PDA

View Full Version : Thanks again, Arnie


ImOverHere
11-12-2007, 11:43 PM
STI International Ends Sales to California
http://www.nssf.org/BP2/current/index.cfm?AoI=generic

MICROSTAMPING UPDATE . . . Effective immediately, STI International has halted all shipments of firearms to California. The company will no longer sell any firearms to civilians or law enforcement in the state. The move by STI comes after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed microstamping legislation into law. "This law is not going to stop criminals, it is only going to hurt law-abiding citizens in the state," STI's Pauletta Skinner told Bullet Points. "We felt like we had to take a stand against this law."

jumbopanda
11-12-2007, 11:50 PM
I don't see how ending sales to civilians, who are obviously pro-gun if they want STI's products, is a valid way of protesting microstamping.

DedEye
11-13-2007, 12:03 AM
Good for them for protesting the law, but bad on them for ceasing sales to civilians. They should have followed Ronnie Barrett's example more closely.

ImOverHere
11-13-2007, 12:05 AM
I don't see how ending sales to civilians, who are obviously pro-gun if they want STI's products, is a valid way of protesting microstamping.

I don't know their corporate strategy, of course. But I'd guess they found the new law to be cost-prohibitive, in addition to being incremental gun-control nonsense. And since they weren't going to be marketing to civilians here, they chose the route Ronnie Barrett went.

fireblast713
11-13-2007, 12:06 AM
maybe if more gun makers followed suit they'd be forced to change some of the laws, I know Barret already doesn't sell to CA, if LE/Gov's could purchase/maintain their hardware it might be kinda annoying for them. But it kinda sucks for us too

Crazed_SS
11-13-2007, 12:14 AM
I honestly dont understand the logic here. Let's assume Glock, HK, Sig, SA, S&W, etc stopped selling guns completely in California. How does us not being able to buy guns help anything? Isnt that what the antis what, for us to not to be able to get guns anymore?

I doubt the antis will say, "Oh no our legislation has caused gun makers to stop selling in this state.. maybe we should rethink things.." No, thye're gonna say, "Look, our legislation has caused gun makers to stop selling in this state, IT'S WORKING, IT'S WORKING!"

jjperl
11-13-2007, 12:17 AM
I don't understand why they are punishing CA civilians. They should restrict sales to civilians only. Their loss I guess.

jjperl
11-13-2007, 12:18 AM
I honestly dont understand the logic here. Let's assume Glock, HK, Sig, SA, S&W, etc stopped selling guns completely in California. How does us not being able to buy guns help anything? Isnt that what the antis what, for us to not to be able to get guns anymore?

I doubt the antis will see, "Oh, no our legislation has caused gun makers to stop selling in this state.. maybe we should rethink things.." No, thye're gonna say, "Look, our legislation has caused gun makers to stop selling in this state, IT'S WORKING, IT'S WORKING!"

I agree 100%

jumbopanda
11-13-2007, 12:19 AM
Refusing to set up tooling for microstamping is perfectly understandable, but simply cutting off all sales to civilians immediately is just dumb. And yes, SS is exactly right about how the anti-gun people will react to this.

BobbyQuickdraw
11-13-2007, 1:46 AM
I don't see how ending sales to civilians, who are obviously pro-gun if they want STI's products, is a valid way of protesting microstamping.

They have to stop all gun sales into CA to really be effective. If the guns were available in gun shops, Police could purchase them there.

While at first it seems like it sucks for us gun enthusiasts, maybe it will send a wake up call to California if lots of gun manufacturers refuse to sell and fix police equipment and cut off some of the purchasing power we generate.

Barret made a stand against the police, but by then the .50 was already illegal to us civilians so it came full circle, just not of his doing.

BobbyQuickdraw
11-13-2007, 1:48 AM
I honestly dont understand the logic here. Let's assume Glock, HK, Sig, SA, S&W, etc stopped selling guns completely in California. How does us not being able to buy guns help anything? Isnt that what the antis what, for us to not to be able to get guns anymore?

I doubt the antis will say, "Oh no our legislation has caused gun makers to stop selling in this state.. maybe we should rethink things.." No, thye're gonna say, "Look, our legislation has caused gun makers to stop selling in this state, IT'S WORKING, IT'S WORKING!"

But imagine if the gun manufacturers got all the ammo producers (some of whom are of the same parent companies) to stop selling ammunition in CA.

Again, it would hurt us, but perhaps force California to rethink its strategy as the police become severely handicapped.

tiki
11-13-2007, 2:05 AM
What would stop a vendor in Nevada or Arizona from selling to police depts in CA? I have to agree that this just plays into the hands of the antis.

adamsreeftank
11-13-2007, 2:22 AM
So now I have to go through LANWorld or some other out of state dealer (no offense guys - you're the best) to get a handgun that is on the APPROVED list. This is getting ridiculous. Talk about blaming the victims.

tenpercentfirearms
11-13-2007, 4:49 AM
Guys, I didn't see any STI guns on the CA Approved List of Handguns for Sale. How can you stop sending guns to civilians in CA if you don't do it already? BFD.

metalhead357
11-13-2007, 4:53 AM
Go hit thier Guestbook at the bottom and tell them they are doing the wrong thing.

bwiese
11-13-2007, 7:37 AM
Pointless gesture. Yawn.

(1) They don't have any guns on the CA approved list already. They wouldn't be able to get them approved/Rostered right now unless they incorporated SB489's LCIs and mag discos anyway - regardless of whatever Arnie did.

(2) STI sells maybe 1000, 2000 guns a year that can be fairly well duplicated in function/quality by other mfgrs/gunsmiths. Oh, man, the impact.

(3) This will be a popular move with some "Kill California" ARFcommers who can't even afford STI guns anyway.

torsf
11-13-2007, 7:55 AM
But imagine if the gun manufacturers got all the ammo producers (some of whom are of the same parent companies) to stop selling ammunition in CA.

Again, it would hurt us, but perhaps force California to rethink its strategy as the police become severely handicapped.

At first I thought this is a great idea, but I think long-term it would back-fire. I think that this would close off forever the few places that we can go to to buy ammo locally. The police will get ammo, somehow... Either the governor would drain the national guard's stock, or the federal government would step in to re-supply the police (or something else..who knows).

However, I very much am in favor of firearm manufacturers following Barrett's lead and suspending sales & service to any California government entity.

cadurand
11-13-2007, 7:58 AM
But imagine if the gun manufacturers got all the ammo producers (some of whom are of the same parent companies) to stop selling ammunition in CA.

Again, it would hurt us, but perhaps force California to rethink its strategy as the police become severely handicapped.This could easily be turned into a black eye for the ammo makers. They'd be slammed for leaving the people of California unprotected.

Plus do cops really burn through that much ammo? I used to work for a local PD and aside from annual qualifications the amount of ammo individual officers used for their own training wasn't that great. Even the annual qualifications didn't end up using that much ammo.

Scotty
11-13-2007, 8:33 AM
STI stopped sales in California, long before this. When legislation passed the law saying gun manufacturers can be found liable, STI announced they were going to stop. So they aren't doing anything new.

Piper
11-13-2007, 8:37 AM
We've talked about this before and agreed that following Barrets lead is a way for the firearms industry to send a message to Sacramento. Now we're condemning STI for stepping up to the plate and being an example to others in the industry. So which is it people ? You can't have it both ways.

Gator Monroe
11-13-2007, 8:37 AM
Ca. is 20-35% of all Firearm & Firearm Related sales for the Entire Country ! They are gonna hurt for cuttin Ca. off :eek:

AJAX22
11-13-2007, 8:51 AM
Ca. is 20-35% of all Firearm & Firearm Related sales for the Entire Country ! They are gonna hurt for cuttin Ca. off :eek:

I believe the last figure I read was that we accounted for 14% of firearm and firearm related sales within the U.S.

I'm not certain that this will accomplish what they set out to achieve.

But at least someone who is outside of CA is actually paying attention to whats going on behind the wire.

We'll never be able to effectivly cut off Law enforcement gun and ammunction sales. If they run out, they'll just buy surpluss from the national guard.

If body armor companies started boycotting CA sales you'd see a much greater effect in my opinion.

DedEye
11-13-2007, 8:54 AM
We've talked about this before and agreed that following Barrets lead is a way for the firearms industry to send a message to Sacramento. Now we're condemning STI for stepping up to the plate and being an example to others in the industry. So which is it people ? You can't have it both ways.

It's because they're not following Barrett's example correctly. Stop selling to the CA government, but don't hurt the CA firearms enthusiast.

Gator Monroe
11-13-2007, 8:58 AM
I believe the last figure I read was that we accounted for 14% of firearm and firearm related sales within the U.S.

I'm not certain that this will accomplish what they set out to achieve.

But at least someone who is outside of CA is actually paying attention to whats going on behind the wire.

We'll never be able to effectivly cut off Law enforcement gun and ammunction sales. If they run out, they'll just buy surpluss from the national guard.

If body armor companies started boycotting CA sales you'd see a much greater effect in my opinion.

14% seems a Little low but 16%-18% is a number that has been bantered about in other forums and I considered that low ball !:sleeping:

Scotty
11-13-2007, 9:07 AM
If the NSSF gets involved, they might be able to convince the companies to cease all support of CA LE agencies. It might not affect them short term, but long term will be a big burden on their budget since they won't be able to get LE discount.

Rob P.
11-13-2007, 10:01 AM
I think this is a good thing. Mostly because STI has stepped up and said "This law is bad for business and consumers so we don't want to do business in your state."

If more mfgs do this then even the anti's will have a problem with it when it starts to affect tax revenues and LEO's ability to buy replacement firearms, parts, and ammo. It will take several years but it can be made to work.

As for civilians, we have to bear the burden of rationing ammo or reloading our own. Our existing pre-stamped firearms will become more valuable as fewer are available on the market.

And, if Heller goes the way we're all hoping, the microstamping law becomes effectively a "complete ban" on firearms because no mfg makes such a weapon and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

Go STI and here's hoping others will follow your and Barrett's lead.

bwiese
11-13-2007, 10:34 AM
I think this is a good thing. Mostly because STI has stepped up and said "This law is bad for business and consumers so we don't want to do business in your state."

Which is what the antis want. They'd be overjoyed to have no new handgun sales at all in CA and a concomitant decline in interest and 'mindshare' in shooting.

If more mfgs do this then even the anti's will have a problem with it when it starts to affect tax revenues

Relative to CA's economy the sales tax + DROS revenue for guns is a drop in the bucket. Drive up & down 101 and you'll find businesses whose individual sales top the whole firearms industry, or a large fraction of it.

And they'd be willing to suffer that income loss to achieve their gunless goal.


and LEO's ability to buy replacement firearms, parts, and ammo. It will take several years but it can be made to work.

LEs can always get firearms and parts thru distribution.

Most firearms are sold thru distribution anyway and not directly to CA FFLs.
with perhaps exception of specialty low-volume guns like Barrett and STI. Others - Glock, Sig, S&W, Ruger, Colt, etc. - are all sold thru distribution channels. There'd be a helluva Fed trade restraint issue if a gun co told a distributor to not sell to individual CA LEs.

Just like we get around marketplace restrictions in CA by using intermediating FFLs outside CA to render firearms legally compliant, LEs would just order their parts & guns from distribution agencies.


Our existing pre-stamped firearms will become more valuable as fewer are available on the market.

Your paranoia about 1471 matters is likely unfounded. It's bad law but de facto unimplementable. You have to read it :)

This is all 'feel good' BS that just hurts the CA gunowner and makes no forward progress.

Piper
11-13-2007, 10:59 AM
It's because they're not following Barrett's example correctly. Stop selling to the CA government, but don't hurt the CA firearms enthusiast.

Is Barrett still selling to citizens in California? I understood that they designed a California compliant rifle, but it's not a .50 BMG. Did STI submit firearms for the safe gun roster and they didn't pass? Maybe someone can get me up to speed on this.

bwiese
11-13-2007, 11:06 AM
Is Barrett still selling to citizens in California? I understood that they designed a California compliant rifle, but it's not a .50 BMG. Did STI submit firearms for the safe gun roster and they didn't pass? Maybe someone can get me up to speed on this.

As I understand Barrett will sell to Californians whatever's legal.

STI are BS artists - they have no guns Rostered (it appears no guns were ever approved, have no idea if submitted). Regardless of any microstamping issues in future, they'd have to put on LCIs + mag discos to get their guns approved for CA sale.

They just found something to trumpet and get a bit of PR.

Rob P.
11-13-2007, 11:16 AM
Your paranoia about 1471 matters is likely unfounded. It's bad law but de facto unimplementable. You have to read it :)

ME??? Paranoid?

Say it ain't so......

Gshock
11-13-2007, 11:50 AM
The sad thing is that more gun manufacturers may follow suit, even though STI doesn't even sell guns here anyway. They may not feel it's economically feasable to come up with a way and implement a microstamping feature for a gun being sold in only one state with a lame law.

elenius
11-13-2007, 11:53 AM
Pointless gesture. Yawn.

(1) They don't have any guns on the CA approved list already. They wouldn't be able to get them approved/Rostered right now unless they incorporated SB489's LCIs and mag discos anyway - regardless of whatever Arnie did.


Yes, pointless, unless they previously sold to LE and are stopping that now, but I don't imagine any LEOs carrying STI guns.


(2) STI sells maybe 1000, 2000 guns a year that can be fairly well duplicated in function/quality by other mfgrs/gunsmiths. Oh, man, the impact.


Not exactly true. There are very few choices in "2011" style wide bodies in CA. The SVI guns are still available though, but those are more expensive. And then there's the Para guns, but most IPSC shooters prefer STI or SVI.


(3) This will be a popular move with some "Kill California" ARFcommers who can't even afford STI guns anyway.

tenpercentfirearms
11-13-2007, 12:02 PM
I have always said that the Barrett decision was more about PR than anything else. The state shut down Barrett's product. Barrett just decided to cut off the miniscule LE market for .50 BMG. This wasn't a lot of sales or service.

STI is trying the same trick. They already didn't submit guns for state approval, so not sending firearms in that they were not already sending in is not a change. Just PR. For some reason most of you are seeing through this PR move where you claimed Ronnie Barrett was a hero before.

To think that the anti's won't ban guns to protect tax revenues is foolish in my opinion. To think that a big manufacturer like Glock would lose this huge LEO market as a stand for civil rights that don't effect the parent country would be foolish as well.

If we really want to make a difference, we need to do so legislatively, not by cutting off our supply of guns and ammo.

bwiese
11-13-2007, 12:03 PM
The sad thing is that more gun manufacturers may follow suit, even though STI doesn't even sell guns here anyway. They may not feel it's economically feasable to come up with a way and implement a microstamping feature for a gun being sold in only one state with a lame law.

Um, that depends if microstamping is implementable and unencumbered by patents. It ain't.

chickenfried
11-13-2007, 12:15 PM
STI Trojan was on the approved list. But STI would not ship guns to CA, citing lack of protection from frivolous lawsuits.

Piper
11-13-2007, 12:55 PM
As I understand Barrett will sell to Californians whatever's legal.

STI are BS artists - they have no guns Rostered (it appears no guns were ever approved, have no idea if submitted). Regardless of any microstamping issues in future, they'd have to put on LCIs + mag discos to get their guns approved for CA sale.

They just found something to trumpet and get a bit of PR.

So basically you're saying Barrett will sell to citizens but not government agencies that are located exclusively in California. I suppose blowing a trumpet isn't completly a bad thing, but it would be nice if others in the industry started blowing their trumpets in solidarity.

No pun intended, but I think we need to bite the bullet and live with the firearms already on the list until California gets a strong dose of common sense. I appreciate that the firearms industry might be willing to sacrifice profit for principal, so I'm willing to deal with that inconvenience until the 2A is completely restored to California. To me that means rolling back firearms laws to pre-1850 freedoms. I may be an unrealistc optimist, but I think 157 years of government infringement is enough.

Scotty
11-13-2007, 1:08 PM
Ah ha, found it. This is from their FAQ prior to being updated with the microstamping. They haven't sold a gun in California since Dec 20, 2002. So again, it's a moot point with the latest announcemnet.

Q. Will recent California gun liability affect California specific products.
A. UPDATE We will be suspending shipments of guns to California effective December 20, 2002. This suspension will be in effect until we determine what action, if any, the Federal Government will be taking to protect manufacturers of safe and legal products, or until the resolution of the first flurry of California generated lawsuits against legitimate firearms and accessory manufacturers.

chris
11-13-2007, 1:16 PM
at least they are going to stop any sales to law enforcement. but i do think they should have followed barret's lead on this. but thanks Arnie you screwed us.

Piper
11-13-2007, 1:20 PM
Ah ha, found it. This is from their FAQ prior to being updated with the microstamping. They haven't sold a gun in California since Dec 20, 2002. So again, it's a moot point with the latest announcemnet.

This suggests to me that STI was ahead of the game. Am I wrong?

Q. Will recent California gun liability affect California specific products.
A. UPDATE We will be suspending shipments of guns to California effective December 20, 2002. This suspension will be in effect until we determine what action, if any, the Federal Government will be taking to protect manufacturers of safe and legal products, or until the resolution of the first flurry of California generated lawsuits against legitimate firearms and accessory manufacturers.

Scotty
11-13-2007, 1:51 PM
No, they weren't ahead of the game. They just didn't want to get named in a lawsuit should something ever happen with one of their guns. They were the only ones that stopped. You don't see SVI doing the same thing.

bwiese
11-13-2007, 1:55 PM
No, they weren't ahead of the game. They just didn't want to get named in a lawsuit should something ever happen with one of their guns. They were the only ones that stopped. You don't see SVI doing the same thing.

More gun lawsuits come outta East coast than CA.

And it's a pretty stupid position, because their guns can move thru distribution and legal resale to CA anyway.

I should go get an STI gun after making it 12133PC exempt to show it's possible but I don't have the stomach to give those poseur a-holes my $$. Maybe they'd try a Fulton Armory "we'll pull it outta the air and claim it's stolen" trick.

Scotty
11-13-2007, 2:32 PM
The competition crowd was pretty pissed about STI move back then. Come on, majority of STI end up in hands of competition shooters anyways. The whole resale thing was brought up too.

It's not like their stance really did anything. New STI guns still end up in California.

metalhead357
11-13-2007, 5:26 PM
Well,

My fear....TWO down and more to follow. As I believe, if they're going to make a true example...sell to Civi's ONLY and forget LE sales and refuse warrentee work/returns/etc from the same.

PR or not, this sets a BAD example for the rest of the manufactures to follow...........

So whether these two micro companies make a difference NOW, I hope this is NOT the handwriting on the wall for things to come; as the time IS NOW to stop/sway thier practices before they become "establlished practices" like how we deal with CTD and Sportsman Wherehouse and thier nonsenical abandonment over (some) products- not because it is illegal or anything...just because it is established nonsense.

So Bill, if I cant get a Para next year...I'm holdin' YOU personally responsible & you'll have to find a PPT'r for me for less than $400:p

tenpercentfirearms
11-13-2007, 7:20 PM
No pun intended, but I think we need to bite the bullet and live with the firearms already on the list until California gets a strong dose of common sense. I appreciate that the firearms industry might be willing to sacrifice profit for principal, so I'm willing to deal with that inconvenience until the 2A is completely restored to California. To me that means rolling back firearms laws to pre-1850 freedoms. I may be an unrealistc optimist, but I think 157 years of government infringement is enough.

So how will dealers not selling us firearms make us learn a lesson? The anti's will be pleased with that and how are you going to convince the manufacturers not to make new models that they can sell to the California market or better yet how do you convince them to let their currently hot selling items drop off the list?

This strategy is knee jerk and foolish at best because it somehow relies on the anti's feeling the sting of not being able to buy a firearm. Their goal is to eliminate all public ownership eventually, this is just a step in the process.

If you want to turn things around, you need to take some fence sitters shooting. You need to work harder come election time. You need to tell the GOC not to screw things up.

Piper
11-13-2007, 7:46 PM
So how will dealers not selling us firearms make us learn a lesson? The anti's will be pleased with that and how are you going to convince the manufacturers not to make new models that they can sell to the California market or better yet how do you convince them to let their currently hot selling items drop off the list?

This strategy is knee jerk and foolish at best because it somehow relies on the anti's feeling the sting of not being able to buy a firearm. Their goal is to eliminate all public ownership eventually, this is just a step in the process.

If you want to turn things around, you need to take some fence sitters shooting. You need to work harder come election time. You need to tell the GOC not to screw things up.

If ALL companies are willing to take the road Ronnie Barrett took, I will stand with them. I talk to the uninformed; write, phone, email and in some cases physically visit my representatives and challenge the anti's to go shooting with me. I just think that we need to stand with the frearms industry if they choose to reject government contracts. If that means being inconvenienced for awhile, so be it. We're already disarmed when we walk out our doors.

SkyStorm82
11-13-2007, 8:00 PM
It's not like their stance really did anything. New STI guns still end up in California.

I think it did something for the anti's. This stance of there's isn't doing us any favors.

I mean here's proof right here that all these silly little laws they come up with further their end goal of banning firearms without going door to door.

Screw STI....they can KMA.

Gator Monroe
11-13-2007, 8:05 PM
:eek::rolleyes:

LAK Supply
11-13-2007, 8:52 PM
All firearms manufacturers voiding their warranties to all CA LEO would be a better scenario. No repairs for the elitists who push these crap laws.

metalhead357
11-13-2007, 10:23 PM
All firearms manufacturers voiding their warranties to all CA LEO would be a better scenario. No repairs for the elitists who push these crap laws.


+1000000000 and have the others "recall" thier products out of the hands of Dept.'s with anti-agenda's....like LA's with that 50 nonsense piece:rolleyes: that would wake some up in SAC when thier lawforce looses its ability to protect themselves AND the politicians; bet they would not be such sanctimoneous A*holes if they had to fend off the criminals with *only* the laws they've so gleefully laid at our feet to live & die by.......

tenpercentfirearms
11-14-2007, 5:08 AM
If ALL companies are willing to take the road Ronnie Barrett took, I will stand with them. I talk to the uninformed; write, phone, email and in some cases physically visit my representatives and challenge the anti's to go shooting with me. I just think that we need to stand with the frearms industry if they choose to reject government contracts. If that means being inconvenienced for awhile, so be it. We're already disarmed when we walk out our doors.

You keep thinking these companies are out for your civil rights. A corporation only has one concern, profit motive. You will never get all of the companies on board. Ever.

I mean think about what you just said, "I just think we need to stand with the frearms industry if they choose to reject government contracts." Who are you kidding? That is their bread and butter. Do you really think some company in one of the other 50 states is going to reduce their profit and put their families out of work because the morons of California keep piling this on themselves?

And no, we are not already disarmed when we walk out our doors. I have had my CCW since I was 22. Everything you guys are pipe dreaming is off. It will not happen.

Who do you think wanted SB15 and the whole safe list to happen? The firearms industry! What is better than having a bunch of handguns fall off the list while they are still paid for and on the shelves so you have to go buy new ones everytime you change something and have to have it retested? So now they have this small bump where they have to figure out how to microstamp. They will figure out something to get by and they will make money off of it. Your civil rights mean nothing to the executives of Glock living in Austria or their workers.

dustoff31
11-14-2007, 9:07 AM
Do you really think some company in one of the other 50 states is going to reduce their profit and put their families out of work because the morons of California keep piling this on themselves?

Bingo. I find it interesting that in the many pages on this subject everyone wants to recall Arnold and wants companies to stop doing business in CA, then complains when they do.

Yet not one person has breathed a word about getting rid of the clowns that actually wrote and voted for the bill in the first place. These jerks in Sacramento are not your leaders, they are your employees, start acting like it.

There was a thread awhile back about people moving to a particular county and getting the right people elected to make CCW issue easier. Maybe it's time to start thinking about "moving" into some of the gerrymandered districts to get rid of these morons. Nothing says you have to stay there after the election.

Outlaw Josey Wales
11-14-2007, 7:29 PM
These jerks in Sacramento are not your leaders, they are your employees,



The State Vs. The People
by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman

The increase in government power is like a political arms buildup against the citizenry -- a vast expansion of the pretexts that the governing class has to attack the governed. A massive military buildup by one government can often subdue its foreign enemies without a fight. Similarly, contemporary statute books convey sufficient punitive power that citizens surrender without a fight in most potential conflicts with the government.

Americans should heed Wolfe and Zelman when they urge people to practice "living resistance" -- which means "committing your life to making sure that you never, through choice or inertia, help lay the bricks that build the police state."

People must summon the will and resolution to drive politicians out of their own lives. What is needed now is the same passion and outrage over political and bureaucratic aggrandizement that existed towards chattel slavery 140 years ago. We must recognize that possession of government office does not confer ownership rights over human beings....

If contemporary Americans can cease idolizing the State, a rebirth of the spirit of freedom will begin and the threat of America becoming a Police State will become far less foreboding.

-- From the Introduction by James Bovard

bwiese
11-15-2007, 12:06 PM
There was a thread awhile back about people moving to a particular county and getting the right people elected to make CCW issue easier. Maybe it's time to start thinking about "moving" into some of the gerrymandered districts to get rid of these morons. Nothing says you have to stay there after the election.

Very good point.

Rather than have to have people 'move', there will be thousands of service folks eventually coming back to CA from overseas. They're more likely to have some familiarity w/firearms. If they're looking to settle in CA they may temporarily land in 'useful precicts' that can swing.

Most elections are won/lost by just a few votes per *precinct*. 4-7 people dropped into apts in each precinct can throw elections for quite a few assembly districts.

metalhead357
11-15-2007, 5:03 PM
If contemporary Americans can cease idolizing the State, a rebirth of the spirit of freedom will begin and the threat of America becoming a Police State will become far less foreboding.

-- From the Introduction by James Bovard

One of the best dam quatoes I've heard in a while regarding the matter.;)