S&W STICK BY THEIR GUNS

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • bhdpal

    Member
    Jan 3, 2013
    60
    Smith & Wesson says it won't follow California 'microstamping' law!
    By Kate Mather
    January 23, 2014, 3:22 p.m.

    Gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson refused Thursday to comply with California's controversial "microstamping" law, causing more of its products to fall off the state's permissible firearms list and be ineligible for sale.

    In a two-page statement on its website, Smith & Wesson criticized Assembly Bill 1471, which requires new or redesigned semiautomatic weapons to carry microstamping technology, imprinting its make, model and serial number onto shell casings when a bullet is fired.

    Though the law was passed in 2007, language in the legislation stipulated it would go into effect when the necessary technology was widely available. It was not enacted until May 2013.

    Critics argue that the technology is flawed. In its statement, Smith & Wesson said "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."

    "Smith & Wesson does not and will not include microstamping in its firearms," the statement said. "The microstamping mandate and the company's unwillingness to adopt this so-called technology will result in a diminishing number of Smith & Wesson semiautomatic pistols available for purchase by California residents."

    The company is not the first to take such action. The National Shooting Sports Foundation — which has sued the state over the law — said gun manufacturer Sturm, Ruger & Co. would also allow its products to fall off California's list of guns allowable for sale.

    "We are working hard to serve our customers in California and will do all we can to fight this draconian law," read a Ruger statement posted on the foundation's website.

    When the bill was passed in 2007, dozens of police chiefs, public officials and anti-violence groups voiced support, saying that it would help police more easily trace bullets and solve crimes. The National Rifle Assn. opposed the measure, along with other gun rights groups and manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson.

    James Debney, Smith & Wesson's president and CEO, said in a statement Thursday that his company's fight against the measure was ongoing.
    "We will continue to work with the NRA and the NSSF to oppose this poorly conceived law," he said.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...ng-law-20140123,0,7131958.story#ixzz2syUiaeVt
     

    amoebicmagician

    Samopal Goblin
    Dec 26, 2012
    4,174
    Columbia, MD
    Haven't been a fan of smith for a few years. Well, that's inaccurate. I'll always love Smiths made before a certain time. However, I respect this immensely.

    Just one more thing that makes me admire Ruger as everything an American company should be.
     

    Lemon328i

    Member
    Mar 21, 2010
    35
    A very telling feature of any anti-gun rights zealots approach to legislation is when they specifically exclude law enforcement firearms. If "micro-stamping" is supposed to solve crimes by allowing complete traceability, isn't that equally "useful" for law enforcement?
    If they won't apply it to law enforcement (who are all "civilians"), then they should not apply it at all.
     

    VWTurbo

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 18, 2010
    2,835
    Perry Hall
    A very telling feature of any anti-gun rights zealots approach to legislation is when they specifically exclude law enforcement firearms. If "micro-stamping" is supposed to solve crimes by allowing complete traceability, isn't that equally "useful" for law enforcement?
    If they won't apply it to law enforcement (who are all "civilians"), then they should not apply it at all.

    How else will we know who shot the dog :):lol2:
    No panties were bunched in the making of this post, please keep it that way. just a joke
     

    Hollywood Ball

    Mountaineer
    Aug 26, 2013
    3,049
    NC WV
    I hate the reporting on this crap. These companies aren't "allowing" their pistols to be dropped from the rosters. They are getting kicked off the roster because they physically can't meet a pie-in-the-sky requirement being put forth by CA.
     

    blindnoodle

    Livin' the dream!
    Apr 21, 2009
    1,416
    I hate the reporting on this crap. These companies aren't "allowing" their pistols to be dropped from the rosters. They are getting kicked off the roster because they physically can't meet a pie-in-the-sky requirement being put forth by CA.

    The could if they wanted to. They're just telling the state to f off. Same thing is done by many manufacturers of firearms who also make "banned" or "restricted" parts because of their characteristics.

    It's freedom of business.
     

    tony b

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 20, 2012
    1,512
    Joppa
    they are trying to price us out if they can't ban us out. Good for the companies that won't fall in line.
     

    gmkoh

    Active Member
    Feb 26, 2013
    327
    Annapolis
    A very telling feature of any anti-gun rights zealots approach to legislation is when they specifically exclude law enforcement firearms. If "micro-stamping" is supposed to solve crimes by allowing complete traceability, isn't that equally "useful" for law enforcement?
    If they won't apply it to law enforcement (who are all "civilians"), then they should not apply it at all.

    Don't forget firearms stolen from law enforcement. Didn't a LEO (I can't remember from which jurisdiction) just report that his handgun and an AR rifle were stolen from the trunk of his unmarked vehicle parked in front of his house last week?. He parked on Thursday night, when he went to go to work on Friday, the door and trunk were ajar.

    And a TSA trailer full of ammo and if I remember correctly some FA's was broken into in the parking lot of a hotel a couple months ago.

    1) This would then make law enforcement firearms a more desirable target
    2) This would prevent departments from selling old firearms to help offset the cost of new ones
    3) Would LEO's still be able to keep their personal FA's after they retire if they were not microstamped? (Don't some departments allow that?)
    3) Is storage in a car considered adequate for LEO carried FA's?
     

    DoubleTap007

    Active Member
    Mar 18, 2011
    913
    BelAir, MD
    Micro-stamping is effective as serial numbers on guns, both can be filed off, so it does nothing to solve anything.

    I would imagine that this microstamping is done by either the shell and the firing pin, or the breach face. Either way, 30 seconds with a dremel and all gone (if your going to commit a crime with it anyway).
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,587
    Messages
    7,287,561
    Members
    33,482
    Latest member
    Claude

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom