S&W & Ruger stop selling guns in California

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
2,312
Location
ohio
I'm not sure what to think of this.

Part of me says it's good to see the big companies stand up to the lawmakers, but it also shows the lawmakers how to get rid of the gun makers.
 
There was a story about it in the local newspaper. Something about micro-stamping the shell casing before it gets ejected. Pretty ridiculous. There's no telling what wacky feature the lawmakers will want next.
 
I won't get political with this one, as much as I'd like to.

I will say that a short armed or disarmed population is a "ripe" target for evil-doers. And, we certainly have areas that are highly restrictive.

I simply can't live somewhere where I am required to be a victim. I can't blame these companies for moving. Remember, the company's people must live there too.

My safety, and my family's safety come first. Restrictions don't help me defend myself.
 
Hopefully they will also refuse to sell weapons to any Law Enforcement Agency as well. It is nice to see the companies standing up for what they believe in. It was not so many years ago that S&W and especially Ruger were not so strong on the issue.
 
Individual state reactions like this will also have a chilling effect on the federal level. I read this release earlier in the week and my reaction, yes, ordered another AR.

I think the gun companies know this too, it's not like business is not booming for them.

Living in Colorado and seeing Magpul move away brought an empty feeling inside of losing the battle, but glad they made the right move. Colorado needs jobs and Wyoming and Texas have them now.
 
This will simply have the effect of illegal (by CA standards) guns moving into CA from out of state. Gangs will have no trouble buying illegal weapons. it is the person who wants to shoot for recreation or keep a gun for protection that will suffer.
 
This is the beginning of a legal strategy for the gun company's. Since their is not a single gun made that complies with micro-stamping laws, requiring micro-stamping is a defacto gun ban. Law is already being challenged and will be overturned as an unconstitutional gun ban, in my opinion.
 
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I won't get political with this one, as much as I'd like to.

I will say that a short armed or disarmed population is a "ripe" target for evil-doers. And, we certainly have areas that are highly restrictive.

I simply can't live somewhere where I am required to be a victim. I can't blame these companies for moving. Remember, the company's people must live there too.

My safety, and my family's safety come first. Restrictions don't help me defend myself.



I think you're safe in Florida. The place is full of conspiratorial nutjobs.
 
It doesn't seem to apply to revolvers, so that must mean that they're MUCH safer than semis, right???
 
The gun manufacturers will be moving to Texas. This is where a lot of people and businesses are moving anyway. The State of New Jersey alone has lost millions of people and 70 billion dollars worth of business just in the past few years.
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic
The gun manufacturers will be moving to Texas. This is where a lot of people and businesses are moving anyway. The State of New Jersey alone has lost millions of people and 70 billion dollars worth of business just in the past few years.


OUCH!!!!
 
Originally Posted By: JerryBob
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I won't get political with this one, as much as I'd like to.

I will say that a short armed or disarmed population is a "ripe" target for evil-doers. And, we certainly have areas that are highly restrictive.

I simply can't live somewhere where I am required to be a victim. I can't blame these companies for moving. Remember, the company's people must live there too.

My safety, and my family's safety come first. Restrictions don't help me defend myself.



I think you're safe in Florida. The place is full of conspiratorial nutjobs.



Its its safer, they must not be nutjobs!
 
Last edited:
This immediately came to mind:


helen-lovejoy.jpg
 
This is a blatant effort to restrict and eliminate firearm ownership. This is a veiled attempt to create a national firearms registry that must be done to make hypothetical microstamping feasible.
 
Originally Posted By: jorton
Instead of gun bans, there must be a way to get lobbys involved in prosecuting offenders who used a firearm on another person.


That would turn very ugly very fast. Lots of prosecutors looking to make a name for themselves already with future political aspirations. Don't give them another tool. I can only imagine how many people who legitimately defend themselves could have their lives ruined by an over zealous prosecutor with an agenda or dreams of getting a cushy elected position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top