TexasCHLforum.com

Although I believe the Kimber SIS is an attractive handgun, Ken Hanson does make a good point in the editorial below. California is such a large market, I can't see the major manufacturers taking them off their mailing list.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5674

Having just devoted a substantial chunk of pro bono legal work fighting governments committed to destroying your gun rights, I was horrified to read the March 2008 editions of several of my favorite gun magazines. Prominently featured in each edition was a feature story about a large manufacturer of 1911-type guns, breathlessly detailing the “gee whiz� details of their newest model dedicated to a California police agency. Each of the stories went into the history of the department the gun was designed for, yet one critical piece of background information was omitted from the tide of “fanboy� coverage.

These guns were all designed for a local government committed to stripping civilians of the right to own this same gun.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I love this particular manufacturer, and I personally carry their product almost daily. I have unreservedly recommended their product to students when asked. Honestly, given a choice, I PREFER their product. But there is no avoiding this conclusion: This manufacturer is designing firearms for police agencies in California at a time when California is committed to abolishing civilian ownership of these same firearms. If any of the gun writers who covered the unveiling of this product chose to question the wisdom of this sell-out, I have not yet found it.

The height of unintended irony comes in the March 2008 American Rifleman, which prominently featured this gun on the cover. Numerous sentences in the review article talked about the gun’s features, the accuracy and the other general minutiae expected of the genre. Flipping a few pages past the review article brings the reader to a separate article talking about how yet another complete handgun ban in San Francisco has been thrown out by a court decision, but the NRA legal team remains ever-vigilant for the next attempt by California to destroy your gun rights.

Think about this for a moment. These governments in California will work continuously to strip civilians of the right to own handguns, whether through outright bans or by requiring “smart gun� technology or other “safety measures� that makes it impractical to sell handguns in the state, or makes it dramatically more expensive to do so. (The fanboy coverage neglected to mention whether this new model is being shipped to the police with chamber microstamping or if it would function with non-lead ammo, in case the police department finds itself in a shootout with nesting condors nearby.) Not to mention the fact that these same local governments are waging a legal jihad against gun manufacturers, attempting to recover money judgments against gun makers for medical treatment costs associated with the criminal misuse of their products.

So in an environment that is committed to the very destruction of the gun industry as a whole, this manufacturer wades in and designs a custom edition gun for a California police agency. This makes as much sense as General George Custer taking a quick look around at Little Bighorn and deciding “This Native American Calvary is pretty high-speed low-drag. Imagine the free P.R. if I was supplying them with custom arrows!�

This manufacturer has placed the short term benefit gained from selling several hundred units to a “prestige� law enforcement agency ahead of the longer term benefit of not dealing with those committed to their very destruction. All police departments rely on private firearm manufacturers, and for far too long police have enjoyed a “good for we but not for thee� atmosphere, thanks to a complicit firearms industry. I, for one, am sick of it, and I am not going to silently abide this absurdity.

It is time that gun owners coalesce and organize to bring these wayward manufacturers into the correct frame of mind. Unfortunately, it is apparent that not all manufacturers are as enlightened as Ronnie Barrett or STI International. In case you do not know the story, Ronnie stopped selling his products in California in response to California banning his rifles. The cherry on top was when he wrote a California police chief and told him to come pick up the department’s rifle, because Ronnie wasn’t working on it and wasn’t shipping it back. Similarly, STI stopped their practice of selling to California Law Enforcement when the chamber microstamping bill was passed.

This is a difficult journey to undertake. This manufacturer, like many others selling to California, supports shooting sports graciously, and is a large advertiser in most gun magazines. The mainstream gun press is not going to rally to this particular flag willingly, and this is understandable. It is uncomfortable to take friends to task for their wayward ways, and it is legitimate to question whether the harm they cause by dealing with California is outweighed by the good this manufacturer does for shooting sports? It is a familiar quandary.

In my analysis, this is an intervention that is very worthwhile. We, the consumers, must intervene to help save gun manufacturers from their self-destructive habits. Like any other intervention, tough love is needed. “We love you, we love your products and want to support you, but we can no longer stand by and watch you destroy yourself.� Make no mistake, this is what is happening. Gun manufacturers are in the co-dependent relationship from Hell, faithfully committed to those that would destroy them. Gun manufacturers blindly believe that these cities do not intend them permanent harm. “Sure, California sues me and bans my products, but they don’t really mean it, and besides, they buy a few of my guns occasionally.�

Girlfriend, it is so over. California would not care if you ceased to exist tomorrow, and the fact that you giddily make guns for the gun banners intent on your destruction has everyone laughing at you, not with you.

This is not a “California problem.� Just as Mayor Bloomberg is trying to regulate gun sales nationwide, California is attempting to regulate the entire firearms industry through their “consumer protection� powers. It is already expensive for a manufacturer to meet California’s requirements, and that expense grows daily with measures like microstamping. Do you honestly feel that manufacturers will segregate this development expense and asses it only against models sold in California, or do you think our gun prices will increase nationwide? That is very much the situation we face today – if you are buying from a manufacturer that does business under California’s absurd laws, you are paying the costs of those absurd laws.

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. The costs associated with setting up dual-production runs is simply too prohibitive in a slim profit margin industry like firearms.

So, today I announce project “Correct Kimber.� While I readily acknowledge Kimber’s valuable support of shooting sports, it is my intention to publicly call gun owner’s attention to Kimber’s support for gun banning regimes, and encourage gun owners to do all within their power to correct Kimber’s wayward ways. The Kimber SIS, which is the second example of Kimber fawning over a California police agency, is an exercise in anti-gun idolatry, a tribute to an agency that is part of an apparatus dedicated to the destruction of the firearm industry. Kimber needs to be chastised for this. They aren’t going to self-correct, so gun owners need to encourage Kimber to do so.

Please take a moment to contact Kimber today at 914-964-0771 x324, or via US Mail at Kimber, 2590 Hwy 35, Kalispell, MT 59901. Please be polite, professional yet firm. A suggested script for either a letter or phone call would be:

Introduce yourself and any Kimber Products you own.
Acknowledge and thank them for their generous support of shooting sports.
Say that you are greatly distressed that they are selling to California Law Enforcement departments, and that you think it is wrong that any gun manufacturer deals with agencies of government committed to stripping civilians of the right to own the same pistols Kimber is selling to these law enforcement agencies.
Tell them you wish them the best of luck, but as long as they are selling to California Law Enforcement, you will no longer be purchasing Kimber products.
You are sending a copy of the letter or making a phone call to your local dealer to share your feelings with the local dealer.
Let us know about any feedback you receive!

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.

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?

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

The only way to fight this is for ALL gun manufacturers to stop selling to anyone in CA, governments or consumers. Nothing in California will change until the voting consumers overturn the status quo when they are fed up with the shenanigans the elite socialist predominantly democrat and RINO enemies of freedom and champions of tyranny are pouring down the throats of the bleating sheep feeding at the government slop.

I keep hearing about how conservative and freedom loving the people outsid of LA and Frisco are. I believe it is about time they walked the walk.

I can't find the rant off thingy.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:Nothing in California will change until the voting consumers overturn the status quo...

Anygunanywhere

Interesting point. But why does the state keep electing the far-left representatives they do if there are enough "conservative and freedom loving people" in CA to overturn the status quo? They haven't overturned any status quo yet.

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.

austin-tatious wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Nothing in California will change until the voting consumers overturn the status quo...

Anygunanywhere

Interesting point. But why does the state keep electing the far-left representatives they do if there are enough "conservative and freedom loving people" in CA to overturn the status quo? They haven't overturned any status quo yet.

Your question restates my point.

When I lived there there were lots of self professed conservatives. Let's label them Kalifornia Konservatives. They reared their head when they recalled whats-his-name and voted in the RINO Schwartzeneger. Lots of folks thought the Kalifornia Konservatives had spoken but the downhill spiral continues to this day.

On other boards I frequent there are often posters from Kalifornia who express frustration over the stereotypical label given Kalifornia as the land of fruits and nuts.

If they don't like it change it or move.

I moved.

Anygunanywhere

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 own one but will refuse to purchase another. I will most likely look to STI for my next 1911 purchase. Its a Texas company that I will be proud to support.

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.

I don't believe this technique works.
If it were so when the price of gas shot up the Californians should be screaming to drill, and build refineries. Instead they blame the oil companies and are screaming to tax the profits (which are saupposed to pay for drilling and building) into oblivion.

If the gun American Gun makers were to boycott the Californians. The foreign gun makers would be pleased to take up the slack, and the Californians might just blame the NRA and the American gun makers. When we speak of Californian politics Intelligence isn't part of the equation. They don't think like real people over there.

Ok, this article is outrageous. That's right. It's absurd. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

For those of you who forgot how our gov't works...

The police, aka, Executive Branch, enforce the laws.
The judges, aka, Judicial Branch, interpret the laws.
The commy's, aka, Legislative Branch, write the laws.

What does supplying police with firearms have to do with eroding the 2nd amendment? It doesn't even make sense.

There is nothing in the article to justify the headline. It's yellow journalism at best.

By taking the teeth from the sheepdog, you aren't protecting the sheepdog or the sheep. You're turning the sheep and the sheepdog over to the wolves.

While I may disagree with the laws that the police are trusted to enforce, I do not agree with sending them to slaughter.

It would be different if the Dictator of California was making the laws, but there is no such thing. The idiots in California elect these people because the majority of Californians believe in these laws. We are still a Democracy, right? I know there laws won't work. You know there laws won't work. That's why I came back to TX when I finished my service. The majority of the voting public does not share my values, therefore the Representatives do not share my values.

To each their own, but I still respect the LEO's too much to allow the 'California Citizenry' to make dumb laws; expect somebody else to enforce them, and then send them to do it ill-equipped.

I don't have a Kimber so that makes me eminently qualified to comment so I have a couple of observations.

1. So what if American firearm companies stop selling to kalifornia agencies? Foreign companies will step right in. Can anyone say Beretta?? Walther?? Heckler & Koch?? and how can we forget Der-GLOCK-enshpiel??? I hardly think we would have very much luck in getting those foreign companies to not sell in kalifornia just because we have a bunch of kooks running it. Besides, most of those companies are headquartered in places that are a lot more restrictive to their citizens as far as private gun ownership is concerned so what would they care?? Boycotts like this rarely work.

2. I agree that complying to ka standards will make all guns more expensive. The auto industry dropped their pants and took it a couple decades ago and now every car in the USA confirms to the kalifornia standard and cars are much more expensive because of it.

If I ran the Kimber company I would not want to do business in Kalifornia. Since gun ownership is so difficult, the market wouldn't be that big anyway so why bother? I would go where I was wanted and concentrate on those areas and if those foreign gun makers are dumb enough to incur the costs of complying with the KA rules, more power to them. I'll be perfectly content to stay profitable in the states that want me.

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.

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.