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

Barrett boycot ineffective?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by NukemJim, Nov 13, 2007.

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

    NukemJim Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,201
    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 " A post was made by TexasRifleman that stated in part

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

    NukemJim
     
  2. Jimmy Newman

    Jimmy Newman Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    280
    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.
     
  3. Gator

    Gator Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Messages:
    2,231
    Location:
    Stuck in Crook Co., IL
    It is more of a moral stand for Ron Barrett than anything else, but I applaud him for it.
     
  4. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,098
    nukem, call barrett and ask. their number is on their website.
     
  5. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    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.
     
  6. Thumper

    Thumper Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,904
    Location:
    Rosenberg, Texas
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2007
  7. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    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.
     
  8. Thumper

    Thumper Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,904
    Location:
    Rosenberg, Texas
    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.
     
  9. Technosavant

    Technosavant Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,011
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    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.
     
  10. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,098
    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.
     
  11. GigaBuist

    GigaBuist Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,261
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI
    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.
     
  12. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    I doubt there are very police agencies in CA even using Barretts or any 50 caliber BMG rifle
     
  13. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,632
    Location:
    Forestburg, Texas
    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.


    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.
     
  14. NukemJim

    NukemJim Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,201
    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
     
  15. xjchief

    xjchief Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Messages:
    443
    Location:
    People's Banana Republic of Hawaii
    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
     
  16. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    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.

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

    Wes Janson Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,962
    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.
     
  18. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,632
    Location:
    Forestburg, Texas
    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.
     
  19. ceetee

    ceetee Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,998
    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"...
     
  20. Correia

    Correia Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    10,648
    Location:
    SLC
    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.
     
  21. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,849
    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.
     
  22. Glockamania®

    Glockamania® Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Messages:
    100
    Location:
    Klingon Substation #69
    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.
     
  23. Tom Servo

    Tom Servo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,314
    Location:
    The hilly SE
    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.
     
  24. strat81

    strat81 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,912
    Location:
    Nebraska
    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.
     
  25. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,356
    Location:
    Oregon
    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.

    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page