Why no love for restricted states?

[pizzamike]

touche.

Except look at the gun industry in prohibition countries that dont have or nearly have the private gun market we do. Mfgs are shooting themselves in their own foot by catering to ban states.

If I was a manufacturer I wouldn't even mess/give attention to extreme leftist states. That includes LE and military. If the civilians don't "rate" to own it than neither does anyone else.

But money matters most and corrupts the majority.

 

[shibbershabber]

Primary, secondary and tertiary plans. I'm set.

Thanks though.

Thats all well and good... I "got mine already" too, and then some...

But what about everyone else? Our kids & grandkids

Thats the real target. They don't want to disarm us so much as they want to kill the culture so subsequent generations just aren't interested and will further erode the 2A until we are no better than EU states.

 

[L84Cabo]

The magazine restrictions/bans are all unconstitutional and will ultimately fall. Bruen will put the nails in the coffin for this nonsense. Heller should have...but that's a whole other kettle of ducks. It is, however, going to take some time for the legal challenges to make their way through the court system. Fortunately there are major mag ban cases that already well in the works like Duncan v. Bonta.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Bruen will put the nails in the coffin for this nonsense. Heller should have...but that's a whole other kettle of ducks.

Wish I have your confidence. Whats to stop States from simply ignoring SCOTUS and claiming SCOTUS decisions illegitimate?

Also. Repeating this again.

3 Justices anti 2A. Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor

2 Justices 2A supportive. Alito and Thomas.

2 Justices maybe 2A supportive, Gorsuch and Barrett

2 Justices maybe not 2A supportive. Kavanaugh and Roberts.

Roberts have shown tendency to side with the 3 anti2A Justices.

Barrett has not really established herself as pro2A.

Kavanaugh's opinions indicate that he may also be a swing vote.

All the 3 Anti2A Justices need are to get at least 2 Justices to side with them, be it Roberts + either Kavanaugh or Barret (or both) to make a majority Anti2A decision..

Edit but the 2 Pro2A needs at least 3 Justices, if can't get 4 (Barret, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Roberts) to side with them for 2A.

 

[L84Cabo]

Wish I have your confidence. Whats to stop States from simply ignoring SCOTUS and claiming SCOTUS decisions illegitimate?

Also. Repeating this again.

3 Justices anti 2A. Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor

2 Justices 2A supportive. Alito and Thomas.

2 Justices maybe 2A supportive, Gorsuch and Barrett

2 Justices maybe not 2A supportive. Kavanaugh and Roberts.

Roberts have shown tendency to side with the 3 anti2A Justices.

Barrett has not really established herself as pro2A.

Kavanaugh's opinions indicate that he may also be a swing vote.

All the 3 Anti2A Justices need are to get at least 2 Justices to side with them, be it Roberts + either Kavanaugh or Barret (or both) to make a majority Anti2A decision..

Edit but the 2 Pro2A needs at least 3 Justices, if can't get 4 (Barret, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Roberts) to side with them for 2A.

To be clear, states are already well into ignoring SCOTUS. That's happening in Blue states and Blue controlled district courts across the country. The strategy seems to be to stall, obfuscate, and delay in any manner possible to hopefully allow time for one of the conservative justices to retire, get hit by a bus, etc., and be replaced with a...hopefully...left leaning justice.

And taking all the emotion and frustration out of all of this, it's going to be interesting to see how SCOTUS ultimately handles this. They are well aware that some of the "inferior" courts are deliberately and intentionally crapping all over their ruling. And by accounts, they're not very happy about this which is good for our side. But the Justices know they have a problem.

With that said, and while I share your general assessment of the justices, the court has already decided Bruen. And it's going to be VERY hard for them to uphold magazine bans/capacity restrictions given the Bruen decision. The magazine issue is at its core a gun ban case...which has already been decided by Heller and affirmed in Bruen. Fundamentally the act of banning hi cap mags or restricting magazine capacity is a ban on an entire class of weapons...That is any and all weapons that fire more than, say, ten rounds. There is no way for the justices that decided Bruen to support magazine bans without completely contradicting their ruling in Bruen...and the previous ruling in Heller. And while I can totally see the left leaning justices giving a middle finger to Heller and Bruen, I don't believe the other six will, as I think they have more integrity than that. Unlike the lefties.

I could be wrong here, of course.

But none of this is to say that it will be easy. The left leaning state and district courts will continue to ignore the ruling until SCOTUS does something about it. SCOTUS, however, has the final say. So a district court could rule (corruptly) and ban hi cap magazines...but SCOTUS could then overturn it on appeal and there's nothing that the state/district courts could after that. This all takes time, of course, to play out. Which gets back to the interesting element of this, to see if SCOTUS will do anything to try and spank the lower courts in some broad manner as opposed to spanking them on a case by case basis.

 

[Yarome]

.... nearly half the people in this country live in magazine restricted states. Why then so few manufacturers offer 10 rd versions of their products?

I think that's quite a gross overstatement. Only a tiny fraction of states actually have any kind of mag capacity restriction. Most of which have only been put in place in very recent years and, as legal challenges continue, it's likely anticipated they may have a limited life.

I think it mostly boils down to the numbers. MFG's are, after all, in business to turn a profit. If there is not a significant enough amount of impact against their bottom line that outweighs the cost of new tooling to implement a completely new product line... it's not going to happen. After all, we're not talking about simply retooling a machine with a limited capability set. Introducing a new production process would require all new machinery for that process. Factoring in as well things like the floorspace required, component and end product storage, geographic specific shipping logistics, etc etc.

Large scale mfg'ing... the logistics and costs for any new product can get mind boggling, are generally slow to react to micro changes in the market and require a long term return on investment. If those changes are anticipated to be "short term", the prospect of a return on investment is pretty grim.

I don't know if the SKU argument flies, but I will say... it's not so simple as just adding in a single new SKU per firearm model. IE. If you offer one model of firearm with 20 different variations, changing a baseline element affects all 20 SKU's. Effectively doubling them. Imagine what effect that would have on production run scheduling as well. I don't know what managing a SKU system entails or what the limitations might be, but I do know it "may" be some kind of factor. IE., A friend of mine is one of the higher ups in the regional Kroger offices. He's mentioned before that they often discontinue stocking some products to make room for new products... because their system can't support that many SKU's.

I'm not really sure what that means though.

I'm sure there are some ethical factors considered as well. I mean... an argument can be made that by not kowtowing to infringing states... and if people want their products... then it does incentivize 2A supports to get off their duffs and affect change within their state. Right(?)

We see that a little with some companies refusing to make their products available to places like Kalifederation. Or... allowing some of their firearm models to fall off the KA register. Of course, that could just be that particular model not generating enough revenue to warrant paying KA to keep it on the registry, too.

My own feeling is that instead of blaming the firearm industry for not making infringement compliant products, the onus should be on those that support the 2A to affect change.

Just sayin....

 

[pizzamike]

Thats all well and good... I "got mine already" too, and then some...

But what about everyone else? Our kids & grandkids

Thats the real target. They don't want to disarm us so much as they want to kill the culture so subsequent generations just aren't interested and will further erode the 2A until we are no better than EU states.

It's our responsibility to pass it down. A responsibility I take seriously.

I don't rely on the government.

Complaining on the internet goes pretty far as well……

 

[shibbershabber]

It's our responsibility to pass it down. A responsibility I take seriously.

I don't rely on the government.

Complaining on the internet goes pretty far as well……

Youre missing my point. But its not worth arguing since we are on the same side here

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I will be passin' out a salt shaker for all here , to take with my post.

I ain't no retail genius or marketing mogul....
However , it seems to me...that whole point of a business is to make a profit.
If there ain't no profit in dealing with certain states...for whatever reason...then may be best to write 'em off and deal with the states and places that stand to make the most profit.

If this sounds like to you who are reading this...that I think that some firearm businesses are only out for the dough...
And not as pro-2nd Amendment / firearm owner friendly as I might wish...then you would be right...that is what I think.

In any event...I can't say for sure why some firearm companies do as they do.
Andy

 

[Sxsnuf]

All you have to do is buy the pistol, sans magazines, and go to Cabela's for the reduced capacity variety. The had NOTHING over 10 Rd when I was there. Or, maybe the manufacturers know all these restrictions will be shot down in flames by SCOTUS? (Insert sarcasm here) Then we'll all be bathing in standard capacity magazines, and nobody will want the puny 10 rounders.

 

[Yarome]

.....manufacturers know all these restrictions will be shot down in flames by SCOTUS? (Insert sarcasm here) Then we'll all be bathing in standard capacity magazines, and nobody will want the puny 10 rounders.

That would be very understandable reasoning, IMHO. By the letter of the law capacity bans cannot survive. With all the woke activist judges that may not be the reality of it, but if you're a company looking at investing multi millions into new product production that is likely not to going to have a long term return on investment, it would be a pretty poor allocation of resources to try and satisfy a short term demand that only affects a small fraction of your market share.

Instead, introduce a new product/s to energize new sales revenue in unaffected states that will offset short term sales losses while litigation is pending... and... have a long term return on investment no matter which way the capacity ban issue lands.

If I were a new firearm owner, I would be hedging my bets too. Basically, only purchasing firearms with mags that I know to be easily restorable to standard capacity.

 

[po18guy]

Back door gun control. Make the market such a Swiss cheese of regulations that the guns simply will not be sold. This has the effect of insolvency among some smaller makers, thus doubling the left's effectiveness.

 

[shibbershabber]

theres not a lot of R&D needed to make a 15rnd mag into a 10rnd mag

All these mfgs did it for 10+ years not so long ago...

Throw us a bone. Hell look how much PSA pumped into making a bubbleguming Stg44... Or the HCAR... Or FG42... Lots of cool stuff out there thats just for funsies.

How about a scaled down M1 Garand type rifle that uses a 10rnd 5.56 enbloc?

Or a revised SKS, since SKS is only name banned and not feature banned. Fixed mag fed by stippers... Come on!

Mini 14/30 without the shroud


People would buy this bubblegum because its cool, not just the guys behind enemy lines.

bubblegum, before the ban. Id love to have a 10rnd 5.56 tanker Garand... But no... PSA builds an Stg44 in a caliber that no one makes. Cool, give a 40rnd mag full of ammo that either has to be handloaded or costs more than precision rifle rounds...

Make something practical that pushes right up to the limits of the ban and you'll sell thousands...

 

[spookshack]

I just saw on Sig's site that they have a 10rd Xmacro mag now available. That's a positive…..

 

[Andy54Hawken]

It may simply be a CYA kinda thing.

Washington's dumbazz firearm laws are poorly written and open to debate as to what certain terms mean....
So...perhaps rather than risk legal trouble some firearm companies just make firearms and other related items as they wish...and not made to specifications for restricted states.
Andy

 

[TTSX]

With Washington making up very roughly 2% of the population in this country, it's pretty easy to see why firearms companies might be willing to write it off completely. A lot of R&D and legal liability for 2% of your potential customer base, not guaranteed, sounds like a whole lotta squeeze for very little juice

 

[ivan_drago]

With Washington making up very roughly 2% of the population in this country, it's pretty easy to see why firearms companies might be willing to write it off completely. A lot of R&D and legal liability for 2% of your potential customer base, not guaranteed, sounds like a whole lotta squeeze for very little juice

If you only talk about WA, that's right 2%. But population of all of the magazine restricted states (excluding CA and MA) is 80 million. That's almost the population of Germany. And more states will swing that way before it gets better.

 

[ivan_drago]

All you have to do is buy the pistol, sans magazines, and go to Cabela's for the reduced capacity variety. The had NOTHING over 10 Rd when I was there. Or, maybe the manufacturers know all these restrictions will be shot down in flames by SCOTUS? (Insert sarcasm here) Then we'll all be bathing in standard capacity magazines, and nobody will want the puny 10 rounders.

Not all the sellers on GB want to exclude magazines when shipping to WA. And for some models 10 rd magazines simply don't exist. Springfield 10mm being the prime example.

 

[PommyB]

We have a chain of Pawn Shops in the Spokane area that does a lot of firearms sales, probably the most in the area. Apparently they are allowed to modify full-capacity magazines to ten rounds, & the method that I've seen used is to put a pop rivet into the rear of the magazine that limits the travel of the follower so no more than ten rounds can be inserted. A friend bought a Springfield 9mm Hi-Power not too long ago, & another guy at the range bought a S&W .40 of some description, both with such a magazine modification. If the rivet is removed, the magazine reverts to being a full-capacity one so it's not a permanent mod.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Doesnt look like that many states have bans, and Id also guess that half of those that do are "may issue" where nobody can get a carry permit anyways.
View attachment 1841637

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/magazine-limits-what-are-they-and-which-states-have-them/

Not to put too fine a point on it, but California is better thought of as a "may not issue" jurisdiction.

Unless you are some famous anti-gun celebrity's bodyguard.