The Status of Gun Control

[jgaffney]

I was researching customized pistols on the web, and I came across the site for STI International, which makes some terriffic 1911-style pistols for competition and law enforcement. When I searched the link for dealers in California, the list came up empty. I sent an email to the company, asking if they did any sales in California. Here is their response:

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.

So, you see, it is possible to mouth support for the Second Amendment, while continuing to pass laws that constrict the market to the point that manufacturers and dealers continue to pull out. The end result is that the people's RKBA is restricted, the very thing that the candidate said he wouldn't do.

I tell ya, if we made moves like this against access to abortion, the Left would not stop screaming for years!

[subdjoe]

An this of course is the whole intent of the progressives - to make it impossible for companies to do business in CA. Expect more end runs around the RKBA.

But, as you say, don't even think about limiting abortions for 12 year olds. Can't give them an asprin in school, but the school can set them up for an invasive medical proceedure without parental notification. Makes sense to me.

[The Big Dog]

STI took a lot of crap from a lot of California firearm owners when they continued to sell to LEOs (who can buy off roster all they want). The company's response, while admirable, is exactly what the grabbers in Excremento want and exactly what Joe alludes to in his post. By making it next to impossible for manufacturers to have their product distributed into the state, they get de facto gun control.

If the Nordyke case brings incorporation the very first thing I want to go after is that intolerable "Safe Handgun Roster". I know the black rifle crowd (of which I am a new member) wants to go after the AWB first, but the handgun roster affects exponentially more people and is (based on my reading of Heller ) a much more appropriate starting point on overturning California's more onerous laws on Amendment Two grounds.

While as a LEO I could have availed myself of buying off list, I never did simply because I see the list as a massive Equal Protection Clause case. As a LEO I was no better class of citizen than I am now as a former LEO so what difference should it make as to whether or not I can purchase the type of firearm I want to defend my hearth and home?

[surefire]

Yeah, it is sure silly that LEOs can buy "unsafe" handguns. That really inspires my confidence that the state trusts LEOs with guns the state lists as unsafe.

If the makers were smart, they'd stop selling guns to California period--including LEO sales--they're going to make less and less profits the more laws prevent citizens from owning guns. Some makers have already done this.

When the police are unable to get new guns, the state may be forced to stop this attempt to make guns hard for citizens to get.