Previous Post
Next Post

California has gone full retard. Bullet buttons, mag limits, one-gun-a-month purchase restrictions, an approved handgun list, safe/unsafe storage laws, “gun free zones” — it’s the death of gun rights by a thousand cuts. While some people look to the Supreme Court to restore Golden Staters’ Second Amendment protections, a commercial solution seems a better bet.

The entire firearms industry — gun and gear makers — should stop ALL sales to California. Civilian and — critically — law enforcement. Would that force California legislators┬áto change their laws? Maybe. But it sure as Hell would get their attention. You know: change the conversation.

Yes? Would you be willing to buy an extra gun (to help them make up the lost revenue) from any manufacturer who boycotted California? (Jon Wayne Taylor said he’d buy two.)

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Nope, unworkable and punishes the wrong people. The fix is a national level law that ends LEO carve out for any firearms, magazines, or accessories. Of course the Left will scream bloody murder, but they are never going to be happy with anything less than a full tolitarian dictatorship with them in charge.

    • No, because a boycott would hurt the people you’re trying to help, gun owners, who’ve already been hurt badly enough by their state. I don’t live in Commiefornia, but I’m also geographically challenged because I live behind the iron curtain in the People’s Republic of New Jersey. It’s a slippery slope, because if gun manufacturers boycott California, next they’ll boycott NJ, NY, CT, MA, Hawaii, even Colorado with its new 15-round limit on mags.

      But gun makers do need to take some action against AWB states like California, NJ, NY, CT, MA, etc. plus states with magazine limits like Colorado, so I have a much better idea. Gun makers should refuse to sell any guns or gun parts to POLICE, security agencies, detectives, or state or local agencies in AWB states or magazine-limit states that are illegal for CIVILIANS to own in those states! Gun manufacturers need to refuse to sell police and private security guards guns or magazines that ordinary Joe Taxpayer isn’t allowed to have because the state doesn’t trust Joe Taxpayer with “military-looking” guns the state calls “assault weapons” or “high-capacity magazines.”

      If CA and NY want to ban all AR-15s by calling them “assault weapons”, then no manufacturer should sell AR-15s to police in those states either, or parts to repair police AR-15s, or gunsmithing services for police AR-15s, or accessories for police AR-15s. Any gun that’s not approved for civilian use in California or NY as an “assault weapon” because it’s “too military-looking” should be banned from police use also, so gunmakers need to refuse to sell weapons to police that violate any state’s “assault weapons” ban. If a state like CA or NY decides to limit magazines to 10 rounds or less, then gun makers and ammunition makers need to refuse to sell “high capacity” magazines to POLICE in those states. If California goes down its current route (microstamping, for instance), and revolvers become the only guns still legal to civilians in CA, then gunmakers need to sell only California-civilian-legal revolvers to POLICE in California, too.

      The same for the National Guard (with the exception of the “giggle switch” for fully automatic fire). If California won’t allow Joe Taxpayer to own an AR-15 or other semiautomatic rifles, then the California National Guard should be restricted to bolt-action rifles too! If Californians (or New Jerseyans or New Yorkers) can’t own semiautos with flash suppressors, then gunmakers shouldn’t sell flash suppressors to the National Guard in those states.
      Gun manufacturers need to refuse to sell M-16s, M-4s, or AR-15s to the California National Guard or NY National Guard until California and NY drops their absurdly strict AWB laws. However, if CA and NY get rid of their dumb AWB laws and lets Joe Taxpayer own semiautomatic AR-15s, then let the National Guard have the fully-automatic M16 or M4 version with its “giggle switch” to stay compatible with the US Army.

      • Smith & Wesson is a publicly owned company. The company has shareholders, and is obligated to maximize value for them. In no way could a company like that voluntarily refuse to sell pistols to customers.

        So every other company would boycott, and the two public companies (S&W/Ruger) would be legally obligated to sell to law enforcement because they have a fiduciary resonsibility.

        • Not only should they boycott and not sell anything to states where citizens aren’t allowed to own but to carry as well.
          Additionally the gun community needs to boycott any company that does sell to these states. This solves the issue of publicly traded companies as it is in there financial interest to not sell to these states. I line in NJ and have been saying this for years.

          Just to be clear this means selling to the State and not individuals living in the state.

      • Great post. One more point is this: by law, statutory and common, there are two types of people in the USA, military and civilians. The non-military police are civilians, regardless of how much some like to pretend otherwise.

  1. Not going to happen. There are 35 million people in California. Even 10% is a lot of sales.

    • This is BUSINESS, not politics. It makes much more sense to produce compliant models than to boycott.

      If California residents are satisfied with their government, the industry would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

      • I think this would be more like cutting off your nose to spite your stupid nose. Maybe those 8 million or so gun owners would be more active in their voting and lobbying habits once they are down to slings (not slingshots, those shoot to fast) and a sternly worded letter to your assailants from your next of kin? We are 15 years past polite for Cali, New Jersey, and their ilk. I need to see some effort, some inkling that they are trying to save themselves.

        • Sure, I’m going to cut off 2/3 of the customers of my small business because we don’t align politically. Not.

          Red vs. Blue? No. The only color that matters in business is green. There is a reason none of my customers know my political affiliation, unless they look it up in the state database.

        • well we here in cali feel the same way about you too!


          I “USED” to donate to the NRA and after last year NOPE NOPE NOPE!
          the NRA ONLY gave us back from all the members here—200k to fight the last things on the ballot!
          SO the NRA gave up on me, I cancelled my membership and went FULLY LOCAL ONLY!

          In other words F—- the national level NRA they already gave up on us here.

        • We are active sir but we are fighting an uphill battle against a liberal tidal wave of anti-gun legislators with no support nationally. All we get is lip service and a pat on the back from the NRA.

      • It is a business. At some point the harassment by the prk will out weigh profitability and ultimately leave them with only slings. Just don’t display a rebuild magazine kit on your website or you’ll be sued into oblivion as well. People get really mad when I don’t sell to cali. It’s nothing personal, I really feel for them. However, I’m not risking my rear for them. One lawsuit and I’m in a world of hurt and ruin. Not worth it.

        We definitely need to see more activism from cali gun owners. I hear them complain but I have yet to see them put the fear of the people into their representatives.

    • Well, f**k you too man. Just remember that whatever California does, the nation usually follows eventually.

      • Maybe once upon a time, I doubt it anymore though in a lot of respects. California has gone so far off the deep end you will never get it by states like mine or Texas or Kentucky or many more.

        I would caution you on the f u come backs. It doesn’t motivate anyone to your side. While we are all supposed to be on the same side many of us are fine with leaving you all to your fate. Beyond supporting you, the heavy lifting can only be done by residents. I can’t call my representative or give them an ear full at a town hall or take other initiatives. That’s your responsibility as a Californian. The question I will ask all of you though is what are you doing to fight this crap beyond complaining on forums and blogs? I know some are maybe even you but if the majority of California gun owners took it to their politicians, filed some lawsuits, did something change is possible.

    • What part of ‘largest congressional delegation’ do you have difficulty understanding.

  2. Stop civvie sales? No. LE/government sales? Yes.

    Cut all LEO contracts and simply inform dealers that if they’re caught selling to LE they lose the supplier immediately and tell them WHY. I’ll bet 99% of dealers would be on board as soon as they were given the reason.

    When it comes to parts or warranty work for a LE armory well, “Not valid in California”.

    Kick LE right in the dick and the state will notice when the cops start to scream.

    • Closing the LEO carveout is the only way it would work – after all, a complete cessation of civilian sales of guns and ammunition is exactly what the state is working toward. What their not counting on is the inability of police, security firms and personal bodyguards to be able to get arms too. So, yeah, in theory is could work – but WE, the People, would need to also be willing to boycott any company that tries to jump the line for the sake of making a few bucks in that state.
      I’m game, who’s on board?

      • That’s kind of my point. Stopping civvie sales would only give Cali politicians exactly what they want.

        If on the other hand it impacts only, or mostly LEOs, and basically makes them a regular citizen or hurts them even more, then their union will go to Sacramento and scream bloody murder. Keep that up long enough and you’ll have a full scale LEO revolt against the pols which is something the pols cannot ignore.

        I’m normally pretty supportive of police but when they enforce laws like this (which wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans if the LEO’s didn’t enforce them) then they’ve become part of the problem. If the solution makes their job too unsafe, they can do what everyone in the private sector does and quit. It’s not like they have an enlistment contract or anything.

        Here in Colorado the “new” gun laws are pretty well universally ignored. Cops don’t bother trying to enforce them so the laws might as well not even be on the books. Obviously Cali LEO’s are more zealous in their application of the law. For that reason I don’t particularly care if “the solution” costs a few LEO lives. Maybe that will teach the police that the laws they’re enforcing don’t help anything.

        Put the cops on a level playing field with the civvies, let a few get shot dead or knifed or whatever and they’ll change their tune rapidly. I know that sounds terrible but hey, effectively they’re the ones putting civilians in that same position every single day so a bit of turnabout is fair play in my mind.

        On top of that the dealers and suppliers would probably be on board because Cali has the potential to be their biggest sales area if the laws change.

        • Lighten up, strych, no one’s gonna die… and I wouldn’t support the idea if it came to that.
          No, LEOs would put the pressure on the legislature long before it gets to that point when their purchasing contracts remain indefinitely suspended for a few months.
          The whole matter could be resolved in less than a year as long as EVERYONE is inconvenienced by it.

        • I should have been a bit more precise there.

          The police will claim they’re going to die. I rank that as unlikely but the pols in Cali seem pretty hard headed and I don’t really know how much clout the union has in Sacramento. If they have enough clout it will never come to that. If they don’t then someone might be harmed for want of a working weapon.

          Really the question is how far the pols in Cali are willing to push things. I tend to agree with you that it won’t get so far as a dead police officer, but then again that’s what I’d like to be believe so I’m aware that might cloud my vision on the subject. Every time I think “That’ll learn ’em” I remember the positions people like that De Leon idiot holds and I revise my thought to “That might learn ’em, or maybe not”.

          Really, if you put this kind of pressure on the cops they will probably pull back to “safer” enforcement and then the voters of Cali will feel the results and force the pols into action. Again, just a question of how hardheaded the hardcore granola munchers in the government are.

          I try to never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups and that’s exactly what the government of California is. A group of very, very dumb people who are convinced they’re the smartest people on the planet.

          OTOH, well cops can just quit so if a few get smoked over this I won’t cry about it. Broken eggs, omelette and all that.

        • This is great in theory. Line-level cops in CA are Pro-2A for the most part. The problem is LE Admin and the LE Unions. They’re the ones that support the Dems and Anti-Gunners.

          But I def like the idea and support it.

    • Add a 200% Liability Surcharge to California LE/Government sales to create a rainy day fund to cover future possible lawsuits.

      • I’d advocate a full stoppage of sales to Cali LEO’s. Kick them until they piss blood and then kick them some more.

        But if you’re gonna go the surcharge route, why stop at 200%? Make it 5000% and price them right out of the market. That $800 AR is now $40K.

        Welcome to NFA rules motherfuckers! Nice badge, how’s it feel to be a pleb like the people you enforce the law on?

        The problem here though is Cali will just increase taxes or stop fixing infrastructure to fund $40K patrol rifles. They’ll like, not perform maintenance on their dams or something.

      • …and only provide CA LE/gov’t with VERY reduced capacity mags (3 cartridge capacity). ­čÖé

    • I agree in a way. I really think the gun industry should make it hard for California state. Not necessarily ban sales to the state but only sell them ar’s that have to be taken down to change a magazine in a proprietary mag well that only accepts 10 round magazines. Sell them only bolt action pistols. High cost serial numbered ammunition at $5.75 a bullet ought to really send that point home. I can’t stand the double standard that the people get to own neutered while those who see themselves as kings and queens get all the best and cutting edge to those who are left to protect them.

      Unfortunately my plan puts Leo’s in the middle of that mess which ain’t good either. Maybe free state initiatives to hire freedom loving police out of that state leaving the turds to suffer the elitist they support.

    • Agree. Better yet, sell only approved firearms to LEO and make them go through the same regulations as the common folk. Bolt action 22’s, no Glocks, etc.

    • Barrett did this years ago, after California banned .50BMG rifles, even though not one has ever been used in a crime in the US.

  3. Well, Ronnie Barrett stopped selling to CA agencies when the .50cal was banned.

    “Would you be willing to buy an extra gun (to help them make up the lost revenue) from any manufacturer who boycotted California?”

    If I _have_ to! 8>)

  4. YES!!!!
    The whole damn nation should boycott N Korea lite. And I effing live in this FAILED DemoCrud cesspool. FRACK!!!!

    • Yeah this state does suck for a lot of reasons. One is the draconian laws against the 2nd Amendment. Second is giving tax revenue for public employee retirement funds because of irrational state policy. Third is the stance that cities and event the state government wants to give sanctuary status for illegals.
      I’m out of here as soon as the money is available.

  5. The manufacturers are already losing market to the laws in California. I think the government of California would see a difference but the manufacturers wouldn’t. Getting them and retailers to hild the line might be tough. Seeing Cali law enforcement with pikes and bats might be interesting.

  6. Civilian: no. Odds are they didn’t vote for the laws that got passed against the 2A.
    Police agencies: yes. If nothing else they are an important arm of the government that is being problematic
    Buy more: no, i haven’t had the cash to buy what i want, let alone activist buying. But if the boycott is successful, i’d expect the manufacturers would save a fortune in tooling and documentation, so they should come out ahead.

    • Right there with ya. Like to promise Id buy a gun during the boycott, but can’t make it a promise.
      Now if Ruger, Smith, Sig, Glock, Springfield and anyone else who gets on board licenses a ball cap or tee shirt with “Free California” on it and their logo, I’ll buy a few.

  7. Instead, only agree to ship “CA legal” firearms to California LEOs. See how they like that.

    And I’m always up for a new excuse — er, reason — to buy an extra gun.

    • This. If Ar-15s are only good for mowing down huge swaths of ppl, then the police do not need them either, right?

      • Police agencies get their M-16s straight from the federal government, no fee. Try again. And any LE can go into any gun store in any state and buy firearms, so a shipping ban wouldn’t work either.

    • That’s what I was thinking. Make the authorities live in the reality they’ve pushed on everyone else. No carve outs. No exceptions.

    • I like the idea of only selling California compliant firearms to LEOs. By abandoning civilians, you are giving the anti-gun people what they want, and punishing the pro-gun people.

  8. All government sales should stop. Not just California, but Illinois, New York, New Jersey,and any other State with “May Issue” permits. That should include parts, accessories and ammunition. Retailers in those States should refuse to sell parts or ammunition to any governmental agency, including Law Enforcement. This will screw over some legit POTG who happen to be LEOs, but it is the only way any change on the issue will occur. When the States armed protectors run out of ammunition and/or working firearms they will have no choice but to acquiesce.

    Non-LEO civilians should not be cut off, as I believe the antis would assume that was a victory and only strengthen their resolve. There are 39 million people in California who have the same right to defend themselves as you or I, and I don’t believe we should cut them off. Also, when armed citizens become the only defense against lawlessness the facts about armed self defense become irrefutable.

    • Illinois is shall issue. With the exception of parts of Cook county, there are NO restrictions on anything other NFA items (SBRs and SBSs are allowed if you have a 03 FFL). There are NO restrictions anywhere on Handguns. Yes we have a FOID system, but it is $10 for 10 years and you can get it online.

      • Thanks for the info. we hear so much about Chicago, I guess I assumed the whole State was that way. So, I guess we’ll just do it for Cook County in that case.

        • DUH…I live in non-Chicago Cook. I just shot at a local Cook co. gun range. And I can buy a 30round AR 15 there too. Even CHICAGO,city of has SHALL ISSUE CONCEALED CARRY. There is at least a dozen worse states. We are NOT CALIFORNIA…

  9. A straight boycott would make us look like we are the children in the room. Instead, just treat all LE sales under the same regulations as civilian sales.

    – only one gun per officer per month
    – 10 round mag limits
    – All sales are subject to same fees and background checks
    – etc.

      • We have the same here in MA. Glocks are on it. But, the AG won’t let any be sold except to LEO loosely using consumer protection laws because Glocks are scary and don’t have a safety. For both states we need to obliterate the Democrat Party and fix all the things they bent to their own will.

  10. One of the big reasons I pulled the trigger and bought a Barrett, was the company refused to sell or service weapons for law enforcement if the civilians can’t own the weapon too.

    Maybe not boycot, but implement the same bullet button, mag limits for police and those defending their state and local representatives.

    • Precisely. An all manufacturer boycott would cause the California Legislature to swoon in ecstasy, party for a week, and then get back to work trying to figure out how to seize the millions of firearms previously sold or brought here. Like banning the possession of all handguns not on the current Roster, banning the possession of all handguns not registered with the State (there are quite a few of those, since registration of handguns isn’t all that old and long guns were added only a couple of years ago). The would drop the numbers by at least half…..Then, as with “assault weapons,” they would ban the sale or transfer of all firearms by any means in state except by turning them over the police for destruction. Shall I go on? You guys are calling for Gunmageddon (and that moniker has already been used).

      • Good…

        Then you idiots might be bothered to take your latte sipping asses to the voting booth once in a while

        • Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties all have over 2 million people with Los Angels having over 10 million people alone. Put another way, the population of these five counties alone make up roughly 54% of the entire population in California. And the majority of these counties are the dildo waving, vaginal hat wearing liberals. I’m pretty sure these numbers don’t reflect our illegal inhabitants either.
          The clock is ticking closer to retirement (not far off now), and when that time comes……we’re outta this shit hole.

  11. Simple solution – have the manufacturers, through their brokers, require government buyers to comply with the same laws and restrictions that the citizens have to.

  12. This is a terrible idea and you are making the world dumber by suggesting it. That is exactly what Sacramento wants – you would in one fell swoop accomplish what they have been chopping away at for decades.

    • By requiring law enforcement to play by the same rules as the tax paying plebs, the firearms industry would motivate the second largest union in the state to get on board with us.

      The fact that you slackjaws don’t understand that makes it so much less surprising that you can’t manage to unfuck your state legislature. The only things about California I miss is the food and the sun, the people are the lowest of my things I give a shit about in California

      • some threeper who runs away is gonna throw names? boy, you are sure tough behind that keyboard there. You, like Farago, are also making things dumber.

  13. I’d be willing to buy an extra gun to offset the loss from a CA boycott, but that’s never going to happen.

  14. Nice thought but it’s about as likely as SCOTUS giving us a 9-0 ruling that ‘shall not be infringed’ actually means what it says.

    Glock, Sig Sauer, et al are never going to forsake the big CA market… or even the big CA government sales.

    • This is the meat of the problem with the talk of restricting sales to LEOs and .gov agencies. Even if the companies you listed did (and I don’t think they would), ALL companies would not, multiple companies would take advantage of the opportunity for increased profits due to at least a short term supply limit. New companies might even start up just to take advantage of this and sell only to CA.

  15. That’s what CA wants. Keep hammering away at CA stupidity with workarounds. Gape those “loopholes” oh so wide.

  16. Why bother? CA is already boycotting the firearms industry. Turnabout may be fair play, but all it will do is accelerate the process.

  17. I would absolutely buy a new gun to support such a project — IF it was done intelligently and would be effective.

    The only way it would be intelligent and effective is if it was aimed at California Law Enforcement agencies. I’m not gonna go out and buy a new HiPoint if HiPoint says they’re going to stop selling in California. But if Glock or S&W or whoever the law enforcement agencies buy from, if THEY were to say “we are stopping selling to the California government until the California government stops restricting their people’s rights” then yes – count me in.

  18. Doesn’t matter. HK and Colt would beat the door down to get LE contracts.

    Barrett made a statement, kudos to them.

    I doubt any other companies would have the fortitude or desire.

    Companies are rarely extensions of an individual .

  19. It’s the Saul Alinsky playbook. Drive you out by onerous taxes/affrontery/regulation, all while you are still paying for it. Then they have their whole little a-hole enclave to themselves.

    You can see the same thing attempted in:

    Schools – no flag, no GOD
    Public places – no flag, no prayer
    Public spaces / Schools – every other mf indecent thing goes
    military – hey lets try tutu’s
    and on and on and on

    It’s coming down to a civil war, and we’re going to get our real estate back.

  20. NO. That would be doing exactly what the anti-gun crowd wants. It would be easier for them than to keep pecking away a little at time.

    • The anti-civil rights leaders love their guns, you forget – they surround themselves with well-armed private security at all times. Since their mantra is “guns for me, but not for thee”, lets make their supply dry up too and see how long they keep singing that tune.

  21. Firearms industry will never boycott California.
    “Lesson number one: Don’t underestimate the other guy’s greed!”
    Frank Lopez

  22. Federal troops should occupy California, remove the state and many local governments, and restore the Constitution as the Law of the Land.

    • No. You should be ashamed of calling yourself American if you actually think the federal government should do that.

      • That’s the “Lincoln” solution. I say if California doesn’t want to abide by the Constitution of the US, then they should secede, get the hell out of the US, and take their their share of the national debt, their 55 electoral votes and every illegal immigrant with them.

        • States are not subject to the Constitution, for most intents and purposes, and states were not subject to the Bill of rights until sometime after the passage of the 14th Amendment. So far, incorporation of the BOR against the state has been on a case by case basis. Second, neither states nor state legislative officers can be sued in federal court, under the 11th Amendment of the Constitution, except for criminal conduct outside the scope of their duties.

          More practically speaking, you could line the Legislators up against a wall and shoot them all–and the People of the State, being 2/3 Democratic Party members, would vote in a whole new batch.

    • California Constitution
      SEC. 1.

      The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
      (Sec. 1 added Nov. 7, 1972, by Prop. 6. Res.Ch. 120, 1972.)

      It’s already in the books here. I don’t think any of those ignorant bastards in the capitol know how to read.

  23. Besides, “boycott” is too much of a sexist, male privileged, Anglo word for use in California.

    Instead, I suggest “Muchachocott,” “womancott” or “peoplecott,” although I suppose that peoplecott would offend PETA. I’d also suggest “LBTQEIEIOcott,” but it would be unpronounceable.

  24. What about when California breaks away from the Union and becomes their own country (countries)? Isn’t there going to be some issue with American companies exporting firearms out of the country?

    • Between two large sea ports (and San Diego) that imports vast quantities of goods from Asia, including vehicles, tech, and clothing, Silicon Valley, most Aero-Space skunk works, and the fact that California pays more into federal tax coffers than it receives in federal spending, it just ain’t gonna happen.

  25. I believe they should boycott. Then wait. See how long it takes to get people cryin.
    And yes I would buy one…. or two. Depends on what I’m in the market for.
    At minimum the cops should be held to the same rules. Bullet buttons, mag cap limits, and the rest of the stupid rules everyone else has to follow.

  26. Genius. The domestic firearms industry decides to boycott sales to California and so California government agencies just buy from, wait for it, international gun manufacturers almost all of which operate in countries with more restrictive gun laws than California.

    Do you think these things through before you write them?

    • So Trump slaps a 70% import tax on them. Or 170%. Or 1700%.

      then those imports dry up fast.

      • Do you seriously think Trump is going to impose a 1700% tariff on imported firearms?

        That suggestion is even nuttier than the idea of the gun industry boycotting California. I don’t know what you’re smoking but it must be some god shit.

  27. So you think the cops are gonna be running around with Russian aks and Makarovs? That would pretty much make the commie conversion complete.

  28. Civilian sales? Hell no.

    Gov/LEO sales? Absolutely, including ammunition. Choke them off.

  29. As the state of California seems hell-bent on stopping all civilian sales, if I were a firearms company, I would produce weapons o ly for private citizens and not sell to state or LE. As someone said above, wait for the straw purchases and make examples. This would force CA to go outside- to the Fed. Gov, or to foreign nations and supplier for weapons and especially ammunition.

  30. Why limit this boycott to firearms?

    Since the State is in open defiance of the Constitution of the US, and the State of California’s own constitution, should not all producers, suppliers, merchants, customers, et al, immediately cease and desist any and all business with California and Californians?

    • Exactly, just like what people are doing to NC and threatening Texas with because of transgender bathroom laws. We should be doing to California, NY, NJ ect.

    • I take it you only eat red meat, and eschew vegetables, tomatoes, fruits, nuts, cotton and sugar? That will make your cardiologist rich. Or do you like to spend a lot more to buy such items from areas with substantially shorter growing seasons and a smaller supply?

  31. Another idea is state you will only sell products to state government/LEO that are compliant with civilian products sold there. Give them a break action AR with a 10-rounder and see how they like that.

  32. I would probably buy more than two firearms. My wife thinks I have a problem I don’t want to admit.

  33. Maybe do a defect recall of LEO firearms and send HiPoint pistols and carbines as “temporary” replacements while the recalled guns are “repaired”. ­čÖé

  34. CA is the testing ground for authoritarian laws. They have a bill in play now that gives the state of CA complete control over aspect of children’s lives. SB 18. Orwellian named Children Bill of Rights, of course.

  35. All it would do is make it worse. The majority of the liberal crowd does not want law enforcement to have lethal wepons anyways. The goal is to be completely gun free so we are all easy to control including the police

  36. “Jon Wayne Taylor said he’d buy two”

    Hey Taylor, I’ll buy two of whatever your ranch’s products are, if you stop selling to one of your larger customers who don’t share my personal ideology. Oh, not such a good idea?

    By the way, your picture is in Wikipedia next to the “Virtue Signalling” definition. You and the two regular cops on here got 99% of the TTAG virtue signalling covered.

  37. Nice sentiment. Been discussed in CA forums for years.

    The problem is implementation and making sure the boycott threat is actually credible. No one has figured out how to make the boycott credible vs. empty words. And there are still plenty of small manufacturers who will see clearly California’s large LEO market and pull a colt. Even this strategy wouldn’t cause immediate pain sufficient for reform. This is a heavy lift that will require sustained and cohesive defiance to make work.

  38. All California LEO sales should be restricted to firearms in compliance with the microstamping law.
    That is all.

  39. I will never buy a POF product because they sell civilian banned firearms to LEO agencies in California. Then they brag about it. If gun owners from around the country did the same it would limit California LEO to FNH and that’s about it. Gun owners from around the country should boycott everything California. For my late March ski trip instead of a Lake Tahoe area I’m doing Big Sky MT.

  40. I think the firearms industry needs to stop sales and prohibit the use of their weapons in television and movies. Ask anyone who has seen a movie lately and they might tell you a 9 mm handgun will destroy a car with one shot, run full auto and fire an endless supply of bullets from a single “clip”.

    • I completely agree with this. Half or more of the gun fear we have here in America are made by the movie industry. If they portray firearms as they actually are, then we wouldn’t have such fear from non-gun owners.

    • Sometimes when the Category 5 hurricane is bearing down on you, it’s more prudent to get the hell out of Dodge, let it hit, then go back and clean up the mess, than it is to “ride it out.”

  41. I have said for years that every gun owner and related business should pack up and move the Hell out of Commifornia, taking their tax dollars with them.

  42. Just announce that sales will stop by a certain date. Especially for LEO’s. As a protest of strict gun regulations. Once you get civilians and LEO’s working together, the politicians will have to lighten up.

  43. Most of northern CA and central CA are good old country folk. The San Francisco and south crowd are the ones that ruin it for us. Unfortunately those are the densely populated cities that vote in the idiots here, even though it’s only a small portion of the state geographicly.

  44. Here’s the issue as I have had enough time to think. The Feds have placed a temporary travel ban on certain countries. Fully within the law, BUT, now there are 4 states that have filed lawsuits to declare that the EO is unconstitutional regardless of the consequences of potential extremists and the fact that there is settled law to allow the presidential EO. I see the same arguments by many states after some EO or Legislation from the Feds because many of these states are too progressive and liberal in their warped frame of minds. I truly think that we are headed for armageddon because we have already been infiltrated by the liberal progressive feel good fools (judges included) that want to take away our rights.

  45. Want to halt sales to the government and law enforcement, fine. But why punish the gun owners in California?

    • You can’t do one without the other. Cops are civilians and can walk into any gun store and buy any gun that is available to the rest of us, even if they are going to use it as as duty weapon. Nor will any cop or police agency be prosecuted for going to Vegas or Reno and loading up on as many large capacity mags as they can afford. So really, the whole idea is so impractical as to fall into the “joke of the day” category.

  46. The industry should limit thier sales to what the law allows citizens. LE gets the same, nothing else.

  47. Suppose you could get 100% of US manufacturers to go along (unlikely), what about Glock, or Sig MCX weapons? Couldn’t CA LEO’s just buy those weapons?

    I think a better solution is to sue the CA DOJ repeatedly on various grounds. I’d buy an extra gun to support that.

  48. The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. -Abraham Lincoln

    Enforce it strictly and equally for ALL. No carve outs.

  49. In the end, the “solution” for CA and other states will be the same economic solution that always occurs when supply is artifically constrained: Black markets and gun running. Same as booze, smokes, drugs, what have you.

    Is it legal? No. Is it socially desirable? Probably not. But the state has forbidden any legal acquisition of a desirable good. Therefore the demand will be supplied using illegal acquisition, and the distribution networks will be established — like it or not.

  50. Totally meaningless unless the LEO’s are targeted. In fact, the government of California would support the boycott.

  51. It’s a nice dream but does anyone seriously think foreign firearms manufactures wouldn’t just swoop in?

  52. I’m one of those christian capitalists.
    If a baker doesn’t want to make a homosexual wedding cake, I totally support them. But the hypocrite libertarians who are stuck on dildo sex and marijuana intoxication, support destroying these christian businesses. Your hero Gary Johnson is the leading libertarian hypocrite on this issue. When has any libertarian called for a business to refuse service to a government agent??? Libertarians totally support big @ss government crushing a family business they don’t like.

    The Sacramento Valley Gun Club has had a boycott of state police from using their range since January 2000!!
    The Student Of The Gun podcast has called for a California boycott a year and a half ago.
    How many instructors still give training to California police???
    How many gun stores give a discount to state and local police in California??? This is why I say California is a lost cause. You are late to the party calling for a boycott now. California gun owners gay, straight or what ever have other things that on their minds than keeping their guns.

    I only heard crickets out of Gary Johnson when the Tracy Rifle and Pistol store began fighting for the artistic view of their store front window. If this was homo erotic art there would be a thousand supporters with signs at the store.

  53. I think a better option would be a an organized campaign of open civil disobedience. Heck, the state of california is doing in (as well as other states) with cannabis. We need sanctuary cities where the mayor and LE’s will openly protect gun rights thereby negating CA’s laws.

  54. No. What they should do is sell only California compliant firearms and parts to state agencies. Let the LEO’s deal with patrol rifles that have to be disassembled to be loaded / unloaded, ten round magazines, a short list of approved pistols, etc. If they want non-compliant items, let them drive across state lines and pay retail.

    Yes, this punishes LEO’s, and that sucks. But right now California law punishes law abiding citizens, and last I checked LEO’s are still citizens with no special privileges. Besides, the point isn’t to punish the LEO’s, it’s to make the politicians live with the reality of their own stupid laws.

  55. Start with banning the firearms that are banned for civilian not selling to law enforcement see how that goes! I unfortunately live in Southern California and if they have to boycott to get someone’s attention the I fully support it!

  56. This would be celebrated by the California Legislature. It doesn’t matter how it would affect the general public, or to a lesser degree, the police.

    The police chiefs would fall in line because they’re political animals.

    The political class would make sure that their enforcers have some kind of weapon, even if not as good as what they had previously. The rank & file might grumble, but they’d either adapt or leave.

    The general public would be flat-out screwed.

Comments are closed.