will gun manufacturers change for California market

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by robertusa123, Sep 18, 2013.

  1. robertusa123

    robertusa123 New Member

    348
    0
    0
    Will it looks like semi auto rifles with deatchable magazine will be outlawed. Will gun manufactures. Change for that market. Would like to start seeing tub fed and internal magazine semi rifles. Or will they let that market go because any new rifles will shortly also be outlawed after coming to market
     
  2. genesaika

    genesaika New Member

    81
    0
    0
    I'd say that it would be a lot of money to waste on such a small portion of their client base. It would make better business sense to spend that money on improving the current product that the majority of potential buyers will be looking at.

    Will they make some accommodations? Sure, but I doubt it will be any kind of big push and many manufacturers won't bother.
     

  3. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    They may modify rifles so the magazines cannot be removed. Has the idiots considered or banned "Stripper" clips. These are Damn fast.:)
     
  4. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    It'll be just like Massachusetts. Manufacturers will slowly get fed up and write California off. It'll start with less options being available due to the extra cost involved. California will continue to pass bs laws that cost manufacturers more time and money and eventually they will just walk.
    Just like Massachusetts.
     
  5. robertusa123

    robertusa123 New Member

    348
    0
    0
    Seen the small market argument before so hears some number. Their are 38 million people in California. That's a about 12% of the us population. Thats no small market. Wander how hard it would to make a matlin60 in 38 SPL or 357
     
  6. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,828
    150
    63
    What percentage are firearms enthusiasts?
     
  7. genesaika

    genesaika New Member

    81
    0
    0
    The problem isn't the number of people in California, but the number of people in California buying firearms, specifically semi auto rifles. That cuts the numbers down drastically.
     
  8. FrontierTCB

    FrontierTCB Active Member

    1,146
    4
    38
    Exactly. I would assume that more people in Cali. are into medical marijuana than semi auto rifles.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2013
  9. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    The ownership of firearms is low compared to the population. There were 600,000 legal transfer in 2012 with 5,000 denials. Polls show 61% of California voters are in favor of more restrictive laws. :(
     
  10. Rick1967

    Rick1967 Well-Known Member

    4,991
    48
    48
    Bingo.....
     
  11. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    So you're basically talking about Maybe 3% of the population when It's all said and done. Kiss atleast one percent goodbye when they see the jump in prices.
    The manufacturers will look at that and weigh it against the extra costs to manufacture ca models as well as the time lost for retooling during which they could be selling to more profitable states and they'll say the same thing I do.
    Fu#* California.
     
  12. vincent

    vincent New Member

    4,123
    0
    0
    Ronnie Barrett changed his business by telling CA to go fu*k themselves...just sayin'...:cool:
     
  13. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,828
    150
    63
    He's not selling in California.
     
  14. FullautoUSA

    FullautoUSA Welcoming Committee/ Resident Pellet Gunner Lifetime Supporter

    2,627
    1
    0
    In mass the only guns that have that trouble are with handguns, right? Rifles don't have to go through the same consumer safety process like handguns, right? as long as a rifle doesn't have more than 2 features its fine. And there are still tons of companies that are really good about MA compliance.
     
  15. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    Yes. But we miss out on alot of guns. Both handguns and rifles. Many manufactures have written the state off. You can't blame them. It's costs in the area of $10k-$30k just to do the testing and the attorney generals office can still tell you to go screw. Also if any change is made you have to start all over, whether it is a trigger change or just a different color.
    I can get a gp100 but can't get the Wiley clapp. Pisses me off.
     
  16. vincent

    vincent New Member

    4,123
    0
    0
    AFIK...:cool:
     
  17. vincent

    vincent New Member

    4,123
    0
    0
    Isn't it a sad state of affairs when a firearm enthusiast has to know stuff like this??? :(:mad:

    Saving a place at the table for ya MM...hurry the hell up...yer suppers' gettin' cold!! ;)
     
  18. aruiz42

    aruiz42 New Member

    36
    0
    0
    I saw that PSA made a California AR 15 ... It has no detachable mag it's blocked off... Guess you have to shoot one by one... Sucks
     
  19. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,828
    150
    63
    I think it has an internal magazine that can be loaded by separating the upper and lower.
     
  20. JW357

    JW357 New Member

    6,716
    1
    0
    This state is such BS.


    Honestly if I owned a gun company, or really anything involving firearms, I would tell the state to go piss off and I wouldn't offer a single product here.

    If every single company did this, sure it would suck or the gun owners here a LOT, but it would be a big middle finger to the state legislature. And they would lose a lot of revenue. Not to mention, if all firearms companies did this, eventually it would get so bad here for gun people that a huge number would pack up and leave.

    Thousands of good citizens and their money with them would be gone.

    Of course, on the flip side, Kalifornia would just make up for this by granting citizenship to all illegals. :mad:

    F*ck this state.