Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Barret takes a stand against **********

Discussion in 'Legal' started by dustind, Oct 1, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dustind

    dustind Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,581
    Location:
    St. Michael, MN
    I got this from www.awbansunset.com

    December 11, 2002
    Via Facsimile (213) 847-0676 and
    U.S. Mail

    Chief William J. Bratton
    Los Angeles Police Department
    150 North Los Angeles Street
    Los Angeles, California 90012

    Re: LAPD 82A1 Rifle, Serial No. 1186

    Point of Contact: Jim xxxxx
    213-xxx-xxxx


    Dear Chief Bratton,

    I, a U.S. citizen, own Barrett Firearms Mfg. Inc., and for 20 years, I have built .50 caliber rifles for my fellow citizens, for their Law Enforcement departments and for their nation’s armed forces.

    You may be aware of the latest negative misinformation campaign from a Washington based anti-gun group, the Violence Policy Center. The VPC has, for three or so years, been unsuccessful in Washington, D.C. trying to demonize and ban a new subclass of firearms, the .50 caliber and other “too powerful†rifles. This type of nibbling process has been historically successful in civilian disarmament of other nations governed by totalitarian and other regimes less tolerant of individual rights than the United States.

    The VPC’s most recent efforts directs this misinformation campaign at your state, attempting to get any California body to pass any law against .50 caliber firearms. In March 2002, the VPC caused the California State Assembly, Public Safety Committee to consider and reject the issue by a 5 to 0 with 1 abstaining vote.

    Regrettably, the same material has been presented to your city council. I personally attended the council meeting in Los Angeles regarding attempts to ban ownership of the .50 caliber rifle in your city. I was allowed to briefly address the council. The tone of the discussion was mostly emotionally based, so the facts that I attempted to provide were ineffective to the extent they were heard at all. The council voted to have the city attorney draft an ordinance to ban the .50, and further, to instruct the city’s representatives in Sacrament and in Washington, D.C. to push for bans at their respective levels.

    At that council meeting, I was very surprised to see an LAPD officer seated front and center with a Barrett 82A1 .50 cal. Rifle. It was the centerpiece of the discussion. As you know, there have been no crimes committed with these rifles, and most importantly, current California law does not allow the sale of the M82A1 in the state because of its detachable magazine and features that make it an “assault weapon.†This rifle was being deceptively used by your department. The officer portrayed it as a sample of a currently available .50 cal rifle, available for sale to the civilians of Los Angeles. One councilman even questioned how this rifle was available under current laws, but as I stated, facts were ineffective that day.

    Your officer, speaking for the LAPD, endorsed the banning of this rifle and its ammunition. Then he used the rifle for photo ops with the Councilmen, each of whom, in handling the firearm, may have been committing a felony. I was amazed.

    Since 1968, with the closing of the U.S. Springfield Armory, all of the small arms produced for the various government agencies are from the private sector. Every handgun, rifle or shotgun that law enforcement needs comes from this firearms industry. Unless the City of Los Angeles has plans of setting up its own firearms manufacturing, it may need to guard the manufacturing sources it has now.

    When I returned to my office from Los Angeles, I found an example of our need for mutual cooperation. Your department had sent one of your 82A1 rifles in to us for service. All of my knowledge in the use of my rifle in the field of law enforcement had been turned upside down by witnessing how your department used yours. Not to protect and serve, but for deception, photo opportunities, and to further an ill-conceived effort that may result in the use of LA taxpayer monies to wage losing political battles in Washington against civil liberties regarding gun ownership.

    Please excuse my slow response on the repair service of the rifle. I am battling to what service I am repairing the rifle for. I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individual to own firearms.

    I implore you to investigate the facts of the .50, to consider the liberties of the law-abiding people and our mutual coexistence, and to change your department’s position on this issue.

    Sincerely,
    BARRETT FIREARMS MANUFACTURING, INC.

    Ronnie G. Barrett
    President
     
  2. sekdar

    sekdar Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    28
    Location:
    FL
    awesome. we can only hope this has some effect...
     
  3. cracked butt

    cracked butt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    6,986
    Location:
    SE Wisconsin
    I hope Mr. Barret pounds and welds a steel rod in the barrel, cuts the receiver halfway through, then sends it back to the LAPD with a note saying "I took the license to make your rifle legal in the state of California."

    I wish I had the money to buy a Barrett because he is one of the few gun makers that has shown the spine not to sell out.
     
  4. PMDW

    PMDW Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    913
    Yeah, saw this a while ago. Posted it here a few times.

    Ronnie Barrett = on my good list.
     
  5. dustind

    dustind Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,581
    Location:
    St. Michael, MN
    Oh, whoops, sorry if this is a duplicate. I did not see any similar thread titles.

    Because of the California state ban and Mr. Barret and a few other .50 cal manufacturers standing up to the antis, I will try to buy a rifle from them later on.
     
  6. reagansquad

    reagansquad Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    386
    Imagine if all gun companies stopped selling to LEOs and even National guard from states with restrictive and borderline illegal gun laws. It would be amazing.
     
  7. PMDW

    PMDW Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    913
    Naa, it was in some thread. No big deal.

    That is how I plan on running my company.
     
  8. cracked butt

    cracked butt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    6,986
    Location:
    SE Wisconsin
    The downside might be that government confiscates such facilities or nulls the patents of the gunmakers in the name of "national security." that would be a very interesting scenario though.
     
  9. Byron Quick

    Byron Quick Moderator In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,482
    Location:
    Waynesboro, Georgia
    Interesting in the meaning of the old Chinese curse:"May you live in interesting times."
     
  10. cracked butt

    cracked butt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    6,986
    Location:
    SE Wisconsin
  11. Deavis

    Deavis Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,424
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    If only Glock would do something like that, it would really cause a serious shake-up. I saw a Glock, I can't remember which one, speak at a CCRKBA event and he was pretty emphatic that they wouldn't knuckle under to the UN small arms treaty that is being drafted. Maybe I'll write their marketing people a letter and suggest that they start practicing on say, Mass? :)
     
  12. R.H. Lee

    R.H. Lee Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    7,377
    Location:
    CA
    LAPD has no business with, need for, and cannot be trusted with a .50 IMO.
     
  13. cslinger

    cslinger Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    4,435
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    I have no use what-so-ever for a .50 caliber rifle.
    I have no place to shoot a .50 caliber rifle.
    I have no money to purchase a .50 caliber rifle.

    I will either be ordering a shirt or simply sending ten of fifteen dollars to Mr. Barrett later today to show my support for him. It is people like that that deserve our support even if we cannot afford his product or we have no use for his product. Just like the O/U shotgun crowd should be fighting for us we need to support Mr. Barret.

    I would humbly suggest all of us do the same. Ten bucks is a box of .45 and althought it is not much I bet it will show Mr. Barrett that we support him.

    If you would like I would be happy to take up a collection and send it on behalf of all of us, unless this goes against the spirit of THR or breaks any rules. Otherwise I will be sending my own small donation.

    Chris
     
  14. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,152
    Location:
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
    I brought up this point at the Gun Rights Policy Conference last weekend. Apparently there's a Federal Law (anti-trust?) preventing industries from engaging in this sort of "collective" activity as a whole by the industry; that is, they can't talk amongst themselves about refusing to do business with certain cities or states.

    I doubt, though, that there's any law that prevents them from individually deciding not to deal with certain customers. Perhaps a letter-writing campaign from us to the CEO's of these businesses is in order?
     
  15. jpIII

    jpIII Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Messages:
    232
    Location:
    South Western Louisiana
  16. mpthole

    mpthole Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,058
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Yep, all good news and I'm glad that Barrett took a stand. That was almost two years ago though. Kind of looking for something new out of them to re-affirm their position.

    I already own a Barrett and would buy another one if I had the funds. Maybe I can get a t-shirt at Knob Creek. ;)
     
  17. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,040
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    Um...this is ancient news.

    Check the date on the letter.


    What is news is a conversation I had with __________, a Barrett sales woman as I was trying to find a vendor for the M468 upper.

    Me: "...and just for the record, I want you to know that we gunnies of America are very aware of the fact that Ronnie Barrett has our back, and is standing up for us. That's one of the reasons I'm spending a bit more than I've got for a rifle I don't really need. He's got out back, and we'll cover his."


    Her: "Why thank you! We've been getting a lot of orders, emails, and letters of support, especially since that crap in California."

    Me: "Actually, if Barrett were to get behind some of the alternate giant .50 cal rounds that are being discussed, well, that'd just be awesome. I hear they're calling if the .50 FUCA.

    Her: {chuckling} "Well, there's something in the works, going on. I can't say much, other than to say that almost definately, something like that will be happening.

    Me: "Really?"

    Her: "Really."

    Well, I don't know if she was having me on, but I do know that M468 uppers will be shipping in 4 weeks, and I've still got to find a local vendor.
     
  18. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Yes, the letter is very old. I have no doubt, however, that he will stick to it and would like to see a new, post California .50BMG ban letter or statement.

    Geek, when did you have your conversation?
     
  19. George S.

    George S. Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,117
    Location:
    Western WA
    While Mr. Barrett's letter to the Chief of the LAPD presents an excellent argument, I wouldn't be suprised to find that CA state laws may allow the possession of certain weapons by law enforcement organizations even though the citizens of CA may not legally have them.

    I would bet that the LAPD SWAT teams have access to a variety of assault rifles for use in situations requireing a fair amount of firepower on their part. The .50 caliber rifle may be one of them and would most likely be used in a sniper situation.
     
  20. El Rojo

    El Rojo Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,541
    Location:
    The People's Republik of **********
    Please let there be a .50 FUCA! Please let there be a .50 FUCA!
     
  21. zahc

    zahc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,961
    Location:
    TX
    This is awesome. If the whole gun industry had such principles it'd be a 1000 times better than a hundred nras

    LOL:D
     
  22. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,040
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    The conversation was last Tuesday afternoon, 9/28/2004.
     
  23. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Geek - Excellect! And I really doubt that she was shining you on. But expect factory .50FUCA rounds to cost $10 each!

    George - That is the point. The LEOs are allowed to have them -- and then use then as props to subvert the Constitution. Barrett doesn't want to facilitate their reprehensable behavior.

    I, too, have no place to shoot a .50 nor the spare cash to feed one if I owned one and had a place to shoot it. But, man, I want one (a Barrett .50BMG), bad! :evil: Note to self: Order a Barrett hat and T-shirt.
     
  24. PMDW

    PMDW Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    913
    I would be very much suprised if that were not the case. I've yet to see a gun control law that restricts governments from owning firearms.
     
  25. tyme

    tyme Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,550
    Location:
    Novalis
    Barrett should develop a .50 FUCA rifle or three and still refuse to sell or provide service to public agencies in California.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page