Quote: username111 Originally Posted by I don't see any company, including glock, following their lead. Angering the buyers in 49 states to allow you to maybe get a new gun on your roster seems like a surefire way to earn a boycott. Not even a glock fanboy would tolerate that.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk



Quote: madoka Originally Posted by Pena v. Cid is up for consideration later this year. It's our best shot at getting rid of the roster. One of our strongest arguments is how the roster requirements are impossible for semi-autos to fill.







This is NOT a good thing.



Maybe you guys are right and Im wrong, but outrage never lasts very long and Im sure there are plenty of companies that would love to sell more guns in California.



Im sure that Big 5 and Springfield Armory are doing just fine after all the outrage they caused recently.



As Pena v Cid, Im sure the court will find that our Second Amendment rights are not being infringed because there are plenty of pistols available for us to purchase.



But really, what do I know? Hopefully this case goes our way for once.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Maybe you guys are right and Im wrong, but outrage never lasts very long and Im sure there are plenty of companies that would love to sell more guns in California.Im sure that Big 5 and Springfield Armory are doing just fine after all the outrage they caused recently.As Pena v Cid, Im sure the court will find that our Second Amendment rights are not being infringed because there are plenty of pistols available for us to purchase.But really, what do I know? Hopefully this case goes our way for once.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk