Smith & Wesson, Ruger no longer submitting guns for approval to CA

T

Tom Servo

Staff
Back in 2007, California Governor Schwarzenegger signed off on AB 1471, which requires all semiautomatic pistols sold in the state to have microstamping features.

Since the technology wasn't readily available at the time, enforcement was postponed until such a time as it became viable and available. That hurdle was passed last May. At the SHOT Show, Ruger announced that they will not be adopting the technology, and as of this week, Smith & Wesson appears to be following suit.

Guns already approved by the California DOJ will be available until renewal time, but Ruger and S&W have no plans to resubmit them, so even those guns will fall off the roster. Going forward, I can't imagine Glock or any of the other manufacturers are going to play ball, either.

Where does that leave things? Consumers in California are soon going to have very few choices in pistols. As the largest brands become unavailable, only a few smaller manufacturers will fill the gap, and we can expect to see a corresponding rise in prices.
 
Sucks to be a Californian. When states pass draconian anti-gun measures, this is the predictable result. I applaud Ruger and S&W for not playing in to this anti-gun, anti-free market garbage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When states pass draconian anti-gun measures, this is the predictable result.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why they do it.

It stinks for law abiding firearm enthusiasts in California, but it's exactly what the gun grabbers have been trying to do- regulate new guns out of existence. California is likely to see a resurgence in popularity of revolvers with this.

I also predict it will have zero impact on actual crime. But then again, that's not really why they passed the law.
 
Is that the thing were they engrave something on the tip of the firing pin so when it hits the primer its suppose to leave an identifying mark?
 
I think this is great. The way it is now, there are a whole lot of California gun owners who don't really care much about the gun issue; they can still get the guns they want and they end up voting for anti-gun politicians because it's just not a priority issue for them. But once they can no longer get the guns they want maybe more people will start to re-evaluate which politicians they vote for.
 
Will the other gun makers not mentioned even be interested in suffering the costs of micro-stamping?
The smaller companies might not even have the equipment to do it, or the bankroll to buy it.
What happens to all the existing guns without the micro-stamping?
 
I don't understand how anyone could applaud these gunmakers for their decisions. I don't see this as not playing ball; I see this as submitting. The guns currently on the roster are grandfathered in, so there is nothing that needs to be done on the part of the manufacturer that they haven't already been doing for years. Microstamping is only for new guns being added to the roster like Glock's new G42 or Remington's new R51 (not being added, just examples), pistols that did not exist before the law started being enforced.

As far as I'm concerned, the idea that punishing people for the acts of the government is just as bad as the government punishing everyone for the acts of a few. This doesn't help in any way. It is, in fact, falling right into the hands of CA politicians; this is what they wanted.

Neither Ruger or S&W will receive my business if they go through with this unless someone can come up with a very convincing argument, but I fail to see how stripping a state of that many more guns is somehow helping gun owners. Perhaps I am being very narrow minded though.
 
As far as I'm concerned, the idea that punishing people for the acts of the government is just as bad as the government punishing everyone for the acts of a few.
Click to expand...

Except those actions directly violate the obligations of government while private businesses have no such obligation.

Guns aren't "grandfathered in" either, they have to pay a fee to keep them on the list.

It's no different than MagPul leaving Colorado or similar examples in other states. I wholeheartedly endorse the moves. Does it suck for a lot of good people? Yeah, it sure does. Maybe it will wake up a few more, give more traction to the issue, give life to some lawsuits, I don't know what else.

Ultimately, I don't think compliance with ridiculous laws in helpful when the cost and complications can be avoided just by avoiding the place.
 
I was speaking more toward morality than constitutionality of the actions. They've always had to pay a fee to keep their guns on the list. This is not like Magpul moving away from a state in any way. This is firearms manufacturers that are refusing to sell to an entire state. This is legitimate backdoor gun control and people are ignoring it. States apparently don't have to strip you of your right to bear arms, they just have to make it more difficult for manufacturers to make them. I don't understand how this logic can be ignored.
 
States apparently don't have to strip you of your right to bear arms, they just have to make it more difficult for manufacturers to make them. I don't understand how this logic can be ignored.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between ignoring the logic and not being convinced by it.

Is it backdoor gun control as you point out? Most certainly... much as some states' "permit to purchase" systems were the exact same way to keep guns out of the hands of "undesirables." In my own state (MO) it was abuses of that system that gave us the backing in the legislature to remove that requirement.

Maybe what it will take is gun manufacturers doing exactly this so it can be shown to be backdoor banning and not reasonable common sense legislation. Maybe this will be the impetus for federal courts to declare this law an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment since it is more a mechanism for banning than anything else. Other laws have been invalidated for exactly this reason- while it may not have been a literal ban, the law created an effective one, and was thus found unconstitutional.

I do NOT plan to boycott S&W, Ruger, or anybody else who does this. They're doing what they feel they need to do. California passed a bad law because the citizens have been electing uninformed politicians. Complying with this bad law would just lead to more of the same.
 
No company has any "moral obligation" to sell it's product to anyone or in any place that it does not want to sell them.

OF COURSE, it's back door gun control. Complying would be closer to ignoring it than refusing to sell under those conditions, in my estimation.
 
No company has any "moral obligation" to sell it's product to anyone or in any place that it does not want to sell them.

OF COURSE, it's back door gun control. Complying would be closer to ignoring it than refusing to sell under those conditions, in my estimation.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but that doesn't make the original statement any less true, in my opinion. It really is an arbitrary point though, so I won't argue it any further.

My main question is: why is refusing to sell better than compliance?

At the very least, it seems like this is exactly what antis want, and I can't think of a very good reason as to why this could/would be overruled in court. As you stated earlier, companies really have no obligation to sell to a particular group of people. I really think that CA's ridiculous law would be upheld as being reasonable because the technology exists, but companies simply don't want to comply in order to sell to a particular group of people.

Is this bad logic? Maybe, but it is almost definitely the argument that would be used if this even makes it to a court decision on any level.

I'm really not trying to be rude, but I understand that tone can't be conveyed through text very well. This is a legitimate question of your logic, or anyone else's.
 
SHE3PDOG said:
I don't understand how anyone could applaud these gunmakers for their decisions.
Click to expand...
I don't see how anyone couldn't. Every company that makes a CA (or other state) compliant gun is part of the problem; they're helping the states slowly chip away at gun rights. There are a lot of gun owners who tend to vote for anti-gun politicians because they care more about other issues; these gun owners can still get guns so they don't care all that much; the gun issue just isn't a voting priority for them. But when gun makers stop making neutered guns just for their states, these gun owners will finally start to realize that they might want to change their voting habits if they want to continue to own guns.

When the gun companies refuse to make special guns to comply with specific laws, all of a sudden a "reasonable" gun law becomes draconian. And draconian laws are much more likely to be opposed or overturned. Look at that part of the SAFE act that required magazines to be limited to seven rounds: That part of the law was overturned by a judge because there are virtually no seven-round magazines currently available for any gun that's currently designed to hold more.

Look at the Massachusetts law that requires all handguns to have at least a 10-pound trigger pull: Many manufacturers make special MA versions with artificially heavy trigger pulls. Now imagine if NO manufacturers made special MA handguns: The people of MA would be limited to just revolvers and a select few semi-autos; a huge number of handguns would be outright banned in MA. And that would be a big enough deal that it would force many gun owners to re-think who they vote for. And it would mobilize a lot more people in MA to start trying to oust these anti-gun politicians.

SHE3PDOG said:
As far as I'm concerned, the idea that punishing people for the acts of the government is just as bad as the government punishing everyone for the acts of a few.
Click to expand...
But the people are the ones voting these politicians into office. They voted for anti-gun politicians, and so they get anti-gun policies. And as long as gun makers continue to be part of the problem and make special guns for those states, then those voters are more likely to continue to vote for politicians that slowly chip away at gun rights because it doesn't affect them too much.

Look at Colorado: They voted anti-gun politicians into office, but then they realized they'd made a mistake after the gun control bills were passed. So they recalled two of those politicians and forced a third to resign. That would never have happened without the draconian gun laws that were passed that forced people to wake up. And as long as gun companies keep helping the anti-gun states by making guns specifically for them, then it will take a lot longer for people to wake up.
 
From what I understand, the guns that are currently on the approved list are grandfathered in UNTIL they have to be renewed. When they are renewed, they MUST contain the micro stamping features. Thus, Ruger and S&W are letting them fall off the list because they aren't going to implement the micro stamping that will be required to renew the guns certification. Yes, they are grandfathered until the manufacturers have to renew the approval.
 
My main question is: why is refusing to sell better than compliance?
Click to expand...
For the companies involved, it must make economic sense. Only a couple of companies provide the technology to bring the guns into compliance. That's a lot of money to spend, not just once, but for every renewal.
 
I've always wished for gun manufacturers to do two things:

1: Stop making or modifying guns for any specific states.

2: Stop selling their guns to law enforcement in any state where those guns aren't legal to the general public.

Can you imagine what would happen in these anti-gun states? There would be a tremendous backlash; it would mobilize the voters like nothing else could.

The gun companies have a very large amount of power in this issue, and by catering to anti-gun states they're just hurting gun rights in this country.
 
From CA Penal Code Section 31910

(7) (A) Commencing January 1, 2010, for all semiautomatic pistols
that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015,
it is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of
characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the
pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the
interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that
are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm
is fired, provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the
technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one
manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.
Click to expand...

That seems like it means any gun already listed on the roster can be kept on the roster without microstamping. There is a price to renew the guns on the list, but from what I can tell, it hasn't risen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top