The Firearms Industry Boycott Grows.

[wargunfan]

The firearms industry is hitting back at the states which have demonized their products. Good for them. It is my hope that the boycott grows to the point that it really pinches the gun grabbers.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/gu...700-in-1-week/

[wargunfan]

This boycott says loud and clear: Law enforcement will not have arms superior to law abiding people.

[JerseyGator01]

I don't think it will have that bad of an impact on their bottom lines since liberal lawyers at all levels of government have a horrible record of paying their bills anyway.

[wargunfan]

I hope someone will take the time to produce a list of those companies still selling to California, New York and all states which have enacted restrictive gun control laws. Americans should know who not to spend their money with.

[PITBOSS]

oh brother. gun lovers and complicacy theories go hand in hand.

the "government" is going to kick down your door and take your guns! what are you going to do?!

[wygator]

Just a few of the new gun laws being advanced in California:

— AB174, Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, removes prior ownership, or "grandfather" clauses, from state laws prohibiting the possession of various weapons. Current law allows ownership of weapons that were possessed prior to the ban under certain conditions.

— SB53, Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, increases restrictions on purchasing ammunition by requiring buyers to get a permit, undergo a background check and pay a fee.

— SB293, Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, requires that handguns sold in California be protected with what are known as "owner-authorized" safety mechanisms, such as biometric readers or other technologies that mean the weapon can only be fired by the registered owner. The requirement would take effect 18 months after the state attorney general certifies that the new technology is available for retail sale.

— SB374, by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, bans the sale of semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines and requires registration of all firearms.

In item one above, it appears that California will be coming for some of the citizens guns if that is passed into law.

In item three, the "owner-authorized" safety mechanism would have been deadly to a family in the news this week. Three home invaders burst into a home. The two older residents were immediately subdued. Their adult son who was visiting made it to the bedroom where he knew they had a gun. He shot and killed one of the intruders and the others fled. Under this law, he would not have been able to fire the gun.

Item 4, combined with item one above, would mean that California would be confiscating every semi-auto rifle in the state with any size magazine.

If government is willing and able to deny it's citizens a big gulp or a 2-liter soda with a pizza delivery, nothing is safe!!!

lots more legislation

[helix139]

I love the move, but unfortunately it will have very little impact due to the major LE manufacturers (Colt, Armalite, Smith & Wesson) not adopting the same stance and the widespread availability (under normal market conditions) of parts and magazines to restore unrestricted functionality.

[gator7_5]

Originally Posted by wygator

Just a few of the new gun laws being advanced in California:



In item one above, it appears that California will be coming for some of the citizens guns if that is passed into law.

In item three, the "owner-authorized" safety mechanism would have been deadly to a family in the news this week. Three home invaders burst into a home. The two older residents were immediately subdued. Their adult son who was visiting made it to the bedroom where he knew they had a gun. He shot and killed one of the intruders and the others fled. Under this law, he would not have been able to fire the gun.

Item 4, combined with item one above, would mean that California would be confiscating every semi-auto rifle in the state with any size magazine.

If government is willing and able to deny it's citizens a big gulp or a 2-liter soda with a pizza delivery, nothing is safe!!!

lots more legislation

WOW. #4 would eliminate alot of deer hunting rifles.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by wygator

Just a few of the new gun laws being advanced in California:



In item one above, it appears that California will be coming for some of the citizens guns if that is passed into law.

In item three, the "owner-authorized" safety mechanism would have been deadly to a family in the news this week. Three home invaders burst into a home. The two older residents were immediately subdued. Their adult son who was visiting made it to the bedroom where he knew they had a gun. He shot and killed one of the intruders and the others fled. Under this law, he would not have been able to fire the gun.

Item 4, combined with item one above, would mean that California would be confiscating every semi-auto rifle in the state with any size magazine.

If government is willing and able to deny it's citizens a big gulp or a 2-liter soda with a pizza delivery, nothing is safe!!!

lots more legislation

Looks like California has some promising legislation on the horizon.

[GatorMid]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Looks like California has some promising legislation on the horizon.

No doubt...I'm sure the forced confiscation of semi-autos from law-abiding citizens will keep them out of the criminals' hands....

Expect to see a drastic reduction of murders in South Central.

[GatorAbe7]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

I hope someone will take the time to produce a list of those companies still selling to California, New York and all states which have enacted restrictive gun control laws. Americans should know who not to spend their money with.

The state of Maryland is just as hostile, if not more so, than California when it comes to private gun ownership. Their Governer, a drone liberal, has in the past few weeks presented such excessive anti-gun legislation to Annapolis that handgun maker, Barretta, headquartered in Prince George's County, have announced today that they are planning on leaving MD for a state with a more "reasonable" take on their business. Probably Texas.

[The_Graygator]

Now boycott selling to the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service topo and make them buy their weapons through the public markets like everyone else.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Looks like California has some promising legislation on the horizon.

Please explain why you believe this is promising.

In addition, wouldn't you have to alter or repeal the second amendment for these
levels of restrictions to pass muster?

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by GatorMid

No doubt...I'm sure the forced confiscation of semi-autos from law-abiding citizens will keep them out of the criminals' hands....

Expect to see a drastic reduction of murders in South Central.

How do criminals get these weapons? I am not just talking the last transaction. My question is how does the gun move from the factory to the hands of the criminal?

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by wygator

Please explain why you believe this is promising.

In addition, wouldn't you have to alter or repeal the second amendment for these
levels of restrictions to pass muster?

No, not really. Even with the current Supreme Court's (5 of them anyway) tortured interpretation of the Second Amendment, these types of restrictions would still be a perfectly valid exercise of the police powers of a State.

And to answer your first question. I have expressed my views on this board previously that in my opinion this country needs to disarm. California seems to be moving in that direction, which is a good thing.

[GatorMid]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

How do criminals get these weapons? I am not just talking the last transaction. My question is how does the gun move from the factory to the hands of the criminal?

I could tell you, but then I'd have to pop a cap in yo ass....

Honestly I have no idea...but I'd assume there's a flourishing black market out there for such things.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by GatorMid

I could tell you, but then I'd have to pop a cap in yo ass....

Honestly I have no idea...but I'd assume there's a flourishing black market out there for such things.

What supplies this black market? If you look at drugs, this is a fairly easy question. It is supplied by criminal organizations in a variety of countries engaging in the growth, production, transportation, smuggling, and distribution of drugs.

However, illegal guns come heavily from 2 sources: Licensed gun dealers acting in an illegal manner and the theft of legal guns. One of the primary methods in which licensed gun dealers act in an illegal manner is through straw purchases, in which one person who can buy a gun buys a gun for a person who can't legally buy a gun.

So two of the major methods by which illegal guns are initially obtained in an illegal manner, theft and straw purchases, would probably be affected by a semi-automatic gun ban. If far fewer people had them in stores or at homes, fewer people would have them stolen. In addition, with lower availability in stores, straw purchases would be more difficult.

So maybe you shouldn't have mocked the idea that banning the legal sale of a gun would have an effect on the illegal availability of that weapon.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

What supplies this black market? If you look at drugs, this is a fairly easy question. It is supplied by criminal organizations in a variety of countries engaging in the growth, production, transportation, smuggling, and distribution of drugs.

However, illegal guns come heavily from 2 sources: Licensed gun dealers acting in an illegal manner and the theft of legal guns. One of the primary methods in which licensed gun dealers act in an illegal manner is through straw purchases, in which one person who can buy a gun buys a gun for a person who can't legally buy a gun.

So two of the major methods by which illegal guns are initially obtained in an illegal manner, theft and straw purchases, would probably be affected by a semi-automatic gun ban. If far fewer people had them in stores or at homes, fewer people would have them stolen. In addition, with lower availability in stores, straw purchases would be more difficult.

So maybe you shouldn't have mocked the idea that banning the legal sale of a gun would have an effect on the illegal availability of that weapon.

If the these two supplies were to dwindle, don't you expect that the import of illegal guns to the US from out of the country would grow, like the drug trade? There's little illegal importing now because there's no market for it right now. With widespread gun bans, that would change.

[neisgator]

Originally Posted by wygator

Please explain why you believe this is promising.

In addition, wouldn't you have to alter or repeal the second amendment for these
levels of restrictions to pass muster?

He doesn't like the 2nd amendment

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by wygator

If the these two supplies were to dwindle, don't you expect that the import of illegal guns to the US from out of the country would grow, like the drug trade? There's little illegal importing now because there's no market for it right now. With widespread gun bans, that would change.

Possibly. The question becomes how much money can be made in the illegal importation of guns. A gun produced in Russia or China will cost the smuggler a decent amount in those locations. Drugs are exceptionally cheap in raw format. Guns are more expensive. So you would need to either see a massive increase in the price, which can only occur if the demand would survive a large price increase, or a fairly low economic cost, which includes punishments for being caught, likelihood of being caught, cost of the good initially, etc, to the smuggling of guns.

It is entirely possible that this situation exists. But guns are harder to smuggle than drugs, so with proper enforcement, the smuggling could probably be limited to only those at the very high end of willingness to pay. For example, how many people do you think would purchase a gun if we could artificially raise the price of an illegal gun to say $15,000?