Re: NRA sponsors legislation to repeal California AB962 ammo restrictions

Matt wrote:
On Oct 20, 5:00 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
@comcast.net> wrote:
Matt <matttel...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:59859b27-d6f6-4e81-b6eb-507516ce2751@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:





On Oct 20, 12:55 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
@comcast.net> wrote:
Matt <matttel...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:fd4be767-458c-4b65-9eb8-49f87d
162...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Oct 19, 5:01 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
@comcast.net> wrote:
Matt <matttel...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:787d108b-9c1a-48fe-9086-d18428
986...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Oct 19, 10:53 am, "Scout"
<me4g...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:09 am, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
@comcast.net> wrote:
Matt <matttel...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:27410a18-8a8e-4946-821e-db90ee8da567@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
egr oup s.c
om:

On Oct 18, 3:46 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
@comcast.net> wrote:
"Tom S." <tmsw...@xxxxxxx> wrote
innews:7cadnUCPjqRUG0bXnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@
giganews.com:

Jim Yanik wrote:
"ron" <rand...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:flGCm.350$KA5.335@xxxxxxxxxxxx:

I wrote "Arnie" with my thoughts on his signing of the
fingerprint requirement.

I reminded him that the state is hopeessly in debt,
can't get unemployment under control but has time to
pass this inane legislation and then for him to sign
it. I also told him this was indicative of the many
reasons I sold and moved out of the state.

What a nightmare and cost to foist off on ammo buyers
and retailers. course the idea is to stop it (sales),
which this will

Ron in Idaho

NO dealer or distributor should sell any ammo in
California,including to the State and local governments
themselves,until AB962 is repealed. A total boycott of
ammo shipments to CA.

Ronnie Barrett (of Barret 50 cal fame) refuses(ed?) to
sell his rifles to the state of California while they had
a ban on 50 cal sales to civilians.

Or to fix any owned by the State of California.

Works for me.

Oddly, I'm betting that there just might be people that
will do the job
and drive the NRA out of business. But that's just me. I
think the NRA should boycott EVERY state that has any gun
control. Stop being hypocrites. Refuse all money from
anyone that lives in NY, CA, or any other state with ANY
gun control.

Be honest, or be accused of being a hypocrite.

Huh? Are you saying that no one in NY, CA, etc.. should be
able to join
the NRA?

Yep. After all, they voted the pols into office, did they
not? So, the NRA
is being hypocritical by allowing members in those states to
join. Makes as
much sense as boycotting fixing any weapons there.

Please present your evidence that the people who voted for the
current politicios are those who are members of the NRA.

I don't have any, nor would I make the claim. The point was,
boycotting an
entire state for a product that you SOLD them and now refuse to
back up is
the same as refusing to allow people in the state to join
because the state
has policies you disagree with. It makes no sense.

Barrett won't sell to those agencies either so it isn't a case of
selling them a product *then* refusing to service it. He told
them up front th
at
if they did not allow civilian sales on his firearms (which are
perfectly legal firearms, BTW) that he would no longer sell or
service his wares to their law enforcement agencies. THEN
Californi
a
passed the ban on sale
s
to civilians. The state knew upfront. You need to learn more abo
ut
about happened.

Fair enough, that isn't what I had gleaned from the original
thread. He has every right not to sell to anyone he chooses, I
have no problem with that.

Actually, he did both but only after warning them up front. He
refuses to sell them any weapons and he refuses to service them.
That includes any of the few that they already had.

Not selling them any weapons is his business, as I've said.

Not servicing an item that you have sold, on the other hand, is
wrong. If that
was his contract, he's in violation and should be sued.

He was under no contract other than to supply them with weapons
which he
said he would no longer do if they banned sales of his rifles to the
citizens. California knew upfront what he was going to do.

That might be. However, you do realize that this is an unenforceable
clause
to a contract.

Says you. What I see is Mr. Barrett refusing to do any business with any of
that state's government agencies.
So far I've yet to see anyone force him to do otherwise.


The legal ramifications will be significant, I think.

Yep, no other state has banned his rifle since he's proven himself to be a
man of his word and his company will refuse to sell or support any product
of his to any government agency of such a state.

Hawaii considered it, and chose not to pass the measure.


.

Relevant Pages