What did Barrett really do about California rifle sales?

[El Rojo]

I keep hearing everyone on these PRK threads talk about how Barrett won't sell guns to any agencies in the PRK or service their rifles. All I ever hear is how he won't sell rifles in California. Well that is fine and dandy, but what is to stop a wholesaler or retailer from buying a Barrett and selling it to the PRK? Nothing. What is to stop a local gunsmith from working on the weapon? Nothing. Legally, if the firearm is broke and under warranty, what does Mr. Barrett really say about servicing the rifle under warranty and what would the law say about him refusing to service a rifle under warranty?

Don't get me wrong, I like Barrett's idea and I whole heartidly support it, but are people just blowing this thing out of proportion? Seriously, he has no control over a FFL buying one of his weapons and turning around to sell it to someone in the PRK. None. Unless I am wrong and someone wants to tell me otherwise.

Now if he refused warranty service as well, that is pretty ballsy and I would respect that more, but legally can you do that and would it open you up to a civil suit?

 

[boofus]

Well no distributor that wants to stay in business will do that because it's against the law in KA to sell Barrett's rifles remember?

I guess an out of state FFL could sell to someone in KA but even then it must go through an in-state FFL unless they want to break federal law.

 

[Old Fuff]

>> Now if he refused warranty service as well, that is pretty ballsy and I would respect that more, but legally can you do that and would it open you up to a civil suit? <<

The company has a clear and stated policy about sales in California. Regardless of how it was obtained, Barrett can legally refuse to perform repairs on a rifle that is returned to them from an addressee in that state. To be eligible for warrantee repairs the owner has to first return the warrantee card that is included with the rifle, or otherwise registered his/her ownership of that particular rifle with the company. If the owner used a method to purchase the rifle that would circumvent the company's policy restricting California sales, they're intentional attempt to evade Barrett's position would make the company's legal position even stronger.

 

[Don of Kalifornia]

More important is quite a few police depts. have Barrett rifles. Mr. Barrett will not do any repairs on these rifles or sell to any depts. (these are usually done directly between the dept and manufacter)

The main hope is other manufacters follow suit especially with Kommieforia's latest moron anti bullet scheme.

 

[Crosshair]

Will Mr. Barrett even sell spare parts to CA? That will put the police in a hard spot. Only problem is that they are built so well that it will be a while before they break.

 

[thebucket]

Didn't the .50 ban in Kali grandfather in currently owned .50's? Would Barrett still service the rifles owned by any civilians with grandfathered rifles?

 

[ksnecktieman]

My understanding of Mr. Barretts position is that he will no longer sell to law enforcement in California, or service their weapons for them. I would expect him to still stand behind any needed warrantee work, for Law enforcement or for civilian owners.

I think he has made a great statement for freedom. I see his stance as telling the legislature (California in this case) to "Don't Tread On Me". Thank you for that, Mr. Barrett, from all of us.

 

[Bacchus]

Barrett has an ad in the most current issue of American Rifleman. It says that he refuses to sell or service any 50 in CA.

 

[Byron Quick]

Don't get me wrong, I like Barrett's idea and I whole heartidly support it, but are people just blowing this thing out of proportion? Seriously, he has no control over a FFL buying one of his weapons and turning around to sell it to someone in the PRK. None. Unless I am wrong and someone wants to tell me otherwise.

Sure, he has no control over a FFL or distributor selling to a California law enforcement agency...until he finds out where the California law enforcement agency got it from. Then he can refuse to sell to that FFL or distributor every again...and take out an ad detailing why.

Thereafter, would you ever do business with the folks who tried to circumvent his position? I wouldn't. I don't think that many politically aware gun owners would. Trying this would be an excellent way of getting a nationwide boycott organized against your business. Think it's worth it to sell a couple of dozen Barrett .50's to cops in the PRK?

As far as warranty work for PRK LEA's...I don't know what his legal standing would be for refusing such. Maybe stating the fact that PRK LEA's lied or failed to object to other LEA's lieing about his product before legislative bodies of the PRK would change his liability for warranty work.

Depending on his financial situation, maybe he could just refund the LEA's cost when they send the rifle for refund. After all, most warranties read,"repair or replace, at our option . So BArret sends a letter back that reads,"Dear Sirs, Upon examination of this rifle, my experts decided to replace it rather than repair it. However, sending new rifles to PRK LEA's is against company policy. Therefore, enclosed is a check for the full purchase price. Have a nice day and go away. Ron Barrett"

 

[Elmer]

Sigh.......

This was a PR stunt to gather customers.

The amount of Barrett's in use by California law enforcement is miniscule.

Barrett knows his customer base. Many of them think boycotts sound really cool and tough. It also makes them feel better about their own lack of action on gun legislation.

Meanwhile, these same guys are buying Russian and Chinese guns and ammunition, because it's a couple of bucks cheaper.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Elmer, I think Barrett got good PR from this, but it was not a stunt in my opinion.

The California state government banned sale of his weapon in the State of California. California accounts for about 15 % of the US population, and is the 5th largest economy in the world. Thats a big chunk of people (and money) to whom he can no longer market his products.

Also, you insult his customers by saying they are politically inactive. How could you possibly know, or be willing to paint them as such? People buying $3,000+ Barrett rifles are not casual gun owners, but pretty hard core enthusiasts... they also know their hobby is under fire, and are probably more active than you think.

As for Barrett customers buying cheap Russian or Chinese ammo and guns, what is the point of that comment? Money probably isn't a big factor with Barrett owners. Maybe they just like AK's too, and not too many American companies are making them.

 

[Sir Aardvark]

My cost wholesale for a California legal Barrett M82 was $6,300.00, shipping included in price. These things are not cheap!.

I applaud Ron Barrett for standing up for what he believes in and for what he thinks is right. I wish more people would have the gumption to do the right thing instead of following the money and letting greed rule their values.

Ford recently had issues with Police Dept's. sueing the company over Crown Vic's exploding into flames when rear-ended at 70 MPH.
Ford refused to do business with any Police Dept. who had an active lawsuit against it.
If you are the chief of police, with a budget to maintain, and you can no longer buy Crown Vic's at the cop price of $11,000.00 and the next best thing is a Dodge at $18,000 and you have to buy 50 of them, what are you gonna do?....drop the lawsuit of course.

I realize that Barrett isn't Ford, but its good to see people doing the right thing for a change.

 

[RooK]

Remember the department that was suing Ford over the Crown Vics and then tried to go through court to force them to sell more of the vehicles to the department? The court made the right decision for once and upheld Ford's refusal to sell, but that was priceless. It also shows how sad the state of human intelligence is in this country.

 

[Standing Wolf]

...I like Barrett's idea and I whole heartidly support it, but are people just blowing this thing out of proportion?

There's no such thing as "out of proportion" when defending the nation's civil rights. They're under ferocious, vicious, unscrupulous assault. Anything and everything we can do to defend them is to the good.

 

[MN_Strelok]

Excerpted from Barrett's latest letter here:

Many of you have inquired as to the outcome of the letter I wrote to Police Chief Bratten of the LAPD. Unfortunately, the chief’s position did not change. He continued to use his officers in the same deceptive practices formerly utilized with the city council. These few officers testifying in Sacramento ultimately contributed to the unconstitutional AB50 law being passed. It saddened me to have to tell members of the LAPD SWAT team they would have to send someone for their rifle, because I refused to assist anyone or any organization that is in violation of the United States Constitution. In turn, the department arranged to pick up their un-serviced rifle.

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.

 

[El Rojo]

I think Barrett was trying to send a message and I also think the message was mixed with an advertising message for the rest of the country. Seriously, this isn't going to hurt Barrett one bit as far as rifle sales go. Yeah there were people in California who bought Barretts, but not as many as the military and the rest of free America. So he takes a miniscule hit and makes himself look good, all in the name of the Second Amendment. I respect that. I just don't think he is the messiah of the Second Amendment for it and I don't think you can use him as an example for the rest of the gun industry to follow. The free market being what it is and knowing what we know about cartels, there will always be someone who is willing to cheat in order to make a buck. Additionally, the specialized nature of the .50 BMG rifle and its limited production and high cost makes it a unique case as far as boycotting agencies. Again, how many .50 BMG rifles exist in LEO inventories in the state?

If push came to shove, individual FFLs across the country would sneak guns into the PRK and there wouldn't be a darn thing the manufacturers could do about it. What is to stop a wholesaler from selling to a retailer and then the retailer turning around and selling to the PRK? The wholesaler has no control over the retailers actions, so how is the manufacturer going to cut off the wholesaler? If we really want to win this war, we need to win it in Sacramento.

Now a good idea is if the PRK legislature keeps banning guns due to a lack of "safety features", I wouldn't mind seeing some manufacturers just refuse to make "safe guns". Afterall, it is rare that police guns get the "safe guns" exemption. Aren't the new microstamped guns supposed to be uniform for law enforcement too? I just read through AB352 and it doesn't say anything about exempting LEOs. However, that doesn't mean they aren't exempt somewhere else. Anyway, how great would that be if Glock just said, "Sorry, everyone else likes our design, we aren't changing it for you. Have a nice day." In that case there is no way to cheat the system; they would just have to fix the system.

 

[artherd]

At least it's a gesture, if mostly symbolic (except for the $7300 paperweight the LAPD now owns, ha!)

Lastly, I am sure Civilian sales and service will be unaffected. Heck, Barrett rush-produced 100 or so cleverly modified CA-LEGAL versions of the SEMI-AUTO M82-A1 with a fixed mag. Going to extra efforts to sell a few more guns to us CA denizens shows me pretty clearly where he stands.

I got #99 of 100. And I am very very very glad I did.

Yes, Barrett Mfg is about making a buck. Any business ultimately is. And these ballsy letters and in-your-face service letters are great marketing tools. And I'm sure Barrett turned a nice little profit making those special 100 rifles for CA. I don't begrudge any of that.

And show me someone else standing up?

 

[only1asterisk]

Honestly, I don't think Barrett stands to do anything but lose money over his decision. Mr. Barrett is a low volume manufacturer of a expensive, durable, specialty product. You don't get ahead by alienating major markets.

Do I hope he sells some rifles? Hell yes!

David

 

[Elmer]

C'mon People...

It saddened me to have to tell members of the LAPD SWAT team they would have to send someone for their rifle, because I refused to assist anyone or any organization that is in violation of the United States Constitution.

Funny how when the federal assault weapons ban was passed in 1994, not only did Barrett not discontinue selling to the federal government, he ramped up his sales.

I'm not saying that he should have stopped selling to them. I'm just saying his boycott of CA LE is just a PR stunt, that will cost him next to no business.

As for Barrett customers buying cheap Russian or Chinese ammo and guns, what is the point of that comment? Money probably isn't a big factor with Barrett owners. Maybe they just like AK's too, and not too many American companies are making them.

My point is, everyone's cheering about a meaningless "boycott" by Barrett, while turning a blind eye towards buying products from the Russians and Chinese.

 

[Psssniper]

Well Barretts actions may inspire others to take a stand like these guys did

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172471

Personally I couldn't get a Barrett rifle before the ban but I ordered some misc merchandise from their website and wrote them a note saying thanks for speaking up.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I still am not sure how buying a Russian made rifle is related to anti gun laws passed in the State of California...

 

[cracked butt]

The amount of Barrett's in use by California law enforcement is miniscule.

Pretty much right on that point. About the only thing Barrett .50s owned by the police do is turn up at photo-ops at gun buybacks or press conferences involving bans.

 

[VaughnT]

When this first hit the press, I was impressed enough to drop by the Barrett website and buy a shirt and hat. I can't afford one of their rifles, and surely don't have any need for one, but I thought it was important to show some support for their decision.

Yea, I can see it as a bunch of hype; they don't sell a lot of .50's to the State of Cali. But, what other company has made such a powerful public statement? Has Glock refused to deal with the PRK agencies because of their stance against citizen's rights? Has Beretta canceled any contracts? Where does Ruger stand?

Of all the gun makers out there, only Barrett as ever stood up and made a public declaration like this. Sure, he's small potatoes compared to Colt or Smith & Wesson, but at least he's standing tall in the crowd.

 

[Old Fuff]

Indeed yes. So far Mr. Barrett is the only firearms manufacturer with enough guts to tell the Democrats in California that they can't ban his products for civilian sales on one hand, but still have them available for law enforcement organizations on the other.

The Democrats have decided that any firearm that so much as looks like a military arm must not be allowed in civilian hands, the Second Amendment not withstanding. Now they are about to tell the ammunition makers that they have to serial number each and every cartridge case and bullet that might be fired from a handgun. California residents are only allowed to buy (new) handguns that are approved by the state's Attorney General.

The only way that these restrictions - and more - are going to be stopped and/or reversed is if the firearms industry as a whole tells the California legislature that they are not going to be the tail that wags the dog, and that from here on California law enforcement is not going to get any weapons, or product support from the respective companies. They may sneak through he back door, but it will cost them.

Will this ever happen? It might, if and when doing business in California becomes so difficult that it is unprofitable. Firearms companies are in business for one purpose - to make money. California Democrats are obviously trying to stop civilian sales by making them unprofitable. They may come to wish they hadn't succeeded.

 

[HankB]

My (non-lawyer's) take on this . . . if Barrett were to deny warranty coverage on a rifle with an unexpired warranty to someone in CA who purchased one of his rifles before his "No Sales to CA" policy, he'd likely have some legal problems.

As far as denying warranty service to someone who obtained a rifle AFTER the "No Sales to CA" policy went in effect, I believe he'd be on solid ground there. Camera and electronics companies have for years been denying warranty coverage on consumer products obtained through the so-called "grey market" so it would seem there's ample precedent for this.