Geissele Automatics is Dead to Me
BY Herschel Smith
1 month, 2 weeks ago
Anyone from Geissele can drop by and correct this post if it is mistaken. In fact, if mistaken, I’ll correct the record with another post and laud their commitment to the second amendment.
But what this press release doesn’t say is that if Geissele can’t do business with everyone in California, they won’t do business with law enforcement either.
One day firearms manufacturers are going to have to buckle down and begin making moral decisions concerning their commitment to the second amendment, and liberty versus tyranny and the almighty dollar.
They are dead to me. So, too, with any other manufacturer who makes the same decision they did.
|
|
On December 29, 2025 at 5:31 am, Joe Blow said:
Always did like Bill Ruger for standing up. Wish more companies were like that.
On December 29, 2025 at 10:08 am, george 1 said:
Dead to me as well. If LEO sales are their only priority then so be it.
On December 29, 2025 at 10:26 am, Mangey C said:
If I recall, B. Ruger was against multiple rounds in a firearm. I think his maximum for citizens was 10 but I could be mistaken on that.
Maybe G will reverse course on this issue as humans do make mistakes.
MC
On December 29, 2025 at 10:46 am, xtphreak said:
@Mangey C
“…”The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining ‘assault rifle’ and ‘semi-automatic rifles’ is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives.”
William B. Ruger
Open Letter To Congress 30MAR1989
Have a Good Day
On December 29, 2025 at 10:54 am, xtphreak said:
Continued from above:
In the effort to provide transparency, I located the citation, but am unable to download the American Handgunner issue that contains the letter.
Still searching.
On December 29, 2025 at 10:56 am, Michael Giilson said:
I think you are confusing Ruger with Barrett.
On December 29, 2025 at 11:14 am, xtphreak said:
There’s lots of citations that credit that letter to Ruger, strikes me as odd it’s not recoverable online.
There’s also the “infamous” 1992 Tom Brokaw interview where he is credited with telling Tom “…No honest man needs more than 10 rounds on any gun…”.
Again, I can’t locate a clip or the transcript or the whole interview.
Strange.
But,
I do remember the uproar when he made his statements, he also stopped selling anything bigger than 10 td mags for the Mini, except to LEOs.
I don’t recall Barrett doing that, but since my google-fu is warmed up, I’m a-searching.
Have a Good Day
On December 29, 2025 at 11:21 am, xtphreak said:
Ronnie Barrett has a letter published on his company website dealing with the ban on .50BMG rifles in CA.
Here’s the pertinent quote (to me):
“…Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers. Therefore, since California’s passing of AB 50, the state is not in compliance with the US Constitution’s 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we will not sell nor service any of our products to any Government agency of the State of California. …”
Have a Good Day
On December 29, 2025 at 1:59 pm, KXRF said:
I have mixed feelings on this – Geissele leaving the state, both for citizens and LEOs is controversial but I think they and Barrett have it right. Most of the onerous gun control legislation passes because exceptions carved out for current and/or retired LEO and some military.
I think those carve outs are a devil’s bargain.
On December 29, 2025 at 2:37 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@KXRF,
How does Geiselle have it right if they are leaving the state for all citizens EXCEPT the carveout for LEOs?
On December 29, 2025 at 8:45 pm, X said:
Every. Single. Manufacturer. does this. Every one. The gun industry is not very big, and profit margins are not all that great, either (How much does Glock actually make on a Blue Label sale?)
Is it the job of Bill Geissele to sue California, spend his profits on legal fees, and then ultimately lose? Or is it his job to sell triggers to any customer legally able to buy them?
Far and away the government in one form or another is the biggest and most reliable customer. And what the government does is control people by threat of armed force, and, failing that, kill them.
The manufacturers will ALWAYS knuckle under to the government. They will ALWAYS follow the gun laws, no matter how restrictive. And those laws always have exemptions for the cops and the military. Always.
A VERY large part of the arms industry — perhaps the largest and most profitable part — is selling shit to the government that YOU are forbidden to have. Can you just walk into your local gun shop and buy a Claymore? A TOW missile? An M67 grenade? An F-35? Maybe you should be able to, but you can’t.
I do not like this at all, but I do not see a solution here. I would LOVE nothing more than for the cops in every single gun-control state to be restricted by the exact same laws that the citizens have to follow. But there is no way the gun industry is going to enforce that.
If the gun industry were to collude to deny sales to restrictive states (willfully reducing their own profits) they would get sued by the DOJ under the anti-trust laws. And if by some act of God they were successful in denying sales to restrictive governments, the government could create its own gun industry — as it did for over 150 years with Springfield Armory.
This is a very serious question. Ultimately the answer is that we no longer live in a republic of free and independent armed citizens, we live under the bootheel of an imperial Leviathan, and we don’t have any gun “rights,” we have privileges that vary from one state to the next depending upon party control. As California is a left-wing one party state, its goal is complete disarmament except for the cops. Same thing for New York and Massachusetts and Illinois. The gun industry cannot change that existential fact.
On December 30, 2025 at 2:43 pm, MTHead said:
As a private corporation they should be able to pull out of CA. But as you say it should be a total pullout. Not a sell out to the communists.
Which is the real problem here and everywhere in the west.
Communist insurrection.
On December 30, 2025 at 9:17 pm, 777a2 said:
As someone with an inside source, I can understand the frustration and scrutiny, but I think a lot is being taken out of context here. They are not ceasing sales to CA customers. They’re just not selling direct through their website. It says on their website that they are supporting Primary Arms to sell to CA residents. They are a manufacturer and don’t have the same resources as a huge E-commerce company like PA. Why would they invest in all the additional compliance requirements (like ID verification at purchase for one), when they can work with a huge company that is equipped to handle those logistics? It says in their letter to dealers that was published that they simply now require all dealers to have approval from them to ship to CA.
With such egregiously absurd restrictions now in place, if you were running a manufacturing company, would any of you not elect to use a third party vendor that had more robust logistics to handle the new laws and also limit liability to nonsense lawsuits, instead of investing a lot of unnecessary resources to do it yourself?
My question to anyone who is claiming the company turned its back on CA customers is- does it really affect your ability to get Geissele product if you have to buy it from one of the most popular 2A websites online?
Also, regarding LE sales, I happen to know that many gun manufacturers work through third party companies to sell to departments anyway (especially in restricted states like CA). So how is that different than selling through Primary Arms or a vendor network to civilians?
I know the state of things sucks with these laws, and they will have negative ripple effects in other states unfortunately. But is the choice to limit sales through vetted companies really the same as turning their back? Would you do any different if it were your business? Or is it just easier to take out frustration on American manufactures that have to make the best of horrible laws passed? Would it be better for Geissele and other companies to risk breaking absurd laws and get embroiled in lawsuits? Would that help the 2A cause? And if Geissele abandoned sales to all of CA, would people really be happy?
On December 31, 2025 at 1:59 pm, X said:
Right. I believe that the California law allows suits against manufacturers if a product is used criminally. Of course Geissele can’t ignore that. It is also my understanding that certain restricted components like barrels must be purchased through a licensed dealer and require a background check (and de facto registration with the state).
That’s obnoxious to the Second Amendment, but the manufacturers do not have the power to change it. The Supreme Court does. They probably won’t.
On December 31, 2025 at 5:28 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@777a2 and X,
You’re both utterly missing the point.
“Would you do any different if it were your business? Or is it just easier to take out frustration on American manufactures that have to make the best of horrible laws passed? Would it be better for Geissele and other companies to risk breaking absurd laws and get embroiled in lawsuits?”
Yes, I would do differently. I’m not speaking to selling parts. I’m speaking to whether firearms are provided to LE in California.
Ronnie Barrett found it within himself to make that decision. If citizens cannot purchase his guns, he wouldn’t sell to LEOs (who are also just citizens).
That’s what I would do, even if it hurt my business. But for whatever reason, I highly doubt that Ca will run Geisselle out of business either way.
This isn’t a hard question or decision. The question was whether they would continue to do business with LE in Ca. The decision can be yes, or the decision can be no, we will be like Ronnie Barrett.
There’s a lot of prose above in the comments that puts up a lot of smoke to hide the real question and decision. It’s all easy and short.
On December 31, 2025 at 8:49 pm, X said:
Ronnie Barrett is a good guy and I applaud what I did. But I suspect that the number of California LE agencies using Barrett .50s is minimal and refusing to sell to them didn’t make much of a dent in his profits. Barrett DOES sell to every branch of the U.S. Military (and presumably to ATF and FBI and other dickhead agencies intent on disarming the public). He supplies dozens of military forces worldwide. Denying a couple of CA cop agencies playing soldier didn’t hurt him a bit.
On January 1, 2026 at 7:12 pm, Herschel Smith said:
“But I suspect that the number of California LE agencies using Barrett .50s is minimal and refusing to sell to them didn’t make much of a dent in his profits.”
Is that what this all comes down to? $$$$$? Are you defending Geissele because they may lose money if they decide not to supply Ca. LEOs?
If that’s your position, then I don’t ever again want to hear anything about Bill Ruger’s advocacy of 10-rnd limits, or S&W agreement to put in the “Hillary Hole” on wheel guns, or anything else like that.
There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between any of this.
On January 4, 2026 at 9:53 am, xtphreak said:
Herschel
I agree with what you said.
Moral ambiguity serves profit, not morals.
The moral thing to do is for G to sever all transactions with CA LE.
Have a Good Day