• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

CA microstamping law

DaveT319

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
274
Location
Eugene, OR
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.
 

MackTheKnife

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
198
Location
Jacksonville, Florida
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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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).
 

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
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
 
Top