STI leaves CA

Y

yomama

Moderator
STI International apparently left CA due to the legislation on the microstamping of ammunition.

I for one champion their decision. I also look forward to seeing other manufacturers take their products out of CA to send a direct message.
 
What is disappointing to me is that Glock sent letters to the assembly and to the governor opposing the microstamping but haven't withdrawn from the LE market. Everyone wants a total choking of them but none seem willing to do so.
 
I am a dyed in the wool Colt guy, but I am seriously thinking of picking up a STI to say "Thank you" to STI for at least trying to do something for us.
 
Bout time. Why would any auto or firearm manufacturer have anything to do with that state? It's like a minister doing a sermon in the devil's house. just don't add up.
 
Old news, but good on them anyway. However, they aren't a "major" player in the firearms industry. Not like Glock, or Smith & Wesson anyway. The two of them, along with another company, who I can't remember at the moment, all sent letters to CA citing the uselessness and cost and unproven method of microstamping. So far, that is talking the talk, but when the $ is laid out, people usually take the dollar.

Barrett's move has been ballsy and has been applauded, but they, like STI, are still a "specialty" kind of market on firearms to the LE field.

I'd like to see a major company step up and refuse sales and service to CA.
 
I have always found it odd on the number of major gun manufactures that have their headquarters and plants in state I would consider not friendly to gun rights (i.e. Illinois and many of the New England states).
 
I live here. I would like to see NO firearms manufacturer's selling in this state to LEO's until the laws are brought into conformance with the constitution.

The cops here aren't worth a darn for protection anyway. (They are polite when they they take the report of the crime, however.)

I'd also like a list of every state elected and appointed official with a CCW permit. The head of the Democratic party in my county has a CCW; ex-Navy hypocrite.
 
business not politics

Gun manufactures are businesses and will stay where the business atmosphere is best for them. Even if they can not sell their product in a state as long as its financially better for them to locate there they will.

Small operations like STI might get away with moving for political reasons. But if we knew the inside story we might find it has serious financial reasons to move. Then they can make statements that the move was politically motivated.

Lots of manufactures are so specialized they only sell to the military. I doubt any of them would stop manufacturing auto weapons until the feds allowed them to sell to John Q Public.
 
Call your favorite gun maker and tell them that if they bow to the PRoCaliforia on this issue and continue to sell to LEOs then you will purchase a different brand. From what I understand Barret quit selling to California LE a few years ago when they banned the .50s. Vote with your dollar. The California LEO market is big-bigger than it should be IMHO-but nowhere near as big as the US civilian market.
 
Well, true, but a business move may be to boycott the LE market so that they are forced to expand the civilian market which has potentially far more buyers.
 
Barrett will not sell OR SERVICE guns for California LEOs.

I think this is a significant step toward restoring gun rights for California citizens and I salute them.
 
Some inside info on the microstamping bill Arnold signed:

It only applies to NEW guns, as in NEW models. All the rest are grandfathered in. So, if Glock comes out with a NEW Glock 28.73, it would have to have the microstamping process. Any existing models are exempt so all new Glock 21s do not need the microstamping.
And, since there is only one company able to create the microstamping process, giving them all of the business would amount to creating a monopoly and the state of California can’t do that! So, there is a fun little addition to the bill saying, in essence, that the state attorney general must confirm that there is more than one company that can create the process, as outlined in the bill, by the due date of 2012 (as I recall) or the law becomes moot. :cool:
Granted, it would be much better if the major firearms manufacturers told California to “pound sand, we won’t sell our guns to you” but we all know that won’t happen. They’re in business to make money and make the shareholders happy. Principles come after payroll and dividends, I’m afraid.
(I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just reality.)
 
Not this bull **** story again. STI didn't have any guns on the California approved list. They haven't sold any guns in California for awhile. It's just any empty bull **** publicity stunt.
 
You are right that they cannot sell firearms to civilians but they still could to law enforcement agencies. Yes, they probably do not have a large LEO market in California but it is a public stance.
 
Not this bull **** story again. STI didn't have any guns on the California approved list. They haven't sold any guns in California for awhile. It's just any empty bull **** publicity stunt.
Click to expand...

What have you done to support the Second Ammendment lately? They decided that they were not going to sell to LE in California.

It may be a small stand, but it could start a trend. Just imagine what all the other New Englanders said about those crazies throwing tea into the harbor; just a publicity stunt.(they no-doubt knew what language for polite company ment)
 
are STI guns on the LE list of weapons they could purchase/use?

Simple question to get an answer. Not room for any gray areas or opinions. If LE in Ca can only purchase handguns that are on some magic list are STI handguns on the list? I have no idea where the magic list can be found.
 
You can't get on the civilian approved list except by application. Naturally, STI wouldn't apply if they didn't intend to sell in California.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top