Cactustactical Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 (edited) could very well be in the "what I hate" section also depending on your viewpoint. I added it here because I respect a company that puts principle over sales, ala Barrett. Got this in from the NSSF ( National Sports Shooting Foundation) Bullet Points newsletter today: 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." Edited November 12, 2007 by Cactustactical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outerlimits Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 agreed-glad to see them do this, and also no sales to LE...cool. being a resident, i'm glad i have a few frames tucked away in the safe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubberneck Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 So the anti-gunners found a way to drive a gun manufacturer out of their state without banning them, and that is supposed to be some sort of moral victory? I wish I could say that I was as thrilled as you are about STI's stance. Seems to me they gave the anti's exactly what they wanted. The difference is that Ronnie Barrett decided not to sell guns to California LE but left the door open to civilians. STI just slammed the door in the face of loyal customers to make some sort of political statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SA Friday Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 I can see both stances. I can only feel for the gun enthusiests in CA and can only wish they abandon that place. Having lived there once, I speak from experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p99shooter Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 I doubt it has anything to do with morals at all - it will be too expensive for them to re-tool to make their pistols compliant with the law, and they won't be able to pass the cost along to consumers. They will most likely be the first of many to stop selling in CA. If you don't think that this is exactly whey they wanted when they crafted this law ... I have a bridge to sell you. About all that will be left in CA is Sig; I have heard through reputable sources that Sig will comply with any law that CA passes, because of the huge LE market they have here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Hayden Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 It's been a number of years since civilians could buy STI's (non-ppt) here anyways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p99shooter Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 It's been a number of years since civilians could buy STI's (non-ppt) here anyways... To understand why, see this Hate article on the main section of Brian's site: 250,000 reasons not to live in California Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipscbob Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Yup. STI abandoned us in 2003 when they stopped shipping ALL firearms to CA including the CA compliant version of the edge. Sounds like marketing doublespeak to me. This is why a lot of us support SV whenever possible. They found ways to continue shipping into this state as they continue to do today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stage 3 Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 I doubt it has anything to do with morals at all - it will be too expensive for them to re-tool to make their pistols compliant with the law, and they won't be able to pass the cost along to consumers. They will most likely be the first of many to stop selling in CA. If you don't think that this is exactly whey they wanted when they crafted this law ... I have a bridge to sell you. About all that will be left in CA is Sig; I have heard through reputable sources that Sig will comply with any law that CA passes, because of the huge LE market they have here. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cactustactical Posted November 12, 2007 Author Share Posted November 12, 2007 I doubt it has anything to do with morals at all - it will be too expensive for them to re-tool to make their pistols compliant with the law, and they won't be able to pass the cost along to consumers. To para phrase what you wrote, taking politics out of the equation. The CA environment makes it too expensive for them to effectively produce a product that can be sold at a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scirocco38s Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 The only way to make a statement that California understands is for all gun mfg's to refuse to sell to any california agency or LE dept. Thats what Barrett did and it is the right way to handle this problem. Besides, how many LE agencies would buy STI's anyway. They really havent accomplished anything other than to increase the value of cali-frames to the point no one will be able to purchase them. The gun mfg's could continue to sell to civilians just not LE. and the real way for these companies to handle the problem is to have a recall on the guns and then tell california that their guns arent safe for civilians so they arent safe for the LE to have either. If the entire industry would present a united front then they could have some leverage with the state. Arnold has turned into the very puppet he makes fun of in his movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EZ Bagger Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 The only way to make a statement that California understands is for all gun mfg's to refuse to sell to any california agency or LE dept. Thats what Barrett did and it is the right way to handle this problem. Besides, how many LE agencies would buy STI's anyway. They really havent accomplished anything other than to increase the value of cali-frames to the point no one will be able to purchase them. The gun mfg's could continue to sell to civilians just not LE. and the real way for these companies to handle the problem is to have a recall on the guns and then tell california that their guns arent safe for civilians so they arent safe for the LE to have either. If the entire industry would present a united front then they could have some leverage with the state. Arnold has turned into the very puppet he makes fun of in his movies. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcarter Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 I agree. From an officers view, if you want to make a powerful statement you should stop a law sales and continue your sales to civilians. That is the only way it makes sense. Believe what you will, but a lot of us in law enforcement don't believe for one second that laws like this will do anything to curb shootings. If you want to do that we should go back to the days of "an eye for an eye". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 Yup. STI abandoned us in 2003 when they stopped shipping ALL firearms to CA including the CA compliant version of the edge. Sounds like marketing doublespeak to me. This is why a lot of us support SV whenever possible. They found ways to continue shipping into this state as they continue to do today. yeah, sorry, but this just seems like a "photo-op" to me. I have not done extensive research but the only LEOs I have seen wearing STI are at USPSA matches. It don't seem like a whole lot of financial hardship on our friends in Georgetown... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 The people of Califorina can have the final say. Vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 The people of Califorina can have the final say. Vote. I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 I would shudder to be a manufacturer and sell in in CA under that law. That is the very definition of unlimited liability. There's no way to create something that works, and when it doesn't, guess who's going to get sued? Some day CA may come to its senses, but that day doesn't appear to be coming any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWPatriot Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 The people of Califorina can have the final say. Vote. I do. Unfortunately too many of the anti-gun crowd vote as well (or maybe not enough of the California gun owners vote for pro Second Amendment candidates). But the question remains - if boycotting the state is not the answer, what other action can the gun manufacturers take to show their displeasure with California politicians? It would really be interesting to see what California politicians would do if ALL of the gun makers did impose a boycott - especially for LE sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe4d Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 Lots of gun comapnies make lots of money selling to Gov agencies that totally ban civilian gun ownership, I am sure Cali would have no problem buying lots of foriegn made guns. I'd bet they allready do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe4d Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 Lots of gun comapnies make lots of money selling to Gov agencies that totally ban civilian gun ownership, I am sure Cali would have no problem buying lots of foriegn made guns. I'd bet they allready do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogiebb Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 (edited) and here i am always complaining about laws in NY and NJ...damn sorry guys Edited November 13, 2007 by ogiebb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 Lots of gun comapnies make lots of money selling to Gov agencies that totally ban civilian gun ownership, I am sure Cali would have no problem buying lots of foriegn made guns. I'd bet they allready do. They sure do! Berettas and Glocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 (edited) The people of Califorina can have the final say. Vote. I do. Unfortunately too many of the anti-gun crowd vote as well (or maybe not enough of the California gun owners vote for pro Second Amendment candidates). But the question remains - if boycotting the state is not the answer, what other action can the gun manufacturers take to show their displeasure with California politicians? It would really be interesting to see what California politicians would do if ALL of the gun makers did impose a boycott - especially for LE sales. A total boycott may have some effect but you know someone will go for the cash. Just like some of our "fellow" shooters here who will happily sell you a beat STI limited gun for $3500 when the same gun would go for $1200 east of Blythe. It's called greed. Edit: The Drift Alarm went off. Back to the thread> Anything a manufacturer does to help point out the error of the CA government's ways is a good thing! Edited November 13, 2007 by ChuckS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianH Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 Quite a shame considering IPSC started there..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts