Why don't Firearm Manufacturers Help CA?

[robertkjjj]

I'm always seeing people on here asking why the NRA doesn't help CA more, and that question has already been answered a thousand times.

My question is different: Why don't the major gun manufacturers---S&W, Glock, Ruger, Remington, Savage, Springfield, Browning,Beretta, etc- have a stronger and more visible presence in CA pro-gun politics? Why aren't THESE GUYS pumping millions into this state, trying to help keep our rights, and trying to fight the anti-gun measures?

Why isn't a company like Glock--who has made a SH*TLOAD of cash in CA, helping us with our fight? Why aren't THEY paying for billboards and commercials??

After all, who has more to lose if CA succeeds in banning more and more guns, than these companies?

We have the strictest laws in the nation, and our gun ownership rate is low, but we DO have 39 MILLION people, so our total gun market is massive, and larger than many countries.

Seriously, I want to start seeing billboards all over the place, that are fighting the Newsom measure, and paid for by Glock. This would be chump change for them.

Any answers why these companies aren't trying harder, or more visible?

[Wiz-of-Awd]

I can only speculate, that the California market in jeopardy is not quite as large as some may think, compared to the costs to fight and try to save it.

It's a business, and knowing that, the numbers likely don't add up.

Simple.

A.W.D.

[StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca]

I think they rightfully know Ca is a lost cause.

[michael0594]

They can help by not selling off roster guns to law enforcement. If a gun is not safe for average citizen, then it's also not safe for police.

[Kowan]

The left already claims the NRA is the manufacturers and not us individual gun owners.
The left would use it claim the evil corporations are protecting their interest at the expense of the children.

[HardwoodRods]

Why would you spend millions when you know CA is a lost cause?

[Victor Cachat]

I think they are like the larger, chain stores, like Sportsman's and Bass Pro.
They don't want to upset their non-firearms customers by getting involved in the fight at the state or local level.

Pretty stupid, but it is what it is.

[Spyder]

I think they are like the larger, chain stores, like Sportsman's and Bass Pro.
They don't want to upset their non-firearms customers by getting involved in the fight at the state or local level.

Pretty stupid, but it is what it is.

What non-firearms customers would a firearms manufacturing company be concerned about upsetting?

[viet4lifeOC]

Why would you spend millions when you know CA is a lost cause?

Some would argue that sh+*t spreads.

Seems if you make a strong stand in California and win....other states may be weary to try.

[Pinkie Pie]

My Friend Robert

I wish I could say there was hope for those of us in minority here in the People's Republic of Kalifornia however with the Corruption going all the way up to the most overturned "United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit" I have little confidence in "the System" here. The deck has been stacked against us for most if not all of my lifetime. This "Progressive" run state does not care about the "letter of the Constitution" or "what the intent of the Founding Fathers was" but about what they say is their "progressed interpretation of what it should say or mean". Just as Gov. "Moon Beam's" signing of a total ban of all handgun magazines holding more than 10 rounds making everyone who legally purchased guns in California with such magazines all those years before the initial ban of said magazines in 2017 into instant CRIMINALS illustrates. Turn them in to be destroyed without compensation, sell them to a gun shop if you can find one that will buy them or get out of California; how "Progressive" of them.

As a Vietnam Era veteran, I have come to expect no less from the People's Republic of Kalifornia and so far after being spit on when I returned in uniform as a U.S. Army officer in Feb. 1973, Kalifornia has not disappointed me!

[The Gleam]

1) They are still selling guns in CA bans or not, threats or not - and probably more so. The biggest manufacturers that could afford to advertise against these laws are the same with enough holdings and power to keep older models on the Roster menu. Glock (and definitely both Ruger and Smith & Wesson) sell more guns now in CA than they did 20 years ago BECAUSE of the constant looming threat procured, the panic buys, etc.

I was in Riflegear on Saturday and a guy was buying 4 of the same S&W M&P .22LR ARs - not even subject to the pending ban. I though it was weird the clerk asked him why he was buying 4 of the same rifle (a question most any gun enthusiast isn't bold enough to ask) even when they weren't subject to the coming ban, and the buyer said "for my kids, because I'd rather get them now while I can; they'll be coming for these next".

2) I've said this time and time again, and it benefits BOTH the manufacturers and the NRA, CRPA, GOA, CGF, FPC, and all the ETC acronym entities; they profit from a threat, from the looming legislation whether in CA or not. CA is a sacrificial diode, a melting urinal cake so the rest of the piss-pot smells sweet. A cancer must exist for the idea of the rest of the country to feel like they "gots to git me mine before them Fruits and Nuts head East". So CA bans increase sales in other states too; it's inevitable and there isn't a manufacturer right now that isn't also floating the idea publicly that Clint could win the coming election and bring back a Bill Clinton style 1994-2004 "Assault Weapon" ban.

3) The short-term, high-volume revenue boost is a better score for them in cash versus debt/overhead and investing back into the company than a long drawn-out and slow steady revenue stream that just balances out expenses and advertising. And they can sell cheaper to make good in higher quantity than having to make the best product at the highest price and only sell a few like an FN SCAR (i.e., guy buying 4 S&W M&P .22LR ARs at one time at panic-pricing MSRP rather than an uber-discount).

4) It's not a lie when you see that they repeatedly say "Obama is the greatest guns salesman that ever lived" and they have enjoyed 8 years of robust sales because of him. Why kill that golden-goose? In fact, I'd be willing to bet they are secretly HOPING for a Hillary Presidency!!

5) Even with all the laws, the bans, the threats since 1989, 2000, 2004 and 'til now with this latest 7, California is STILL the largest gun buying market in the United States.

6) Cancer sells. The first two letters in the word CAncer are CA!

[dchang0]

Another possible reason is that in the end, arms manufacturers will always have two guaranteed customers: governments and organized criminals/warlords.

They don't really need to arm the public, and indeed, if the public is totally disarmed, the police state will grow, and governments are willing to pay much higher prices for firearms than civilians since it's the taxpayer's money anyway (see HK's or Knight's Armament's pricing).

[The Gleam]

Another possible reason is that in the end, arms manufacturers will always have two guaranteed customers: governments and organized criminals/warlords.

They don't really need to arm the public, and indeed, if the public is totally disarmed, the police state will grow, and governments are willing to pay much higher prices for firearms than civilians since it's the taxpayer's money anyway (see HK's or Knight's Armament's pricing).

No.

The civilian market buys WAY more guns than our law-enforcement and military combined; especially in consideration of the retail cost factor yielding a larger profit. Looking at WHAT government buys versus quantity is not an accurate portrayal.

As for organized criminals/warlords, they are not customers that serve any benefit to the manufacturers, wholesalers, or dealers - not even Leland Yee or Eric Holder.

They might be end recipients of firearms gotten through secondary means, but they can not be first-tier buyers, of any benefit to manufacturers, wholesalers, or dealers other that consumers buying guns to defend themselves from such individuals.

The libs would love to peddle the idea that manufacturers are selling to or benefit from organized criminals/warlords direct purchases, and that just isn't the case. That's one you should be careful about repeating, additionally as there is no merit in it anyway.

[packnrat]

i can for all manufactures to stop selling off roster guns to the police.
only sell the same models the reg folk are allowed to buy.

[ProtectThe2nd]

If a gun is not safe for average citizen, then it's also not safe for police.

I can only hope this part of your post is meant to be sarcastic...
CLEARLY, the roster is not meant to limit the sale of "unsafe" guns

As to the OP's question...why haven't voters protected the rights of manufactures to sell theirs wares unencumbered by legislation designed
to be nothing more than gun control.