TexasCHLforum.com

Not exactly. The premise is this: Once firearms are no longer obtainable (by police, by military, by swat teams, by civilians, or anyone) it will cause such an uproar...that CA lawmakers will be "forced" to change their laws.

Understood. But, will this really keep the organizations you listed from obtaining weapons? Do these organizations purchase exclusively from the manufacturers, or are there other distributers (outside of CA) that they can buy from? I suspect there is a way for the necessary groups to circumvent the manufacturer ban. In the end, the only people prevented from obtaining firearms within the state are the citizens...the very people that the lawmakers don't want to have weapons in the first place. It just seems to me that they are playing right into their hands.

What would be the outcome of Kimber et.al. selling their guns in CA, but NOT selling to CA government/police agencies? Are STI and Barrett not selling in CA at all, or not selling to CA government/police?

It's a good question. Here is a link to the press release from the STI site http://www.stiguns.com/CA-PressRelease.pdf. I read this to say that they are not selling in CA at all, although it is not explicitly stated. However, the concpet of selling to the public, but not to government/police is perhaps a better way to gain traction.

Dave

I can agreee that the decision Kimber made on this one seems contradictory. However, the following statement is a mixed bag:

California will continue to pass new law after new law so long as the gun industry continues to sell in the California market. This will continue until 1.) Manufacturers say enough is enough, we aren’t selling in California anymore, or 2.) California gains de facto regulation of the entire firearms industry through our indifference. It will not matter what your local legislative bodies allow, California will be the standard that all must adhere to so long as the industry chooses to sell in California.

There was a thread I remember discussing STI's refusal to sell in California as this article mentions. On the surface this seems like a noble decision, one which business rarely take up....loosing revenue to support a cause. I certianly support STI in taking a stand, but I'm not convinced it's the correct stand. The problem is this... when a few manufacturers decide not to sell in california, they are taking a stand for gun owners everywhere. When the entire firearms industry decides not to sell in california, they are handing their law makers exactly what they are after (to the detrement of their constituents). I have no doubt that CA lawmakers would be overjoyed to find out that gun makers refused to sell in their state.