!! Too bad we can't get them in Massachusetts because of the AG's stupid "comsumer safety" regulations. This micro stamping noncense needs to be killed before it spreads to other states. If it doesn't I'm sure our libral legislature would be only too happy to implement it out here. They already tried it in Maryland and it failed.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    914

    Post imported post

    HAHA! Commie bastards. I'm glad, California sucks anyway.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Demarest wrote:
    I'm proud of Glock for TRYING to talk some sense into others and taking a stand as needed.
    Proud? That's an odd way to put it.
    I own and carry a Glock. My Glock has served me in a self-defense situation. I'm glad to know that my money went to a company willing to take such a stand. Glock pride, baby!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    massltca wrote:
    This micro stamping noncense needs to be killed before it spreads to other states.
    Well, if it can't get taken out beforehand, I suppose there's always grabbing handfuls of casings when at the range, and dropping them all over town like popcorn... :?

    "I thought the report said there was only one shooter. There's casings from a dozen different guns here!"


    Oh, and XDTalk seems to be down...
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    It's been two hours, I'm allowed to post again.

    Apparently, SiG and S&W (surprisingly enough) had sent out similar letters to Glock's, on about the same date.

    http://www.gunownersca.com/Newsletters/PDFs/20072Q.pdf

    (See page 2 of the flyer)
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    242

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    cato wrote:
    A lot of holes in this bill. Many doubt it will ever be implemented:

    Still, we have to hammer the NRA for this stupid bill. For all we know, Wayne LaPierre not only Compromised with the Cali state legislature, he probably made a sweetheart deal with Schwarzenegger to guarantee that the anti-2A-enator would sign the bill. And what do we get out of it? More soliciations for contributions!


    cato wrote:
    What's more immediately pressing is the requirement that newly purchased hand guns in CA must have a loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect (and since 2000 are limited to 10 RD mags).
    More unadulterated and indefensiblefailure by the NRA (negotiate rights away). Would the GOA have let this happen? I think not...
    HankT - I have no idea why you're distorting the truth about the N.R.A's stance on that bill, but the actual truth can be found here: http://www.nraila.org/GrassrootsAlerts/read.aspx (see "State Roundup" - California).

    I'm happy for you that you like G.O.A better, but that's no reason to lie. So - either provide evidence for those wild accusations or quit lying. Pete

  15. #15
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    I would not be surprised to learn that other manufacturers (S&W, Ruger, Kimber, etc.) have done the same things that GLOCK has done to oppose the legislation. Actually, I'd be very surprised if they did not. It's a no-brainer.
    Odd... when I suggested thst gun manufacturers do this, HankT got all pissy about it. Now that Glock has told California to "Bitch Off!" hank is saying that it's a no-brainer for them to do it??? What gives?
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  16. #16
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    spy1 wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    cato wrote:
    A lot of holes in this bill. Many doubt it will ever be implemented:

    Still, we have to hammer the NRA for this stupid bill. For all we know, Wayne LaPierre not only Compromised with the Cali state legislature, he probably made a sweetheart deal with Schwarzenegger to guarantee that the anti-2A-enator would sign the bill. And what do we get out of it? More soliciations for contributions!


    cato wrote:
    What's more immediately pressing is the requirement that newly purchased hand guns in CA must have a loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect (and since 2000 are limited to 10 RD mags).
    More unadulterated and indefensiblefailure by the NRA (negotiate rights away). Would the GOA have let this happen? I think not...
    HankT - I have no idea why you're distorting the truth about the N.R.A's stance on that bill, but the actual truth can be found here: http://www.nraila.org/GrassrootsAlerts/read.aspx (see "State Roundup" - California).

    I'm happy for you that you like G.O.A better, but that's no reason to lie. So - either provide evidence for those wild accusations or quit lying. Pete
    All that NRA propaganda is just that. Propaganda to cover their fat arses.

    I rely on Kelly J, Doug Huffman and mark edward marchiafava for mynewsabout the NRA (negotiate rights away). Who wouldn't listen to men of such sensibilities and insights?

    This micro-stamping idea was probably actually devised by the NRA! (To maintain and even increase their ever skyrocketing salaries.)

    Just remember the following relationships:

    NRA = C

    GOA = - C

    C = Compromiser

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    269

    Post imported post

    Whats a 'negative compromiser'? I think the proper form would be ~C (not compromiser). However, all these arguments against the NRA miss a very valid point, compromise is the foundation of a working republic, the argument should instead focus on what compromises are acceptable, not on the idea of compromise itself. Obviously the Brady's idea of "compromise means you bend over and like it" isn't acceptable, but dividing the troops over the NRA's refusal to adopt and all or nothing approach (which is FAR more likely to return nothing than it is to giveus all)is idiotic and counter-productive. Also, more to the topic at hand, what evidence do you have that the NRA 'sold us out' on the micro-stamping bill?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    242

    Post imported post

    He doesn't have any evidence - that's why he never responded to the request for it. All he's got is hateful slander and fabrication - pretty damned simple to see through, actually.

    Why he's that way is totally beyond me, however. The point made above was the truth - become too radical about any issue and you wind up alienating the very people you desperately need on your side to keep things from getting worse.

    Which leads me to wonder exactly what he's trying to really accomplish. Pete



  19. #19
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Heartless_Conservative wrote:
    Whats a 'negative compromiser'? I think the proper form would be ~C (not compromiser). However, all these arguments against the NRA miss a very valid point, compromise is the foundation of a working republic, the argument should instead focus on what compromises are acceptable, not on the idea of compromise itself. Obviously the Brady's idea of "compromise means you bend over and like it" isn't acceptable, but dividing the troops over the NRA's refusal to adopt and all or nothing approach (which is FAR more likely to return nothing than it is to giveus all)is idiotic and counter-productive. Also, more to the topic at hand, what evidence do you have that the NRA 'sold us out' on the micro-stamping bill?

    Bah, Compromise!

    Here, I'll let the words of Kelly J speak its volumes:



    Kelly J wrote:
    I would like to clear up my position on the NRA, as I feel a lot of you are under the wrong impression.

    I have taken a hard line against, what I believe the NRA has done in the past, and some do not agree with my assessment, which is as it should be; we all do not share the same beliefs.

    On the issue of Compromises, I feel that the NRA has done too much of this in the past, and others of you do not, but here is my point of view, if you co-operate with the enemy, then you compromise your position, and I take the Anti Gun Group as the enemy to the Constitution, and especially the Second Amendment.

    As the Country takes the position that they will not, deal with Terrorist Demands, because of the obvious reasons, I feel the same way about the Second Amendment, we can not negotiate with the Anti Gun Groups, because it would be, as already demonstrated with the loss of some Rights, and if we continue to negotiate with them, we will loose yet more, and I don’t want to see that happen.

    The NRA made Concessions with the Brady Group some years back and we lost some of the things we had not major but nun the less a loss, there has been efforts to make additional concessions to placate the Anti Gun Groups for the sake of “we will give them this so we don’t have to loose all on this or that”.

    I don’t like giving in to any of their ideas for any reason; to me they are a group of Idiots that are under the misguided belief that if there were no guns there would be no crime, we all know that isn’t so, they are under the impression that by making Gun Free Zones that those with in are safe and out of harms way that too is not true, Our schools are so paranoid about guns that a Student can not even draw a picture of one with out be kicked out of School.

    As I see it he Second Amendment is what it says it is or it isn’t we can not have it both ways and if we and the Groups that are supposed to be there to help protect it from encroachment by the Anti Gun Groups, The Federal Government, or any one else that fancies them selves as the Protectors of the Ignorant and Helpless then we surly will loose the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

    We can not compromise, negotiate, or simply give in to their demands, it is far too important.

    If I am wrong, and you can point me in another direction, with out attacking then I’m willing to listen.

    I have tried to explain my feelings, and why I don’t like what I perceive as compromises, or negotiations, to get by an issue by the NRA, which weakens our Second Amendment Rights, and I do accept the fact that the NRA has been there for a long time and that they have a strong voice in the lobbying effort, I’m not denying that, nor am I saying that they are not able to help, so long as they do not bend to placate the enemy.
    'Nuff said!

    And remember, too, the words of our greatest patriot. Please take care to note the very first sentence, sir!

    "We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die: Our won Country's
    Honor, all call upon us for vigorous and manly exertion, and if we
    now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world.
    Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the
    aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate
    and encourage us to great and noble Actions. "


    -- George Washington (General Orders, 2 July 1776)

    Reference: George Washington: A Collection, W.B. Allen, ed. (71)



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Maryville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    AbNo wrote:
    massltca wrote:
    This micro stamping noncense needs to be killed before it spreads to other states.
    Well, if it can't get taken out beforehand, I suppose there's always grabbing handfuls of casings when at the range, and dropping them all over town like popcorn... :?

    "I thought the report said there was only one shooter. There's casings from a dozen different guns here!"


    Oh, and XDTalk seems to be down...
    LolThat's about as effective as micro stamping will ever be.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Maryville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    Heartless_Conservative wrote:
    Whats a 'negative compromiser'? I think the proper form would be ~C (not compromiser). However, all these arguments against the NRA miss a very valid point, compromise is the foundation of a working republic, the argument should instead focus on what compromises are acceptable, not on the idea of compromise itself. Obviously the Brady's idea of "compromise means you bend over and like it" isn't acceptable, but dividing the troops over the NRA's refusal to adopt and all or nothing approach (which is FAR more likely to return nothing than it is to giveus all)is idiotic and counter-productive. Also, more to the topic at hand, what evidence do you have that the NRA 'sold us out' on the micro-stamping bill?
    The trouble with compromise is that our side always has to give ground and the anti side never does. So I have a big problem giving up anymore of my freedom than I already have. Besides the fact that the NRA has written Massachusetts off and does absolutely nothing to help our fight for freedom.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    I didn't read anything in that letter stating that Glock would stop selling guns in CA.

    Did I miss it?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    269

    Post imported post

    They said something along the lines of "as soon as this starts costing us money we're ditching you suckers."

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    massltca wrote:
    The trouble with compromise is that our side always has to give ground and the anti side never does.
    More importantly is that we're already so far in debt. I compare our struggle to an innocent man who was robbed of $5,000. Do you barter with him in hopes of getting $100 back? Do you say that you'll give him your DVD player if he give yous $200 back? Or do you warn him that failure to give you your $5,000 back could result in unintended consequences?

    And no, I saw no Glock pulling out of California, which DOES make the topic title misleading.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Heartless_Conservative wrote:
    They said something along the lines of "as soon as this starts costing us money we're ditching you suckers."
    Well, FWIW, S&W and Sig had sent out letters within a day of Glock's, stating pretty much the same thing.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

Posting Permissions

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