STI leaves CA
- Thread starter yomama
- Start date
"Safe guns" for LE?
You may recall the huge flap over the so-called "safe guns" here in California several years ago. Well, one of the problems that law brought with it was the fact that cities couldn't very well arm their coppers with guns that weren't on the approved, safe guns list. Imagine the lawsuit if a cop shot Little Johnny (who probably deserved it) and the grieving family sued the city because their boy got shot with an "unsafe" gun. That's the scenario the local district attorneys were looking at so they only bought the handguns on the approved, safe guns list. So, just because law enforcement can buy anything doesn't mean they get to if the local DA says they can't, for fear of being sued. It's called "untended consequences." D'oh!
You may recall the huge flap over the so-called "safe guns" here in California several years ago. Well, one of the problems that law brought with it was the fact that cities couldn't very well arm their coppers with guns that weren't on the approved, safe guns list. Imagine the lawsuit if a cop shot Little Johnny (who probably deserved it) and the grieving family sued the city because their boy got shot with an "unsafe" gun. That's the scenario the local district attorneys were looking at so they only bought the handguns on the approved, safe guns list. So, just because law enforcement can buy anything doesn't mean they get to if the local DA says they can't, for fear of being sued. It's called "untended consequences." D'oh!
"What have you done to support the Second Ammendment lately? They decided that they were not going to sell to LE in California."
I was involved in gathering signatures to help get a RKBA inititive on the ballot. I write letters to the editors, i write and e-mail my state senators, congressman, i try to educate anti's, i've brought fence sitters over to our side.
And it's still a bull ****, meaningless publicity stunt by a company that doesn't even sell guns in California.
I was involved in gathering signatures to help get a RKBA inititive on the ballot. I write letters to the editors, i write and e-mail my state senators, congressman, i try to educate anti's, i've brought fence sitters over to our side.
And it's still a bull ****, meaningless publicity stunt by a company that doesn't even sell guns in California.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Larry is right. It is a publicity stunt. STI isn't really losing money on this deal. They don't have any department contracts in CA to lose. Not only that, they are misrepresenting themselves. First it is at the level that Larry claims. Secondly, they still still a distributor and sales rep in CA and the distributor's web site still lists STI products. If STI pulled out of CA (some three months ago now), then why do they list a distributor and sales rep for their products?
Once again, they didn't have much market there. They are feeling fat and happy on war contracts. Besides, while Barrett may not service CA guns, there are folks who are Barrett trained in surrounding states who will. I don't recall what the warranty says that came with mine, but I don't recall Barrett having the right to NOT do warranty work, the warranties being a condition of the original sales...just like a Chevy can't decide one day not to do warranty work on your Chevy because they don't like your political views. My guess is that Barrett is doing warranty work that they are obligated to do by law. They may not be selling to CA, but it isn't like the LAPD contract is for 12,000 Barretts. It is probably more like 12.
If we weren't at war and Barrett was struggling again, I doubt he would have done this.
SLOMountaineer
New member
I am LE in this sorry state. I would like nothing better than to have S&W refuse to service our weapons. Problem is, they are under contract and would get sued into submission by my large agency to fulfill their contract. None of this is going to work...money and keeping shareholders happy is the bottom line. We are screwed here and nothing is going to fix it.
From the company press release:
Cessation of California Firearm Sales
As a company, STI adhered to California’s drop test certification and DOJ listing process in 1998 for the
people in competition shooting and for those who desired self-protection DESPITE the financial strain
placed on a small company such as ours. Listing our two most popular firearm models was not an
inexpensive undertaking. We even redesigned our compensator systems to adhere to the CA “no
threaded barrel” law. Then CA’s onerous liability laws were enacted and we chose at that time not to
renew certification nor to sell to LEO and governmental agencies in CA, regardless of their exempt
status, because there was no exemption from liability or legal fees which could bankrupt this company.
When federal law overrode CA’s liability laws, we resumed LE sales because we felt our product could be
used to LE’s advantage. With the micro stamping bill, we as a company have decided enough is enough.
While our sales to Law Enforcement agencies are not huge, all revenue sources are important to a
company of our size and it hurts us to turn our backs on those revenues.
While we truly feel badly for the law-abiding citizens of California, we feel it is necessary to take a stand
against irresponsible legislation designed solely to inhibit the American citizen’s right to keep arms. We
are fierce proponents of the Second Amendment, and it is our hope that other manufacturers will follow
our lead. It is time for the gun industry as a whole to take a stand against the insanity of the anti-2nd
Amendment activists. We simply believe that some things are more important than profit.
In all honesty, when we made this decision we had no idea of the responses, both positive and negative,
it would evoke. We just did what we thought was right and, because of our size, didn’t really expect
much notice. Since we announced this new policy however, we have been deluged by customers
contacting us to show their support and by others who consider it a “stunt” of some type. We greatly
appreciate all of the supporting comments and would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to
express, even contrary, opinions. We do understand that this action on our part will have little effect on
California’s criminal or political element.
To our loyal supporters in California, we sincerely regret the measures we feel we must take and will
continue to honor all warrantee obligations. We hope for a speedy resolution of this ill-conceived
violation of the Second Amendment.
Seems like it addresses all the points, pro and con raised in this thread. I do have one thought - even if the company is doing this for purely economic reasons and it is a so called "stunt"; does their decision to state that it is also a matter of principle related to freedom and the second amendment hurt or help the cause of liberty? I seem to vaguely recall that some of the organizers and participants in the Boston Tea Party had a vested interest in seeing that tea go in the harbor.
Cessation of California Firearm Sales
As a company, STI adhered to California’s drop test certification and DOJ listing process in 1998 for the
people in competition shooting and for those who desired self-protection DESPITE the financial strain
placed on a small company such as ours. Listing our two most popular firearm models was not an
inexpensive undertaking. We even redesigned our compensator systems to adhere to the CA “no
threaded barrel” law. Then CA’s onerous liability laws were enacted and we chose at that time not to
renew certification nor to sell to LEO and governmental agencies in CA, regardless of their exempt
status, because there was no exemption from liability or legal fees which could bankrupt this company.
When federal law overrode CA’s liability laws, we resumed LE sales because we felt our product could be
used to LE’s advantage. With the micro stamping bill, we as a company have decided enough is enough.
While our sales to Law Enforcement agencies are not huge, all revenue sources are important to a
company of our size and it hurts us to turn our backs on those revenues.
While we truly feel badly for the law-abiding citizens of California, we feel it is necessary to take a stand
against irresponsible legislation designed solely to inhibit the American citizen’s right to keep arms. We
are fierce proponents of the Second Amendment, and it is our hope that other manufacturers will follow
our lead. It is time for the gun industry as a whole to take a stand against the insanity of the anti-2nd
Amendment activists. We simply believe that some things are more important than profit.
In all honesty, when we made this decision we had no idea of the responses, both positive and negative,
it would evoke. We just did what we thought was right and, because of our size, didn’t really expect
much notice. Since we announced this new policy however, we have been deluged by customers
contacting us to show their support and by others who consider it a “stunt” of some type. We greatly
appreciate all of the supporting comments and would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to
express, even contrary, opinions. We do understand that this action on our part will have little effect on
California’s criminal or political element.
To our loyal supporters in California, we sincerely regret the measures we feel we must take and will
continue to honor all warrantee obligations. We hope for a speedy resolution of this ill-conceived
violation of the Second Amendment.
Seems like it addresses all the points, pro and con raised in this thread. I do have one thought - even if the company is doing this for purely economic reasons and it is a so called "stunt"; does their decision to state that it is also a matter of principle related to freedom and the second amendment hurt or help the cause of liberty? I seem to vaguely recall that some of the organizers and participants in the Boston Tea Party had a vested interest in seeing that tea go in the harbor.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Yes, but did they need to fabricate damages to them to make themselves look better? Sure, if STI truly did stop selling everything in CA, they would lose a tiny bit of profit. However, their notion that their values are more important than profits is a bit silly. The statement gives the impression that they are making some sort of significant sacrifice to pull out of CA and that just would not be the case. They never had many distributors there at all. Then, most of their guns didn't pass the drop tests. So their market share is really tiny. Plus, no government departmental contracts there. So just how much profit are they actually losing?
As I noted, they still have folks in CA selling STI parts and such. Plus, people can get them indirectly through others such as Brownell's. STI isn't restricting Brownell's from selling to CA.
So when STI talks about the profit sacrifice they are making, don't believe it. It is sort of like giving up something for lent you don't like and use much anyway.
All empty, bologna stands that mean nothing since California has practicaly no gun rights. If you could not tell, I am being feciscious, trying to illustrate a point.
Any stand for the 2nd is a good one, even if monetary gain in other markets is a secondary consideration. Heck, even if monetary loss in that market is a main consideration it is still a good stand. It allows them to stay in buisness and provide the rest of us with quality competition firearms.
My hat is off to those that re-arrange deck chairs on the Titanic and write-in Ron Paul. Most would have given up a long time ago.
P.S.
I don't know what passes for civil language in California, but it if what passes for gun rights in California is any indication, it must be very different from Iowa.