California Compliant Firearms: Enabling Bad Behavior

[Mitch]

Thanks for nothing, Paul.

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/08/california-compliant-firearms-enabling-bad-behavior/#axzz2bCQGaVBX

I suppose what we ought to be doing is giving up shooting altogether. That'll show those bozos in Sacramento!

[Gun_Smoke]

I wonder if he had anyone read that over before he posted it.

Large commercial firearms manufactures are not creating lots of jobs or generating large tax revenue for California. Nobody who supports gun restrictions cares if gun sales go down in California. If we stop buying guns that people feel need to be regulated then we aren't proving our point we are doing exactly what they wanted, which is putting less "evil weapons" into hands on Californians or whichever state is regulation them. He should be advocating things like featureless guns and 80% builds.

[JKMIII]

Gun manufacturers are businesses. A businesses job is to make money. If they have to slightly modify their firearms to be able to sell them to thousands of people in a "non-free" state, that is their perogative.

[epilepticninja]

I thought he made good points. Course, I like that there are manufacturers that comply with these insane CA laws so I can own AR's and LR-308's.

[SilverTauron]

Thanks for nothing, Paul.

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/08/california-compliant-firearms-enabling-bad-behavior/#axzz2bCQGaVBX

I suppose what we ought to be doing is giving up shooting altogether. That'll show those bozos in Sacramento!

May as well.At the rate CAs going target shooting will be illegal within the decade.

The authors point is a valid one;outside of profit motive, why should a company sell its wares to a state dedicated to banning them? We already know all of the laws and hoops are engineered as a backdoor gun ban,so the exercise of selling guns with bullet buttons and magazine safeties for legal purposes only props up the legitimacy of the antis.

The opposition points to previous regulations as justification for more.

"We have Mag Disconnects and Micro stamping on CA guns,so why not make them nationwide requirements?" -Say the enemy.If gun companies just flat out blacklisted anti-gun markets,there would be no legitimacy.

Sure thered be no product to sell or shoot in anti gun states,but in my estimation thats going to happen anyways in the years to come.With CAs micrstamping ,NYs SAFE act,and Coneticutts ban,the laws will be too divergent from state to state for companies to adapt to.In the future it won't be possible to make a firearm which is 50 state compliant,if it isn't already.

[elSquid]

Many manufacturers make semi auto versions of select fire firearms; I guess that they are enablers too. Is select fire that much more dangerous than semi auto? Would anyone buy an AR15 if they could purchase an M4/M16 for the same price instead? By his logic, no more EBRs until the NFA is rolled back!



-- Michael

[SilverTauron]

Many manufacturers make semi auto versions of select fire firearms; I guess that they are enablers too. Is select fire that much more dangerous than semi auto? Would anyone buy an AR15 if they could purchase an M4/M16 for the same price instead? By his logic, no more EBRs until the NFA is rolled back!



-- Michael

That is the exact point Feinstine made in January of this year.

[Mitch]

Many manufacturers make semi auto versions of select fire firearms; I guess that they are enablers too. Is select fire that much more dangerous than semi auto? Would anyone buy an AR15 if they could purchase an M4/M16 for the same price instead? By his logic, no more EBRs until the NFA is rolled back!



-- Michael

[chuckdc]

I could see if he were advocating not selling to the state (i.e. the state goobermint), but if he has 2 synapses to rub together, he wouldn't be condemning the already-downtrodden gun owners to further restrictions, imposed from without, rather than within.