-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
No more Glocks for California...
- Thread starter dkd
- Start date
UTOC-45-44
Regular Member
imported post
FINALLY a Gun Manufacturer is saying...NO !!!!!!
Commifornia:cuss:.
I hope that all the other Manufacturers does the same
FINALLY a Gun Manufacturer is saying...NO !!!!!!
Commifornia:cuss:.
I hope that all the other Manufacturers does the same
cato
Newbie
imported post
A lot of holes in this bill. Many doubt it will ever be implemented:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.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).
A lot of holes in this bill. Many doubt it will ever be implemented:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.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).
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
cato wrote:
cato wrote:
cato wrote:
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:
More unadulterated and indefensiblefailure by the NRA (negotiate rights away). Would the GOA have let this happen? I think not...
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
delete dupe post
delete dupe post
IanB
Regular Member
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.
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.
Demarest
Regular Member
imported post
nakedshoplifter wrote:
I'm proud of Glock for TRYING to talk some sense into others and taking a stand as needed.
nakedshoplifter wrote:
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.
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
Demarest wrote:
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.
Demarest wrote:
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.
massltca
Regular Member
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.
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.
Bravo_Sierra
Regular Member
imported post
HAHA! Commie bastards. I'm glad, California sucks anyway.
HAHA! Commie bastards. I'm glad, California sucks anyway.
Demarest
Regular Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
HankT wrote:
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!
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
massltca wrote:
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...
massltca wrote:
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...
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
It's been two hours, I'm allowed to post again. :lol:
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)
It's been two hours, I'm allowed to post again. :lol:
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)
spy1
Regular Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
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
HankT wrote:
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
Kevin Jensen
State Researcher
imported post
HankT wrote:
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?
HankT wrote:
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?
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
spy1 wrote:
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
spy1 wrote:
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
Heartless_Conservative
Regular Member
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?
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?
spy1
Regular Member
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
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
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
Heartless_Conservative wrote:
Bah, Compromise!
Here, I'll let the words of Kelly J speak its volumes:
Kelly J wrote:
'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)
Heartless_Conservative wrote:
Bah, Compromise!
Here, I'll let the words of Kelly J speak its volumes:
Kelly J wrote:
'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)
massltca
Regular Member
imported post
AbNo wrote:
AbNo wrote:
Lol:lol:That's about as effective as micro stamping will ever be.