How is an action lock a political statement and a CA or MA-compliant model not a political statement?
The same way donating to a political party is a political statement and paying taxes is not.
If a lock on a gun is a political statement, then so is a 10 round magazine because it also caters to the whims of gun control advocates -- regardless of whether the 10 round magazine is required.
Putting a lock ON a gun is an individual choice. Putting a lock IN a gun, and specifically the S&W internal lock is the topic.
Many of us differentiate between complying with gun control advocates whims voluntarily, and complying with the LAW when and where those whims have become law. I think you should, as well. Apples and oranges both grow on trees that have roots in common ground but otherwise are quite different.
To accurately understand what went on (and is still going on) you have to know more than just the sound-byte headlines and talking points. As Paul Harvey used to say, you need "the rest of the story".
10 round mags existed long, long before there was any kind of push for magazine capacity laws. Bill Ruger got vilified over his statement (taken out of context) about 10 round mags. People thought it a betrayal, that he was advocating for a 10rnd limit, and was in favor of banning higher capacity. Ruger didn't sell higher capacity mags to civilians, at that time, because it was Bill Ruger's choice. The connection is understandable, but not correct.
Ruger did advocate for the 10 rnd limit, yes, to protect his own business, so no it wasn't entirely from the goodness of his heart on principle alone. But the rest of the story has been forgotten, or deliberately ignored.
Congress WAS going to pass a magazine limit. 20 was too high a number to be acceptable to Congress. 10 might pass, and what was under discussion at the time was whether the limit should be 10, 8, 7, or 6 rounds. So yes, Ruger gave his opinion that 10 was "enough". And ok IF Bill Ruger is responsible for the 10rnd limit, he is equally responsible for that limit not being LESS than 10 rnds.
S&W's lock on the other hand is a different matter. There was no law looming. What was "looming" was a lawsuit by the mayors of several big cities against gun makers for the "violence their products cause". I doubt you'll find it in any historical record, but what was reported at the time and believed by many, was that the Clinton's promised gunmakers that signing on to their demands would prevent them being sued by the big city mayors. AND they also promised preference in future purchases. (something that they did not have the legal authority to enforce).
This deal was offered to all the big gun makers. ONLY S&W took it. Ruger did not. Colt did not. Remington did not. Winchester, Marlin, Browning, Sig, FN Walther, add them up, NONE of the other gunmakers doing business in the US accepted the Clinton deal. ONLY S&W. You can say Tompkins got tricked, but whether they were hoodwinked or entered into the agreement with joy in their hearts about it, the result was the same.
We felt betrayed. And S&W felt our wrath.
Note the better "business sense" that Ruger displayed at that time. They rejected the Clinton agreement, but as a cya move designed some up coming
models to include the features required in the Clinton agreement, an internal lock, an additional "hidden" serial number, a loaded chamber indicator, etc.
This so that they would have something that could be sold IF the agreement's demands ever became actual law. This was NOT seen as a betrayal, it was just smart business.
so, I'd say that if you comply with the law, choose to make your product compliant with the most restrictive laws where you hope to sell your product, its not a political statement.
Choosing to comply with gun control zealot's demands when those demands are NOT law, is a political statement, as far as I'm concerned.
It's complex, and it involves people's perceptions, as well as the facts. For those of us who lived through it, we understand. Those of you who have come along later have a difficult time understanding it the way we do.
Some do get it, and some of you just don't barking get it at all.