TexasCHLforum.com

boomerang wrote:

flintknapper wrote: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.

That requires there to be no law enforcement exceptions, exemptions, loopholes or similar manure.

Yup!

Dave01 wrote:

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.

I am not talking about just American Gun Manufacturers, I am talking "every" manufacturer that currently trades in the U.S.A. Instead of giving in to the crazy lawmakers in Commiefornia....they would do better to "make a stand".

When Police Dept's, the Military, etc... suddenly can't get weapons (or even parts)...you better believe they will sit up and pay attention. Do I really think that modern day companies will give up "profits" for principle? Very few...unfortunately.

So, I applaud those companies like Barrett and STI that will do the "right thing" in spite of the "bottom line".

After Smith & Wesson "caved in" and sold us all out....I immediately sold every S&W weapon I owned and have never purchased another (even though owner/management has changed). Sometimes its best to say NO, mean what you say...and stick by it.

Dave01 wrote: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.

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.