Pulling out of Cali
Bond Arms will no longer do business in California because some new law there states that guns cause cancer. This from the supposed science crowd.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 29th, 2018 at 5:55 pm
California would have been their biggest market, I’m guessing (it is for us), and so they’re taking a big hit with a decision like that. I’m not sure who it is supposed to inconvenience, other than some innocent, pro-2A, would-be customers.
What would it prove if I refused to sell in CA? It would disappoint a lot of customers, and beyond that it wouldn’t do squat as far as I can see, except make the antis cheer for having bitten me in the pocketbook and deprived others of my products.
Should someone be “punished” because their state government is out of control? Don’t the few remaining liberty-loving Californians have it bad enough there already?
What am I missing here, that I should be getting? I couldn’t read the whole post because none of my computers play well with Facefuck. All I can see is the new labeling “requirement” caused them to cancel sales in the state. So what’s so hard about putting a label in your gun box saying “WARNING!!!! California state bureaucrat/douchebags have decided that guns cause cancer!!!!” All you’re doing there is indicting the assumed “law-makers”. Thousands of companies have been doing that for decades already. Nor will cancelling sales today prevent you from being sued when someone with one of your guns gets cancer 20 years from now.
August 29th, 2018 at 5:59 pm
“Nor will cancelling sales today prevent you from being sued when someone with one of your guns gets cancer 20 years from now.”
Quite the oposite; your rolling over and folding will be used as “proof” that you knew you were selling cancer-causing product. See how this works?
August 30th, 2018 at 5:08 am
Just about everything sold in California is labeled with the warning about cancer causing materials. The requirement for cancer labeling there is worse than the safety label regulations at Ruger.
Eventually, the state WILL try to extort money from, or control sales of, “cancer-causing” items, because those accepting the labeling requirements are admitting to selling cancer-causing items. Why participate in an obvious entrapment?
August 30th, 2018 at 8:57 am
Prop 65 isn’t new; it dates back to 1986.
The issue is twofold:
* California is alters the list of “substances” that require the Prop 65 warnings whenever they feel like it, which is generally pretty often.
* The requirement isn’t just that the warning has to be on the product, it’s that it has to be on EVERYTHING even tangentially associated with the product. So if something needs the Prop 65 warning, you need to have the warning on the product packaging, in the product manual, and practically all over any advertising material — on this last, say you manufacture cast bullets: Your 1-page price sheet would turn into a 3-6 page price sheet once you put in all the Prop 65 warnings. Sell something requiring Prop 65 labeling online? You’d better have that warning show up on EVERY SINGLE PAGE in the checkout process, including any associated popups, and EVERY step of the checkout process.
Fail to put a Prop 65 warning somewhere that CA thinks you needed one? That’ll be $2500 in “fines” per day per violation.
A business local to me manufactures cast bullets, and their answer was simply to say “Due to Prop 65 warning requirements, we can no longer offer our bullets for sale in California through our website at this time.” — they use a third-party service to host their website, so they don’t have the level of control necessary to ensure that it stays Prop 65 compliant. I gather that their plan is to change their standard labeling to state “This product not for sale in California” and to create California-specific labeling to handle phone orders.
As for the calls for the firearm industry to ditch California:
* California accounts for more than 12% of the U.S. population; It’s too big of a market for the firearm industry to just ignore it.
* Ignoring states with hostile laws isn’t a healthy long-term strategy: Continuing to serve those markets as best they can be served acts to slow their decent into antigun madness, which in turn helps control the spread of that madness to other states.