Barrett boycot ineffective?


PDA






NukemJim
November 13, 2007, 08:50 PM
I started a new thread ( I figured after 5 pages not many people will be reading and emotions were getting high) from this thread "STI joins Barrett and Refuses to sell to Ca " http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=316030

A post was made by TexasRifleman that stated in part

It is my understanding that not one LE agency in California has gone without either Barrett parts or service, they just have been doing business through the distributors at a higher price.

Does anyone have any knowledge about this to either confirm or deny?

NukemJim

If you enjoyed reading about "Barrett boycot ineffective?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jimmy Newman
November 13, 2007, 09:27 PM
Barrett won't sell parts or rifles to or service rifles for any government agency in California.

That doesn't mean that the LAPD can't send someone to a gun store in Nevada to buy a Barrett rifle, or parts for one. It also doesn't mean that other gunsmiths won't work on them.

Gator
November 13, 2007, 09:40 PM
It is more of a moral stand for Ron Barrett than anything else, but I applaud him for it.

taliv
November 13, 2007, 09:49 PM
nukem, call barrett and ask. their number is on their website.

TexasRifleman
November 13, 2007, 09:59 PM
I read a post from a wholesale distributor of Barretts rifles that they regularly took jobs from California LE Agencies for both parts and repairs, even warranty repairs that were sent back to Barrett through this distributor.

I'll see if I can find it. It was on a .50 cal board somewhere but the poster was a sponsor with the company name on it.

Thumper
November 13, 2007, 10:00 PM
As noted before, these boycotts are moral and political statements made by our friends in the gun industry aimed at local governments hostile to the Second Amendment.

IMO, To nitpick the "effectiveness" of these statements is to totally miss the point.

TexasRifleman
November 13, 2007, 10:03 PM
To nitpick the "effectiveness" of these statements is to totally miss the point.

Not really. It's a nice statement on an emotional level, but if it effects no real change then it doesn't accomplish anything.

Feel good stuff doesn't work, we say that all the time about silly laws on the books; 10 round magazine limits in some places for example. It prevents no crime, solves no problem, but it makes some soccer mom somewhere "feel good".

Ronnie Barretts action, while noble, doesn't really do anything but make gun owners "feel good".

I am most certainly not nitpicking the guy, I think it's fantastic on a gut level, but to say that it effects change would not be true.

Thumper
November 13, 2007, 10:15 PM
I am most certainly not nitpicking the guy, I think it's fantastic on a gut level, but to say that it effects change would not be true.


Really? I note remarkable similarities in both Barrett's and STI's statements. I wonder if we'd have STI's release if Ronnie hadn't written his?

Wonder who's next? If no one, then perhaps you're right. I doubt that, though.

I think saying at this ridiculously early stage that STI's statement will fail to effect change might be a little premature.

If this thing snowballs, your paper tiger could end up with real teeth.

Certainly the publicity alone, even now, is helpful to our cause.

Technosavant
November 13, 2007, 10:16 PM
Will it effect change by itself? No.

Now, if other manufacturers choose to stand alongside Barrett and make the same statement, we might be going somewhere. Everything begins somewhere; a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. It just depends on companies being willing to do without the direct LEO sales to the given areas, but some of them so discount those products anyway, they may not be making much profit on those sales in any case.

taliv
November 13, 2007, 10:32 PM
there's also a difference in our gov coming up with "feel good" "solutions" to real problems, and a private citizen thumbing his nose, however symbolically, at people who want to take away fundamental liberties.

GigaBuist
November 14, 2007, 09:12 PM
Ronnie Barretts action, while noble, doesn't really do anything but make gun owners "feel good".
Well, if the PD's in CA have to send their rifles through a 3rd party to get parts and repairs then that's increasing their costs I'd imagine.

The same goes for purchasing new weapons. If they can't do it directly then somebody is going to want their piece as a middle-man.

Now, given that police departments have limited budgets there's a chance that they'll start squawking at their state legislature the next time they start doing things to piss off the gun manufacturers.

A slim chance right now, but if other manufacturers pile on the chances of that happening increase.

LAR-15
November 14, 2007, 09:29 PM
I doubt there are very police agencies in CA even using Barretts or any 50 caliber BMG rifle

Double Naught Spy
November 14, 2007, 09:40 PM
Right, so while Barrett opted to not sell to govt agencies in California on the basis that their guns are not legal in California, it wasn't like they were going to take any sort of significant financial hit in doing so. I think they made the right decision and I support their decision, but they aren't losing out and govt agencies are able to get parts. So they maybe don't sell as many rifles, but then again, how many were they selling to govt agencies in California in the first place? Not many.

Given how well they are made and given how infrequently they are likely to be shot (maybe a few hundred rounds a year for a well financed police agency), the rifles aren't likely to need much in the way of repair for a long time.


Now, given that police departments have limited budgets there's a chance that they'll start squawking at their state legislature the next time they start doing things to piss off the gun manufacturers.

Good theory, but it doesn't fit reality. We are talking about a highly specialized platform of which not many departments have them.

So did the boycott do anything that resulted in a change in the laws that would once again allow their rifles to be sold to civilians in California? Not in the least. While Barrett boycotted government agencies, it wasn't the government agencies who buy their rifles that put the ban in place. For their boycott to work, they would have to cause enough discomfort for law enforcement agencies that the agencies then heavily lobbied the state legislature to lift the ban. Simply put, not enough law enforcement agencies in the state have Barrett rifles and can't get parts for them and if other departments want .50 cal rifles, there are other vendors of other brands that will gladly fill the need.

Bottom Line, Barrett has effected no change in the law based by their boycott.

NukemJim
November 15, 2007, 06:47 AM
While Barrett boycotted government agencies, it wasn't the government agencies who buy their rifles that put the ban in place.

My understanding (as always I could be wrong) was the Mr. Barrett was in California and listened to the goverment agencies (LAPD?) testify (and lie ) about 50 calibre rifles and then allowed politicians to use a Barrett Rifle for a photo op.

So while the California LEOs did not put the ban in place, some of them helped to put the ban in place.

NukemJim

xjchief
November 15, 2007, 08:26 AM
If the State of California sent someone into a gun store in Nevada to purchase a gun for it wouldn't that be a straw purchase?:D

TexasRifleman
November 15, 2007, 08:28 AM
I doubt there are very police agencies in CA even using Barretts or any 50 caliber BMG rifle

LAPD in fact ordered quite a few just before this whole thing started, 20 or so IIRC. Seemed a large order for a PD but I can't remember the number for sure.

Well, if the PD's in CA have to send their rifles through a 3rd party to get parts and repairs then that's increasing their costs I'd imagine.

And the state government cares about that how much? They will simply pass the costs along to the California taxpayers like everything else.

Wes Janson
November 15, 2007, 09:02 AM
It's a nice thought, but really, if it's impossible to disarm criminals, it's just as damn hard to disarm government agencies. Even if every single manufacturer stopped selling to California, there would still be distributors who would. And even if every manufacturer stopped selling to distributors who did sell to CA, your agencies would simply send a representative over to the next state to go place an order through there. Or, in all likelihood, sign contracts with manufacturers overseas to import directly in for the agency. Somehow, I have a sneaking suspicion that H&K might be on the top of that list.

In the meantime, you'd be seriously weakening the entire domestic industry, which plays right into the hands of the antis. So yes, making a statement such as Barrett's makes for good media, but no, it's not a viable means of effecting change.

Double Naught Spy
November 15, 2007, 09:30 AM
LAPD in fact ordered quite a few just before this whole thing started, 20 or so IIRC. Seemed a large order for a PD but I can't remember the number for sure.

Source?

Even if accurate, how many total police .50 BMG rifles are there in CA? I would guess that we are talking about less than 40 guns overall. How many are made by Barrett? How often is there .50 BMG rifle turnover in departments?

If the departments already own Barretts, then all they need are spare parts. Like I said, the guns are well built. Even at full retail, most of the spare parts needed aren't going to cost much as compared to the cost of the ammo fired from the rifles.

What if the departments want .50 BMG rifles? Then they can buy from a variety of other makers who will likely give them a PD discount.

ceetee
November 15, 2007, 10:07 AM
Ronnie Barretts action, while noble, doesn't really do anything but make gun owners "feel good".

I think most of us are missing the point. It doesn't matter that refusing to sell his products to CA LE agencies is just taking a symbolic stand. In the fight against gun-grabbers, what we need MOST are symbols. We have all the facts on our side, and what has that earned us?

When the AWB was passed, we can all agree that it had no real effect on the availability of firearms, but it became a symbol of repression; gun owners banded together, voted, and because of that symbol, changed Congress from Democrat to Republican majority. What we need are more symbols we can all stand behind. We need more symbols that will draw fence-sitters to our side. We need more symbols to rally our cause, and unite us. And when it comes down to it, you can either stand with Ronnie Barrett, or sit around and whine about the day you "hope California will just fall off into the ocean"...

Correia
November 15, 2007, 10:38 AM
Yeah, that Boston Tea Party was totally symbollic and ineffective too. It barely did anything to the price of tea!

And one old lady not wanting to sit at the back of the bus? Snort. Who cares?

Oh, and Barrett was first, STI was next, but they won't be the last. There will be more.

The gun industry is relatively small. The entire US domestic industry is smaller than Home Depot. Everybody knows everyone else. If STI's sales go up because of this, expect a few other companies to do the same thing. (and I'm trying to help on that front, see my sig, what can I say? I'm a capitalist)

In that last thread I got an economics lecture from somebody who apparently doesn't know jack squat about how business actually works. Right now every company is looking at these new laws, and they're paying somebody with a resume like mine, to do a cost/benefit analysis to see if complying with California law is economically worth it.

Sure, California may be a giant chunk of the market. But we're dealing in products that are hypercompetitive with thin margins. If microstamping causes my manufacturing costs to rise, then it cuts into that margin. If I do some "ineffective" "symbollic" thing, like telling California to go to hell, no guns for you, and my market share increases in 49 other states, and my product costs stay the same, boo yah, simple math.

From my industry contacts, I know that thought process is going on right now in the management circles of several of the larger companies.

In that last thread, somebody brought up "shareholder lawsuits" for doing stupid stuff. Man, welcome to the Corporate World. All part of the equation. And just because you're a Californian, and not being able to buy your favorite gun anymore, doesn't make it a stupid financial decision. File that lawsuit, and that's when the corporate office sends somebody like me over to the judge's office with a giant file showing why they've judged market trends, and the managment is increasing shareholder value.

Plus, another part of the aformentioned equation is the possibility of yet more idiotic California laws. Almost everyone complied with Drop Testing, which is basically extortion, to keep selling guns. And then here we are, just a few years later, and we have a newer, dumber law. Well guess what? Why should I spend a fortune on micro stamping for that one market, only to have to drop another couple of million in tooling costs three years from now when California decides that pistols need to be made of Nerf and send wireless internet transmissions to the local PD everytime a shot is fired?

Oh crap, now that I threw that idea out there, it is only a matter of time before they do that too!

The rest of us in flyover country, and the "red welfare states" are using the only weapon left to us. California is infected with a cancer. It is the limb that is withering, and just like all cancer treatments suck, and are painful, this will be too. Companies refusing to sell to California may hurt California gun owners, but that's part of the chemo neccesary to save the rest of the body. Sorry. Personally, I'm ready to amputate.

Bill Weise told us that they almost won on Microstamping. Well, the Germans almost won World War II. But they lost, and now it is what it is. We don't want this kind of nonsense to spread to the rest of the states, and neither do most of the manufacturers.

Since everyone else will be watching STI's sales for the rest of this quarter to see what happens, I'm actually expecting a few surprise announcments during the SHOT show.

buzz_knox
November 15, 2007, 11:14 AM
I doubt there are very police agencies in CA even using Barretts or any 50 caliber BMG rifle

The police in Pigeon Forge, TN, have purchased .50s. Why, no one knows. But .50s are the things to have, required or not, so I'd say we'd be surprised to find out how many agencies have them.

GlockamaniaŽ
November 15, 2007, 02:28 PM
Barrett's boycott hasn't really done anything to the majority of folks here in CA. An Attorney General candidate wanted to pass a bill that would allow .50BMGs...but he lost.

A major impact would be if the those gun manufacturer's, who's product are NOT in the approved handgun sale list (http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/) stop selling over all.

Wait, wait...then I can't get any more guns.:fire:

Despite good folks leaving because of our stupid laws shouldn't discourage pro gunners. It all starts who we vote for in office. As of now we have tree huggers, hippie senate leaders and Two-face Mr. Freeze our guns-Governator in Sacramento right now.

CA needs an overhaul.

Tom Servo
November 15, 2007, 02:54 PM
Yeah, that Boston Tea Party was totally symbollic and ineffective too. It barely did anything to the price of tea!

And one old lady not wanting to sit at the back of the bus? Snort. Who cares?

Oh, and Barrett was first, STI was next, but they won't be the last. There will be more.
Hopefully. I'd really like to see one of the majors grow a pair and take the same stance. S&W would be nice, and they wouldn't be taking a huge hit, as they aren't servicing as many LE contracts as they were a decade back.

strat81
November 15, 2007, 03:08 PM
Sure, California may be a giant chunk of the market. But we're dealing in products that are hypercompetitive with thin margins. If microstamping causes my manufacturing costs to rise, then it cuts into that margin. If I do some "ineffective" "symbollic" thing, like telling California to go to hell, no guns for you, and my market share increases in 49 other states, and my product costs stay the same, boo yah, simple math.
This makes quite a bit of sense. If we consider the big companies that get LE contracts (S&W, Beretta, Glock, & Sig), what happens if some comply and some do not? In the other 49 states, their prices can be set lower since they do not have to amortize the cost of new tooling across those pistols sold in free states. This makes pricing more attractive to both civilians and LE alike in those other states.

Of the four companies I mentioned, let's say all but one complies with CA's law. That single rebel could theoretically offer lower prices to the other 49 since their guns don't have microstamping. Price plays a huge part in .gov contracts and even in civilian sales. Comparing an M&P to a Glock, if one was $50 or $100 cheaper, the decision can become much harder to make for the consumer.

DoubleTapDrew
November 15, 2007, 03:41 PM
It might not have a large or even measurable impact with Barrett doing it, but somebody's gotta be first. Now STI jumped on. If others follow suit Cali could conceivably find themselves in a bit of a pickle they brought upon themselves. No 11+ round mags, "assault rifles", .50s, tasers, anything else the citizens can't have will be sold or shipped to CA, period. No exceptions for any LE/gov agency.

STI's sales go up because of this, expect a few other companies to do the same thing. (and I'm trying to help on that front, see my sig, what can I say? I'm a capitalist)

I may not be able to afford a Barrett or STI at this time but any manufacturer that follows suit will get a huge gold star and smiley face next to their name in my mental gun wish list and seriously influence my purchase decisions.

NukemJim
November 15, 2007, 09:59 PM
Uhm... ehrr.....

Guys and gals, This thread was supposed to be about whether or not Ronnie Barrett's boycont of Cali .gov agencies is effective or not.

If you want to talk about handgun boycots may I refer you to

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=316030


I purposely started another thread so my question would not get lost in the link posted above.

So far noone seems to KNOW if it is effective or not.

NukemJim

Wes Janson
November 15, 2007, 11:48 PM
Sure, California may be a giant chunk of the market. But we're dealing in products that are hypercompetitive with thin margins. If microstamping causes my manufacturing costs to rise, then it cuts into that margin. If I do some "ineffective" "symbollic" thing, like telling California to go to hell, no guns for you, and my market share increases in 49 other states, and my product costs stay the same, boo yah, simple math.

From my industry contacts, I know that thought process is going on right now in the management circles of several of the larger companies.

Great; good for you, and good for them if there's profit to be made-I understand and appreciate the importance of that. But that still doesn't change the essential fact that it's not going to get California law changed, and not going to do anything in particular to prevent the spread of similar laws to other states. If major companies suddenly called press conferences tomorrow a la Barrett for the purpose of increasing the level of goodwill towards their firms, then isn't that just a crass and cynical action, essentially empty of any meaning or value beyond profit? Even assuming the impossible, that every single firearms manufacturer AND distributor chooses tomorrow to cease all shipments to California, it's still not going to get the law changed. And while I can see that driving a short-term spike in sales in other places, I can't possibly see it being enough of a trend to offset the loss of one of the biggest markets in the country. People forget, grow tired, and move on to the next thing. However, you're not going to suddenly create hundreds of thousands of new consumers out of thin air in the other 49 states. Or at least, such is my analysis.

Double Naught Spy
November 16, 2007, 07:47 AM
So far noone seems to KNOW if it is effective or not.

NukemJim

Just what information are you looking for? Barrett boycotted CA because of the change in the laws that made is .50 BMG rifles illegal. So he boycotted the government agencies and refuses to sell the guns or parts to them. He won't sell to them until he can sell to the rest of the state.

So has it been effective? Government agencies can still get Barrett rifles and parts. So that aspect has not changed. Barrett has not staunched the supply of either to California. California government agencies may no longer get the Barrett LE discounts, but they can get the guns and parts.

Has the boycott forced the government agencies to lobby the state legislature to change the law? Well the law hasn't changed. Have bills been put before the legislature to change the laws? Nope.

So has Ronnie Barrett's goal to get the law changed back so that he can market his rifles to civilians in California been attained through his boycott? Nope. Does it look like he is making headway in getting bills put before the legislature such that there might be a change in the near future? Nope.

Has the boycott been effective in regard to the goal Barrett wanted to attain? Nope.

Sure some of y'all want to call Barrett's actions symbolic in the fight against gun grabbers, but the guy is in business to make a profit. Notice that his symbolic effort doesn't extend to other places that have restrictive gun control laws that don't apply to his situation. He is only boycotting that which pertains to him, that which affects his bottom line. I think some of y'all are reading more into the boycott than is there. He isn't nearly as concerned with the gun grabbers as you would make him out to be. He isn't fighting for OUR rights, but for HIS market share. That is perfectly fine, too. Just note that he isn't fighting restrictive gun laws in DC, MA, IL, etc. He isn't boycotting government agencies in DC because handgun ownership is disallowed.

Ronnie Barrett is a businessman, a good one. He is fighting for HIS market to sell .50 BMGs in California.

Bubbles
November 16, 2007, 08:58 AM
Consider this: how many other jurisdictions have even come close to banning the .50 since the boycott has been put into place? For a few years .50 BMG rifles were the "poster child" of the gun-grabbers, and a logical target for them to attack since relatively few people could afford to own and/or shoot one. The anti's probably figured that they could ban it with relatively little opposition since so few people owned them.

So Barrett boycotts CA and tells FedGov and all other jurisdictions that they will be included if they enact similar bans. The legislators backed off.

Overall I'd say Barrett's action has been ineffective at getting the cA ban repealed, and effective at preventing the spread of the ban to other states.

security6
November 16, 2007, 10:49 AM
Guys and gals, This thread was supposed to be about whether or not Ronnie Barrett's boycont of Cali .gov agencies is effective or not.

Define effective and we'll be better able to answer your question.

With regard to public opinion, I suspect that the ban is effective, but the result is too expensive to measure. It is effective because it has swayed public opinion, at least many people on this board seem swayed by it. If you want to figure out how effective the ban is, you'll have to contract with a polling company to call people and see if they have heard about the ban, and if their opinion has changed. Of course, any change in public opinion will be small compared to the population as a whole, so you will need to poll a lot of people. Hope you have some deep pockets! :)

If you mean effective by getting a law changed, consider these questions:

Is writing a letter to the editor effective?
Is my one vote effective?
Is taking one of my neighbors shooting effective?

I'm not sure how you'd measure the effectiveness of any of these things, but if everybody did them we would be a lot more effective in getting gun restrictions repealed!

If you mean effective by whether agencies in California can get a Barrett gun, I would think that nobody knows for sure. Barrett could contract with all of his distributors and make them agree not to sale to California. Oh yeah, he would also need to make all of his distributors contract with their distributors and make them agree not to sale to California. Repeat all the way to the end user. Unless somebody here has access to Barretts distributorship agreements, I'm guessing that nobody knows.

I can tell you one thing that will be effective. If all of us had a conviction like Barrett, and his will to do something about it, we would have a lot fewer gun restrictions. Instead, many of us choose to nitpick those who are trying to do something. :uhoh:

antsi
November 16, 2007, 03:35 PM
------quote-------
If all of us had a conviction like Barrett, and his will to do something about it, we would have a lot fewer gun restrictions. Instead, many of us choose to nitpick those who are trying to do something.
------------------

Agreed.

There is such a thing as a protest statement. Just because it doesn't lead to immediate tangible results doesn't mean it's pointless.

------quote-------
Not really. It's a nice statement on an emotional level, but if it effects no real change then it doesn't accomplish anything.
------------------

Not necessarily true in the field of politics. I seriously doubt Barrett thought CA would reverse the decision when the made his statement. Just the fact of standing up and making a statement can generate attention, influence opinion, and encourage others to do the same. That is exactly the kind of thing that builds momentum in a political movement.

Dr. Peter Venkman
November 16, 2007, 05:07 PM
Barrett can yell "boycott" all they want; the fact of the matter is that their rifles can still be bought by LE agencies in California through distributors but still has sales to the civilians, which is still above STI. Calling such action similar to Rosa Parks and the Boston Tea Party is asinine.

k_dawg
November 16, 2007, 05:34 PM
It is such a niche low-volume market, the PD can simply go to a 3rd party in Nevada. Not much that B can do about that.

This in no way detracts from Barrett's Boycott. We should still applaud it, and hope for some of the "bigger players" to come aboard.

Double Naught Spy
November 16, 2007, 06:21 PM
If all of us had a conviction like Barrett, and his will to do something about it, we would have a lot fewer gun restrictions. Instead, many of us choose to nitpick those who are trying to do something.

Agreed. Let's all boycott California.

So Barrett boycotts CA and tells FedGov and all other jurisdictions that they will be included if they enact similar bans. The legislators backed off.

Overall I'd say Barrett's action has been ineffective at getting the cA ban repealed, and effective at preventing the spread of the ban to other states.

First of all, the Federal government contract for Barrett is their bread and butter. They aren't about to boycott their primary customer. Second, just when did Barrett supposedly threaten all the other states and cause them to backoff? I think you are attributing a mythical power Barrett doesn't have. There are far too many other .50 makers to meet whatever demand there is out there for .50 BMG rifles.

NukemJim
November 17, 2007, 09:15 AM
Define effective and we'll be better able to answer your question.


Fair enough. I phrased my question poorly. Sorry about that, my bad.:o I was not asking about the political effects of his boycot. Let me try again.

Ronnie Barrett has a boycott for Cali LEO's/Goverment agencies regarding selling and servicing his companies products. Have Cali LEO's/Goverment agencies been unable or difficult (more than 2X cost/time) to obtain his products or get his products fixed since his boycott started?

I know next to nothing of firearms industry/distribution business. I am begining to suspect from reading some of the responses that the answer is no, that the distributors/gunsmiths are not required to follow his boycott.

Again sorry for poor phrasing of my question.

NukemJim

fearless leader
November 17, 2007, 10:15 AM
If not for GREED getting in the way, during the failed assault weapon ban, manufacturers could have done the same thing; not sold weapons or hi-cap mags to any Gov't or Police agency until the ban was lifted.

Correia
November 17, 2007, 11:09 AM
In that case, yes it has been effecitve.

I sell guns to police departments, so allow me to explain how it works. With a large department, they don't just buy guns like we buy guns. They buy a package deal that usually includes armorer training, replacement parts, and an indepth warranty agreement.

If the manufacturer won't sell directly, then they lose out on all of the extra stuff. And PD admin live and breath on the extra stuff.

Your LE distributors aren't going to step in and train your new armorer. They're not going to have a full inventory of parts on hand, and when you break something, they're not going to fix it for free as part of the warranty. If your Barrett needs a new spring, or has a problem that you can't fix on site, then BoTach ain't gonna drive over to headquarters and fix it for you.

When you do guns onesie twosie to the Somumbulant PD, then sure, that's how it works. When LAPD buys 20 $6,000 guns, there will be a huge agreement with service.

When the highway patrol buys 4,000 guns, included in that purchase is a lot of service and extras. If that company says hasta la vista, then they are up a creek. Some of you are thinking abou this like we're talking about civillians circumventing the AWB and buying stuff out of state. That isn't how administrative purchasing works at all.

Barrett and STI are being held up as examples right now, and their popularity amongst gun owners is up. The bigger companies that have those multiple several hundred gun LE contracts are doing the math right now.

Expect more annocements at SHOT.

NukemJim
November 17, 2007, 10:10 PM
Correia, Thank you very much. Your explanation of how the system works is most helpfull. I would not have thought of the "extras".

Just to make sure I understand you correctly then Barrett's boycot would not have much of an effect on a small department buying one firearm but IS haveing an effect on departments purchasing large number of firearms.

Again thank you

NukemJim
PS I am eagerly awaiting my copy of MHI. :) NJ

Notch
November 18, 2007, 12:52 AM
If'n you are not part of the solution, you ARE part of the problem. Kudos to Barret and their refusal to deal with the sad sad state.

If you enjoyed reading about "Barrett boycot ineffective?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!