PDA

View Full Version : Manufacturer Retaliation Against AB 1471?


383green
10-14-2007, 11:18 AM
Do y'all expect that any firearms manufacturers will have the stones to stand up to California by boycotting all sales and support to California (particularly to law enforcement users), and/or refusing to manufacture any firearms with microstamping features?

Waldog
10-14-2007, 11:24 AM
WE should ENCOURAGE manufacturers to cease business with ANY California law enforcement agency. Barrett Arms terminated business in CA. when Arnie signed the .50 Cal rifle ban. There ARE companies that will do it and we should start a campaign encouraging others to follow Barrett's lead.

MedSpec65
10-14-2007, 11:27 AM
You can bet they are having discussions in their board meetings about incurring the re-tooling costs associated with CA compliance in 2010. I personally think they'll realize they can continue sales of revolvers and rifles and simply discontinue autoloaders. It won't be a big loss for them. It's a big country.

BigDogatPlay
10-14-2007, 11:35 AM
It's a big country, yes, but in some ways the manufacturers don't have to do anything and they can still make money.

The DOJ policy statement that LEOs "legislatively authorized" to carry firearms can buy off roster is the key. That means the manufacturers can still sell to government and LEOs without re-tooling. They just won't be able to sell to non-LEOs or to LEOs who are not "legislatively authorized".

How much was the current state contract with S & W for again? The California government market is millions of dollars in potential revenue. There will always be at least one manufacturer who is willing to compromise principle to satisfy the stockholders if all the rest do like Ronnie Barrett did and simply pull out.

We should lobby the manufacturers hard, to be sure, but we need to attack that DOJ policy. Make LEOs and agencies have to live and work under the same rules we do and you'll see AB 1471 repealed in a big fat hurry.

bwiese
10-14-2007, 11:52 AM
Ronnie Barrett runs a small company that is not publicly traded, nor whose ownership is external (say, Cerberus who owns Bushmaster now).

Larger gun cos have a fiduciary obligation to make money for their shareholders.
A political stunt would be counter to that and would cause a lot of legal grief and certainly a management change.

chunger
10-14-2007, 11:54 AM
So how is it that we as a group effectively lobby manufacturers?

I do not think it's possible for all manufacturers to take a cohesive policy towards sales to California state agencies. If it were possible, it'd be awesome, but someone in there will break ranks to make a fast buck.

There needs to be economic and marketing incentive for a single company or several companies to cease sales and support to state agencies. But, if we can get even one of the big names to do so, it would be huge like Glock or Smith and Wesson.

They would need to be made big enough heroes by doing so to boost their long-term sales over competitors as well as make up the shortfall in LEO business. It seems a tough task that needs coordination with some very resourceful and connected people. I for one, would support any company that began such a policy by directing my business to them exclusively if possible for my handgun needs.

berto
10-14-2007, 11:56 AM
There will always be at least one holdout company interested in money over principle.

Satex
10-14-2007, 11:59 AM
Larger gun cos have a fiduciary obligation to make money for their shareholders.

Absolutely! But don't forget that large manufacturers can sell such a move to the shareholders as a long term market protection strategy. For short term shareholders, such a move would be bad, but long term shareholders will prefer a company protect its market. Since the goal of the ban isn't to solve crime but to dry up the supply, manufacturers should have a keen interest in protecting their market. A short term ban could have very good results for long term profitability.

chunger
10-14-2007, 12:01 PM
There will always be at least one holdout company interested in money over principle.

Yup, but could it be made economically beneficial for a lone company to make a stand based on principle?

bwiese
10-14-2007, 12:05 PM
Absolutely! But don't forget that large manufacturers can sell such a move to the shareholders as a long term market protection strategy. For short term shareholders, such a move would be bad, but long term shareholders will prefer a company protect its market. Since the goal of the ban isn't to solve crime but to dry up the supply, manufacturers should have a keen interest in protecting their market. A short term ban could have very good results for long term profitability.

Problem is, the nature of US investments & tax system, etc. is that we do not run on long-term behaviors but shorter term quarterly profits.

chunger
10-14-2007, 12:13 PM
Can a plan be devised to both help a company protect their long-term profitability/image AND offer a significant short-term boost in profits?

Organize to leverage the buying power of individual Californians and divert the large wave of new handgun purchases that is about to happen largely towards one or two companies?

As I recall a couple of years ago, there was a massive buyout by Californians of almost all Stag 15 lower receivers. Something we have in abundance is the capacity and will to purchase a lot of stuff in California.

What is the scale of a large LEO agency order? 1000 units? It seems early on in the OLL process, more than 30,000 units were sold quite quickly. I think we're capable collectively of doing a lot to drive the market. Is it possible to convince a company that they will get a significant, immediate gain in sales?

Pvt. Cowboy
10-14-2007, 12:14 PM
Do y'all expect that any firearms manufacturers will have the stones to stand up to California by boycotting all sales and support to California (particularly to law enforcement users), and/or refusing to manufacture any firearms with microstamping features?

Well, some manufacturers will I am sure. Maybe a handful will do it out of protest like Barrett and Caspian Arms have done, but I expect that most of those who will decline to sell in CA will do it purely for market reasons. I don't expect that any but the biggest in the industry will invest in microstamping equipment -- And hell, does it even exist at the moment? -- and that means Colt, Glock, and S&W. Maybe Taurus and Beretta too.

Plus, the CA legislature can just arbitrarily keep adding little changes to the Microstamping law like a little kid building an imaginary wonderland out of LEGOs. Who would invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in some special sort of microstamping equipment when the moonbats in Sacramento can just sweep their pen over parchment and declare that the microstamping method they now require isn't met by the current manufacturer's equipment? Right now, I think that the microstamping tech that's been demonstrated imprints a single tiny string on the fired case or popped primer. So what happens when the CA legislature finds out about aftermarket barrels/slides/firing pins and makes a new bill that requires complete coverage of the entire fired case around all of it's surfaces with a repeating pattern of the serialized string of information? What happens if they say it has to be the owners name, current address, and microdot-sized picture of the owner's face in order to personalize the handgun in question to the owner as uniquely as your own fingerprint? How much do you think Glock or S&W is gonna charge for that, and how long will the turnaround time take? There's no limit to what CA can require as far as 'microstamping' goes, and it sure as hell hasn't been spelled out in the current bill signed by the governor. Oooh, just wait. They'll get around to that soon enough and if you think you're mad right now just wait until you find out what sort of plans they have for this new law.

Look, Microstamping costs are going to be passed along to the consumer. You all know that. I am already willing to bet that means a $200 premium just on whatever future guns qualify as 'CA Microstamp Approved' just for a single tiny string of information. CA will keep dicking with the law until it's a $1000 premium. Gun manufacturers will eventually realize that they can't make profit in CA by selling $1700 Glocks and so forth. The smaller manufacturers won't even try, and I also expect that once the year 2010 rolls around manufacturers and gunsmiths from outside of CA won't even want to touch a 'CA Microstamp Approved' handgun for any sort of warranty, upgrade, service, or custom work -- Kinda like how even though 'OLL' receivers are lawful in CA, many in the industry outside of CA won't even deal with you.

"Oh, but Pvt. Cowboy, the manufacturers won't want to miss out on the huge CA handgun sales market! If they don't deal with Californians, someone else will step forward to fill the gap!" --- Yeah, right. I'm sure there's a lucrative market for covertly shipping liquor to Iran and Saudi Arabia, but who the hell really does it outside of the occasional smuggled crate of vodka in the cargo hold of a container ship just in from the Philippines?

You can also bet that just like the 'OLL' issue where CA DOJ BOF was threatening AR15/AK receiver dealers/manufacturers in outside states from selling their 'OLL' receivers to Californians, they'll be doing the same thing to outfits who manufacture aftermarket barrels, slides, and receivers for existing guns now held by Californians. It will only take a few experiences with having to determine if this model of gun or that model is a 'CA Microstamp Approved' version or not before they just throw up their hands and say 'Forget California'.

The 'Microstamping' bill has already passed. That's just the basic framework encapsulated in a paragraph or two. Now prepare yourself for all sorts of legislation on what sort of microstamping satisfies California's new law. They might even require entirely new microstamping every time you change addresses.

You bet your asses that this is back-door legislation to ban guns and halt their sale in CA under the guise of 'giving police another crimefighting tool' and all the rest of that baloney that socialists like to say.

magsnubby
10-14-2007, 12:17 PM
Do y'all expect that any firearms manufacturers will have the stones to stand up to California by boycotting all sales and support to California (particularly to law enforcement users), and/or refusing to manufacture any firearms with microstamping features?

No. California is a huge market for firearms and firearms related items. They will still have to do business in Cal. It's simple economics. Do business with Cal or take a significant drop in revenue. And run the risk of bankruptcy. Cal is something like the fifth (somewhere around there) largest economy in the world. They're not willing to take that kind of loss.

chunger
10-14-2007, 12:46 PM
As I remember, Barret did not stop sales/support to California. They stopped sales and support of products to California state agencies. i think that if a company took on the policy of stopping sale and support only to state and law enforcement agencies while maintaining sales to private citizens, they can stand to make a profit from this mess.

383green
10-14-2007, 1:40 PM
As I remember, Barret did not stop sales/support to California. They stopped sales and support of products to California state agencies. i think that if a company took on the policy of stopping sale and support only to state and law enforcement agencies while maintaining sales to private citizens, they can stand to make a profit from this mess.

I think it would also be important to refuse to incorporate any microstamping features in their products, even if that means only selling revolvers to Californians.

Hmm, it might be tricky to both refuse law enforcement sales (including sales through distributors), while still allowing sales to CA civilians.

Well, I'm looking forward to seeing responses from manufacturers to the microstamping bill, and I hope they show some measurable amount of backbone.

Piper
10-14-2007, 2:04 PM
To a certain point, manufacturers are already boycotting the California market. Each company is paying the fee that the extortionists in California require on only a fraction of the firearms they actually produce. This microstamping bill may just push them over the edge. Personally, if I were a manufacturer, I would simply not sell anything in California that required a microstamp. And I certainly wouldn't sell to government agencies anything that citizens couldn't have. Actually this would be a matter of protecting myself civily. If a semi-auto is considered "unsafe" because it's not microstamped, how is it safe if a LEO uses it and shoots someone? I wouldn't take the chance. Just the same, if all of a sudden any firearm except black powder firearms needed some special requirement in California, then all I would sell is black powder arms. And that includes to LE. Take it or leave it.

bwiese
10-14-2007, 2:56 PM
To a certain point, manufacturers are already boycotting the California market. Each company is paying the fee that the extortionists in California require on only a fraction of the firearms they actually produce.

Um, not quite - just the smaller ones, and Springfield Armory. The former guys don't do tests/submission for all items due to very limited sales of certain configurations. Springfield changes models for trivial reasons everytime they sneeze.

It appears the bigger mfgrs (S&W, Ruger, Glock) submit just about everything - and Sig nearly so.

This microstamping bill may just push them over the edge. Personally, if I were a manufacturer, I would simply not sell anything in California that required a microstamp.

Many manufacturers can't say "personally" since they're obligated to shareholders. Only little podunk businesses can play such games.

Sleepy1988
10-14-2007, 2:59 PM
Make LEOs and agencies have to live and work under the same rules we do and you'll see AB 1471 repealed in a big fat hurry.

+1

Someone on ARFcom was suggesting that we start a ballot initiative to require all LE to use microstamped pistols.

Dieter
10-14-2007, 4:12 PM
In letters to the State, manufacturers like SIG, Glock, and S&W have already hinted on this, you can read it here:

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

gbran
10-14-2007, 4:29 PM
Even if the manufacturers rolled over and did make micro-satamp pistols in 2010, how many folks would actually buy them? I sure won't. Will you?

ybz
10-14-2007, 4:54 PM
Even if the manufacturers rolled over and did make micro-satamp pistols in 2010, how many folks would actually buy them? I sure won't. Will you?

you will if you wanted/needed a gun and this was the only one available... their next move will be to eliminate the 'grandfathering' of guns on the 'safe list'...

FLASHBACK ALERT from December 1999: Even if there was a way to build an AR in California with a fixed magazine or no pistol grip, how many folks would actually buy them?

walmart_ar15
10-14-2007, 6:34 PM
In letters to the State, manufacturers like SIG, Glock, and S&W have already hinted on this, you can read it here:

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

Not market in CA due to cost is exactly what the author of the bill intended. A defacto ban on semi-auto handgun. I would actually encourage manufacturer to produce MORE semi-auto with the micro-stamping, and sell them at a discount in CA and increase cost to CA agency as balance. Let's have more semi-auto in circulation as a result. :D

tenpercentfirearms
10-15-2007, 5:02 AM
Aren't you guys missing something? Isn't this the same as the rest of the BS approved list. As long as the manufacturers keep their guns on the list, they can keep selling them. This is going to screw new models starting in 2010, but it won't be the end of the world right away.

This state is flipping nuts.

MedSpec65
10-15-2007, 6:43 PM
Well, some manufacturers will I am sure. Maybe a handful will do it out of protest like Barrett and Caspian Arms have done, but I expect that most of those who will decline to sell in CA will do it purely for market reasons. I don't expect that any but the biggest in the industry will invest in microstamping equipment -- And hell, does it even exist at the moment? -- and that means Colt, Glock, and S&W. Maybe Taurus and Beretta too.

Plus, the CA legislature can just arbitrarily keep adding little changes to the Microstamping law like a little kid building an imaginary wonderland out of LEGOs. Who would invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in some special sort of microstamping equipment when the moonbats in Sacramento can just sweep their pen over parchment and declare that the microstamping method they now require isn't met by the current manufacturer's equipment? Right now, I think that the microstamping tech that's been demonstrated imprints a single tiny string on the fired case or popped primer. So what happens when the CA legislature finds out about aftermarket barrels/slides/firing pins and makes a new bill that requires complete coverage of the entire fired case around all of it's surfaces with a repeating pattern of the serialized string of information? What happens if they say it has to be the owners name, current address, and microdot-sized picture of the owner's face in order to personalize the handgun in question to the owner as uniquely as your own fingerprint? How much do you think Glock or S&W is gonna charge for that, and how long will the turnaround time take? There's no limit to what CA can require as far as 'microstamping' goes, and it sure as hell hasn't been spelled out in the current bill signed by the governor. Oooh, just wait. They'll get around to that soon enough and if you think you're mad right now just wait until you find out what sort of plans they have for this new law.

Look, Microstamping costs are going to be passed along to the consumer. You all know that. I am already willing to bet that means a $200 premium just on whatever future guns qualify as 'CA Microstamp Approved' just for a single tiny string of information. CA will keep dicking with the law until it's a $1000 premium. Gun manufacturers will eventually realize that they can't make profit in CA by selling $1700 Glocks and so forth. The smaller manufacturers won't even try, and I also expect that once the year 2010 rolls around manufacturers and gunsmiths from outside of CA won't even want to touch a 'CA Microstamp Approved' handgun for any sort of warranty, upgrade, service, or custom work -- Kinda like how even though 'OLL' receivers are lawful in CA, many in the industry outside of CA won't even deal with you.

"Oh, but Pvt. Cowboy, the manufacturers won't want to miss out on the huge CA handgun sales market! If they don't deal with Californians, someone else will step forward to fill the gap!" --- Yeah, right. I'm sure there's a lucrative market for covertly shipping liquor to Iran and Saudi Arabia, but who the hell really does it outside of the occasional smuggled crate of vodka in the cargo hold of a container ship just in from the Philippines?

You can also bet that just like the 'OLL' issue where CA DOJ BOF was threatening AR15/AK receiver dealers/manufacturers in outside states from selling their 'OLL' receivers to Californians, they'll be doing the same thing to outfits who manufacture aftermarket barrels, slides, and receivers for existing guns now held by Californians. It will only take a few experiences with having to determine if this model of gun or that model is a 'CA Microstamp Approved' version or not before they just throw up their hands and say 'Forget California'.

The 'Microstamping' bill has already passed. That's just the basic framework encapsulated in a paragraph or two. Now prepare yourself for all sorts of legislation on what sort of microstamping satisfies California's new law. They might even require entirely new microstamping every time you change addresses.

You bet your asses that this is back-door legislation to ban guns and halt their sale in CA under the guise of 'giving police another crimefighting tool' and all the rest of that baloney that socialists like to say.You've covered the issue well here PVT. Thanks for thinking it through. We all know the true intention of this bill. What you suggest makes absolute sense. Your Pre-MS guns will be worth a fortune after 2010. 2009 will be the un-official "Golden Parachute" year for handgun dealers in CA.

Outlaw Josey Wales
10-15-2007, 7:43 PM
Aren't you guys missing something? Isn't this the same as the rest of the BS approved list. As long as the manufacturers keep their guns on the list, they can keep selling them. This is going to screw new models starting in 2010, but it won't be the end of the world right away.

This state is flipping nuts.

From CA BOF website: "Handgun models whose certification has expired or otherwise removed from the Roster. These models may no longer be sold, offered for sale, or manufactured in California".

Does this mean if a currently listed handgun is not renewed prior to the expiration date (within one year from the previous certification) that it will be removed permanently, or is there a grace period of any sort after expiration to get back on the roster?

Crazed_SS
10-15-2007, 8:59 PM
From CA BOF website: "Handgun models whose certification has expired or otherwise removed from the Roster. These models may no longer be sold, offered for sale, or manufactured in California".

Does this mean if a currently listed handgun is not renewed prior to the expiration date (within one year from the previous certification) that it will be removed permanently, or is there a grace period of any sort after expiration to get back on the roster?

If it falls off, it has to be submitted and must have all the "safety features".. microstamping, magazine disconnect, Chamber loaded indicator.

megavolt121
10-15-2007, 9:24 PM
Do y'all expect that any firearms manufacturers will have the stones to stand up to California by boycotting all sales and support to California (particularly to law enforcement users), and/or refusing to manufacture any firearms with microstamping features?

No, I don't expect them to.

1- LEO can still buy all new models they release so that rules out the huge law enforcement contracts being lost angle.
2- All existing guns on the list can still be sold without any modifications.

With those two points above, they have no incentive to support CA via microstamping just over a few new models of guns they will produce.

yellowsulphur
10-20-2007, 10:55 PM
This was Glock's response:

http://users.rcn.com/barrygannaway1/calguns/Glock-Microstamping.jpg

socalguns
10-21-2007, 11:27 PM
actually doesnt it say something like 10% of the guns on the list can be tested annually at random for compliance with the current code?

Librarian
10-22-2007, 10:47 AM
actually doesnt it say something like 10% of the guns on the list can be tested annually at random for compliance with the current code?

No, not "compliance with the current code" - drop test and such. The way the law is today (which is to acknowledge that can change) is a gun gets on the Roster after passing all the hoops then in place when the gun is submitted for testing. If it passes, it stays on the list so long as the manufacturer pays the annual fee and the gun, if retested, still passes the drop test.

Grouch
10-22-2007, 10:08 PM
My big question is what will the DOJ consider as "every time the gun is fired". Does it mean 100% success rate at printing a legible imprint on the case? Does it just need to print a mark and legibility is irrelevant?

I think this is going to be the question that is going to end up determining how strong this attempt at a de facto ban is going to be.

Smokeybehr
11-12-2007, 9:43 PM
I just got a note on another list that STI won't be selling any more of their product here in the state.

bwiese
11-13-2007, 10:39 AM
I just got a note on another list that STI won't be selling any more of their product here in the state.

STI hasn't been selling any anyway since none are approved/Rostered. Despite the presence or absence of 1471, they'd still have to add SB489-mandated mag disco + LCI features to their guns.

Guess they just wanted a little tagalong PR even though whatever they're clowning on about is irrelevant.

CSDGuy
11-13-2007, 12:34 PM
STI hasn't been selling any anyway since none are approved/Rostered. Despite the presence or absence of 1471, they'd still have to add SB489-mandated mag disco + LCI features to their guns.

Guess they just wanted a little tagalong PR even though whatever they're clowning on about is irrelevant.
STI is a minor player in the LEO sales market. Basically, LEO wants to buy an STI, they'll have their dealer order one. Essentially, STI is pulling out of the LEO/off-roster market out here. No big loss for them, or us. It's basically a PR move that won't cost them very much.

chunger
11-13-2007, 2:41 PM
I don't know what the deal is with STI, but they dropped the California market a long time ago, and have refused to keep their meager selection of California firearms on the roster.

I think a strong statement would be to cease sales to California state agencies, and continue "if possible" to sell to private citizens like Ronnie Barret did.

What STI has done is stopped even trying to sell to California private citizens a long time ago (letting their guns drop off the list without renueing). . . and then play it up now like they're helping us out in some way.

glockman19
11-13-2007, 3:26 PM
What's on the list now will remain until the sales no longer justify the fee then they'll just drop off. I can't see any manufacturer retooling for new models without a proven track record spending the money. We may however see a few new models before 2010.

Kruzr
11-15-2007, 7:01 AM
This is simply grandstanding by STI with no monetary consequences. Once again they have shown their disdain for the California shooter.

ghostwong
01-21-2008, 8:37 PM
+1

Someone on ARFcom was suggesting that we start a ballot initiative to require all LE to use microstamped pistols.

I'm for this!! How about ballot initiative to put all LEO under the same laws we have to live under. Let's see how fast things change. Let's say no more AR -15 style duty weapons that are banned to everybody else. No off duty carry, since we can't get a CCW to protect ourselves nor or family. No guns without micro stamping. I don't see any criminals following the law, I not saying we as law abiding citizens should not follow the law. Please do obey the law.
I support my local law enforcement agency, God love all of them.

chris
01-21-2008, 8:53 PM
I'm for this!! How about ballot initiative to put all LEO under the same laws we have to live under. Let's see how fast things change. Let's say no more AR -15 style duty weapons that are banned to everybody else. No off duty carry, since we can't get a CCW to protect ourselves nor or family. No guns without micro stamping. I don't see any criminals following the law, I not saying we as law abiding citizens should not follow the law. Please do obey the law.
I support my local law enforcement agency, God love all of them.

that would be a great idea but unfortunately it would not happen.