Barrett Firearms tell California to get stuffed


PDA






Ditchtiger
October 22, 2006, 07:25 PM
Anyone else notice Barrett's ad. in American Rifleman? ---- The California Legislature has banned the .50 BMG from the good citizens of the state of California violating their rights and the constitution of our republic. Therefore, Barrett will not sell to or service any California government agencies.

If you enjoyed reading about "Barrett Firearms tell California to get stuffed" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
River Wraith
October 22, 2006, 07:33 PM
Sweet. I wish all firearm manufacturers were as supportive.

loki.fish
October 22, 2006, 07:38 PM
Haha. Now that's great. If only the huge manufacturers would do that. That's an ingenious way to give them a little wake up call. Kudos to Barrett for having the guts to do it.

Zedicus
October 22, 2006, 07:43 PM
old news, but still refreshing to see drudged back up!:cool:

Ronnie Barrett certainly has Earned our business with his No-Compromise Pro RKBA Stance.

I just got their free Catalog (order on www.barrettrifles.com ) in the mail last week and this combined with the sheer quality of workmanship they offer has made my mind up to buy one of their M468 Rifles:cool: :D
(would get a M82 if I could afford one)

(their is also a Pleasant Surprise in the M468 review in the Free magazine they include in the Catalog pack;) )

DRMMR02
October 22, 2006, 07:44 PM
Wouldn't it be great if Glock decided not to see to any amr of the government in CA, MA, and NY :)

Autolycus
October 22, 2006, 07:49 PM
Agree with DRMMR02. If we can get enough people to say they will no longer support Glock until this ban is they stop selling to any state or local government that is not gun friendly we can make some headway. Samething with HK. If the local government bans some of your product for civilian sales than perhaps civilians should not buy any of your product until you start to side with us and allow all your products to be sold.

crazed_ss
October 22, 2006, 08:44 PM
Good point, but Glock and HK are foreign companies. I think they have a different world view. Civilians sales are probably secondary to them.

I think Springfield Armory has threatened to leave Illinois if they pass a statewide AW Ban.

crunker
October 22, 2006, 08:51 PM
Go Barrett, more firearms mfgrs should follow this example.

MachIVshooter
October 22, 2006, 10:32 PM
Ronnie Barrett certainly has Earned our business with his No-Compromise Pro RKBA Stance

I would say support, since most of his firearms are prohibitively expensive. That said, if I was ready to drop $8k, I would look no further than Barrett.

but Glock and HK are foreign companies. I think they have a different world view. Civilians sales are probably secondary to them.

Not probably, definitely. HK has all but said they don't wish to sell to civilians. Glock, OTOH, is all about $$.

Zedicus
October 23, 2006, 02:13 AM
Mark IV, you can pick up a M468 for about 2 grand, not all Barrett's are 8 grand.

Autolycus
October 23, 2006, 02:55 AM
As of late HK is becoming more civilian friendly. Perhaps we could tell them that we want some support. And we also need to tell Sig the same. Glock should also be informed.

Don't Tread On Me
October 23, 2006, 03:20 AM
After seeing a whole show on TV about Barrett, I must say that they are the ultimate in quality control and attention to detail.

Each rifle is truly made with great, great care. They are production rifles with true custom attention.


If I had $8k, I too would get a Barrett. No question about it. This is a true American firearm builder in every sense. Accuracy, quality, dependability, product support, company attitude, and love for liberty.

TheArchDuke
October 24, 2006, 01:44 AM
I emailed them and asked if it was true (even though I knew it was). I also told them that one of the very first things I will do when I leave California is buy one of their rifles. Probably the M468.

They replied less than half an hour later.

I like that company!

LAK
October 24, 2006, 04:55 AM
Mr. Barrett has a backbone.

---------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

crunker
October 24, 2006, 03:55 PM
I suggest we keep this boycott of oppressive governments American for the time being. If it's succesful enough then foreign governments will catch.

What would be effective is a Boston Tea Party of weapons shipped to government entities that are banned to the people. If we can't have some guns, why should they have them?

IN>IL
October 24, 2006, 06:21 PM
I lived eight miles from the Springfield Armory in Geneseo, Illinois when the state was thinking of banning assault weapons. Springfield did threaten to leave, in fact, the state of South Dakota was actively courting them to leave Illinois. Many gun manufactuers in Illinois are within 20 miles of Iowa, including Les Baer, Eagle Arms, ArmaLite and Springfield, all of which threatened to leave the state if an assualt weapons and .50 cal ban was passed.

Now that I live in Indiana... I don't worry about junk like that very much!

Euclidean
October 24, 2006, 06:27 PM
I've always wished I could afford a Barrett product. I'd buy one just to help him spite ********** some more.

tuna
October 24, 2006, 06:42 PM
Agree with DRMMR02. If we can get enough people to say they will no longer support Glock until this ban is they stop selling to any state or local government that is not gun friendly we can make some headway. Samething with HK. If the local government bans some of your product for civilian sales than perhaps civilians should not buy any of your product until you start to side with us and allow all your products to be sold.

Wouldn't it be great if we could not only get other firearms makers to show the same set of cojones as Barret - we need to get ammo makers on board with this.

Marshall
October 24, 2006, 07:12 PM
Finally, someone grows a big hairy set. Good for them!

the pistolero
October 24, 2006, 07:27 PM
Armalite and Rock River Arms also said they would leave IL if that "assault weapons ban" was passed. Does anyone know whatever became of that bill, by the way?

Panthera Tigris
October 24, 2006, 07:35 PM
We might have a chance with Glock. After all, they told the government to stuff the Smith and Wesson agreement.

At least that's what I'm told.

G36-UK
October 25, 2006, 07:01 AM
I added a mention on my blog a while back:

I think that America's gun makers should do as Barret Firearms did. After the .50 ban, the makers of the Barret M82A1 gave the following statement:

"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."

The gun makers shouldn't have to put up with such irresponsible bull****. Yes, it can be argued that there is no need for a semiautomatic gun, or a .50 rifle, but the opposing point is equally (if not more) valid: there's absolutely no need for laws restricting them, especially this new "safe gun" requirement.

I think it's time they turned to California, New York, and all of the states that built their anti-gun laws on the lies of the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center, and just say "Fine, if you don't want us to sell to lawbreakers, we won't. Oh look, you're violating the people's right to bear arms, no guns for you!"

Maybe then, they'll do the right thing.

A bit overboard, but I think I got the point across.

We might have a chance with Glock. After all, they told the government to stuff the Smith and Wesson agreement.

Can someone tell me what this agreement was?

sterling180
October 25, 2006, 08:21 AM
I wish Glock,Smith and Wesson,Colt,Heckler and Kock,Sig Sauer and Walther,all gave the British government an ultimatum:"If you don't restore target pistol shooting on the UK mainland,then we will not supply your military,police and security forces with weapons-anymore".

The ridiculous thing is that Webley is starting to make a comeback with their shotgun ranges,but as for their pistols,they are as dead as everyone elses,in the UK.

Good on Barrett,I wish that more gun manufacturers,had the same attitude.Perhaps they could give an ultimatum,to the UK as well.:)

Manedwolf
October 25, 2006, 10:13 AM
A number of manufacturers have refused to play MA's extortion testing game, I know, and so are not featured on MA's "approved" list.

spencerhut
October 25, 2006, 03:00 PM
What would happen if we really could get a letting writing/calling campaign going and got a few firearms manufactures to stop selling to CA period:confused: What would it do to the dealers that are already struggling:confused: Would the CA gun grabbers declare victory and throw a party:confused:

Frustrated . . .:banghead: :cuss: :o :(

G36-UK
October 25, 2006, 06:01 PM
Good on Barrett,I wish that more gun manufacturers,had the same attitude.Perhaps they could give an ultimatum,to the UK as well.

Well, if Enfield did it, I think it would be an incentive for the Gov to keep the ban.;)

If you enjoyed reading about "Barrett Firearms tell California to get stuffed" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!