Pursuant to California’s 2001 DANGEROUS WEAPONS CONTROL ACT, section12125, paragraph a, I hereby declare that the Caspian Arms pistol receiver(s) I am purchasing will not be sold in California, will not be kept for sale in California, will not be exposed for sale in California or given as a gift or loan within the state of California.They have another affidavit for "Only One" exceptions:
Pursuant to California’s 2001 DANGEROUS WEAPONS CONTROL ACT, Chapter 1.3 Unsafe Handguns, section 12125, subdivision 4, I hereby declare that the Caspian Arms pistol receiver(s) I am purchasing are to be legally transferred to sworn member of Law Enforcement or the Military as described in subdivision 4.The company, of course, can point to California law necessitating these actions. Mr. Licht points to the industry example set by Ronnie Barrett.
Why do they do it? Probably because the business helps keep them in business.
How many others do the same? I don't know. I'm relying on knowledgeable WoG visitors to educate us all.
What should you do about it?
Contact them if you want them to know your views, and/or if you're interested in what they have to say.
4 comments:
someone should tell mr. licht that if he armed the police only with weapons that weren't dangerous, there would be only a bunch of dead police in all these scary, inner-city places he's never been to.
same argument goes for the US military.
a weapon that is not dangerous is useless. so how can a statist aggression-sympathizer be pro-feather-duster and keep on fighting his "good fights?"
I respectfully do not understand Jonathans post above.
What about citizens dead because they can't be armed with the weapons that work? I respect the police but why would Jonathan hold them up as being more worthy than .....me? or him?
The police and the state WORK FOR ME (us). I am no subject. The second amendment has a clear meaning (that is being made clearer to those that do not understand plain english).
If the state seeks to deprive me of my rights then I seek the help of patriots and the businesses I patronize in other states to help set things right.
I do not need my "friends" and companies that profit from my business or my political largess to arm the police to keep me down.
Some things are far more important than a few more sales.
If the police do not support these restrictions on the citizens of the state and the constitution then THEY SHOULD PUT THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTHS ARE AND THEY SHOULD QUIT WORKING FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT IN A TOTALITARIAN STATE AND STOP ENFORCING UNCONSTITUTIONAL TOTALITARIAN LAWS.
I can only assume that all the police in my state (kalifornia) agree with disarming me and agree that they should have weapons I can not have. And so does Caspian Arms.
I say NO! And I say NO to doing business with companies like Caspian Arms that will willingly go along with me being disarmed at the same time they willingly and enthusiastically arm the state against me.
F*** 'em!
Dave Licht
I also do not understand Jonathan's post. WTF are you talking about Jonathan? If I can't have a firearm because it is too "dangerous", then neither should any LEO. I agree with Dave and I am going to look at STI's.
If Caspian gets enough correspondence in protest, change can be affected. Like David said it's all about business. If they lost more business from the other 49 states than they would gain by boot-licking in CA, they would magically find their 'principles' and make the tough call. What a loss for us all that the likes of Ronnie Barrett is a rare find at the helm of a gun manufacturer.
Post a Comment