Via Say Uncle I read that Barret is refusing to sell firearms to any Califonria government agency. The sole piece of evidence I've seen to substantiate this claim is the photo int he last link. It's possibe that it could not have originated with Barret but it would be consistent with previously expressed sentiments (that's the .pdf version from Barret's website. Here's an html version).
Actually I just got off the phone with Barret Firearms. A salesperson confirmed that Barret was indeed refusing to sell to any California government agency.
I can't afford a Barret .50 such as the 82A1 nor do I want one of their M468 rifles in 6.8 Remington SPC. But they do sell hats & t-shirts as well as other odds & ends. If you want to show your support of Barret's support of you, then buying a hat may be something to ponder.
Barret's stand is mainly symbolic; I doubt the government of California will come to a screeching halt because they lack new .50's. But it's a much appreciated gesture & if it were to catch on it could be an effective tool to preserve our freedoms. I doubt seriously that Glock or Smith & Wesson would ever refuse to sell to a government agency (such as Chicago's PD or D.C.'s PD) because of their treatment of their citizen's Right to Arms, but if they did it'd be a whole new ballgame. This was discussed during a blogger's chat a few months back. The idea was to approach a firearms or ammo maker & convince them to refuse to sell to any government agency where the Right to Arms was substantially negated (such as Cali, or Illinios, or NYC, or D.C.). I still think it has merit, but the problem is finding a manufacturer willing to do this. If civilian sales could be guaranteed to increase then there'd be a possible incentive (other than doing something because it's right). But the main concern of any company wouldn't be sales (law enforcement & military contract comprise a small portion of most gun makers business) it would be P.R.
In any event much appreciation to Barret for not doing business with a government that disrespects its citizen's Rights.
Posted by Publicola at April 13, 2005 02:12 PMGreat investigative work--I'd like to include this one in the carnival (if you already submitted, I'll include both).
Posted by: Gullyborg at April 13, 2005 04:29 PMI don't know whether Barrett has actually established this policy, nor do I know if the policy, if established, has continued. However, according to the link you provided to Barrett's "Letter in Opposition", he wrote the letter on December 11, 2002.
This may be 'news', but it's not NEW news.
Posted by: Jerry the Geek at April 14, 2005 12:17 AMThe letter from Barrett to the chief of the LAPD is over two years old. It is dated December 11, 2002. The Barrett website contains no notice that he will not sell to any California address.
This may still be his policy, but there's no evidence to support such a supposition.
It may be "news", but it's not "NEW news".
Posted by: Jerry the Geek at April 14, 2005 12:32 AMPR may be just the reason Barrett is not making such a big deal about this. Hopefully, as this makes more news, Barrett will find the opposite to be true. The more publicity, the more Barrett's gun/hat/t-shirt sales should skyrocket. (Further incentive for other private companies to stop being the arms dealers for tyranical governments.)
Posted by: FishOrMan at April 14, 2005 04:57 AMFWIW: this month's issue of American Rifleman has a Barrett ad that has at the bottom of the ad plainly visible text stating "Barrett will not sell to California Government agencies".
Ronnie has said publicly that he will institute the same policy in any city or state that bans, or attempts to ban his porducts.
I wonder if that includes his AR's as well?
Posted by: Chris Byrne at April 14, 2005 11:26 AMBarret is also not repairing the ones that California state and local governments are sending them for repair.
This is new news because there was a 60 Minutes "news" story that was covering the demise of the AWB, and Barret was featured in it. He made mention of this issue in that story...
Posted by: freddyboomboom at April 15, 2005 08:50 PMHas anyone asked why the State of California, or any other government, has in its possession .50-cal rifles in the first place? Who are they planning on using them on? Is the LAPD planning on "going nuclear" on car-chase-people, or is Arnold planning for Skynet to "become aware" in 2008?
You see, if that stupid question can be applied to us, why can't it be applied to them?
Also, I wonder if the Kali National Guard is suffering from Ronnie Barrett's ban...
Posted by: Libercontrarian at April 15, 2005 09:18 PMIn their ad in the current "American Rifleman" (which I came today) it has a tag that " Barrett F.M.I. will not sell to any california government agencies".
Posted by: Stephen at April 16, 2005 03:46 PM