PDA

View Full Version : What if all the handgun manufactures stopped paying roster fees


maxima
06-20-2010, 3:22 PM
Just as a hypothetical, what will happen if all handgun manufactures, who have products on DOJ's "safe gun list", stopped paying any roster fees? Would it result in a de facto handgun ban in CA, since all the handguns could be pulled off list?

P.S. Mods, please remove this if it is a dup.

glockwise2000
06-20-2010, 3:25 PM
Then you made all the gun-grabbers happy. This is basically what they want.

bigcalidave
06-20-2010, 3:27 PM
We would stop having new handguns available for sale? They actually LIKE having California customers, we spend a ton of money on guns.

rromeo
06-20-2010, 3:38 PM
The terrorists (in Sacramento) would win.

Malthusian
06-20-2010, 3:44 PM
It appears the object is to diminish the supply of handguns
Drive up existing prices, so only criminals can afford them

If the manufacturers did go this far. It would only be effective
if they refused to ship "any" handguns, including to LEA's

Someone posted that Barrett had made a self imposed ban
don't know if that is true

CCWFacts
06-20-2010, 3:58 PM
Just as a hypothetical, what will happen if all handgun manufactures, who have products on DOJ's "safe gun list", stopped paying any roster fees? Would it result in a de facto handgun ban in CA, since all the handguns could be pulled off list?

It would be "almost a ban". Ordinary retail purchases as we know them would stop. Instead, people would need to pull all kinds of tricks. First, C&R handguns would continue to be sold. There are some oldies-but-goodies out there, but nothing that's a typical first-choice for self defense. So people would also do person-to-person transfers of guns here. People would get aggressive about converting modern handguns (Glocks etc) into single-shots and then importing them into the state that way. Finally, people moving here would figure out that they could probably pay for their moving costs by shopping for the right stuff before coming to the state.

maxima
06-20-2010, 3:59 PM
Seeing several new guns fail to the list like Springfield XDM, and CZ P07, which lacks the "features" required, what we might worry is manufactures discontinue the old models while no new CA compliant model come out. The roster will shrink and in the end, none on the list (might take a long while)

G17GUY
06-20-2010, 4:13 PM
This is a good question. Seems post McDonald this fee might be challengable in court.
What about the state commerce rules that were talked about with ab962? can those same rules challenge non importable handguns just because a fee was not paid.

Window_Seat
06-20-2010, 4:18 PM
The terrorists (in Sacramento) would win.

^^This^^

OTOH, it would also be like cigarette companies caving in, we might not have cigarettes (I don't smoke) and the anti-smoking people would be happy, but the Govt would go crazy because they would lose all that tax revenue. The only difference there is that you can't resell cig's. In order for the Govt to lose ALL the tax revenue is for everyone to stop reselling the HGs at the same time, and it wouldn't happen in a million years.

What we need to do is a self imposed ban on career politicians. STOP VOTING IN THE INCUMBENT!!!

Erik.

Mike's Custom
06-20-2010, 4:36 PM
Actually, I would like to see ALL the manufacturers take a stand like Ronnie Barrett did. Not only will we not test but we will no longer supply ANY firearms of any kind to CA LEO or military to be used in CA (or any other state with heavy restrictions). This would leave Ca in a world of hurt. No federal agents, no state agents or any LEO or security companies. Same goes for the ammo manufacturers if they want them to put serial numbers on boxes of ammo. They need to stop chasing every dollar and look at the long view for the payoff. Just the loss of income alone to CA would be huge when you consider the gun shops that would be gone and the tax money lost as well federal exise tax losses due to reduced production. I am a FFL and have been since '93 but I would sure not complain if the COMPLETE firearms industry told CA and the few other states to SHOVE IT! How long do you think Chicago PD would last with no firearms. What CA has is it and LEO agencies would have no repair parts or ammo once they shot it up.

Legasat
06-20-2010, 4:46 PM
Yeah, I think the anti's in Sacramento would love this!

wildhawker
06-20-2010, 4:50 PM
AB962 will fall thanks to FAAAA and a 9-0 decision in Rowe.

Roster will fall thanks to Pena v. Cid.

Both outcomes are possible thanks to CGF/coalition litigation.

Malthusian
06-20-2010, 5:01 PM
Actually, I would like to see ALL the manufacturers take a stand like Ronnie Barrett did. Not only will we not test but we will no longer supply ANY firearms of any kind to CA LEO or military to be used in CA (or any other state with heavy restrictions). This would leave Ca in a world of hurt. No federal agents, no state agents or any LEO or security companies. Same goes for the ammo manufacturers if they want them to put serial numbers on boxes of ammo. They need to stop chasing every dollar and look at the long view for the payoff. Just the loss of income alone to CA would be huge when you consider the gun shops that would be gone and the tax money lost as well federal exise tax losses due to reduced production. I am a FFL and have been since '93 but I would sure not complain if the COMPLETE firearms industry told CA and the few other states to SHOVE IT! How long do you think Chicago PD would last with no firearms. What CA has is it and LEO agencies would have no repair parts or ammo once they shot it up.

We have been too passive, letting the politicians gradually whittling away at the 2nd amendment. Until everybody bans together, gun owners, manufacturers and in the scenario above, LEA's. I do not see anything getting any better in my lifetime. Only worse.

Pretty soon the only handguns will be Glocks and Wheelguns.

383green
06-20-2010, 5:14 PM
I do not see anything getting any better in my lifetime. Only worse.

I used to say that, but I no longer believe that. Things have been improving both in CA and federally for the last few years, and it appears to me that we're still gaining momentum, and taking back territory at a growing rate. Just off the top of my head, we have:

1) AW ban bypassed to the tune of around a quarter million new AR-pattern rifles coming into CA in the last few years.

2) AW possession now chargeable as a mere infraction instead of a misdemeanor or felony, with incentive for a DA to go for that low-hanging fruit.

3) 2nd Amendment found to be an individual right, not a collective one.

4) CA DOJ's jack-bootery substantially curtailed.

5) Incorporation of the 2nd Amendment against the states expected in less than two weeks; cases already queued up waiting for that finding, with more likely to be filed the same day as the announcement.

Malthusian
06-20-2010, 5:30 PM
I would love to see that Right to Carry map go Pure "BLUE"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif
In a modern populated society. Concealed carry is the most practical
interpretation of "Bearing arms". Responsible CCW is a 2nd amendment right. Open carry does not conform to a modern society.
My dad an non-LEO and ordinary law abiding
citizen has CCW his whole life. We never knew he was packing until after
we came home and he would share the handgun he had choosen for the evening.

We lived in Arizona and he now lives in Pennsylvania, a "shall issue" state.
Sorry to go off topic, but I have seen what life is like outside the PRK

wildhawker
06-20-2010, 5:54 PM
And, soon, you'll witness the freedoms we long for and cherish coming to California (from front-row seats).

dragonbait1a
06-20-2010, 5:59 PM
Assuming that All the legal challenges fail? Private Party Transfers, Single Action Revolvers, Non-Rosterable Frames and singleshot exemptions... Worst Case Scenario? 80% frames and build parties.

But I think that the smart money is on the legal challenges.

US and CA gunrights are getting better.But the law doesn't move at the speed of the internet. Patience is required. Slow steady movement in the right direction with the right direction is the key.

If you had told me in 2000 that ARs and AKs would be on CA gunstore shelves in the numbers they are now I'd have laughed. If you told me that Shall Issue CCW was likely by 2012, I'd have giggled at how crazy you were. We are taking gunrights back. Gun Laws are one thing that are looking up in CA. Their will be setbacks (the mail-order ammo ban) but the gains will far outstrip the losses. Just keep moving forward and we'll make it there.

RGB

Maestro Pistolero
06-20-2010, 6:14 PM
Actually, I would like to see ALL the manufacturers take a stand like Ronnie Barrett did. Not only will we not test but we will no longer supply ANY firearms of any kind to CA LEO or military to be used in CA (or any other state with heavy restrictions). This would leave Ca in a world of hurt. No federal agents, no state agents or any LEO or security companies. Same goes for the ammo manufacturers if they want them to put serial numbers on boxes of ammo. They need to stop chasing every dollar and look at the long view for the payoff. Just the loss of income alone to CA would be huge when you consider the gun shops that would be gone and the tax money lost as well federal exise tax losses due to reduced production. I am a FFL and have been since '93 but I would sure not complain if the COMPLETE firearms industry told CA and the few other states to SHOVE IT! How long do you think Chicago PD would last with no firearms. What CA has is it and LEO agencies would have no repair parts or ammo once they shot it up.
THIS. It is unenforceable unless all the major manufacturers agreed and refused to provide product support, customer service, and voided all warantees for sales to CA agencies. I think this would be GREAT, and would send the most powerful message that what's goes for citizens is good enough for government too.

wildhawker
06-20-2010, 6:33 PM
Dragonbait, if the legal challenges fail then it's likely homebrews will not survive regulation and/or prohibition.

N6ATF
06-20-2010, 6:33 PM
AB962 will fall thanks to FAAAA and a 9-0 decision in Rowe.

Roster will fall thanks to Pena v. Cid.

Both outcomes are possible thanks to CGF/coalition litigation.

Did any manufacturers want to sign onto Pena v. Cid, or should they sue for all their extortion fees back separately?

Malthusian
06-20-2010, 6:58 PM
A little off tangent here, but definitely related. We all need to get as many of our friends and enemies to get off their butts and vote em all out of office.

elSquid
06-20-2010, 7:05 PM
A little off tangent here, but definitely related. We all need to get as many of our friends and enemies to get off their butts and vote em all out of office.

I think we'd be better off if everybody skipped their next gun purchase and instead donated the monies to their fav gun rights organization - whether CGF, NRA, SAF, whoever. It's time to use the courts!

-- Michael

383green
06-20-2010, 7:16 PM
I just wish we could vote "no". As in, "Sorry, we don't need your services this term. We'll just get by with a vacancy in your office. Better luck next time!".

NightOwl
06-20-2010, 7:31 PM
I would love to see that Right to Carry map go Pure "BLUE"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif
In a modern populated society. Concealed carry is the most practical
interpretation of "Bearing arms". Responsible CCW is a 2nd amendment right. Open carry does not conform to my view of a modern society.
My dad an non-LEO and ordinary law abiding
citizen has CCW his whole life. We never knew he was packing until after
we came home and he would share the handgun he had choosen for the evening.

We lived in Arizona and he now lives in Pennsylvania, a "shall issue" state.
Sorry to go off topic, but I have seen what life is like outside the PRK

Fixed that for you. It certainly conforms with my view of a modern society, and wish more people would do it, without the crap that CA imposes or gun free school zones.

I firmly believe that a mix of OC and CCW is beneficial. To each their own. Also, after living out of CA for about 7 years, I also have a PRK-free viewpoint.

Malthusian
06-20-2010, 8:20 PM
Looks good. You can be my speech writer!

This is the friendliest thread yet. I want to add all you guys to my friends list

Speaking of donating to Calguns
Whats up with Gpal Gunpal , what ever its called. I tried to sign up so I could
become a member and no verification email. Tried to resend 3 times. How can I donate
if I can't register. OK off topic... move along

hoffmang
06-20-2010, 9:26 PM
I'd like to come back to OP.

His idea is actually a darn good one. Should Peņa fail (though we seriously doubt it will) it would be very useful to have all handgun manufacturers stop paying to remain on the roster.

-Gene

383green
06-20-2010, 9:33 PM
His idea is actually a darn good one. Should Peņa fail (though we seriously doubt it will) it would be very useful to have all handgun manufacturers stop paying to remain on the roster.

Do you think we could actually get all of the major manufacturers to agree to do that? Just one of the big players lacking the stones to boycott CA would spoil the plan, I think.

maxima
06-20-2010, 9:38 PM
Do you think we could actually get all of the major manufacturers to agree to do that? Just one of the big players lacking the stones to boycott CA would spoil the plan, I think.

If NRA, Calguns foundation and CRPA, etc., e.g., all the major pro-gun organizations act together to lobby and have a national campaign, it should be possible, IMHO.

383green
06-20-2010, 9:42 PM
If NRA, Calguns foundation and CRPA, etc., e.g., all the pro-gun organizations act together to lobby and have a national campaign, it should be possible, IMHO.

Ah, so by having NRA make a big stink nationwide that gun manufacturers should boycott CA, hopefully customers all over the nation will pressure manufacturers to play along, under the threat that they may lose substantial sales outside CA? Sneaky, but it may work. A manufacturer may not care if I tell them "stop selling me your guns or else I'll stop buying them", but they may well care if a bunch of people tell them "stop selling Mark your guns or else we'll stop buying them". :43:

Maestro Pistolero
06-20-2010, 10:07 PM
What about a positive approach? I'll agree to buy an extra gun or two here in Nevada from any manufacturer who denies sales to the State of CA.

cmaynes
06-20-2010, 10:10 PM
I'd like to come back to OP.

His idea is actually a darn good one. Should Peņa fail (though we seriously doubt it will) it would be very useful to have all handgun manufacturers stop paying to remain on the roster.

-Gene

Gene- what if all the manufacturers followed Ronnie Barrett's lead and stopped selling to Law Enforcement as well?

I think that would get some attention....

jaustin612
06-20-2010, 10:23 PM
Agreed. I would like to see what would happen if all firearm companies stop sales to CA LE. Too bad greed trumps beliefs.

Inoxmark
06-20-2010, 10:59 PM
If all firearm companies stopped sales to CA LE, here's what would happen:
CA LE would get their guns from distributors, or through other LE agencies, or from federal govt, or from whatever other sources. To be sure, they would not just walk around sad without guns.

Pipe dream anyway, never going to happen.

Attiic
06-20-2010, 11:01 PM
Speaking of greed, if all manufacturers were to cease sales in CA, there would be one who would continue to pay the fee to keep their products legal, thus creating what would essentially be a monopoly on all modern handguns purchased new from dealers.

glockwise2000
06-20-2010, 11:06 PM
AB962 will fall thanks to FAAAA and a 9-0 decision in Rowe.

I was wondering since Wildhawker mentioned FAAAA on his post. Can UPS, the only major carrier of ammos everywhere, can sue CA for lost of revenue due to this AB962?

wildhawker
06-20-2010, 11:26 PM
I was wondering since Wildhawker mentioned FAAAA on his post. Can UPS, the only major carrier of ammos everywhere, can sue CA for lost of revenue due to this AB962?

Trust that carriers will be represented in CGF's upcoming challenge.

calixt0
06-20-2010, 11:28 PM
AB962 will fall thanks to FAAAA and a 9-0 decision in Rowe.

Roster will fall thanks to Pena v. Cid.

Both outcomes are possible thanks to CGF/coalition litigation.

To many initials for me to understand.. what is FAAAA what 9-0 decision in Rowe are you talking about... I understand the rest.

limitdown
06-21-2010, 12:45 AM
I would start a handgun company, pay Roster fees and make a crap-load of money by stealing the lunches of the folks unwilling to pay Roster fees!

Boycotting Roster fess is not the solution. Completely getting rid of the Roster system by making it unconstitutional through McDonald and follow-up attacks is the way to go.

Malthusian
06-21-2010, 5:15 AM
Ah, so by having NRA make a big stink nationwide that gun manufacturers should boycott CA, hopefully customers all over the nation will pressure manufacturers to play along, under the threat that they may lose substantial sales outside CA? Sneaky, but it may work. A manufacturer may not care if I tell them "stop selling me your guns or else I'll stop buying them", but they may well care if a bunch of people tell them "stop selling Mark your guns or else we'll stop buying them". :43:

Any mass organized campaign can change our present state of decay.
Our representatives in CA perpetually stalemate on most issues.
A coordinated effort by Calguns, the NRA, CRPA and education of the public
to our cause, can and will change any law we choose. I don't have the exact statistics, but only around 40% of the population votes and I may be high at that. So with only 21% turnout change could happen.

My figures are arbitrary. As a off topic example, our Union has 3000 members. Only 10% show up at the meetings and make all the decisions for the remaining 90%

Look to Arizona, The populous grew tired of the Federal effort of towards illegal immigration

missiondude
06-21-2010, 6:42 AM
I dont think it would affect law enforcement agencies all that much. They would just have some FFL buy in bulk from some out of state distributor and get all the guns they want. They are roster exempt...

cmaynes
06-21-2010, 8:16 AM
If the manufacturer were serious, they would simply add the language barring CA sales into their dealer / distributor agreement. Then if the company sells into CA govt, they lose their dealership. the other route is for the company to not honor warranty work from unauthorized sales.

Serpentine
06-21-2010, 8:42 AM
I'd like to come back to OP.

His idea is actually a darn good one. Should Peņa fail (though we seriously doubt it will) it would be very useful to have all handgun manufacturers stop paying to remain on the roster.

-Gene

Maybe this would be what it takes to get gun owners, sportsmen, enthusiasts, and collectors to actually vote in our elections.

I've been a range officer at a busy outdoor public range facility for over 20 years. Most every time we get together on a discussion about gun rights, voting issues and elections, I'm surprised about the lack of interest and knowledge. I would bet that 9 out of 10 gun owners don't vote!. Most just throw up their hands, don't vote, and then complain about what they get as a result.


When I go to the polls every year, it's mostly soccer moms in the line voting for school initiatives. Most of those voters I would bet are anti-gun, and pro-spending.



This November is one of the most important elections. The conservatives, both democrat and republican, etc., are going to be voting a lot of the same bums out of office that have not supported our U.S. Constitution and the peoples will.

In my opinion, your "gun owner" vote has never counted as much as it will this year - because now we have like-minded allies!




.

Window_Seat
06-21-2010, 1:55 PM
AB962 will fall thanks to FAAAA and a 9-0 decision in Rowe.

Roster will fall thanks to Pena v. Cid.

Both outcomes are possible thanks to CGF/coalition litigation.

Talking about this one?:

CA1: FAAAA preemption and smokeshops (http://appellate.typepad.com/appellate/2006/05/new_hampshire_m.html)

Erik.

REH
06-21-2010, 2:38 PM
There would be alot of sad people in the DOJ......................Loss of $$$$$$$

77bawls
06-21-2010, 2:44 PM
It appears the object is to diminish the supply of handguns
Drive up existing prices, so only criminals can afford them

If the manufacturers did go this far. It would only be effective
if they refused to ship "any" handguns, including to LEA's

Someone posted that Barrett had made a self imposed ban
don't know if that is true


The Letter.

June 30, 2003

Chairman, Public Safety Committee
State of California
Sen. Bruce McPherson

Via: Fax (916) 445-4688

Dear Senator McPherson,

United States defense contractors such as Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc., Murfreesboro, TN USA rely on orders from the US Military as a primary source of income but this government income for most contractors is only part of the necessary income for long term survival. Commercial or civilian product sales are also a main source of income that makes payroll and for good working conditions for their employees. We must support these defense contractors in both peace and war and allow them to operate, market and sell their products under the rules, regulations and law of the Federal Government. There is a balance of customers among defense contractors that is necessary for sound, long term business and by eliminating commercial sales in California this balance is disrupted. To vote against .50 cal rifles puts jobs of your constituents as risk, the lives of your police at risk, and in the end the safety of the State of California at risk. Are you willing to jeopardize this?

The defense industrial base in America is at risk of being unable to fully support our country in time of need without adequate opportunity for commercial sales of various products. In the Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc situation the civilian legal Barrett .50 cal rifle is at risk in the state of California. The attempt to ban a legal firearm not only violates the basic principals of the US Constitution but sets a precedence that endangers many vital defense contractors. In the Barrett case it also endangers California law enforcement agencies from having a proven and important tool in the fight against terrorism.

* W. Hays Parks, Special Assistant to the Judge Advocate of the US Army wrote: "The M82A1 Barrett... are manifestations of the important historic cooperation played by private citizens and small business in the United States in the development of weapons and munitions necessary for the US Armed Forces to perform their mission to protect the national security interests of the United States by fighting and winning, with as few friendly casualties as possible." This statement sums up the vital role both government and commercial business play in the sound business practices of various defense contractors of which Barrett is one.

The Barrett .50 cal rifle was ascertained by the troops on the front lines in Iraq as the best performing small arm and they have the private defense contractor to thank for that weapon. Ban .50 cal rifles in California and you take this tool from your police also. The war on terror is not over! The Barrett .50 cal rifle has been in the hands of competitive shooters, hunters, and collectors for over 20 years and is a mainstay of the long range competitive shooters matches. It also serves on Police SWAT teams as the primary long range anti-sniper weapon.

It is the Barrett position that we choose not to support in anyway state or local governments who are against the US Constitution and the safety and security of this nation. If California were to ban the sale of the Barrett .50 cal rifle we will stop the sale and service of all Barrett products to all State Law Enforcement agencies of the state of California immediately and ask all small arms manufactures to consider similar action. Re-classify the .50 cal rifle and you align yourself and the State of California as being part of the very terrorists who are attempting to destroy this great nation of ours.

Please vote against banning or re-classifying .50 cal rifles.

Respectively,


Ronnie G. Barrett
President
Barrett Firearms Mfg., Inc.
Murfreesboro, TN USA

Grumpyoldretiredcop
06-21-2010, 4:28 PM
Actually, I would like to see ALL the manufacturers take a stand like Ronnie Barrett did. Not only will we not test but we will no longer supply ANY firearms of any kind to CA LEO or military to be used in CA (or any other state with heavy restrictions). This would leave Ca in a world of hurt. No federal agents, no state agents or any LEO or security companies. Same goes for the ammo manufacturers if they want them to put serial numbers on boxes of ammo. They need to stop chasing every dollar and look at the long view for the payoff. Just the loss of income alone to CA would be huge when you consider the gun shops that would be gone and the tax money lost as well federal exise tax losses due to reduced production. I am a FFL and have been since '93 but I would sure not complain if the COMPLETE firearms industry told CA and the few other states to SHOVE IT! How long do you think Chicago PD would last with no firearms. What CA has is it and LEO agencies would have no repair parts or ammo once they shot it up.

This. Unfortunately, it seems that no other manufacturer has cojones the size of Ronnie Barrett's. Too bad.

Bugei
06-22-2010, 10:10 AM
I just wish we could vote "no". As in, "Sorry, we don't need your services this term. We'll just get by with a vacancy in your office. Better luck next time!".

Or "None of the Above", in which case:
1) the office stays vacant for the full term
2) every candidate who tried for the office is found unacceptable and gets a 10-year ban against holding any public office.

Would put a little of the old pepper back into politics.