this is the standard for a gun maker's response to draconian gun laws...


PDA






carlrodd
August 29, 2006, 01:17 PM
i know the .50 cal ban in california is old news, but i just ran across this fact about Barrett Firearms:


After AB50 was passed, Barrett proceeded to cease sales and service of .50BMG rifles to California law enforcement agencies. An official press release from the owner of Barrett Firearms can be found on the company's website, as follows: "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."

that's backbone, integrity, whatever you want to call it. i'm sure that Barrett made plenty of money of LE in CA at some point. to take a financial hit in the name of the 2nd ammendment, and in the name of their civilian customers is commendable. anybody know of other firearms manufacturers that have refused to lay down for this sort of nonsense?

incidentally, this info came from wikipedia's entry for .50BMG

If you enjoyed reading about "this is the standard for a gun maker's response to draconian gun laws..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
oldfart
August 29, 2006, 01:40 PM
Yeah, Barrett can do that. But expecting Remington or S&W or Any other big gun manufacturer to follow suit is a dream. They couldn't afford to simply cut off a huge block of income.

pax
August 29, 2006, 01:48 PM
oldfart ~

Instead, they'll get nibbled to death by ducks.

pax

Gentlemen, we must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately. -- Ben Franklin

Phetro
August 29, 2006, 01:58 PM
Barrett makes the ultimate in quality--if they made handguns as well as rifles, they'd be my one-stop gunshop brand. Any business that takes such a noble stand deserves every ounce of support we can offer. I'm planning on getting one of their rifles soon. Whew, expensive...but worth every penny.

LAR-15
August 29, 2006, 06:24 PM
Barret M82s are relished in the military/swat/tatical operations/contractor/security communities as THE top of the line 50 BMG rifle.

This isn't some trivial decision even though police use of 50 caliber rifles is still small.

How many 50 BMGs do police departments buy?

Maybe 1, or 2 for special purposes?

LE (except maybe Federal) is just not a big market for 50 caliber rifles.

More companies can and should boycott selling to police departments/ agencies who support gun bans.

Zundfolge
August 29, 2006, 06:49 PM
I really wish Barret made something I wanted (or rather something I wanted that I could afford :p ). I'd love to be able to support the guy.

DWARREN123
August 29, 2006, 07:00 PM
Barrett made a stand, more than most have done, good on Barrett!

Gewehr98
August 29, 2006, 07:15 PM
With his company policy to not support ********** government agencies that own and operate his .50 caliber weapons after they passed AB50.

The question I have is: What's happened since then? Did the ********** DOJ and various ********** law enforcement agencies subsequently sell or otherwise dispose of their now-unsupported .50 caliber Barrett M82 rifles? Things have been somewhat silent since Ronnie's shoe dropped. :confused:

Cromlech
August 29, 2006, 07:16 PM
Wow. That's what I call integrity. :) Thumbs up to Barrett! :D

They may go elsewhere for their fancy new rifles, but at least it may have made them think.

Coronach
August 29, 2006, 07:28 PM
I agree that it is indeed a sign of integrity.

I'm not sure that expecting other major manufacturers to do the same is very reaosnable. Consider that several big makers (Sig, HK, Glock) are not US companies, and as such only give a rat's hindquarters about the 2nd Amendment insofar as it affects their bottom line (to be perfectly fair, there are plenty of US companies that feel the same way). If they had to chose between private sales and government sales, they would probably chose government sales...far more lucrative to them, due to the sheer volume involved. Therefor, they would not only feel no compunction to follow such a boycott, but the presence of such a boycott could only help them.

How? Well, let's say that S&W suddenly grows a spine and decides to withhold weapons from every CA, NJ, IL and NY government agency due to the odious gun laws in those states. What will those government buyers do? Buy from someone else. Let's say that every domestic maker, in a sudden and utterly unforeseen show of solidarity, does the same thing. Who will they buy from then?

A non-domestic maker. Glock, Sig, HK...who not only have merely a passing interest in individual freedom, but who also have a keen interest in keeping the government market- a market that suddenly just blew wide open for them due to the sudden disappearance of several key players. Let's say that the gun-buying public goes ape-feces and refuses to buy any more pistolen from der traitoren...why would they care? They just got a deathgrip on government contracts for the next decade.

I agree that we must hang together or hang separately...but the point is that the non-domestic makers feel no need to hang at all...and so they won't.

Again, though...I fully agree that Barrett has integrity.

Mike

Zundfolge
August 29, 2006, 07:54 PM
So the question is:
What is the larger market; citizens or police departments?

Another question:
Which market is larger; the national citizen market or the California law enforcement market?


I don't know the answer, but I'd love to see someone answer these questions and back them up with real numbers, not just "gut feeling" (because my gut feeling is that MORE guns are sold to individual citizens every year than police departments, and DEFINITELY more sold nation wide to individual citizens than all the police departments of Califorinia combined).

Nathan Williams
August 29, 2006, 08:05 PM
If the gun manufactures were smart they would figure out that Calis insane gun laws = more $ to manufacture guns. This translates to higher customer prices and lower sales. In the short time they will lose money by not selling, or providing service to Cali gov agencies, but if all the manufactures stood together on this issue after a few years or less they could bring Calis LEOs to their knees. This would be enough I think to change a few laws in the state. Hats off to Barret and I am saving up for one of their fine rifles now (just dont tell the wife ;) ).

DKSuddeth
August 29, 2006, 08:29 PM
by exempting police and government agencies, the gun makers (domestic or not) won't need to worry about making guns with the requirements for civilians because nobody will be able to afford them. What you'll end up seeing is alot more 'gifting' or buying out of state and then transporting unregistered guns back to those states.

Coronach
August 29, 2006, 11:42 PM
Zundfolge:

It's not a question of which is the larger market. It is a question of which is a larger market to those companies. As in, the upland game market is pretty big, but I don't see Glock being a major player in it. ;) The companies I mentioned derive a significant portion of their profits from government sales. And, moreover, they derive a significant portion of their sales worldwide from government sales. If they see a bunch of irate civilians in the US but have a solid lock on fat and happy government purchase agencies across the globe, I don't see them risking riling a portion of the latter to try and appease the former.

That said, I fully agree that we need solid numbers to push this from theory to actual fact.

Mike

Geno
August 29, 2006, 11:56 PM
Bullseye Mike! A stand, yes. A risky stand? Not so very. But, an admirable stand all the same. Thanks for that insight. I had not even thought of it in that light before your post. My mind has been expanded.

Doc2005

SomeKid
August 29, 2006, 11:59 PM
Well, here is a thought.

Get some American companies to boycott. Now, a foreign company tries to corner the market. Between our pro-gun congressmen, and anti's who could be used, we could pass a law making it illegal for any non-American company to sell guns to the government. (But leave private sales alone.) It is a long shot, but that could really hurt some anti areas IF American companies held the line.

Imagine NYC, Chicago, and DC cops minus the guns.

Coronach
August 30, 2006, 01:01 AM
Hmm. Don't most of them have plants in the US, specifically in order to compete for gov't contracts as domestic companies? Glock is in Smyrna, Sig is in Exeter, HK is around here somewhere. I'm not sure how you could phrase the law to exclude them, and not cut out S&W (or are they all-american-owned again, now?) and probably most of the others. The thing is that most of the truly multi-national makers are global in their reach and vision, but are considered domestic for purposes of contracts (caveat: IANAL, so I might be wrong on that).

It's all hypothetical anyway. US companies wouldn't toe the line in this scenario, so I doubt you could try to divide and conquer the "importers". And, I could see that one backfiring, too, so I'd be really leery of pushing for it. We might end up with import bans on pistols (strange things happen when bills go to committee) and nothing to show for it.

Mike

Low-Sci
August 30, 2006, 01:03 AM
Not only is this an unusual and refreshing stand, but for a company like Barrett, its also an inspired marketing maneuver.

Ronnie Barrett knows his company and his customers very well. He knows that he's an expensive niche market, in the big scheme of things. But he also knows that his product, while expensive, is often worth paying through the nose for. He can quite easily ride on the success of his military sales, and by taking this stand can actually increase his civilian sales in states other than California.

And he can do that because he knows that someone who may be willing to throw down several thousand dollars for the biggest rifle that average citizens are allowed to own is no slant when it comes to gun politics. Of course that customer is anti-ban. So is Barrett, and odds are very good that this particular customer doesn't live in California anyway. His statement puts his company at an unassailable position in this customer's view.

Maybe he did lose business in California with law enforcement. Odds are very good that he made back all that business and more somewhere else, and that statement of his most certainly helped. And it gives him the opportunity to market a brand new rifle to that state and everywhere else too.

You have to admire that maneuver from more than just the one angle, its just such a great idea. There's very seriously no downside for Barrett on that one.

Zundfolge
August 30, 2006, 01:26 AM
If they see a bunch of irate civilians in the US but have a solid lock on fat and happy government purchase agencies across the globe, I don't see them risking riling a portion of the latter to try and appease the former.

I don't think that by not manufacturing guns to meet California standards they would risk their other government contracts in other states and/or countries (as a hypothetical example; I seriously doubt the Singapore police would punish Glock because they cut off the LAPD).

The question is if they have to choose between the law enforcement market in California or a large chunk of their citizen market outside California, which will cost them the most?

We're not actually asking these companies to boycott California (unless the law gives LEOs a loophole), we're just asking them not to invest in California Compliant guns (which will cost them a bunch too in addition to the whole boycott by non LEOs outside the PRK).


While many companies don't tend to think this way, they should also want to stem the tide of any more draconian regulation of their industry because ultimately these law makers want to make them go out of business, so it IS good business for gun companies (even Austrian, Swiss, Italian, etc.) to fight to support the American RKBA. I believe that this is part of what motivated Barret. He knows that a .50BMG ban will put him out of business because most of his rifles don't go to military or law enforcement agency contracts (I also believe he was motivated by conscience).


Where would one go to find out how much money is spent on firearms in the US, broken down by "Citizen" vs "Government" sales? Also broken down by gun type would be cool too (handguns, "sporting" rifles, "non-sporting" rifles, etc).




EDIT:
I just realized that my responses to this thread are actually within the context of THIS other thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=217614 on the passage of the "Microstamping Firing Pin" law

Euclidean
August 30, 2006, 01:43 AM
I really wish Barret made something I wanted (or rather something I wanted that I could afford ). I'd love to be able to support the guy.

That's the truth... if I ever moved up to that higher end market, I tell ya what...

But well wishing don't pay the bills.

Coronach
August 30, 2006, 01:56 AM
I don't think that by not manufacturing guns to meet California standards they would risk their other government contracts in other states and/or countries (as a hypothetical example; I seriously doubt the Singapore police would punish Glock because they cut off the LAPD).Oh, I agree. I just think they would feel no real need to play along.The question is if they have to choose between the law enforcement market in California or a large chunk of their citizen market outside California, which will cost them the most?It's not just losing the LE market in Kali vs losing a large chunk of civvie sales. They would probably view it as a chance to dominate the LE market in Kali due to the sudden absence of every domestic player, with the potential for some loss of civvie sales, maybe. From a position of crass capitalism, I think I know which one I would choose (at least, from my comfy armchair without access to the real numbers).We're not actually asking these companies to boycott California (unless the law gives LEOs a loophole), we're just asking them not to invest in California Compliant guns (which will cost them a bunch too in addition to the whole boycott by non LEOs outside the PRK).Ah. Well, this is different than what I thought was being said, but I suspect that it is a distinction without a difference. Consider, too, how that would get posed at the monthly board meeting:"Dieter? Did joo hear dat no von is making pistolen for Kaleeforneeyah?"

"Iss dat so, Franz? Vee could make pistolen for Kaleeforneeyah, und ROOOL ZEEE WERLD- err, market. Jah!"That would give them a lock on civvie AND government sales in Kali, with only a threat of potential boycotts of the civvie market in the other 49.

I dunno. I think they'd roll with it. Of course, I think that other companies would, too *cough*S&W*cough*SturmRuger*cough*, even without the multinational diversified sales and interests of H und K.While many companies don't tend to think this way, they should also want to stem the tide of any more draconian regulation of their industry because ultimately these law makers want to make them go out of business, so it IS good business for gun companies (even Austrian, Swiss, Italian, etc.) to fight to support the American RKBA.They seem to be making plenty of Euros selling to the security forces of the socialist utopia over the pond. I don't think they believe you. ;)

I believe that this is part of what motivated Barret. He knows that a .50BMG ban will put him out of business because most of his rifles don't go to military or law enforcement agency contracts (I also believe he was motivated by conscience).I think that Mr. Barrett has shrewd business sense, but also conscience and a spine. The fact is that he probably did not hurt his sales too much by making a principled stand. However, don't take that to mean that I think that he is owed any less credit- I think he has cojones the size of bowling balls. If nothing else, he just made himself a lightning rod, which might be good for business in the short run but could be a bad business move in the long run, and I bet he knows it.Where would one go to find out how much money is spent on firearms in the US, broken down by "Citizen" vs "Government" sales? Also broken down by gun type would be cool too (handguns, "sporting" rifles, "non-sporting" rifles, etc).No idea. I agree that it needs to be done, though. This is all idle speculation without the numbers.

Mike

Coronach
August 30, 2006, 01:57 AM
EDIT:
I just realized that my responses to this thread are actually within the context of THIS other thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=217614 on the passage of the "Microstamping Firing Pin" law*Points and Laughs* HA-HA! :neener:

Zundfolge
August 30, 2006, 11:50 AM
No idea. I agree that it needs to be done, though. This is all idle speculation without the numbers.
I emailed these guys and asked them if they had the stats

http://www.amfire.com

progunner1957
August 30, 2006, 11:57 AM
I'd love to have one of Ronnie's .50 cal. rifles, but even the bare bones model with scope and mounts is going to be a $5000 package - and I have no place to shoot it. My gun club rules state "No .50 cal. rifles or full autos.":(

Of course, the new Barrett .416 could be shot at the range...:D But there's still that pesky price issue...

444
August 30, 2006, 12:35 PM
I wonder just how much money a company would lose by boycotting kalifornistan law enforcement agencies ?
For one thing, we have been told on various threads over the years that many manufacturers sell to law enforcement agencies at very minimal prices. Some have even accused Glock of selling to them at a small loss in order to make it up in maintainence agreements and good will. Let's face it, if LAPD's standard issue is Glock, this is going to have a lot of influence throughout the world (although I have no idea why personally).

Coronach
August 30, 2006, 02:08 PM
Often the initial batch is pretty steeply discounted, since once you get a PD to go with your weapon, they're unlikely to switch for about a decade, at least. That means you can sell additional batches to them at something closer to market price, you get to sell them parts, do their maintenance and/or train their armorers ($$$), and you'll get sales from other agencies who see the performance of your weapon and from private citizens who want to carry what their PD carries (under the mistaken, yet common, assumption that the PD selected the very best weapon).

The best part about this is that sales to this PD are pretty much a lock. You can rely on the numbers being there. You'll know that they're good for X guns per year, so you can rely on that many sales at an agreed-upon price. Any contracts you have for maintenance/training are easy money. This gives you some income that is stable and predictable and not affected by market fluctuations. Multiply that by multiple PDs statewide, and it makes for a situation that might not have the ultimate highest volume of sales, or the thickest profit margin, but is just plain gravy for them (since you never have to wonder if the run of guns you just made are gonna sell).

Mike

If you enjoyed reading about "this is the standard for a gun maker's response to draconian gun laws..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!