- Apr 8, 2013
- Behind Enemy Lines
I'm sure that the total cost of this CA nonsense is something well over the $200/gun fee. Still, I find it hard to believe that this was a purely economic decision on Ruger's part.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.
Ruger annual sales are what now? Something approaching three quarters of a billion dollars at last check. A good chunk of that has got to be coming from Kalifornia sales. It's a big state after all... and not everyone out there is a screaming liberal moonbat.
And while you say that they will still have rifles, shotguns and (presumably) revolvers for sale out there... that has still got to be a lot of money lost. And what about the consumer "piss-off" factor? If folks can't buy semi-autos by Ruger's own decision... maybe they won't buy Ruger's rifles, shotguns or revolvers either?
No, something else is up with this. I'm not sure what, but it can't be just pure economics.