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of any of these things, but if everybody did them we would be a lot more effective in getting gun restrictions repealed!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.