Ronnie Barrett retaliates against California's AB 50


PDA






Taurus 66
August 8, 2005, 06:27 PM
Did you all read this already? Am I days late or weeks late? or is this something new to the THR club?

http://www.barrettrifles.com/news/ca_outcome.htm

I especially love this part:

"Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers. Therefore, since Californiaís passing of AB 50, the state is not in compliance with the US Constitutionís 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we will not sell nor service any of our products to any Government agency of the State of California."

More companies should do the same with any state that wishes to unlawfully disarm their citizens little by little or with the ban of any particular series of semiautos.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ronnie Barrett retaliates against California's AB 50" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Polishrifleman
August 8, 2005, 06:47 PM
Yep... different thread a while back. I think the thread title was in regards to a marketing ploy or something like that. If I find it I will edit with link.

Cesiumsponge
August 8, 2005, 06:56 PM
I recall hearing a similar position from Barrett, but in slightly different words.

I applaud and respect the man for standing up for what he believes. Now if all other manufactuers would follow his lead, we might be able to talk some sense into an irrationally gunphobic society and resume supply for the demand out there.

Standing Wolf
August 8, 2005, 08:20 PM
More companies should do the same with any state that wishes to unlawfully disarm their citizens little by little or with the ban of any particular series of semiautos.

Yep. Barrett's integrity used to be the norm.

jefnvk
August 8, 2005, 08:53 PM
It'll be interesting to see what happens if a nationwide ban ever takes place, if he will close up shop.

Cesiumsponge
August 8, 2005, 09:08 PM
He'll probably come out with a .499 IYF (in your face) caliber or something similar. I recall there are several .50 BMG alternatives out there already.

Joejojoba111
August 9, 2005, 12:16 AM
I'd also buy the .499 GFY. go...

Taurus 66
August 9, 2005, 01:29 AM
What's to say Barrett cannot produce a larger caliber than the .50 for the law abiding Californians? ... like a .55 or .60?

Marnoot
August 9, 2005, 01:33 AM
What's to say Barrett cannot produce a larger caliber than the .50 for the law abiding Californians? ... like a .55 or .60? I believe anything (excluding shotguns) bigger than .50 in bore diameter is considered a destructive device under NFA or some such, and thus is prohibited under federal law.

Taurus 66
August 9, 2005, 01:47 AM
I believe anything (excluding shotguns) bigger than .50 in bore diameter is considered a destructive device under NFA or some such, and thus is prohibited under federal law.

There are black powder rifles of .62 caliber. And besides, all the gun manufacturers have to do is just what Barrett did with California - stop selling to the federal agencies so long as the government wants to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment rights of its "law abiding citizens". Or is this where the feds can force the companies to service and sell guns to them?

The law's an ass!

Marnoot
August 9, 2005, 01:51 AM
Blackpowder weapons are not considered firearms under relevent statutes. But I agree with your sentiment.

Taurus 66
August 9, 2005, 02:03 AM
And why wouldn't it be? Does it not produce fire? Every time I've ever ignited black powder it produced a fire. Archery equipment is not a firearm. Air guns are not firearms. A flame thrower is a class of firearm. Black powder? Hmmm. :scrutiny:

Marnoot
August 9, 2005, 02:07 AM
I never said the laws made sense! :D But I won't argue with .gov about being able to buy a blackpowder rifle throught the mail without any background checks and other nonsense. :) I don't know if they specifically say that it's not a "firearm." I just know that weapons that fire with blackpowder are not regulated at all compared to cartridge-fired weapons.

El Rojo
August 9, 2005, 02:44 AM
This has been covered in depth. Here is the thread I started about it.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=141634&highlight=barrett+california

Taurus 66
August 9, 2005, 11:21 AM
Yeah but my version is better. :neener:

R.H. Lee
August 9, 2005, 11:32 AM
How many CA law enforcement agencie use the .50, anyway? How much will this hurt them?

jefnvk
August 9, 2005, 11:47 AM
THere are some 'sporting' exemptions to the NFA restrictions on greater thean .50 weapons. .600 & .700 NE for example. And, as mentioned, blackpowder wesapons are not considered firearms.

mack69
August 9, 2005, 02:24 PM
Ronnie Barrett for President!!

Elmer
August 9, 2005, 02:35 PM
Yes, Barrett's phony, feel good, PR move has been covered here in depth.

And many took the hook, bait, line, and sinker.......

But doing phony feel good stuff, pretending that it will have an impact, has got a lot of politicians elected, so maybe the presidential idea might work.....

Taurus 66
August 9, 2005, 03:45 PM
And, as mentioned, blackpowder wesapons are not considered firearms.

Yeah, according to the idiots in DC and some states.

G.W. Bush also believes the minutemen are vigilantes.

He also uses "gooder" in a sentence.

Former president Clinton smoked pot but never inhaled, then never had sexual relations with that woman, then did.

What politician thought potato ended with an "e"? Probably all of them.

Politicians in California wouldn't know the business end from the butt end of a gun even if they shot themselves with it.

It's no surprise the morons running America's show would not look at black powder rifles as firearms. Is there anyone in government with a triple digit IQ?

Justin
August 9, 2005, 04:16 PM
Yes, Barrett's phony, feel good, PR move has been covered here in depth.

And many took the hook, bait, line, and sinker.......

But doing phony feel good stuff, pretending that it will have an impact, has got a lot of politicians elected, so maybe the presidential idea might work.....

Have NY or MA actually passed a ban on .50 BMG yet? Does the ATF or FBI enforce bans on .50's?

And most importantly, who wizzed in your Wheaties this morning? :scrutiny:

MudPuppy
August 9, 2005, 05:57 PM
Exactly.

You can argue what he'd do "if this" or "if that"--but in the real world situation of what ACTUALLY happened, he took a stand. Good for him, it was the right thing to do. Was it good for business? Man, I hope so.

Didn't some people rail on Ruger for rolling over? Now we're going to rail on Barret for taking a stand?

Standing Wolf
August 9, 2005, 06:46 PM
Politicians in California wouldn't know the business end from the butt end of a gun even if they shot themselves with it.

Actually, now that you mention it...

Gewehr98
August 9, 2005, 08:35 PM
It's no surprise the morons running America's show would not look at black powder rifles as firearms. Is there anyone in government with a triple digit IQ?

Perhaps you would like the Guvmint to categorize your cap-and-ball revolver, or flintlock .50 caliber Hawken rifle, as a modern firearm? Y'know, fill out a 4473, background check, and all? :scrutiny:

Yes, Barrett's phony, feel good, PR move has been covered here in depth.

Elmer, what's so phony about not selling .50 caliber Barrett rifles to agencies in **********'s state government? Sounds pretty danged real to me. What are you doing to keep those ********** legislators at bay, hmmm? :rolleyes:

Taurus 66
August 9, 2005, 09:02 PM
Perhaps you would like the Guvmint to categorize your cap-and-ball revolver, or flintlock .50 caliber Hawken rifle, as a modern firearm? Y'know, fill out a 4473, background check, and all?

Number 1, I don't own black powder rifles (AKA airguns in your estimation) and have no desire to. It's just if I have to go through a background check on my long gun, why not those who buy black powder? They spessal?? Number 2, I don't want any varmint guvmint double digit IQ politician or agent man telling me I, as a hard working, law abiding, tax paying citizen, "have no right" to possess a .50 caliber Barrett rifle. I don't need their snot-nosed politics infringing on my rights man! We didn't elect them so that they may oppress us, but that's what's going on!

Senators, those in Congress, the US Supreme Court, know so long as they chew off a little at a time instead of one big bite all at once, we will eventually lose all our Bill of Rights. Eminent Domain, and now California's AB 50? I'm counting the weeks until Albany bans these rifles.

billwiese
August 9, 2005, 09:15 PM
Ronnie Barrett's ban on CA sales/repairs etc is good symbolism and good leadership for others in industry to follow.

Its actual effect is limited, though. I imagine there's maybe only a half-dozen to dozen so 50BMG rifles held by all major Calif PDs, combined.

So the budgetary loss of the cost of a rifle (due to lack of repair/maintenance) is, budgetarily, lost in the noise in large PDs' bookkeeping. It doesn't really affect deployment, etc.

Now, if S&W and Beretta and Glock stopped servicing CA guns, and stopped shipping parts to distribs that sell into CA, that'd be a horse of a different color - much bigger effects...

Bill Wiese
San Jose

Taurus 66
August 9, 2005, 10:19 PM
Now, if S&W and Beretta and Glock stopped servicing CA guns, and stopped shipping parts to distribs that sell into CA, that'd be a horse of a different color - much bigger effects...

I will say it again as I did in my opening statement?

More companies should do the same with any state that wishes to unlawfully disarm their citizens little by little or with the ban of any particular series of semiautos.

Gewehr98
August 9, 2005, 11:11 PM
Number 1, I don't own black powder rifles (AKA airguns in your estimation) and have no desire to. It's just if I have to go through a background check on my long gun, why not those who buy black powder? They spessal??

I don't get the airgun inference, don't know where I said that in any place on this forum.

But blackpowder firearms are indeed "special" (spessal?) in that they are not considered firearms by the ATF. If you want to equate them with crossbows, compound bows, and air rifles for legal purposes, you may indeed make that assumption. Your mistake is thinking that blackpowder firearms should be lumped with modern cartridge firearms. That's more of a sour grapes argument, and bad juju at that. Government firearms legislation is usually a knee-jerk response to some event like the Stockton school yard shooting, Columbine, or gangsters with so much firepower the NFA Act of 1934 came into being. I really can't visualize the Muzzleloading Blackpowder Massacre of 2005 ever happening, or the Crossman Pellet Rifle Revolt of 2006 creating such a public uproar over front-stuffers and airguns that legislation and 4473's come down from on high. And I'm usually a pessimist with such onerous stuff like that, since I have my own FFL license and despise all the extra record-keeping myself.

But I wouldn't finger our blackpowder shooting friends and say they deserve extra scrutiny, that smells of something. :scrutiny:

Marnoot
August 9, 2005, 11:21 PM
It's just if I have to go through a background check on my long gun, why not those who buy black powder? They spessal?? Are you suggesting we take away more rights out of jealousy that the blackpowder folks don't have to jump through the ridiculous hoops we do for modern firearms? Getting upset that the inane laws don't apply to everything *you* think they should is no reason to expand them. We're working against gun control here remember, not expanding it out of jealousy or desire to see blackpowder weapons lumped with more modern ones in the eyes of the law.

Taurus 66
August 9, 2005, 11:28 PM
But I wouldn't finger our blackpowder shooting friends and say they deserve extra scrutiny, that smells of something.

It only smells of this - The laws should be equal across the board for all firearms, and black powder rifles are firearms (maybe not to the especially bright folks at the ATF :rolleyes: ) ... or else (here's the catch) ease up on a lot of the current gun control laws. I vote for the latter. But what good's a vote anyways?

But blackpowder firearms are indeed "special" (spessal?)

Gewehr 98 wrote: Perhaps you would like the Guvmint to categorize your cap-and-ball revolver

(Guvmint?) We can play this game all night if you wish.

Marnoot
August 9, 2005, 11:34 PM
Taurus 66 Said: The laws should be equal across the board for all firearms, and black powder rifles are firearms or else (here's the catch) ease up on a lot of the current gun control laws. I vote for the latter. While I certainly vote for the latter as well, if the choice were between leaving the laws as-is and expanding them to cover blackpowder weapons, I would not under any circumstances support expanding the definition. Taking away more rights because some others have been taken away makes no sense.

Gewehr98 Said:That's more of a sour grapes argument, and bad juju at that. +1

Taurus 66
August 9, 2005, 11:46 PM
I would not under any circumstances support expanding the definition.

Gee, then I guess from what you've carefully read you really have only one choice, don't you? It's to fight for less gun control policies.

Bingo Bango Bongo!

"They get it George!" ;)

Art Eatman
August 9, 2005, 11:50 PM
Amazing how sarcasm can turn a good thread into garbage...

Art

Gewehr98
August 9, 2005, 11:56 PM
I didn't understand the need to rat out the blackpowder folks. I still don't, but I appreciate the extra insight into Taurus66's character.

BTW, Ronnie Barrett, you're OK in my book! If I had the coinage for one of your M-82A1 rifles... ;)

Taurus 66
August 10, 2005, 12:05 AM
You continue taking shots Gewehr 98, don't you? Oh you think you're so clever, but you only outsmart yourself bub. I ask for Art to close this thread immediately before Gewehr gets clever again.

Art Eatman
August 10, 2005, 12:17 AM
To repeat myself, once again: The big problem with the Internet is that there are no facial expressions or other body language to help convey meaning. It's thus real easy to get crosswise over what somebody really meant.

That's why we're always hollering to edit and re-read before posting. Try to make sure that what you mean is what somebody else will see as the meaning.

Hokay?

:), Art

El Rojo
August 10, 2005, 12:32 AM
ou can argue what he'd do "if this" or "if that"--but in the real world situation of what ACTUALLY happened, he took a stand.That is an extremely subjective "stand". I just see Barratt's work more for the PR campaign it is than taking a stand. Sure, it is feel good and it sounds good, but he ain't sticking his head out much. Shoot there are businesses that can do legal business with California and choose not to just so they don't have to hassle with the laws. Sucks for Californians, but that it taking a big bite out of potential profits. That is impressive from a non-Californian perspective. I just ran into one today as I was researching who to send my FFL too. As soon as I said California, he said, "Sorry, can't help you." Give the guys over at GT Distributing (http://www.gtdist.com/Contact.aspx) for not doing any business with anyone in California where firearms are concerned. That is impressive.

Gewehr98
August 10, 2005, 12:47 AM
Sure, it is feel good and it sounds good, but he ain't sticking his head out much.

I see Ronny sticking his head out to the tune of $6500-$7500 for each rifle he doesn't sell in the PRK, or any contracts he might make with PRK law enforcement or state agencies. He didn't divest himself of potential pocket change, as it were.

Granted, it isn't quite the amount of money that, say, Ford would walk away from were they to stop selling police cruisers to the CHP, but the Barrett boycott is more than just a PR stunt from my financial perspective. Heck, I'd be happy if one of the M82A1's originally earmarked for PRK law enforcement was offered at a discount of 50%. (Not likely, but one can certainly wish...) :D

K-Romulus
August 10, 2005, 10:29 AM
On that worthless "GunGuys" website, there is a screed posted that calls Barrett (and also the CA Gun Club that is boycotting CA State LE) a "crybaby who hates law enforcement." :rolleyes:

(If you must: :barf: )
(Edited to remove URL so they don't get traffic they don't deserve. If you want to visit, look for "GunGuys" through Google)

How do you like that! It's like Lockheed Martin telling the Air Force that if they don't let them sell F-16s to whatever eccentric billionaire has the bones to buy one they won't service the government's planes. Or Rocket Launcher manufacturers saying they won't sell them to the U.S.A. until there's one in every pot...take that Chicken! See for folks like me, who really love this country, we realize that we're not going to agree with everything that our government does. But that doesn't mean we show contempt for it. It doesn't mean we endanger police officers by not servicing their gear because they have the stones to disagree with us.

and

Unhappy that the State of California passed a bill calling for the placement of serial numbers on bullets to give police officers another tool to help investigate gun crimes, the fine folks at Folsom could have addressed their concerns in another way. They could have voted for candidates who were against the measure. They could have held a rally opposing the bill. They could have camped out in front of the Capitol making their displeasure known. Never mind that this shooting range doesn't manufacture bullets, which sort of dampens the potential economic impact of the bill on them...it's their right to express their political beliefs. That's what America is all about!

Instead, they did their impersonation of Ronnie Barret and said that if law enforcement was going to have the audacity to try and improve their ability to enforce the law, they were going to grab all their toys and head home to cry. In a letter to the Attorney General of California the president of the club made his message abundantly clear.

and

It's a disturbing trend folks. The same people who wrap their belief that every man, woman, and child should have the constitutional right to drive a tank down main street in the flag subvert the very democratic principles they argue provide that right! For the gun industry to hamstring our fine police officers because they think they know better than cops how crime should be solved isn't just stupid logic...it's border-line treason.

So if you're a real patriot, like Mike, do your part. Don't stand idly by while morons like Ronnie and his chums at the Folsom Shooting Club tell the government to go to hell while trying to pass themselves off as true patriots. True patriots support their country, the laws of the land, its military, and its law enforcement officers whether they agree with them all the time or not. True patriots recognize that if they don't like the direction the country is headed, they can change it. But more importantly, true patriots realize that there is a country chock full o' people who may or may not agree with them. They don't try and blackmail the government to get their way. Too bad the gun lobby has pumped the notion of patriotism so full of buckshot that it's virtually unrecognizable...

Taurus 66
August 10, 2005, 11:32 AM
So if you're a real patriot, like Mike, do your part. Don't stand idly by while morons like Ronnie and his chums at the Folsom Shooting Club tell the government to go to hell while trying to pass themselves off as true patriots. True patriots support their country, the laws of the land, its military, and its law enforcement officers whether they agree with them all the time or not. True patriots recognize that if they don't like the direction the country is headed, they can change it. But more importantly, true patriots realize that there is a country chock full o' people who may or may not agree with them. They don't try and blackmail the government to get their way. Too bad the gun lobby has pumped the notion of patriotism so full of buckshot that it's virtually unrecognizable.

I believe Ronnie is a true patriot AND he has a right to sell OR not to sell to whomever, whenever ... maybe not the wherever anymore, thanks to the fair democracy in the state of California.

True patriots do support the US Constitution, not necessarily the country. If the United States were to slip far away from the current oligarchy and become communist, should everyone play along nicely lest they get labeled as something other than a true patriot? If the country goes to hell, should we simply follow along with the program anyways?

Where is the blackmailing in all of this? I see a boycott, not a blackmail.

El Rojo
August 10, 2005, 11:46 AM
Gewehr98, I disagree. I see Ronny sticking his head out to the tune of $6500-$7500 for each rifle he doesn't sell in the PRK, or any contracts he might make with PRK law enforcement or state agencies. He didn't divest himself of potential pocket change, as it were.The only rifles he can sell in the PRK are to law enforcement. How many law enforcement agencies do you think have a "need" to have a .50 BMG in their inventory? Better yet how many have that kind of change to buy a .50 BMG? Again, Barrett is hardly losing any sales in the PRK because he isn't selling to law enforcement. He lost more sales when they banned the guns for civilian use. He probably made more sales in the six months before the ban went into place then he did in 5 years in California. Hey, good for your Ronnie. Take a stand. Its better than doing nothing. I just choose to look at it objectively, he isn't stick his neck out too far, but farther than anyone else is willing to.

What in the hell is that Gun Guys website? They are the worst website I have ever seen. Their whole critique of Barrett and the gun range is based off of the premise that there is no unalienable right to keep and bear arms for the security of a free state and further that private business has some sort of obligation to support the nanny state. Those guys are morons. They even have an add for www.50caliberterror.com. That there tells me all I need to know. Fools. I can handle the anti's being morons, but these guys claim to be on our side? Lets get a second fools going here.

K-Romulus
August 10, 2005, 12:05 PM
now that GunGuys site will get more traffic than it deserves. Maybe I should remove the link.

It has been around for a few years. Basically, it is a supposed "parody" of activist 2A supporters, but they use sarcasm to push a hard anti-gun-owner agenda. Read their descriptions of the linked news stories on their home page to see what I mean. Their so-called "gun sanity" links are a who's who of firearms-ban proponents. I can't imagine more than a few dozen people a week visiting that website.

El Rojo
August 10, 2005, 12:27 PM
Here is what I just emailed them.

Mike,

You are severely lacking political and Constitutional depth on the issue of Ronnie Barrett and the FSC gun club exercising their rights. First, the Constitution (more specifically the Bill of Rights) recognizes the unalienable rights of man. One of those rights is the right to keep and bear arms. Now it doesn't say to keep and bear arms for hunting, sport shooting, or collection. It says to insure the security of a free state. How do you insure the security of a free state? You sometimes have to fight for it or at least be able to convince the politicians you are willing to fight for it. The Second Amendment is solely about over throwing the government. It might not be popular, it might be a little bit scary, but it is what it is. You can try and twist the well-regulated militia section into meaning the National Guard, but a basic understanding of the meaning of well-regulated (look it up in the dictionary) tells us it means a well-equipped militia and a fundamental aspect of 18th century militia tells you it is the civilian population, not a military force.

Now that we have that established, your idea that banning .50 calibers or using this bullet technology is somehow a great democratic process that guarantees the safety of the citizenry through democracy is absurd. First, we are not a democracy. If we were, no one would have rights and what ever the majority decided, would be the rule of the land. Thankfully we have a Constitution that recognizes the rights of the people and limits the power the government has. So if California or the federal government decides to ban a type of firearms that could be used for legitimate militia activities, that violates our rights as outlined in the Constitution and it is not right. It is a violation of the freedom loving principles this country was founded on.

This leads into your general attitude that private business somehow owes the government and the people something. Again, an absurd socialistic view. Ronnie Barrett does not have to do business with anyone he doesn't want to. I know that goes against the whole utopian ideal of collectivism and that we owe the government because the government gives us authority and power. However, it is consistent with the liberty centered Constitution that we enjoy today. You call it crying and even go so far as to call it treason. That is consistent with your overall socialistic, "big brother knows best" attitude. Barrett can vote and I am sure he does. He can also tell the government if they don't wish to treat all citizens equally, he will refuse to do business with them. That isn't treason, that is consistency and integrity.

So to conclude, it is a patriot's duty to stand up and do what you can against the fingers of oppression and tyranny as they attempt to brush away the liberties and freedom that this country was founded on. Ronnie Barrett did that. The rest of America is doing that by electing more conservatives and letting ineffective legislation like the "assault weapons ban" expire. The only reason you call Ronnie Barrett a cry baby and criticize the NRA because they are getting their way and you are not. You challenge them to try and change the system, but when they take the steps to do so, you criticize them for not going with the flow. You contradict yourself and it appears you are the one doing most of the crying here. I hope some day you can throw off your ill notions that the collective, nanny state knows what is best for its citizens and that you recognize that citizens make the government and control it. Just because a cop thinks it is a good idea to have every bullet serialized doesn't meant he majority of America does. More importantly when you add unnecessary and ineffective restrictions and costs for legitimate business conducted by citizens of a free state, you should oppose it by principle instead of encouraging it by socialistic loyalty to a nanny state.

El Rojo, California

If you enjoyed reading about "Ronnie Barrett retaliates against California's AB 50" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!