BREAKING: Ruger to Stop Selling Semis in California?

mikeyp

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
14,148
Likes
27,345
Location
Plymouth
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/robert-farago/breaking-ruger-stop-selling-semis-california/

We have one source for this story: calgunlaws.com. “In perhaps one of the more shocking discoveries at the 2014 SHOT Show, Ruger spokesperson Kevin Reid revealed that Ruger was going to let it’s entire California Semiautomatic pistol roster ‘…drop off…’ the CA Department of Justice Approved Handgun List . . . Ruger has already let some 60+ semiautomatic pistols drop off the approved handgun roster with the rest shortly to follow.” TTAG main man Dan’s on the case. We’ll post a statement here in a few hours. [h/t Mark N.]
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
12,146
Likes
3,057
Location
SC
This is a good development.

Why? Because Ruger handguns are really popular. Now they will no longer be sold in CA (new). Makes a legal case to destroy the "roster" easier since Heller ruled that guns in common use (no one cannot argue that Ruger handguns are not in "common use" due to their inexpensive price and Ruger's sales numbers) cannot be banned and this effectively means the roster (and subsequent requirements to get on said roster) are illegal.

Now the above is a bit simplistic because I am not an attorney. But the fact that I can come up with such a logical sounding legal case above is good. It means there is hope that an attorney such as Alan Gura can now more easily build a case.

Now if other manufacturers do the same, it makes even easier to sue to remove the roster since the roster is now blocking even more guns that cannot be blocked per Heller (common use).
 

Golddiggie

NES Member
Rating - 97.7%
43   1   0
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
14,482
Likes
5,789
Location
Pelham, NH
What needs to happen is for the companies that sell to LEO's in CA to do the same. Include LEO sales in with civilian sales, so leave the state completely. Also make it so that they will no longer service firearms from LEO's within said state. Then expand that to the other moonbat/fudd/nanny-states... Maybe if enough LEO's are denied just as civilians are, things will start to improve.

More likely than not, though, this will only impact the civilian market.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
12,146
Likes
3,057
Location
SC
What needs to happen is for the companies that sell to LEO's in CA to do the same. Include LEO sales in with civilian sales, so leave the state completely. Also make it so that they will no longer service firearms from LEO's within said state. Then expand that to the other moonbat/fudd/nanny-states... Maybe if enough LEO's are denied just as civilians are, things will start to improve.

More likely than not, though, this will only impact the civilian market.

I highly doubt Ruger has very many LEO sales. LEO's seem to want SIGs and M&P's. I've never heard of any department using Ruger handguns.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
1,487
Likes
129
Location
Eastern MA
Since the manufacturer, Ruger, pulled back from selling this style gun, I can't see where it can be challenged. They did it on their own and were not ordered to stop.

They did it because they have to pay for their firearms to be tested to be on the roster, much like in MA. If there were no state restrictions to sale - IE fair use (no AG list), then they would be able to sell to CA.
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
8,611
Likes
1,657
What needs to happen is for the companies that sell to LEO's in CA to do the same. Include LEO sales in with civilian sales, so leave the state completely. Also make it so that they will no longer service firearms from LEO's within said state. Then expand that to the other moonbat/fudd/nanny-states... Maybe if enough LEO's are denied just as civilians are, things will start to improve.

More likely than not, though, this will only impact the civilian market.
I am sure they will make it ok for LEO's to buy guns out of state, or just fund some government made ones maybe
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
4,182
Likes
1,589
Location
SoNH
This is a good development.

Why? Because Ruger handguns are really popular. Now they will no longer be sold in CA (new). Makes a legal case to destroy the "roster" easier since Heller ruled that guns in common use (no one cannot argue that Ruger handguns are not in "common use" due to their inexpensive price and Ruger's sales numbers) cannot be banned and this effectively means the roster (and subsequent requirements to get on said roster) are illegal.

Now the above is a bit simplistic because I am not an attorney. But the fact that I can come up with such a logical sounding legal case above is good. It means there is hope that an attorney such as Alan Gura can now more easily build a case.

Now if other manufacturers do the same, it makes even easier to sue to remove the roster since the roster is now blocking even more guns that cannot be blocked per Heller (common use).
I doubt it. The state could argue the onus was on the manufacturers to comply with state law in order to keep selling their products in CA. Therefore, the state could claim _it_ is not the actor in violation of Heller.
 

yanici

NES Member
Rating - 97.5%
39   1   0
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
11,673
Likes
2,817
Location
N/W of Boston
Mass doesn't require renewal to maintain compliance. Once a gun is on the roster it is on the roster, period.

-Mike

Yeah, but with Ruger that don't mean squat. They decided to pull back their 22 cal. MKIII pistols on their own and labled them not MA compliant.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
12,146
Likes
3,057
Location
SC
Mass doesn't require renewal to maintain compliance. Once a gun is on the roster it is on the roster, period.

-Mike

But if you make any change to the gun, you know such as making change because of a design flaw (like what RUger had to do with the SR9 originally WRT the trigger group) or changing out a mag release, the gun has to be resubmitted. Hell I've heard that changing the part number requires it to be retested...

Besides, now that Ruger has left CA, I can fully see Mass requiring yearly testing for every model on the roster since they will see that doing so got an "icky" gun manufacturer to stop selling guns in the state.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,131
Likes
68,743
Another possibility with this is Ruger may have figured out there's a cost/benefit problem here. The fee is like $200 per model per year, IIRC. If each derivative is counted as a model, for a company like ruger that can probably turn into a 5 figure sum every year, plus whatever they have to pay the lawyer or whoever they have that takes care of all that shit. That means that Ruger in CA starts 50 grand in the hole or something every year. They probably make more than that obviously, but that's still a pretty big hit to take, when they can just abandon the handguns and sell the rifles and shotguns in CA which have considerably less regulatory burden, and likely greater sales.

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
9,144
Likes
2,377
Location
Free 'murica
Yeah, but with Ruger that don't mean squat. They decided to pull back their 22 cal. MKIII pistols on their own and labled them not MA compliant.

IIRC, that was due to mechanical or other design changes, and not merely an "oh shit, lets stop selling this" thing.


Hopefully, Ruger doing this will open up an opportunity to sue CA. Whether Ruger voluntarily stopped paying to be on THE LIST or not, the law has effectively prohibited CA residents from obtaining these firearms, which are undeniably "in common use"
 

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,738
Likes
8,149
Location
Near Framingham
What needs to happen is for the companies that sell to LEO's in CA to do the same. Include LEO sales in with civilian sales, so leave the state completely. Also make it so that they will no longer service firearms from LEO's within said state. Then expand that to the other moonbat/fudd/nanny-states... Maybe if enough LEO's are denied just as civilians are, things will start to improve.

Won't happen, unfortunately. Even if the manufacturers decided not to, some distributor would.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,131
Likes
68,743
But if you make any change to the gun, you know such as making change because of a design flaw (like what RUger had to do with the SR9 originally WRT the trigger group) or changing out a mag release, the gun has to be resubmitted. Hell I've heard that changing the part number requires it to be retested...

Not necessarily. Some of that garbage/problem is caused by the vendor "going full retard" into what their lawyers tell them is the correct thing to do. There's also a fog regarding CMR940, which there is no test for, other than "Sell the gun and see if bad stuff happens".

Besides, now that Ruger has left CA, I can fully see Mass requiring yearly testing for every model on the roster since they will see that doing so got an "icky" gun manufacturer to stop selling guns in the state.

They'd have to change the law itself to make that happen. The testing regimen and all that stuff is codified into MGL. That's not likely happening.

-Mike
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,131
Likes
68,743
Yeah, but with Ruger that don't mean squat. They decided to pull back their 22 cal. MKIII pistols on their own and labled them not MA compliant.

That was Ruger's decision, the state didn't force them do that. The models in question are still on the EOPS roster.

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
1,348
Likes
311
Location
Milford, Ma
Why? Because Ruger handguns are really popular. Now they will no longer be sold in CA (new). Makes a legal case to destroy the "roster" easier since Heller ruled that guns in common use (no one cannot argue that Ruger handguns are not in "common use" due to their inexpensive price and Ruger's sales numbers) cannot be banned and this effectively means the roster (and subsequent requirements to get on said roster) are illegal.
A soon as I read the title of the thread, I was thinking what is the calculated motive behind it. There is some greater plan here at work. I just don't see Ruger cutting off it's nose to spite it's face.

I hate liberals.
Now that's just a dumb @ss comment to make. You know damn well not all liberals hate guns. I for one am married to one.
 

yanici

NES Member
Rating - 97.5%
39   1   0
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
11,673
Likes
2,817
Location
N/W of Boston
That was Ruger's decision, the state didn't force them do that. The models in question are still on the EOPS roster.

-Mike

I understand that, Mike. What I can't get is why Ruger is becoming all Fuddy on us. Their MKIII pistols had all the bells and whistles installed, as far as safety devices goes.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
12,146
Likes
3,057
Location
SC
I understand that, Mike. What I can't get is why Ruger is becoming all Fuddy on us. Their MKIII pistols had all the bells and whistles installed, as far as safety devices goes.

Not bowing down before a government that makes unreasonable restrictions is "fuddy?"

Dafuq?
 

bfm

Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
10,692
Likes
16,707
Location
Somerville
"Ruger has already let some 60+ semiautomatic pistols drop off the approved handgun roster "

Ruger has over 60 semi autos? Are they including distributor exclusives and anything that comes with different colored grips?
 

yanici

NES Member
Rating - 97.5%
39   1   0
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
11,673
Likes
2,817
Location
N/W of Boston
Not bowing down before a government that makes unreasonable restrictions is "fuddy?"

Dafuq?

Maybe Fuddy is not a good choice of words but Ruger seems to be easily coerced into just giving in easily to whatever obstacles, real or imaginary, that may be placed in their way.
 
Top Bottom