BREAKING: Ruger to Stop Selling Semis in California?

Ruger LC9 (courtesy ruger.com)

We have one source for this story: calgunlaws.com. “In perhaps one of the more shocking discoveries at the 2014 SHOT Show, Ruger spokesperson Kevin Reid revealed that Ruger was going to let it’s entire California Semiautomatic pistol roster ‘…drop off…’ the CA Department of Justice Approved Handgun List . . . Ruger has already let some 60+ semiautomatic pistols drop off the approved handgun roster with the rest shortly to follow.” TTAG main man Dan’s on the case. We’ll post a statement here in a few hours. [h/t Mark N.]

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

167 Responses to BREAKING: Ruger to Stop Selling Semis in California?

  1. avatarDave357 says:

    Would that be helping CA limit people’s access to handguns, or pressuring it to get more reasonable?

    • avatarLongBeach says:

      Yes.

    • avatarHal J. says:

      It will limit people’s access to handguns in CA (not that I disapprove of this move by Ruger, mind you). As for pressuring CA politicians…I don’t think so. They’re going to look at this move by Ruger and say, “Good! Hope every handgun manufacturer does the same! No one outside the government needs a handgun. And for those of you who are upset about this…f**k you, you don’t vote for us anyway.”

      • avatarRickA says:

        While you are right about the politicians reaction, as a Californian I applaud ruger. Honestly the faster guns drop off the list the sooner we overturn it in court as an illegal gun ban.

      • avatarJosh says:

        You’re a FOOL… You’re an absolute ignorant… It won’t limit access to handguns in California by any means. Good try in your “thinking” however…

        • avatarJames Sehrt says:

          If the gun owners of California start pushing for a recall of the main players of the bills, that has Ruger to stop selling in California. Just as what happened in Colorado recalling the politicians. They were recalled and got voted out. We just won a court battle over the ten day waiting period. Don’t forget the 2nd Amendment its the of the land. It’s time to fight back. Voter ID, to vote to.

        • avatarEric T says:

          There are way too many liberals and minorities in California that really want the idiots in office. Colorado did the right thing and voted the A-holes out. History proves that voting will do nothing in that state as one can see by who is in office-right? Sad but true. Being a former Californian, I will never return as that place is so pitiful. I’m in Arizona. We have our issues, however we also have our Second Amendment Rights, and we ARE allowed to carry with or without a permit. Jerry Brown and Sen. Feistien are pathetic. At least the Sheriff of Orange County made a logical decision and is allowing CCW’s in the county for their residents.

      • avatarmedicme119 says:

        COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY NON-CONTRIBUTORY FLAME DELETED

      • avatarKurt says:

        If you are dumb enough to think that this is going to have any effect on the number of guns in the streets and in the crooks hands you are a bigger fool than the idiots that are in office in CA.
        Comifornia is so full of stupidity anymore its not even funny. The Only thing this is going to do is increase crime, because fewer good people will have access to guns, while the crooks will still buy them on the street.
        You sir are a walking bilboard for what is wrong with this country.
        Until the constitution is changed, there should be no law limiting any guns.
        I bet you voted for Obama to huh? How do you like the changes so far?

      • avatarJACK M says:

        HAL J, you are a damn fool if you think for one minute that this move will help CA.. People like you need to be educated prior to letting you near a computer where you talk shit!!

      • avatarCasey Coppock says:

        Really, no one outside of government needs a gun? As a retired police officer I can tell you that you are a fool if you think the Police are going to be there to intervene if someone decides to harm you or a loved one…We almost always get there after the damage is done…I can tell you there are some really bad people out there who are looking to victimize anyone they can and do unspeakable things to you, your wife, your kids and grand kids…I have met many of them and believe me if they break into your home you had better hope you have a gun to protect you and your family….And teach your family how to protect themselves…..BUT DO NOT TRY TO PREVENT ME FROM PROTECTING ME AND MY FAMILY…

    • avatarpaul says:

      For Ruger to sell hand guns in California each year the models which they want to be able to have sold in that state must be put through an expensive drop-test at the cost of the manufacturer. Which means for every handgun they want to continue to sell from year to year they must re-issue this test with a newly manufactured handgun supplied to the state direct from the factory. Tell me that isn’t exhausting. When the state realizes its people want something and won’t take no for an answer but then realize their needless testing and fees drove away what the people want…then they’ll change.

      I left California simply because there are more people who either don’t want that change, or are apathetic to letting their voice be heard to Make that change…than there are who do want the change and are willing to repeatedly do what they must in order for that to happen.

      • avatarMark N. says:

        Absolutely not true. A handgun only has to be tested once, and as long as that model is unchanged, there is only an annual re-registration fee. “Retesting” is required only when the manufacturer makes substantial changes to the firearm and the DOJ deems it to be a “new” model. Which is why we can buy XD models, but not the XDm or the XDs, neither of which sport the features necessary for certification, even before the microstamping mandate. Same with Glock–we can have Gen IIIs, but not Gen IVs. The Ruger LC9 (the California specific model) is on the roster until Ruger stops paying to renew its registration, reportedly $500 per year.

        • avatarJus Bill says:

          “…as long as that model is unchanged, there is only an annual re-registration fee.”

          I think we found the reason. On both sides.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Then explain why California allows certain models but bans the exact same model in a different color.

        • avatarJeremy S says:

          totenglocke — this is due to the manufacturer not understanding or caring about the caveats of the CA law. There are ways to completely avoid this nuisance altogether. But, even assuming the manufacturer gives the different color gun a different SKU and different description, it is still exempt from the testing process as I posted below in response to another comment:

          “That is not true either. The law very specifically exempts changes that are cosmetic in nature only and do not affect the function of the gun. However, if the part number or description of the gun on the Roster changes (let’s say the approved gun is sku LCP123B and the description says LCP 2.5″ bbl steel poly Black and they now want to sell LCP123P for LCP 2.5″ bbl steel poly Pink) then they have to present it to the DOJ for acceptance under the aesthetic change only exemption. It seems like 99% of people and most manufacturers don’t actually understand this. Everybody thinks it means submitting the gun to the full test and paying those fees and it absolutely does not.

          Full text of that section of the law:

          12131.5. (a) A firearm shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of subdivision (a) of Section 12131 if another firearm made by the same manufacturer is already listed and the unlisted firearm differs from the listed firearm only in one or more of the following features:
          (1) Finish, including, but not limited to, bluing, chrome-plating, oiling, or engraving.
          (2) The material from which the grips are made.
          (3) The shape or texture of the grips, so long as the difference in grip shape or texture does not in any way alter the dimensions, material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine well, the barrel, the chamber, or any of the components of the firing mechanism of the firearm.
          (4) Any other purely cosmetic feature that does not in any way alter the dimensions, material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine well, the barrel, the chamber, or any of the components of the firing mechanism of the firearm.
          “”

        • avatarChaotic Good says:

          If it’s that easy and cheap than I can’t believe this story could be true. Why forgo substantial profits just to avoid dealing with the state of California?

        • avatarCliff H says:

          “There are ways to completely avoid this nuisance altogether.”

          Yes Mark, and Ruger found one – they are not going to ship their guns to California any more.

          Ruger shrugged. Perhaps Galt Gulch is in Prescott, AZ?

        • avatarWassim Absood says:

          The SR22 was bounced for a minor running change, not a substantial one.

          Though it comes right as I was prepared to buy an LC9 (most SKUs drop of tomorrow), I hope other manufacturers follow suit; it will help with Pena vs Cid (lawsuit against the tragicomically misnamed ‘safe handgun roster’) seeking to show that the roster is a stealth ban.

        • avatarmatt says:

          you are forgetting that doj is not even letting glock sell the gen 3 they make in USA as it is “substantially changed”. ruger wants to use a different dye or polymer blend, doj says that is substantially different. fast forward a few years, should ruger or any manufacturer be required to maintain a 49 state gun and 1 stupid California approved one they havent improved in 8 years? this is calling DOJ and California legislative stupidity what is is, illegal racketeering and a defacto gun ban. the sr22 was pulled because ruger changed the breech face material and doj called that substantially different.

        • avatarJeremy S says:

          Matt, Gen 3′s are on the Roster. It’s Gen 4′s that aren’t. They are new guns with different operating parts and new serial numbers, new magazines, etc. Since the Roster has had a loaded chamber indicator and magazine safety requirement since 2006, new Glock models that weren’t already on the Roster at that time haven’t been eligible. Glock won’t make a model with an LCI or mag disconnect, so the only Glocks being sold in CA are ones still produced but that were added to the Roster prior to 01/01/2006.

        • avatarltram says:

          Fcc testing only once and no legal extortion/annual fee needed for the state

      • avatarJeremy S says:

        ^^^ whoops, beat me to it. And Jus Bill, the renewal fee is not the reason. It’s $200 per model.. The sale of just a couple pistols of a given model puts you into profit. And CA is a massive gun market.

        “For Ruger to sell hand guns in California each year the models which they want to be able to have sold in that state must be put through an expensive drop-test at the cost of the manufacturer. Which means for every handgun they want to continue to sell from year to year they must re-issue this test with a newly manufactured handgun supplied to the state direct from the factory.”

        Paul, this is NOT accurate. Once you pass those tests and get a handgun on the Roster, the annual renewal involves nothing more than paying a very small fee — $200 (seriously). You do NOT have to resubmit for testing.

        Here is a link to a Roster Wiki/FAQ on CalGuns: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=81127

        • avatarKyle in CT says:

          Keep in mind that if the gun changes at all, it is no longer on the approved list. Any change in the SKU, to my understanding, will trigger this. What that means is something as simple as a color change means it is an unapproved handgun. So you would need to do this for every single change, even cosmetic ones. Personally, I think it’s going to get worse in CA before it gets better, and Ruger is just seeing the writing on the wall. Eventually there will be no guns left, or so few that it will constitute a de facto ban, which would be readily challenged on constitutional grounds. The only question is how bad it will get before that happens.

        • avatarJeremy S says:

          That is not true either. The law very specifically exempts changes that are cosmetic in nature only and do not affect the function of the gun. However, if the part number or description of the gun on the Roster changes (let’s say the approved gun is sku LCP123B and the description says LCP 2.5″ bbl steel poly Black and they now want to sell LCP123P for LCP 2.5″ bbl steel poly Pink) then they have to present it to the DOJ for acceptance under the aesthetic change only exemption. It seems like 99% of people and most manufacturers don’t actually understand this. Everybody thinks it means submitting the gun to the full test and paying those fees and it absolutely does not.

          Here’s the relevant section of the law. Again, this is in the CalGuns Wiki:

          “12131.5. (a) A firearm shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of subdivision (a) of Section 12131 if another firearm made by the same manufacturer is already listed and the unlisted firearm differs from the listed firearm only in one or more of the following features:
          (1) Finish, including, but not limited to, bluing, chrome-plating, oiling, or engraving.
          (2) The material from which the grips are made.
          (3) The shape or texture of the grips, so long as the difference in grip shape or texture does not in any way alter the dimensions, material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine well, the barrel, the chamber, or any of the components of the firing mechanism of the firearm.
          (4) Any other purely cosmetic feature that does not in any way alter the dimensions, material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine well, the barrel, the chamber, or any of the components of the firing mechanism of the firearm.”

        • avatarAndrew says:

          Jeremy somebody above you made mention of “microstamping” -

          this isn’t the idea to have the firing pin “micro-stamp” a serial on to the primer as the bullet is fired, is it?

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Yes, it is.

        • avatarJeremy S says:

          Andrew & Matt, it’s actually worse than that. The law requires the case to be “microstamped” in two locations, and it’s more than the serial number. So just having the firing pin do it isn’t sufficient. Here’s the relevant text of the law that passed:

          “…microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model,
          and serial number of the pistol, etched in 2 or more places on the
          interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that
          are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.”

          However, new laws passed pertaining to what guns can be added to the Roster only apply to new applications. Guns already on are able to be renewed without meeting any requirements that became law after they were originally added. The last law change was the addition of a loaded chamber indicator and a magazine disconnect safety requirement in 01/01/2006. This is why Gen 3 Glocks are on and Gen 4 aren’t, why many 1911′s are on but most haven’t been able to get added since a few years ago, etc.

        • avatarCody says:

          Yep, let me stop you right there. Your laws are too onerous. I wouldn’t want to sell guns there either.

        • avatarJeremy S says:

          Cody I totally agree, but in this case Ruger has already passed all of the legal hurdles and the only thing they would have to do is pay $200 for each model to keep the guns on. That’s WELL worth the investment. Not that I disagree with them just saying “to hell with it” or making this a political thing, and I also think this will help overturn the Roster in court. But! That doesn’t change the fact that the ONLY thing they have to do to continue selling the guns in CA is pay two hundred dollars.

        • avatarCliff H says:

          The $200 per pistol extortion is chickenfeed for Ruger. It is much more likely that they are just exercising their right to no longer deal with the unconstitutional tyranny of the state of California. When Magpul decided to react in the same manner to Colorado legislation everyone seemed to think this was admirable.

          I would feel better, on the other hand, if they extended this embargo to ALL of their guns, not just pistols.

        • avatarJeff says:

          @ Cliff H:
          You said: “I would feel better, on the other hand, if they extended this embargo to ALL of their guns, not just pistols.”

          So let me get this straight… somehow depriving me access to guns from an important American manufacturer makes you feel better? Jeez.

        • avatarDJ9 says:

          Jeremy S, your quote of the relevant section of the law included the following:

          “(3) The shape or texture of the grips, so long as the difference in grip shape or texture does not in any way alter the dimensions, material, linkage, or functioning of the magazine well…”

          Any polymer-framed pistol later produced with a different color frame was created by altering the original material the frame was made of, by adding and/or subtracting dyes, which means that technically, it is a different material. The new material may even have a slightly different melting point, or tensile strength. According to the above quote, if the magazine well is made out of a different material, the “new” gun must be retested.

          Could it be interpreted differently? Yes, it could. Will it? That’s not the way I’d place my bet…

        • avatarJeremy S says:

          DJ9, I totally agree with you. BUT, Ruger has multiple dozens of handguns on the Roster now that are currently in national production and will continue to be for way more than long enough for them to recoup the $200 renewal and make tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit above that. There are handguns expiring today, many next month, many in March that are still being produced for sale throughout the U.S. and should continue to be for months or years. Economically Ruger is making a choice to stop selling these when a $200 investment would allow them to without making any other sacrifices whatsoever (no special CA-only production, for example, since these are still nationally-active, current models).

        • avatarBlueBronco says:

          It is still bovine excrement.

        • avatarNorthwest Gunslinger says:

          Ruger’s exit from CA has nothing to do with the drop test, it has to do with the new 2014 requirement that all handguns have “microstamping”. Ruger refuses to implement that technology and will forfeit the CA market rather than microstamp serial numbers on firing pins.

          I hate to lose Ruger but kudos to them for standing up to CA.

    • avatarMark N. says:

      It couldn’t possible work to pressure Ca. to be more reasonable. As initially enacted, the “safe handgun roster” was to assure that handguns sold in California were drop safe. Since that time, as more and more “requirements” were stacked on (mag safeties, manual safeties and LCIs), the roster increasingly became a vehicle to limit the number of available models. And that seems to accord with the current legislative direction on limiting or eliminating handguns and EBRs in the State.

      In 2007, the Legislature passed a law requiring microstamping “when the technology became generally available.” Obviously, microstamping has nothing to do with safety; rather it is another attempt to make guns specifically traceable to a crime, just like the (failed) bullet registration scheme in NY that cost millions but failed to solve a single crime. Last year, the (rabidly anti-gun) Attorney General Kamala Harris issued the certification that microstamping was generally available, working with its inventor to waive his patent protections. A few guns that were in testing when she issued her edict in May have made it to the roster, but none since July, and that was an exempt .22 rimfire. Consequently, as no manufacturers employ microstamping or are willing to spend the millions necessary to build compliant models, the only new handguns that qualify to be added to the roster are revolvers and .22s. Given the urban mythology that “more guns equals more crime,” boycotts by manufacturers will only make the banners smile.

      • avatarIdahoPete says:

        The manufacturers need to adopt the position of Barrett Firearms – “if the citizens of California cannot buy our guns, we will not sell them to the police agencies of that state or to the National Guard.”

        • avatarJus Bill says:

          ^^^^ THIS!

        • avatarDelmarva Chip says:

          Absolutely yes. Just imagine if all gun makers did this.

        • avatarTim says:

          +1000

          Besides, if the civilians can’t get firearms the LEOs won’t need ‘em either. They’ll simply be able to handle all future problems with their stern voices, authoritative stares and superior physical and mental gifts. Right?

        • avatarHank says:

          Agreed.

        • avatarJAS says:

          +1000. I’d say no guns for anyone in Kalifornia. Period. If all the manufacturers did this it would then be up to the voters to fix the mess.

        • avatarsmackit says:

          And to guard against circumventions of that ban on Cailf LEO’s you take the position that you will not honor any service contracts from Ca. residents. Would prevent Ca. LEO agencies from buying out of state and then expecting warranty on them if they break.

          I can dream can’t I?

        • avatarBT in Afghan says:

          I would love to see all gun manufactures do this in all restrictive states. Imagine NYC or Chicago PDs not being able to get new fire arms.

          Just one little problem, see how quick AG Holder steps in with the RICO ACT.

        • avatarDelmarva Chip says:

          @BT — Can RICO apply to a group of businesses that have decided to not conduct business in a given location? (I don’t know but I thought RICO applied to actions, not “inactions”)

        • avatarJeff says:

          @JAS:
          JAS says: “I’d say no guns for anyone in Kalifornia. Period. If all the manufacturers did this it would then be up to the voters to fix the mess.”

          Except, JAS, it’s not up to the voters. It’s up to the constitution, and it says that we can have guns.
          So you’re wanting the manufacturers to be the ones to trample our rights instead of the state? Cause what we have now is a burdensome patchwork of largely ineffective restrictions. What you’re advocating amounts to a de facto ban. Wow.

        • avatarBlueBronco says:

          Exactly! Get Glock and SIG to follow suit and the State agencies will start to feel it.

        • avatarJake says:

          That would be nice in an ideal world, but sadly, there are already a lot of companies accustomed to doing business with governments first, citizens second. Just about all European gun makers function like this, especially Glock and Walther, two of the main police pistol suppliers throughout the continent.

    • avatarJLR84 says:

      It’s worth noting that with California’s “microstamping mandate”, no new models can be added to the state’s handgun rosters unless they implement a technology that doesn’t exist. So the only handguns that Californian’s can buy are those that are grandfathered on the list, and that the manufacturer continues to renew it’s registration on the list.

      So if Ruger drops all current models from the California roster, unless California law changes, they’ll never be able to sell a semi-auto handgun in the state again.

    • avatarMichael says:

      I am in favor of just letting California drop off the face of the earth…after all the true Americans escape to Texas and Arizona of course.

  2. avatarDrewR55 says:

    Maybe this could be a good thing. If companies let their approvals expire and no revolvers or semi-automatic pistols are purchasable wouldn’t that set California up for a lawsuit?

  3. avatarjwm says:

    There’s 8 million gun owners here. Does Ruger really want to give up a chunk of that market? If they abandon CA it will be the last dollar I spend on Ruger products. I was planning on buying a Ruger American in .243 in a few months. Won’t happen if this is true.

    • avatarCyrano says:

      You better stop doing business with a lot of ammo suppliers and such. Most of them don’t want to go through the rigmarole of Kalifornia’s stupid laws. I don’t blame Ruger, I blame Kalifornia, you should too.

      • avatarHal J. says:

        I don’t blame Ruger, I blame Kalifornia, you should too.

        Exactly so.

      • avatarDanny says:

        This. No company wants or should pay a state that hates their product for the right to sell it there, especially after they add a bullshit micro stamping requirement that would increase the price of their products to produce by god knows how much. Ruger and their customers would lose tons of money for something that has been shown to be as effective at stopping crime as an AWB. But that’s what CA wants anyway. It was never about making it easier to stop crime, it was about making a de facto ban of firearms by making import costs insane.

      • avatarKorvis says:

        Agreed. The longer gun manufacturers continue to kowtow to the CA roster requirements, the longer those requirements are implicitly validated by the industry. If true, this makes me want a Ruger more (even in spite of all of the stupid RTFM warnings they plaster all over their guns).

      • avatarIdahoPete says:

        Got that right. One thing that is a definite selling point for guns here in Idaho is the sticker on the side of the box that says “NOT LEGAL FOR SALE IN CALIFONIA”. That seems to enhance the firearm for us.

        • avatarIng says:

          I don’t live in Idaho (really close, but not quite), but I do really enjoy the bold NOT LEGAL IN CALIFORNIA sticker on my Springfield XDm’s carrying case.

        • avatarBrent says:

          I just bought a generator with the “NOT LEGAL FOR SALE IN CALIFONIA” label (emissions requirements). It is becoming more and more expensive to do business and live in California and their economy is suffering for it.

        • avatarBT in Afghan says:

          I wish oil companies stopped making Kalifornia blend gas and oil products. This would lower the cost for everyone. I may be wrong but I do belive the people of Kalifornia would be very vocal in requiring an end to their ridiculous regulations on environmental standards. This could be a start to the people taking back California.

        • avatarJeff says:

          Gotta disagree with you on that one, BT in Afghan. Most Californians believe that our environmental restrictions are necessary. Look up pretty much any map on air quality, and you’ll see that here in CA we have often among the worst air in the nation; it’s a function of our population density and the unique geography and climate. Here, here’s a link to the daily map, check for yourself: http://www.airnow.gov/

          Very often these regulations suck. For example, we had a thermal inversion here for a couple weeks and I couldn’t legally :) burn a fire in my fireplace on Christmas. And the motorcycle i wanted to buy wasn’t CA legal, so i got a compromise one that was (and now the aftermarket exhaust that i want to put on it isn’t CA legal). And getting cars smogged is a pain. BUT… anyone that remembers what the air was like in the 1970′s and 1980′s here is not complaining. It has gotten way better.

    • avatarJasonM says:

      They can spend lots of money to go through the red tape to sell in CA, or they can just ship those guns to the stores in states with fewer regulations, where they’ll sell out quickly anyway.

    • avatarBlueBronco says:

      They are getting more and more “special” requirements to sell in Cali anyway. Just look at the AR rifle situation.

    • avatarJames Sehrt says:

      Don’t forget the California political assholes that pushed Ruger to this point. It cost to refit the pistol to meet the new laws of California. It’s time to vote or recall the politicians who introduce the laws.
      Semper Fi James

    • avatarRyan says:

      S&W Also is doing the same.

  4. avatarMatt in FL says:

    I’m curious to see where this goes.

  5. avatarJustin Lewandoski says:

    Well I say the heck with Californians, the residents let this happened to them. I hope all gun manufactures stop their sales to California. Let the people rise up against their state government. That will fix that problem.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      There are a lot of people working very hard for gun rights in California. They didn’t let this happen. If they’re outnumbered, that’s not their fault. If you would choose to leave in their situation, that’s fine, but those that choose to stay deserve support, not derision.

      • avatarRoscoe says:

        Thank you!

      • avatarRedleg says:

        Thanks for saying this Matt as some of us have been working our butts off in this state. I’m one of those people who has stayed here and who fights constantly.

        I call, write, talk to anyone who will listen (and those who won’t too), donate to multiple orgs, and am a member of the California gun rights orgs (CRPA, Calguns, Cal GOA) and the national gun rights orgs too. I’ve been fighting this fight since the late 80s before the Cal AWB passed, but sadly it’s obvious that I haven’t made much difference. I’ve about hit my BS limit and now that my oldest daughter (along with the grand kids) just got stationed at Ft. Bragg I don’t know how much longer I’m going to last. I’ve seen most of my colleagues move out of state (at least the ones who were serious about RKBA issues) and I don’t think I’m that far behind them any longer.

        These past few years laws were the last straw for me and although I’ve ignored most of the laws over the last two decades on a regular basis I’m tired of having to do so because the way things are going its only a matter of time before I finally get nailed…and I want to be around to enjoy the grand kids so I need to cut my losses and move. I swore after enduring -66 and +120 weather for Uncle Sam I was going back to the Central Coast of California where winters are 60 and summers are 80 to live out my days but the weather just isn’t worth risk anymore…now if only I could find a decent job in a Free State!

    • avatarLeo Atrox says:

      Yup, to heck with the freedom-loving minority in California. It’s their fault anyway. They let this happen. We should just abandon them and let them fight their own battles. Stupid Montagnards, er, Californians.

      Seriously? Your apathy is astounding. There are good people everywhere; but you’d quickly abandon them and write them off as lost because they’re surrounded and outnumbered. I’m sure glad I never served with folks like you in the military.

    • avatarRob says:

      Gee, thanks, I guess the years myself and the rest of the calguns people have been pushing to loosen laws in California and getting some overturned, and getting concealed carry pried open throughout the state count as “letting this happen”.

      • avatarRob says:

        As an added note, I am sure you don’t know, there is already a lawsuit under way to overturn the roster and fix this issue once and for all, but I guess in your mind we all support it despite suing the state government to overturn it.

    • avatardrew says:

      I wish CalGuns would work with manufacturers and get them all to remove their guns from the CA approved list and also stop selling guns to all government and police officers.

      Sometimes it takes drastic measures to bring about change. Placing an arms embargo on the state would be a great beginning.

  6. avatardudebro says:

    does anyone know if roster applies to LEO too? couldnt find on ca doj site

    • avatarsagebrushracer says:

      No, LEOs can buy whatever they want, whenever they want. The pistols they own will not be required to be microstamped, because they are highly trained professionals.

      They would never, ever, never abuse that rule either.

      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/11/robert-farago/california-cops-reselling-banned-weapons/

      well, only a little.

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      Police officers do not have to get rostered hand guns. Heck they can get NFA items, that the rest of us can only dream about. WE can get single shot exemptions, but LEO’s can simply order what they want.

    • avatarBrooklyn in da house says:

      From what i understand LEOs can buy whatever they want and dont have to stick with the roster of guns. I hope Ruger doesn’t pick and choose who they sell to. I also think this is a good thing long term for us in Cali.

    • avatarBob says:

      Every morning, gun shop employees check the roster to see which SKUs have fallen off. They move those to the “Law Enforcement And Military Only” section of the display case. By narrowing the market for those items, and therefore their salability, and therefore their price, the gun shop’s inventory is devalued. (I don’t know whether they carry that as a capital loss on their books.) So the California Department Of Justice is actively, daily, taking money out of the gun shops’ owners’ pockets.

  7. avatarST says:

    Makes sense.

    Why should a company incur the capital expense of producing obsolete versions of current products for ONE state? California may have a lot of gun buyers , but not enough to offset the cost of building two separate versions of each gun , one ‘grandfathered’ on the CA roster and the ‘updated’ version for every other state.

    The sketchy thing is, even if Ruger produced a model compliant with the microstamping requirement, theyd STILL have to make a non-equipped version for the rest of America-because there’s no way in Eruebus and damnation I’m spending a cent for a gun equipped that way in South Dakota-and I doubt I’m alone in that attitude.I won’t even buy a ten round magazine version of a gun which is otherwise out of stock , to say nothing of obscene microstamping .

    So, the choices for Ruger are to either sink hundreds of thousands of dollars in capital expenses to make duplicates of every gun they sell ….or, do what Kanye West didn’t manage with Kim Kardashian and pull out.

    I don’t want to hear from CA residents that this somehow helps the antis, either. This is a business decision brought about by the choices CA voters made regarding their political attitudes. If Apple were somehow legally prohibited from selling any iPhone made after the 4s in California, they’d say “bye bye” too.

    • avatarMiketheHopsFarmer says:

      I feel the same way about ‘california emissions’ on cars/boats/lawnmowers. Why should the manufacturers go through that trouble for one state. It’s got to be terrible expensive and resource wasting. I’d like to see Ford/Toyota/et al tell Cali to go-fly-a-kite. And when the locals get angry because they’re driving around cars like their in Havana, maybe Cali can start fixing itself.

      • avatarThayneT says:

        It would not necessarily make good business sense for other industries, like autos, as there are 38 million consumers in CA. That’s a huge potential market to just blow off.

        • avatarJus Bill says:

          And that, sir, was his point.

        • avatarAnthony says:

          Sometimes “good business sense” and “doing the right thing” are vastly different. There’s this thing called integrity that is almost wholly absent in the business world, and it makes me sad to see a company that shows some integrity by making a “bad business decision” because they know it’s the right thing to do get flamed to death. We should all be applauding Ruger for their refusal to comply with laws that are in clear violation of our natural rights and the United States Constitution.

      • avatarJeff says:

        @MiketheHopsFarmer
        The emissions thing came up above, too, so I’m re-posting what I said there:
        Most Californians believe that our environmental restrictions are necessary. Look up pretty much any map on air quality, and you’ll see that here in CA we have often among the worst air in the nation; it’s a function of our population density and the unique geography and climate. Here, here’s a link to the daily map, check for yourself: http://www.airnow.gov/

        Very often these regulations suck. For example, we had a thermal inversion here for a couple weeks and I couldn’t legally :) burn a fire in my fireplace on Christmas. And the motorcycle i wanted to buy wasn’t CA legal, so i got a compromise one that was (and now the aftermarket exhaust that i want to put on it isn’t CA legal). And getting cars smogged is a pain. BUT… anyone that remembers what the air was like in the 1970′s and 1980′s here is not complaining. It has gotten way better.

        PS – thanks for farming the hops! You rock!! (talk about an essential product, eh?)

  8. avatarDaniel Silverman says:

    smh…
    Well we know GLOCK is going to follow suit. RF head on over to their booth and ask them.

  9. avatarJoelT says:

    The system of demanding costly, unreasonable, and pointless modifications and certifications to have the privilege continue to keep it’s firearms to be deemed “safe” is horribly corrupt, and no company should be subject to such a system. Quite frankly, I’m surprised all the companies haven’t banded together to fight back, and refuse to comply. Remember, the vast majority of Americans still hold 2nd rights in a positive light, if the entire industry fought back, people would take notice. It would be like if all the American automakers refused to do business with a certain state, and people would take note. Especially the state law enforcement if they suddenly found themselves subjected to the equivalent of a Barrett Option, and were unable to acquire their AR-15′s and NFA firearms that are too dangerous for the public to have.

    I hope that’s the point that Ruger is trying to make, I know it most likely isn’t though.

    Sorry to all Californians, but I agree with Ruger to refuse to continue doing business in your state.

  10. avatarShawn Bugbee says:

    Can’t blame Ruger for a valid business decision. Does it suck for people in CA that wanted a Ruger? Yes. But I, for one, have no desire to pay for the costs of compliance when I buy a Ruger in GA.

    Want to buy a new Ruger? Great, change the state legislature.

  11. avatarRob says:

    I live in CA, and I can see where Ruger is coming from on this. California requires a long list of “features” nobody want’s on their guns just to be able to get a semi-auto on the market here, and Ruger has complied so far, it’s just now the California DOJ is getting real sticky about what they call a new design in order to force manufacturers to implement micro stamping requirements. For example, the SR22p, it initially passed testing, then shortly after the micro stamping requirement went into effect Ruger tweaked something and the DOJ decided that it meant it was a new gun, so had to meet the micro stamping requirement as well as all the others. Same reason we can’t get an SR1911 in California, even though 100+ other 1911′s with interchangeable parts are on the market, that one was made after the mag disconnect and LCI requirements, so without those it cannot be sold.

    Frankly, I think Ruger decided California was to much of a headache to bow to anymore, I don’t like it, but I understand it.

  12. avatarPavePusher says:

    Does Ruger sell to any California LEO/government agencies? If so, they should pull a Barrett…..

    • avatarjohnny law says:

      Can’t think of a single agency that even issues Ruger revolvers let alone Ruger pistols. Ruger is a non player in CA except for revolvers. I can’t think of the last time I saw a Ruger pistol in a gun case other than the LCP and LC9. Those are CCW guns and CCW permits vary from impossible to get to easy depending on where you live. At best thereis maybe 1/4 of the state that lives in an easy CCW area. Which is more people than many states but it really is just a niche market.
      BTW Barrett will sell to agencies.

      This is more heat than light.

      • avatarpc_load_letter says:

        My brother in law carries a Ruger (one of the little small models) as his backup gun for a socal police department.

        San Diego PD allows their officers to carry what they want. Some have Rugers.

        • avatarMark N. says:

          LCPs, which are not on the roster, are very popular as BUGs for LEOs, and I always see one in the “Leo only” display at two separate local gun stores.

  13. avatarRalph says:

    If this is true — if — it’s likely due to the microstamping requirement. No company would walk away from a big market like California because of the cost of a couple of hundred guns subjected to semi-destructive testing. But retooling the entire semiautomatic handgun production? That’s a different ballgame altogether.

    • avatarThayneT says:

      I agree this is probably the case. For the same reason, almost all (if not all) guns will fall off the approved list as the approvals expire (unless the law is contested successfully). If you live in CA and have not gotten the guns you think you want, the clock is ticking.

  14. avatarAlpo says:

    I’m sure the antis will be glad.
    But in Ruger’s defense, California has been giving manufacturers a hard time about even minor changes to existing models, like adding an ambi safety or interchangable backstraps, saying those changes are “substantial” and require a whole new recertifcation process. Which would mean having to add microstamping.

    As for losing a chunk of the market, Ruger can’t make guns fast enough to meet demand. I doubt getting out of the California semi-auto market is going to have any effect on their business.

    • avatarJus Bill says:

      California has been giving everybody a hard time for some decades now. See the auto industry for example. At some point it will become either too expensive or too big a pain in the azz to manufacture to CA specs, and large companies will stop shipping to CA. Just a matter of time, as the state legislature and the counties seem determined to regulate and collect fees for everything.

  15. avatarDaniel says:

    I don’t blame them. Getting hose for $200 per year, per gun model can add up real quick regardless of how large a company is. Also the microstamping requirement prohibits any new models so it’s pointless for them to keep payingthe extortion fee to keep older models no longer in production on the list. Better to prove in court that the renewal is not necessary and there is no basis for it than to keep funding the CA DOJ with this bullshit.

    • avatarS.CROCK says:

      $200 per year per handgun is absolutely nothing compared to the profit they make off of selling them. they would still make a big profit if that fee was per day.

  16. avatarlaurie says:

    Since everyone is in bed with everyone else it’s most likely a win win for those involved. What is the government getting out of it and what is Ruger getting out of it? And who is getting screwed by it?

  17. avatarJames Ernest Finseth says:

    I’m with Ralph. I’m thinking that Ruger is posturing, which is fine by me. I don’t believe that retooling the entire semiautomatic handgun production is in the works. If I’m wrong, I apologize in advance. California’s demands on Industry have been many, but never have they exceeded what the Industry can bear. Ruger ain’t goin’ nowhere.

    • avatarRob says:

      No, complete retooling is required to sell any new design(and this includes making any upgrades to a current design as happened with the SR22p), namely that all new semi-auto handguns are required to apply micro stamping to the casings of the rounds fired to even be considered for addition to the roster of handguns legal to sell to the general public.

  18. avatarKyle says:

    The cynic in me says a court might claim that if it doesn’t apply to revolvers, then it doesn’t infringe on the Heller decision, which at the very least claimed that one has a right to keep a hand gun in the home.

    • avatarMiketheHopsFarmer says:

      But the key to Heller is, ‘in common usage.’ Are you going to tell me that semi-autos don’t fit that description? Leave Cali with only revolvers and the lawsuits will fly fast and furious!

      • avatarMark N. says:

        The NY state judge ruling on the SAFE Act had no problem concluding that NY’s restrictions on EBRs passed intermediate scrutiny despite the fact that the banned firearms were “in common use.”

    • avatarST says:

      Regrettably, case precedent isn’t in our favor on this.Neither is geography , as the Ninth Circuit seldom meets a gun control law they don’t like.

      Likely, what’ll happen is the 9th Circuit will rule that a single approved firearm being available satisfies a person’s ability to exercise the RKBA under Heller, and that’s what will stand until it gets appealed to the SCOTUS.

      • avatarMark N. says:

        Actually, there are a number of pro-2 jurists on the Ninth Circuit, including Chief Justice Alex Kosinski. When Nordyke v. King was heard en banc on its second time up on appeal (before it suffered a massive meltdown and became utterly moot), there was a very apparent split among the justices as to their views of the 2A. It’s the trial judges, many of whom tend to come from large urban areas and corporate law firms, who are the real problem. As a side note, the District Courts are located in Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles–and the one outlier, Fresno. The Fresno judges have issued favorable opinions, the others not so much.

  19. avatarJWB in Cali says:

    Let’s not all get mad at Ruger for saying they don’t want to do business in California. Others don’t do business here either.

    They’re not the first and won’t be the last.

  20. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    This isn’t due solely to micro stamping, as that doesn’t apply to existing models being recertified via simple renewal.

    I see this as Ruger joining several other major gun-makers in refusing to play along with CA’s idiotic and over-reaching gun regulations. Glock quietly went this route with the Gen4 models, and I have it on good authority that HK was also taking the Glock strategy of refusing to make new compliant models even before micro stamping brought everything to a screeching halt.

    As a CA gun rights activist, this may be a surprising position to hear coming from me, but in think Ruger is doing the right thing. We need to overturn the Roster, period. The greater the difference between what’s available via the Roster vs what’s available in the free states, the better the argument to the courts that it’s an unjustifiable 2A and commerce infringement.

    At the point where my choices for acquiring a current-model pistol are (1) ask my LE friends if anyone they know is selling one, (2) impose on my out-of-state parents to send me one via intrafamily transfer, or (3) go through the substantial trouble of single-shot exemption conversion, well… I’d say my 2A rights are being substantially affected.

    • avatarjwm says:

      I hate to admit it but you may be right. On a different note. Sat. the 11th, 8-8.30 am, Chabot gun range. Was that you hauling blue barrels and targets around?

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        Heh. Might have been. I’ll be there for the next match in 10 days, too. Stop by and say hi, I’ll be there all day.

        • avatarjwm says:

          I was there for my hunters safety course. Saw you from the range masters office. Logged the 25th on my calendar. Will try to stop by.

    • avatarAccur81 says:

      You still have my email if I may need to transfer unwanted guns. Drop me a line.

    • avatarS.CROCK says:

      “(2) impose on my out-of-state parents to send me one via intrafamily transfer”

      what is intrafamily transfer, is it legal, does it cost extra $? give me the whole scoop on it, i like the sound of it.

      • avatarjwm says:

        If the transfer is between 2 family members in state the process is simple. Any gun requiring registration(At the time, a pistol) required just notifying DOJ of the change of ownership(There’s a 1 page form you can get from DOJ) and a 20 buck fee. I gave my son a pistol and that’s how we handled it. The law said the family member had to be legal to own a firearm.

        Prior to the new long gun registry you could give a family member a long gun with no notifications or paperwork, provided they were legal to own a firearm. I’m assuming that with the new registry even long guns have to be told about to DOJ.

        An out of state transfer between family members? No clue.

        • avatarMark N. says:

          BIG BIG CAVEATS! Intrafamily transfers are only allowed between parents(or grandparents) and children–either direction–but NOT between siblings and NOT between uncles/aunts and nephews/nieces. Further, it must be a bona fide gift–you cannot pay mummy or daddy to buy you a firearm in another state and then “gift” it to you, as that would constitute a straw purchase.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        jwm and Mark each covered part of it, so I’ll recap:

        Intrafamily transfers are, generally speaking, simpler than normal person-to-person transfers. Interstate intrafamily transfers are a little more complicated, in that by federal law they must be handled by an FFL in the recipient’s state.

        All of the normal rules apply, e.g. background check and 10-day wait. Unfortunately, this also means that interstate transfers subject you to CA’s 1-in-30 rule, which means you can’t receive a gift of multiple handguns at one time. (That last one has caused me some heartburn in the past.)

        Such transfers are Roster-exempt… but can only be done up or down the family tree, not across. You can transfer a non-Roster handgun between parent and child, or grandparent and grandchild.

        You don’t want to be caught sending an out-of-state relative money to buy a handgun and send it to you. As Mark notes, CA law does not look kindly on this.

        Pretty much anything else you need to know on this topic can be found here:

        http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Transferring_Firearms_Among_Some_Family_Members

        Hope that helps.

  21. avatarColby says:

    Maybe we’ll start seeing Ruger’s without as many extraneous safties and warning labels.

    Not to sound selfish or demean the loss that California citizens will suffer by not having new Ruger’s available, but that’s all been stated already by others.

    I’m just saying maybe it will knock some unnecessary machining operations off of the product line and make them even more affordable for the rest of us.

    • avatarAlpo says:

      Probably a good place to note that Ruger has completely discontinued it’s hammer fired P-series semis and has patents for “LC9S”, “LC9XT” and recently dropped their patents for “Ruger Combat Weapon Series”, “Ruger Combat Pistols”, “Ruger Combat 9″ and “Ruger Combat 45″.

      My guess is that they were looking to move in a Glockier direction by adding a new series of semis (the combat series?) but have decided to just revamp/add-on to the SR series and offer them minus all the CA stupidity.

  22. avatarMojoRonin says:

    A product not intended for California is a product i am interested in.

    Also, less guns that go to California, more of them are available for free citizens elsewhere.

  23. avatarJAS says:

    Kalifornia’s days as numbered just like our whole nation, if they keep going down the same path. Here’s Kalifornia’s Debt Clock:

    http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-california-debt-clock.html

    • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

      There are Third World countries with a higher sovereign credit rating than the People’s Republic of California. I would expect someday, when it becomes unmanagable to the point of being unrepayable, that the rest of the country refuses to bail California out and instead rejects their financial gluttony as odious debt.

      Or as a compromise, if California’s latest, statist love affair, this time with high speed trains, holds true, then let California’s Chinese defaulted-on bondholders come claim and cart off as indentured servants as many Californians as needed to build rail lines in China. There’s a nice historical turnabout.

  24. avatarBob in NC says:

    Who really gives a rat ____ if people in the land of fruits and nuts can buy Rugers or not? Anybody who would elect their Congressional representatives has no business with a gun anyway. The rest need to move to a better environment. Less for Kalifornica, more for us!

    • avatarHannibal says:

      “Move!” is an easy thing to say for someone who isn’t in the military or perhaps just without the means to move a family away from the job they hold.

      I don’t blame Ruger, but I’m not so flippant about the onerous load on the backs of California gun owners.

  25. avatarRacerX says:

    As a California gun owner I support this decision and only hope that other gun makers follow suit. The entire roster is currently being challenged in court, one of the questions that the judge specifically asked for was the total number of guns currently available on the roster. As long as that number remains high, was passes for a legal system in this state will simply state that there is no requirement to provide access to every possible firearm, as long as there are sufficent options available to choose from. Hopefully S&W and GLOCK also follow this route, it’s probably our only chance of invalidating the entire roster concept.

  26. avatarMud says:

    I think the only course of action that might influence CA law would be a sales boycott of small arms to the entire State, to include all future Law Enforcement contracts.

  27. avatarJoshuaS says:

    My understanding is that, while it may behoove Ruger to keep paying the $200 fee per model and thus continue selling, this is only the case if they make no substantial changes.

    And the DOJ has become unreasonable about what constitutes a substantial change. The SR22 was removed from the roster due to changes requiring restesting (and thus mircostamping), because of a slight improvement to the slide (it had been shaving bullets). Ruger says it is committed to “continual improvement”. If any little change may be deemed substantial, and causes the gun to be yanked, that is a massive PITA.

    Now Ruger invested quite a bit in CA friendly designs. If these models are just going to be yanked if you make any improvement, why bother continuing? Personally I would renew up until I make a change, but since that may be in between renewal dates, who knows what that would cause?

    But if you merely let it expire, someone who has bought it and has not yet completed the 10 days, will still get it if it falls off due to expiration. But if it is yanked because of a change, then it is not deliberable. This caused an immense round of bitching about “Ruger and Turners, and about how my favorite FFL delivered the gun anyways but Turners is evil, Ruger is evil” even though Turners was constrained by the law, and you local FFL is now a felon who didn’t bother to read the actual law. Not to mention the legal liability if you are deemed selling a handgun “not on the not unsafe roster”.

    If Ruger planned to make zero changes, this would be one thing. Because of continual improvement, they are covering their butts. Hopefully this and actions like it by mfgrs helps court cases against the roster

  28. avatarH.R. says:

    There’s a market here to be exploited. If Ruger backs out, someone will step into the gap and take advantage of a market that’s now free of a major competitor.

    If I were rich beyond imagination, I’d tool up tomorrow to start making and selling CA compliant guns.

    • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

      Think hard about such sentiments, even if only hypothetical. You want to be on the right side of History, don’t you?

  29. avatarphil says:

    Hopefully every mfg does this and tells cali to suck it and that they will deny service to LE agencies in the state until they recognize the 2nd Amendment.

  30. avatartdiinva says:

    The only boycott that will work is if the gun manufacturers refuse to sell to California police agencies.

  31. avatarMotoJB says:

    Who buys Ruger semi’s anyhow? ;) I wouldn’t. Just sayin’.

    Given all of the redesign demands, recertifications, fee’s and drop testing, etc that CA puts them through, I’m not surprised.

  32. avatarJD says:

    “drop off the approved handgun roster”

    now to drop CA off the ‘states roster’ right into El Oceano Pacifico

  33. avatarcigardog says:

    If Ruger follows through on this, fine, but only if they drop all LE (agency and individual officer) sales in the state as well.

    If they refuse to sell to citizens, but continue to sell to the government, I would hope that those of you in the free states will cease doing business with them.

  34. avatarJonathan - Houston says:

    When the moment comes, and I fear it may, “it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another”, as they say, the decent and respectful declaration of the causes which impel such separation would most definitely include these countless infringements, incremental to monumental, that constitute the whole of the State’s usurpation of our right to keep and bear arms!!!

  35. avatarS.CROCK says:

    I’m sad because there are some ruger semis i would like in the near future, but oh well. the plan is to be free in 5 or so years. i guess i can wait till then. this will mainly hurt my family that won’t leave the state even if it is slipping into the ocean.

  36. avatarMediocrates says:

    I think Ruger pretty much announced when that microstamping thing came out they would tell Kommiefornia to shove it.

  37. avatarThe tax man come.....errr....leaveth says:

    It’s not like the Kalifornia bureaucrats can afford the loss of sales tax revenue….

  38. avatarWile E. Coyote says:

    Ruger is hardly the first to go here; no GenIV Glocks have ever been available for new purchase in California due to the fact that they’d need to be functionally modified (to incorporate a mag disconnect) and the GenIII’s are rapidly dropping off the list (we’re actually on a bit of a buying spree at the moment because there’s a bunch coming off the list in the next few months, which is an interesting exercise given the no-more-than-one-handgun-purchase-ever-30-days restriction). With microstamping now a required feature and with most manufacturers having an insane backlog of orders from the other 49 states this functionally kills the addition of new firearms to the “approved” list which means that, barring litigation, in less than 24 months no new handguns will be available for purchase in the state — although, for the moment at least, private party transfers through your friendly local FFL holder (who also must be licensed by the state and approved by local law enforcement) remain an alternative.

  39. avatarcubby123 says:

    California should be relegated to slingshots that way Feinstein and all the rest will achieve their goal of only gangbangers are armed.

    • avatarBlueBronco says:

      Cali unleashed this Wicked Witch of the West on the rest of the country for decades. We have had to battle her nonsense for decades. Same thing with Hairy Wax-man and Boxer.

  40. avatarErnie says:

    Would this affect folks in California that already own a model that is dropped off the list?

  41. avatarStephen says:

    So glad I read this article just so I had an opportunity to read medicme119 comment.

  42. avatarHoward says:

    What Ruger is doing is nothing but a P&L decision. They concluded they don’t sell enough firearms in California to meet their profitability expectations to keep them on the roster. The winners are, unfortunately, the liberals who time and time again, punish the law abiding citizens due to decisions being made based on emotion and not fact.

  43. avatarBradley Lindsey says:

    Why stop there don’t sell any of the firearms you make to that shit hole state.

  44. avatarken shaw says:

    Forget about the drop test etc. Ruger and S & W do not want to go to the trouble and expense of microstamping each semi auto pistol it sells in CA. Also, I believe they feel that it may hinder performace and a criminal will steal one of these or use an older model. The microstamp lets the police know from whose registered gun owner fired the bullet!

  45. avatarErich Walker says:

    The criminals will just visit a shooting range, pick up a few shell casings from other shooters, and drop them at the scene of a crime to throw the police off their trail and make them think it was a law abiding citizen’s firearm that did the shooting. As far as “who fired the bullet” is concerned, ballistics already matches fired bullets to specific barrels anyways. Investigators have been using ballistic fingerprinting since the 1930′s. Microstamping doesn’t do anything to the bullet, only the shell casing, and like I said, criminals will be able to go to any indoor firing range and find hundreds of already stamped casings from other people’s firearms with no problem at all.

  46. avatarRoger says:

    I live in California and have seen the changes in gun laws over the years. At one time private sales were legal and there was even a number to call and check if the gun was stolen. Now the California state legislators are doing everything possible to eliminate any gun sales and restrict ammunition sales. If it was as easy as some think to sell guns in California do you really think a major manufacturer would stop selling in the state over a couple hundred dollar fee?

  47. avatarRandy says:

    I live in California and I am actively involved in sport shooting and hunting since I was very young and I am presently 59. I am very sad to see what is happening to our state with gun laws, bans, gun companies discontinuing sales in our state, crappy politions etc…. but I will say this to all of the other 49 states and to Californians, if we let California fall do you all think it will stop there? Our voting power is in southern California and there are a lot of liberalist idiots there unlike in the northern part of the state. Bottom line, the 2nd Amendment was put in place for us as citizens for our protection, and politicians are suppose to work for us, not us for them. There needs to be a change back to this platform before it’s to late! Remember this, “The Wolf Eats The Sheep.”

  48. avatarCharles Solomon says:

    Not justRuger, look at politician harris list of gun manufacturer drop off dates and you realize these politician/criminals are shooting for a NO SHOOTING STATE Except for the gutter trash “Independent Contractor”/killer cops here who welcome a completely disarmed caliFARCIA. Problems Are of Many that these cops and “civil servants” are given free hand with ANY WEAPON THEY CHOOSE and Killing Anybody who is disobedient to the like of harris, newsom, jerry brown and any “politician leader” who carry Terrible AUTOMATIC Weapons for quick killing. How did the VietCong DEFEAT the enormously Powerful US Military Machine?? By What is Going To Happen here. Get Your Guns and Ammunition WHILE YOU CAN. The caliFARCIA politicos welcome and waste $10,000,000,000(BILLION) Per Year for “illegal immigrant critical assisstance” Including Full “anchor baby” and related costs….Does this legislative body of Reckless Tyrannists in sacramento sound Socio/Politically responsible? There are SO Many hardworking taxpaying Citizens of caliFARCIA, who are leaving and being replaced by the tidal wave of “surplus humans” Come in from the 3rd world SH ITHOLE countries they MADE and are now making caliFARCIA into. Just what the sacramento politicos Want: An UnArmed population of uneducated and compliant slaves WITH NO FIREARMS At All. Does this sound promising?

  49. avatarJose Z. says:

    The government cant stop the sale of drugs in the USA. They could not stop the sale of alcohol. They cant stop the sale of cigarettes, that according to medical studies kill more people than Drugs, alcohol and guns combined. What would make anyone think they will stop this. Guns and ammo are like drugs and alcohol we make the choice to use them. What we need are politicians willing to enforce the laws in place that protect the innocent from the criminals.

  50. avatarCJ4THE2A says:

    Ruger is setting an example, cut and dry. It’s now up to us, the citizens, to follow it. The boiling point has been reached; either stand up and refuse to take overeaching, tyrannical and oppressive legislature, or fry in the current politically charged legislative cooking oil! Peace to my fellow United States brothers and sisters!

  51. avatarGary says:

    It was only a mater of time for politicians on the left and the rest none believing Americans and for the most part we know who they are and there origin and mainly there believes.We True Americans who Believing in or 2nd Amendment rights and are ready to defend that God given right and what our four Fathers be use fought and died for and to this day we have proud young Americans giving there blood and life to defend our right to be free and up hold the Constitution of the United States of America .So you bunch of ideology numb nuts ya that in clued’ s Dum and Dummer in the white house we will prevail.What am afraid of and most likely to happen is when the powers to be tries to disarm the public will set off a civil war in tell petting legal gun owners against the government in a battle that will make the civil war look like a bar room brawl,But i hope to God it does not play out this way in the end .

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.