Mass. Senator proposes ridiculous gun control legislation.

[SHE3PDOG]

I think they would also be leery because a lot of gun owners would potentially boycott their product. I would.

I would boycott any gun manufacturer that tried to make these. Apart from that though, I just can't imagine any gun manufacturers being too interested. As I previously stated, there seems to be a line that they will not cross, even if it means losing a little revenue.

[raimius]

I certainly would not buy a gun that costs more for a gimmick that reduces reliability!

I also would not buy from a company that would condemn entire states' populations for a few hundred thousand in profits!

[44 AMP]

it would seem that there is a line drawn that manufacturers will not cross. I'm betting that smart guns, like microstamping, fall far beyond that line.

I'd say its more accurate to say there is a line that gunmakers will not willingly cross.

If its a choice between smart guns and no guns, as the maker, its no choice if what I want is to stay in business. I certainly am not going to do something to help you make my existing product line go away, but if you do manage that, I want something to fall back on. Otherwise, its close the doors and wave goodbye...

As to Ruger and S&W, and the CA microstamping law, it seems that on close inspection the situation is not exactly what the headlines infer.

It appears to be not so much a matter of the gunmakers refusing to do business in CA as much as it is CA refusing the gunmakers business unless they microstamp. And the gunmakers are saying "we are not going to do this just to make you happy".

Everytime one of these laws gets passed, be it smartgun tech, mag capacity limits, or whatever, everyone in the gun business has to evaluate the cost of compliance vs. the loss of business.

Today there are tons of things that are in the catalogs with labels that say "will not ship to CA, MA, DC, NY, NJ..etc.." Some of those things are even still legal in some of those places, BUT the cost of keeping up with all the regs, and the cost if they somehow make a mistake, has been weighed against the loss if they just blanket do not sell that kind of item in those states. And the decision, based on the bottom line was made.

also would not buy from a company that would condemn entire states' populations for a few hundred thousand in profits!

I am really unclear what is meant by this.
Are you saying boycott the companies that comply with the law? Or the ones who don't?

I don't see any gun company condemning anyone to anything. If that is being done, its being done by the duly elected governments of those states.

[SHE3PDOG]

It appears to be not so much a matter of the gunmakers refusing to do business in CA as much as it is CA refusing the gunmakers business unless they microstamp. And the gunmakers are saying "we are not going to do this just to make you happy".

I think I understand what you are saying, but I don't see how that is really any different than what I said. I think that perhaps you are looking at this with a wider view than I am. On a national level, I totally agree with you that gunmakers would conform to new laws pertaining to their products, but on a smaller scale, like with this law or CA microstamping law, I don't think many gun makers will conform. If anything, I see there being quite a bit of backlash from them, likely in the form of funding organizations like the NRA, if this law does go anywhere (I don't think it will.)

[raimius]

I am really unclear what is meant by this.
Are you saying boycott the companies that comply with the law? Or the ones who don't?

I'm saying I will choose another manufacturer who did not jump in the bed with micro-stamping/smart-gun tech with the knowledge that doing so would destroy the rights of many people.
(I am open to eloquent and logical arguments, but that would be my starting point.)

[44 AMP]

I don't know how eloquent I can be, but I will try to be logical...

Under the heading of ridiculous gun control legislation, we have the both microstamping, and the smart gun tech, as it exists, and as proposed by certain lawmakers.

other than the essential fact of making guns more expensive to make (and all the consequences of that) they are quite different in intended purpose.

The stated intent of microstamping is to provide police with a way of tracing crime evidence (fired cases) to a specific gun, and its owner (assumed to be the shooter).

Smart gun tech is all about "authorized users" being the only ones who can fire the gun.

Both are different situations than the S&W/Clinton deal.
That deal was a betrayal.
Complying with the LAW while it may be distasteful, isn't a betrayal in my book. I heard people saying "boycott Remington" because they didn't move out of NY after the passage of the SAFE Act. I didn't agree with that, either.

You're free to spend your money any way you want, but a boycott on gun makers that "betray" us by complying with the law doesn't help us, doesn't help the people who are having their rights infringed upon, and doesn't get the law changed!

Also, for a boycott to be effective, the company has to know why you aren't buying their product. You have to tell them. Otherwise, all they know is that sales are "off".

I see "jumping into bed.." as something done because you want to, not because you have to.

Thoughts?

[SHE3PDOG]

While the stated intent of microstamping and smart gun technology is different, it is hard to deny that they follow along the same lines as far as their end result: less legal guns that are harder to get.

You are definitely correct in saying that a boycott without a purpose given to the company is worthless. There are also many other far more effective options that should be exploited before it comes to that, like contacting your state representatives, contributing to organizations like the NRA and SAF, and even voting.

I think a lot of gun owners, myself included at times, are just trying to grasp onto anything that seems like it may help because it seems like we lose more ground than we take.