Second Amendment

Smith & Wesson Pushed Out of California Handgun Market By Red Tape

|

Pistol
Smith & Wesson

California's efforts to regulate firearms out of easy availability (an official summary of state gun regulations runs to 50 pages) continue to bear fruit, as Smith & Wesson announces that it's not willing to comply with the latest round of inane rules, effectively removing most of its pistols from the state's market. The specific bit of red tape pushing the company out is a requirement that new pistols (including modifications of existing firearms) incorporate controversial "microstamping" technology intended to leave unique markings on fired cases.

In a press release, the company says:

Under California's "Unsafe Handgun Act," any new semi-automatic pistol introduced into that state must comply with microstamping laws. In addition, California asserts that anything other than a cosmetic change to a handgun already on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale, including performance enhancements and other improvements, requires it to be removed from the roster and retested. For semi- automatic pistols, this means it must comply with the microstamping requirements, as well.

Smith & Wesson does not and will not include microstamp ing in its firearms. A number of studies have indicated that microstamping is unreliable, serves no safety purpose, is cost prohibitive and, most importantly, is not proven to aid in preventing or solving crimes. The microstamping mandate and the company's unwillingness to adopt this so-called technology will result in a diminishing number of Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistols available for purchase by California residents.

This is not a problem unique to Smith & Wesson. The microstamping legislation and California's position regarding performance enhancements and other improvements creates the same challenge for all firearm manufacturers, since presumably all of them refine and improve their products over time.

In order to retain a presence in the California market for semi-automatic pistols, the company deliberately plans to make no improvements to the M&P Shield and the SDVE pistols so that they'll remain on-sale without a need to comply with the microstamping law. Except for the Shield, all of the M&P line of pistols are expected to fall off the roster of guns legal for sale in California by August 2014 (revolvers are exempt).

Microstamping is held out as one of the holy grails of modern gun controllers seeking a technological crutch for their position, but the National Shooting Sports Foundation calls it "a costly and time-consuming process" that's not especially reliable. It's also easily defeated by the clever expedient of swapping out firing pins or other easily replaced parts. Or just filing down the stamp (diamond-coated files are a good choice).

Ruger Firearms already announced that it won't comply with the microstamping rule. The National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute have filed suit against California over the issue

Smith & Wesson representatives didn't respond to queries as to whether they would follow in the footsteps of gunmakers like Barrett and also refuse sales to law enforcement agencies in jurisdictions that effectively try to disarm private citizens. Such a move might actually get officials' attention.

NEXT: Austin Man Files Suit over Arrest for Filming Police

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So the govt is abusing its ‘regulatory’ powers to effectively ban something. And progs complain when health/medical codes shut down abortion providers?

    1. All features, not bugs.

  2. Robber: [during a diner robbery] What’s you doing, you pighead sucka?

    Harry Callahan: Every day for the past ten years, Loretta there’s been giving me a large black coffee, today she gives me a large black coffee only it has sugar in it, a lotta sugar. I just came back to complain. Now, you boys put those guns down.

    Robber: Say what?

    Harry Callahan: Well, we’re not just gonna let you walk out of here.

    Robber: Who’s we sucka?

    Harry Callahan: [slowly drawing his .44 Magnum] Smith and Wesson… and me.

    1. One of the best Callahan scenes.

      Along with – of course – “You just gotta ask yourself one question – ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well – do ya, punk?!”

      “That’s a high price to pay for bein’ stylish….”

      I shouldn’t like that character, but I do πŸ™‚

      1. “Hey! I gots to know!”

        The reason I like the character is he’s a man of strength in a time of increasing crime and the concurrent feminizing of the American male. And he’s not just going around doing “stop and frisks” or busting Amish raw milk clubs. The punk was an armed bank robber with a 12 gauge who shot him in the leg.

  3. But I’ve been assured that government regulation never kills jobs. Except when they’re applied to abortion providers.

    1. Regulation never kills good jobs, such as bureaucrat, regulator, teacher, or intellectual. Bad jobs, like gunsmithing, are jobs that are really so bad that the people who do them don’t even know how bad they are. So these regulations aren’t eliminating good jobs, they’re providing opportunities for people with bad jobs to get involved with government programs which will re-train them for lucrative work at a good job.

      1. If you** like your job, you can keep your job.

        ** With ‘you’ being defined as ‘me’.

        1. That would be “I”. We’re not cavemen here.

      2. I don’t know, leftists consider abortion providing a good job, and it seems to be one of the few areas where they think regulation kills jobs.

        1. UI creates lots of jobs!!!

          /Pelosi

        2. That’s my favorite part of the Texas abortion law that Wendy Davis was filibustering. All it did was ban abortions after the 20th week and require abortion clinics to adhere to the same regulations as other medical practitioners who provide surgeries.

          If this type of regulation ruins abortion clinics, shouldn’t progressives be in favor of ending those regulations on all other surgery providers as well? It’s okay for surgeons who remove someone’s appendix to suffer under these regulations but not an abortion provider?

          1. Wasn’t it also requiring doctors to perform abortions — that might be the CA or NY proposals. They wanted PAs or Nurses to do the abortions.

            Hmm, so that’s the ticket, liberal abortion laws create jobs for nurses and PAs…

        3. S&W could sell fetus killing guns to abortionists, CA would love them.

    2. Ha ! You retarded TeaThuglican.

      All cool people know that government regulations CREATE jobs. Just like Obamacare. Pelosi told us that Obamacare would create 400,000 jobs immediately.

      She just failed to mention that it would be in IT repair and navigators.

  4. Nevada and Arizona should really take out open letters in the SF Chron to thank the state government of California for all of the tax revenue.

    1. Yeah, as Rick Perry has shown it’s real easy to get under Ol’ Governor Dickhead’s skin when another state brags about poaching California business.

  5. diamond-coated files are a good choice

    There’s a reason we like you, JD.

    1. Serious question: Wouldn’t a nice dremel tool with sandpaper be the appropriate thing to use here? This ain’t taking the rust off your chainsaw blade, its far smaller.

      1. The files I have, which of course I would NEVER use for this purpose, are only a few mm wide. Much better control than a Dremel.

        1. I too would never do this. Of course, all my guns were lost in a tragic boating accident.

      2. I’m sure one of these babies would do the job nicely. You have a wife now, Brett, you’re allowed to go to Sephora.

        1. Yes, but I have a wife now, so I can’t afford to go to Sephora.

          1. Don’t blame Nikki for knocking up your now-wife. πŸ˜‰

            1. I’m totally not the one who hit her with a bus.

  6. Look, nobody is trying to take away your guns. They’re just trying to make it impossible for you to own one in the first place.

    1. Just be glad they haven’t microstamped you yet.

      1. How do you know they haven’t? Do you have some sort of microscope fetish?

        1. Micropenis fetish

          1. It makes way more sense why you hang around here now.

          2. No one wants to hear about your freakishly large clitoris, nicole. Well, maybe NutraSweet does. He has a thing for that.

            1. Can we have one thread where we don’t discuss vaginal architecture at length?

              I’m asking because I hope the answer is “no”.

              1. Can you even learn what a vagina is??? I mean seriously. The clitoris isn’t part of it.

                1. Men are talking.

                  1. Doesn’t her freakishly large clitoris sort of make her an honorary man? I mean, she’d still be the worst man, but at least she’d be taken seriously.

                    1. HALF MAN! HALF MAN! HALF MAN! HALF MAN! HALF MAN! HALF MAN! HALF MAN! HALF MAN! HALF MAN!

                    2. Uh oh, NutraSweet is flashing back to high school. Someone get the Thorazine!

                    3. Wait, I thought Hugh was the worst man?

          3. I don’t talk about you guys when you’re not here.

            1. You might want to start. You need to catch up.

            2. They are never not here.

    2. Look, nobody is trying to take away your guns.

      If you** like your guns, you can keep your guns.

      ** With ‘you’ being defined as ‘me’.

      1. “I”, dammit!

        1. English is descriptive, not prescriptive.

          1. In America, it’s proscriptive.

  7. The classical progressive idea that technology and science, properly used by Top Men, can make society better or safer or more just, is like a walking zombie that will never die no matter how many bullets you put into its sorry, ugly skull.

    It’s also easily defeated by the clever expedient of swapping out firing pins or other easily replaced parts. Or just filing down the stamp

    Rule 1 of legislating behavior: No stupid law can ever anticipate or successfully deter the basic ingenuity of pissed-off citizens.

    1. 3D metal printers will “solve” the ballistics fingerprint, too. So basically killing with guns is going to get pretty hard to prove when anyone can afford the services of a custom gunsmithing shop.

    2. “The classical progressive idea that technology and science, properly used by Top Men, can make society better or safer or more just, is like a walking zombie that will never die no matter how many bullets you put into its sorry, ugly skull.”

      Indeed, just ask the Krell.

      1. Or….

        The classical progressive idea that technology and science, properly used by Top Men, can make society better or safer or more just…

        Don’t get me wrong – I’m not discounting the left believes technology and knowledge somehow makes things different now, but the left has been planning this trajectory for centuries, long before our current technological revolution & they will continue long after the technology of today seem quaint.

    3. It’s even easier to defeat by a criminal who possesses a gun that isn’t registered and therefore can’t be traced to him.

      “Aha! A spent cartridge case! With microstamping! Who is responsible for this nefarious deed?”
      “That gun was stolen from the city police department.”
      “Oops.”

      1. The price of the firearms California governments buy for themselves will increase.

        I wonder how many firearms companies have gone unpaid/underpaid by the state of Illinois.

    4. The classical progressive idea that technology and science, properly used by Top Men, can make society better or safer or more just, is like a walking zombie that will never die no matter how many bullets you put into its sorry, ugly skull.

      Progressives are awesome because their arguments are completely inconsistent.

      On the one hand, technology is going to usher in a mystical socialist future in which everyone is equal and evil capitalists have been driven from the land.

      On the other hand, technology will lead to unbounded unemployment and a top 1% that controls all the robots and turns America into a slave state.

    5. It wasn’t that long ago that people were killing each other with bludgeons, blades, and untraceable metal balls.

      1. Assault envelopes, too.

        Obviously, we need envelope control.

        1. Damn, I was hoping that he died from a wicked paper cut.

      2. And we still kill more people with hammers than are killed by “assault” weapons.

        Microstamped hammers are next, because you know the po-po needs that kind of CSI info to find some guy with bloody hands and hammer.

  8. Hasn’t every scheme, from ballistics registries to microstamping, pretty much completely failed to be useful or even solve even one crime? Such as the Canadian registry that was supposed to cost two million and ended up costing two billion?

    1. Yep. But lawmakers and liberals watch a lot of police procedurals like CSI and NCIS where those things work all the time, so why not legislate based on fiction?

      1. I propose a law that states that everything bad is illegal. Sounds good on paper!

        1. Illegal for everyone? Or just illegal for those who aren’t given special exemptions by a panel of credentialed experts?

      2. So what you’re telling me is we need to make lawmakers and liberals watch more porn, that way the regulators who come to inspect your operations will be busty and DTF?

    2. And then we scrapped it.

      Mind you, that registry was for long-guns (“non-restricted” in Canadian legalese), but “restricted” (handguns and short-barrelled rifles) are still registered and that registry lives on.

  9. Didn’t Chicago get slapped down for saying you couldn’t own a gun w/o training, then shut down any range that could provide training for environmental (lead) reasons?

    1. They didn’t shut them down after; ranges had been banned in Chicago since long before you could even have a handgun (again).

  10. diamond-coated files are a good choice

    I get the impression that we are being encouraged to partake in a little civil disobedience.

    I approve this message.

    1. Epi, like FoE, beats me to my own quote.

      :p

  11. S&W can still sell its revolving pistols in California

    *waits under bridge*

  12. Is micro-stamping even a practical reality? I thought it was still basically a Mike Bloomberg wet dream.

    1. New York and California are recipients of the Bloomberg Bukake.

  13. S&W can still sell its revolving pistols in California

    *waits under bridge*

  14. Let me guess. Cops exempt?

    1. I would love for some companies to just flat out refuse to sell to cops, what a message it could send.

      1. Barrett has done that for several years now. First to California and later to NY.

        http://barrett.net/news/11

    2. Yup. State LEOs can buy off roster stuff all the time. Interestingly, Governor-in-Waiting Kamala Harris has claimed that federal officials are not exempt from the roster. http://www.examiner.com/articl…..andgun-law

  15. Damn, I was lookin’ at one of these for going backpacking in the Sierras:

    http://www.smith-wesson.com/we…..rrorView_Y

    It was gonna be California compliant, too!

    I guess Sacramento realized the restrictions were insufficient to drive manufacturers right out of the state, so they had to up the ante.

    1. Speaking of backpack cannons.

      Although, I’d have to practice a lot to actually hit anything firing .460 out of a 3″ barrel at a range where it would do me any good.

      1. If you’re worried about grizzly bears, that cannon might be effective, but I don’t think a black bear needs anything that big.

        I suspect pepper spray might be as effective as anything with a black bear, and black bears is all they have in California on the trails.

        I had a bear encounter last summer in Tahoe, actually. I snuck up on him accidentally. He was up in a tree, and came running down it as nimble as a cat. Stopped short about 20 feet from me, realized I didn’t have any food, and split.

        When I’m in the Sierras, it isn’t the bears I’m worried about. There are a lot of growers out there, and while most of them just want you to leave them alone, in picking season, it does draw undesirables from all over the country into the back country.

        The trails have lots of hippies, yuppies, and families, too. I’m just sayin’.

        1. Honestly, unless loud noises scare them away, they have nothing to fear from me were I to carry that gun. I’d be luckier than a cop hitting a perp.

          1. Damnit! I blew a snot bubble on that one and hadn’t known I was stuffed up.

        2. so what would you recommend to take down a hippie, the LC round?

      2. sweet

      3. If they’re close enough that fleeing isn’t an option, they’re close enough that accuracy shouldn’t be an issue.

        1. 20 feet is waaay to close to a boar at full charge. I know I come off as a badass here on H&R, but most likely I’d just shit myself and accidentally delope. Hopefully, the sound or the smell will cause whatever is savaging me to desist before I am mortally wounded.

          1. Ditto. Boar at full charge? I want to drop it at long range. I mean like making a long distance call to someone nearby pick up the corpse.

  16. Smith & Wesson representatives didn’t respond to queries as to whether they would follow in the footsteps of gunmakers like Barrett and also refuse sales to law enforcement agencies in jurisdictions that effectively try to disarm private citizens. Such a move might actually get officials’ attention.

    I’m doubting that on S&W’s part. Those of us who follow these things remember S&W’s “compliance” with the clinton administration which led to what was a rare but truly effective boycott of Smith and Wesson. My guess is S&W wants those Lore Enforcement contracts.

    1. Well, S&W is under new management due to their near commercial failure following that boneheaded decision.

      1. Did they actually change management after that? Huh, I wasn’t aware of that.

  17. What happens if I buy a noncompliant gun in Utah or Nevada and then take it into California?

    California has handgun registration, no? Can foreign guns be registered?

    1. Fullerton PD inbound with a couple of officers freshly back on the job after a paid leave of absence.

    2. As I understand it, you have like 30 days to declare your guns to the local Sheriff. If they’re not compliant, you’re supposed to turn them in or remove them from the state. I may be getting some of this wrong as I only heard about it from a friend who moved to CA about two years ago.

      1. So the practical result of this is noncompliant guns are still in CA but never registered. Very good then.

    3. What happens if I buy a noncompliant gun in Utah or Nevada and then take it into California?

      You will then have a gun to enjoy?

      California has handgun registration, no? Can foreign guns be registered?

      Just don’t tell the bastards, unless you LIKE having it confiscated a few years from now.

  18. maybe it’s me, but I like companies telling states “no, fuck you; we will not comply with these asinine rules” and going about their business.

    1. maybe it’s me, but I like companies telling states “no, fuck you; we will not comply with these asinine rules” and going about their business [elsewhere]

      Fixed. The question is, do the state regulators/legislators care? Does Colorado or CT care that they’ve lost manufacturing and jobs as a direct result? Anything been repealed or reversed?

      1. The people of Colorado cared enough to boot multiple senators who voted for this.

        They essentially ended any further anti-gun movements in that state because the senators realized they’d lose their jobs.

        1. One really good thing about the gun crowd is they pay attention and vote on the issue.

      2. They would care if gun companies stood together and stopped supplying their cops with weapons.

        If you’re really going to boycott a state, then that includes their law enforcement too.

  19. Are Cali police departments now required to turn in all existing service sidearms and re-arm with Microstamp-approved pistols?

    I’d think this would matter to firearms makers even more than the civilian regulations.

    1. [I’d think this would matter to firearms makers even more than the civilian regulations.]

      Actually the police and military market is miniscule compared to civilian sales. Of course a lot of gun-control types don’t understand that.

      1. “the police and military market is miniscule compared to civilian sales”

        I’m aware of that.

        I’m just curious whether the Microstamping boondoggle translates into at least some windfall for any manufacturer who aims to replace the CA police armory.

        it could also be they’re not switching cops over *at all*. In which case I think its also interesting.

  20. I admit that I live in this state, although it pains me in moments like this to say so.

    I just bought a Ruger GP100 revolver, which is exempt. Kind of makes me sad I didn’t go for a 9MM, instead, and wait on the revolver.

  21. Bill De Blasio backs Cuomo’s comments about conservatives not being welcome in New York.

    This is so hilarious. They’re going to drive out all the wealthy Republicans and be left with an urban core that consists entirely of Lena Dunhams and poor people.

    Between this and the allegations that he used snowplows to exact political vengeance, I’m wondering how many wealthy people are actually going to be left in New York by the end of De Blasio’s tenure.

    1. That’s just the race to the bottom in action. We clearly need to build a wall around Manhattan Island to prevent anyone from going out.

      1. That won’t stop Snake Plissken!

        1. Plissken?! I thought he was dead.

    2. We’ll see how long his rhetoric lasts. Wealthy people in NYC aren’t toothless. Also, trying to fuck the UES with no snowplows seems…odd, considering the UWS is full of rich people too. Central Park West alone is chock full of full-floor mansions and the like.

      He’s probably just serious blowhard who likes to hear himself talk. I predict that this shit goes away quietly pretty soon. We’ll see.

      1. I don’t. He seems like a true believer.

        This isn’t a hack demagogue slumming for votes. It’s an ex-Sandinista supporter attempting to realize progressive utopia.

        1. And he has an entire city council to deal with. He might keep this up but I predict that even if he tries, it will get blunted by connected elements within the city. Even “progressive” rich people in NYC get sick of inconvenience or annoyances. Case in point: all the homeless and beggars disappearing under Giuliani. No one said a peep, because they were all secretly relieved.

          Just because idiots in NYC fashionably assume the progressive mantle doesn’t mean that their own comfort and convenience don’t come first.

          1. Isn’t tne City Council in NYC even further to the left than DeBlasio?

            1. When you get down to it, using terms like “left” and “right” don’t really apply. Sure, De Blasio is using leftist rhetoric, but that’s just his shtick. Powerful politicians in NYC are much more aptly described as power-hungry statist asshole scum who border on the fascistic. They don’t really have any political philosophy other than “I want more power”. Intra-NYC political battles are brutal and vicious, and it’s best when the politicians are completely occupied with that, because then they tend to leave the peons alone.

            2. The city council is pretty toothless and useless. Mostly they are there to do photo ops and toot their own horns about how much good they’re doing for their communities, while leaving all the actual governing business to the mayor.

    3. This is so hilarious. They’re going to drive out all the wealthy Republicans and be left with an urban core that consists entirely of Lena Dunhams and poor people.

      Unfortunately that’s not true. Michael Moore has had trouble with that Republican Stereotype, oscillating between “All republicans are rich” and “The only reason you have a Republican friend is so he can come over and fix your car” and other related trailer park remarks about rural poor hick Republicans.

      In the Northeast, a lot of the rich people are progressives, Democrats and the like. There are some that are still Registered as Republicans, but think Rockefeller Republicans. The Blue blood conservatives always hated Reagan.

      Even in the West, go into your wealthiest neighborhoods, Obama signs all over the place.

      Yes, there are rich republicans, but New York can survive just fine without them. Michael Bloomberg agrees.

      1. Republicans are middle class with much greater frequency than Democrats.

        It’s true that the hyper-wealthy are frequently progs, but the ultra-poor are also usually Democrats.

        You can’t have a state in which the middle class flees leaving nothing but rich progressives and urban welfare recipients. Those are essentially the two groups voting heavily Democrat in New York.

        We’ve already seen this play in California. What we ended up with was a state with incredible wealth concentrated in very small areas and massive amounts of ossified poverty and unemployment.

        1. It’s true that the hyper-wealthy are frequently progs, but the ultra-poor are also usually Democrats.

          With this I heartily agree. It’s the reason Democrats are so jumpy about the income gap. They’re ground zero for the extremely rich and extremely poor.

          You can’t have a state in which the middle class flees leaving nothing but rich progressives and urban welfare recipients.

          This is true, but Democrats keep barking “social contract!”. So they can social contract up.

          Republicans should be happy to leave from where I stand.

          1. The prog richy riches will leave because of taxes, or structure their finances so NYC taxes are out of reach.

            Like SF, NYC (and maybe the rest of dying upstate) will become a playground for rich people who fly in for fashion week, maybe have an apartment there and a huge mass of government sponsored indigents. No in-between.

        2. Whats going to happen to those wealthy Democrats in New York when it finally goes the way of Detroit, and the poor Democrats decide to take it upon themselves to start spreading the wealth?

          1. The rich Democrats will then leave and continue voting Democrat in whatever area they go. They will then ruin that area and swarm like locusts into the next.

            1. See also: Colorado, Oregon, etc.

              1. Oregon isn’t as bad as most prog-states. I wouldn’t want to live there due to taxes and certainly wouldn’t want to live in one of the prog-infested cities, but Oregon Democrats at least managed to put Ron Wyden into office.

                I don’t hate the kind of leftist who is still willing to fight for civil liberties. I disagree with them but think enough common ground exists for us to have reasonable debates. It’s the New York/California progressive that is the real parasite.

      2. Even in the West, go into your wealthiest neighborhoods, Obama signs all over the place.

        My experience with running for political office in Hawaii is that wealthy people tend to be Republican by about a 60/40 to 70/30 ratio, depending on ethnicity and whatnot.

    4. As long as they keep the anti-rich rhetoric to just talk then there probably a lot of rich liberals in New York who will join in.

      But on the other hand the government better get the snow off of the rich peoples streets or there will be trouble in government land.

    5. Anyone else seem to notice that the progressives are making no effort to hide their true colors anymore? They’re not even trying to pretend they’re not fascists anymore.

      I guess it’s good that more people can see what they really are, but it kind of worries me that they feel so emboldened.

      1. I suspect they’re emboldened because they’ve moved so far outside reality they no longer have any perspective on what the public will tolerate.

      2. They’re emboldened because their echo chambers have become so complete that the more extreme rhetoric goes completely unchallenged. They don’t know anyone or read anyone who goes “hey, dude, you’re sort of acting like a fascist and totally opposite of what you say you’re for”.

        Which, in my opinion, is actually good, because it’s a sure recipe for destruction.

        1. I think it is that and they sense things slipping away. They are not going insane out of a sense of strength. They are going for everything they can because they know there isn’t much time left before the public finally gets wise and kicks their sorry asses out of power.

      3. It’s because there was a quiet war within the democratic party which probably started in the late eighties, early nineties and the left progressives won, effectively marginalizing the classic liberals. I’m serious. Someone should do an article.

        1. That’s why I love when people write articles about the horrible extreme Republicans and the noble moderate Republicans who are having a civil war.

          The reason there is no such civil war in the Democratic party is because there are no moderate Democrats. The lack of a civil war in the Democratic party is not a sign that they are ‘centrist’ it’s proof of how far tot he left they’ve gotten.

          1. Very true. You would think there would be a lot more disagreement amongst a group of people that consider themselves “free thinkers”, and non-idealogically driven, but there isn’t.

            Look at the comments on leftist websites. They all think they’re intelligent, independent thinking people, but all speak in almost lockstep. It’s really kind of funny.

          2. But there was a civil war in the Democratic party, but it was quiet and not reported on because the media is generally liberal/democrat and those things are sometimes hard to see from the inside.

            That’s why the media always reports on Republican infighting, but never reports on Democrat infighting.

            I also believe that the civil war that took place in Democratic circles was deeply ideological, and somewhat generational. So it was a slow, internal transformation that took years to manifest itself.

            If you’re unfortunate enough to have lived through the last several administrations, you can see the shift.

            You can track the shift away from civil liberties like the first amendment, drugs, self-determination, and see the slow shift towards a kind of insidious social-contract patriotism. The slow creep of National Service, responsible speech, hate speech, what you put in your body suddenly does matter- medical matters no longer a ‘private matter’ but a matter of public concern, the embrace of executive power, the affection for benevolent dictatorships and non-democratic executive action.

            1. Yeah, but if there was a civil war it’s long over.

              I also think the Republican civil war is largely generational, just like the Democrats’ was. Young Republicans tend to be more libertarian than their elders. The irony is that the Republican civil war is actually making the Republican party better, despite what the media is arguing. It’s making the Republicans less warlike, more pro-gay, and more pro-legalization. There’s a greater civil liberties strain in the Republican party today than there is in the Democratic party.

              The Democratic infighting, on the other hand, made the party much worse. They went from being good on some things and bad on others to becoming crypto-fascists who despise freedom and individual rights in whatever form they may take.

              1. I think you’re right about the Republican civil war being largely generational. I remember years back an author who wrote a book called “South Park Conservatives”, and basically explained that young conservatives tended to have very libertarian views, much like the show South Park.

                The civil war we are witnessing in the Republican Party is probably just these younger Republicans getting older, and starting to vote in larger numbers, and as a result pushing the GOP more towards Libertarianism.

                It’s a very good sign, demographics is destiny, and if the young Republicans are libertarian then the future of the Republican party is libertarian.

                I expect the older GOP types to fight tooth & nail to hold on to their waning power, and in do so cause a lot of problems for the party, but eventually they’ll go the way of the dinosaurs.

          3. I know some “moderate Democrats” pols who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. They are forced to be so when holding local or county office, since their tax and spend policies have a direct impact on their constituents. But the moment they seek state or federal office, the fiscal constraints come off because they can now get “others” to pay for goodies in their district.

  22. Bill De Blasio backs Cuomo’s comments about conservatives not being welcome in New York.

    I wonder how Cuomo keeps his head from splitting in two from simultaneously crawling on bended knee after those evil anti-tax conservative job creators on the one hand, and vowing to purge them on the other?

    1. I’m sure Cuomo sees those “tax-free” zones as another tool to ue to benefit preferred “job creators” and punish those who aren’t preferred.

  23. I suspect pepper spray might be as effective as anything with a black bear, and black bears is all they have in California on the trails.

    There are a lot of very knowledgeable people out here who will tell you bear spray is a better choice than a handgun (even a BIG one) if you cross paths with a grizzly.

    1. Yeah, I’ve heard tell bringing down a bear (esp Grizz) with a gun is no sure thing.

      Scary fucking animals, they are…

    2. I think all methods of bringing down a Grizzly depend on the totality of circumstances.

      I would personally not want to let an angry, sprinting grizzly get within range of spray. A truly raging, sprinting grizzly will probably have enough momentum to get sprayed and continue through it with an initial attack before he becomes overwhelmed. And given the number of stories of people having the top of their skulls taken off by one (1) swipe of a grizzly paw, I’m sticking to my firearms, and maybe bear spray in addition.

      On the other hand, a Grizzly that just gets dangerously close and is looking for an easy meal, I would agree that spray is probably very effective.

      1. The old joke is-

        An effective way to ward off bears is to wear small bells on your clothes and to carry pepper spray.

        In the wild you are likely to encounter two types of bears. Black Bears are generally non-aggressive and smaller, weighing up to 600 lbs. Their tracks tend to be about the size of your hand. Their scat will be in small piles and consist of berries and vegetable matter.

        Grizzly bears are generally larger and more aggressive. They can weigh up to 12-1500 lbs. Their tracks are larger, about the size of a grown man’s foot. Their scat will be in large clumps and is easily identified by the peppery smell and the presence of little bells…

  24. This makes me love Smith and Wesson more. I will have to add another of their products to my collection. My 686 (well, my wife’s – it was a Christmas present – with her name engraved on it) is my favorite handgun. Smooth as silk.

    Been lookin’ for a 1911 – maybe my first one is S&W instead of Kimber…

  25. Both my Assemblyman AND my State Senator voted AYE on this fecetious (sic) bill (AB 169 of 2013-2014). Coincidentally, they are having a legislative open house tonight just a couple of blocks from my house. I had thought about skipping it, but now I’m not so sure.

    1. By the way, Clint Eastwood lives “just down the road” in the Monterey area. He ought to show up to this event, this evening, to lament the effective departure of Smith & Wesson from the California market. That is, unless this once self-described libertarian actually SUPPORTS the idiotic gun control law in question. πŸ˜‰

    2. They must have wanted to drive manufacturers like S&W out of the state.

      This might be a great time to ask them if they know anything about 3-D printing.

      1. Believe me, they are fully aware of 3-D printing. Senator DeLeon D,has proposed legislation to outlaw “invisible guns.”

        1. I’d love to hear what they say in their real time response to James Anderson Merritt asking them about it.

  26. All that California legislators are doing is driving the firearms industry into the hands of criminals. Think: Drug Cartels.
    The old axiom applies more now than ever: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

  27. Sure… Microstamp all you want CA. Any half intelligent criminal mastermind already knows that revolvers do not leave shell casings at crime scenes.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.