Barrett boycot ineffective?

[NukemJim]

Uhm... ehrr.....

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.

If you want to talk about handgun boycots may I refer you to

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=316030


I purposely started another thread so my question would not get lost in the link posted above.

So far noone seems to KNOW if it is effective or not.

NukemJim

 

[Wes Janson]

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.

Great; good for you, and good for them if there's profit to be made-I understand and appreciate the importance of that. But that still doesn't change the essential fact that it's not going to get California law changed, and not going to do anything in particular to prevent the spread of similar laws to other states. If major companies suddenly called press conferences tomorrow a la Barrett for the purpose of increasing the level of goodwill towards their firms, then isn't that just a crass and cynical action, essentially empty of any meaning or value beyond profit? Even assuming the impossible, that every single firearms manufacturer AND distributor chooses tomorrow to cease all shipments to California, it's still not going to get the law changed. And while I can see that driving a short-term spike in sales in other places, I can't possibly see it being enough of a trend to offset the loss of one of the biggest markets in the country. People forget, grow tired, and move on to the next thing. However, you're not going to suddenly create hundreds of thousands of new consumers out of thin air in the other 49 states. Or at least, such is my analysis.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So far noone seems to KNOW if it is effective or not.

NukemJim

Just what information are you looking for? Barrett boycotted CA because of the change in the laws that made is .50 BMG rifles illegal. So he boycotted the government agencies and refuses to sell the guns or parts to them. He won't sell to them until he can sell to the rest of the state.

So has it been effective? Government agencies can still get Barrett rifles and parts. So that aspect has not changed. Barrett has not staunched the supply of either to California. California government agencies may no longer get the Barrett LE discounts, but they can get the guns and parts.

Has the boycott forced the government agencies to lobby the state legislature to change the law? Well the law hasn't changed. Have bills been put before the legislature to change the laws? Nope.

So has Ronnie Barrett's goal to get the law changed back so that he can market his rifles to civilians in California been attained through his boycott? Nope. Does it look like he is making headway in getting bills put before the legislature such that there might be a change in the near future? Nope.

Has the boycott been effective in regard to the goal Barrett wanted to attain? Nope.

Sure some of y'all want to call Barrett's actions symbolic in the fight against gun grabbers, but the guy is in business to make a profit. Notice that his symbolic effort doesn't extend to other places that have restrictive gun control laws that don't apply to his situation. He is only boycotting that which pertains to him, that which affects his bottom line. I think some of y'all are reading more into the boycott than is there. He isn't nearly as concerned with the gun grabbers as you would make him out to be. He isn't fighting for OUR rights, but for HIS market share. That is perfectly fine, too. Just note that he isn't fighting restrictive gun laws in DC, MA, IL, etc. He isn't boycotting government agencies in DC because handgun ownership is disallowed.

Ronnie Barrett is a businessman, a good one. He is fighting for HIS market to sell .50 BMGs in California.

 

[Bubbles]

Consider this: how many other jurisdictions have even come close to banning the .50 since the boycott has been put into place? For a few years .50 BMG rifles were the "poster child" of the gun-grabbers, and a logical target for them to attack since relatively few people could afford to own and/or shoot one. The anti's probably figured that they could ban it with relatively little opposition since so few people owned them.

So Barrett boycotts CA and tells FedGov and all other jurisdictions that they will be included if they enact similar bans. The legislators backed off.

Overall I'd say Barrett's action has been ineffective at getting the cA ban repealed, and effective at preventing the spread of the ban to other states.

 

[security6]

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.

 

[antsi]

------quote-------
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.
------------------

Agreed.

There is such a thing as a protest statement. Just because it doesn't lead to immediate tangible results doesn't mean it's pointless.

------quote-------
Not really. It's a nice statement on an emotional level, but if it effects no real change then it doesn't accomplish anything.
------------------

Not necessarily true in the field of politics. I seriously doubt Barrett thought CA would reverse the decision when the made his statement. Just the fact of standing up and making a statement can generate attention, influence opinion, and encourage others to do the same. That is exactly the kind of thing that builds momentum in a political movement.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Barrett can yell "boycott" all they want; the fact of the matter is that their rifles can still be bought by LE agencies in California through distributors but still has sales to the civilians, which is still above STI. Calling such action similar to Rosa Parks and the Boston Tea Party is asinine.

 

[k_dawg]

It is such a niche low-volume market, the PD can simply go to a 3rd party in Nevada. Not much that B can do about that.

This in no way detracts from Barrett's Boycott. We should still applaud it, and hope for some of the "bigger players" to come aboard.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

Agreed. Let's all boycott California.

So Barrett boycotts CA and tells FedGov and all other jurisdictions that they will be included if they enact similar bans. The legislators backed off.

Overall I'd say Barrett's action has been ineffective at getting the cA ban repealed, and effective at preventing the spread of the ban to other states.

First of all, the Federal government contract for Barrett is their bread and butter. They aren't about to boycott their primary customer. Second, just when did Barrett supposedly threaten all the other states and cause them to backoff? I think you are attributing a mythical power Barrett doesn't have. There are far too many other .50 makers to meet whatever demand there is out there for .50 BMG rifles.

 

[NukemJim]

Define effective and we'll be better able to answer your question.

Fair enough. I phrased my question poorly. Sorry about that, my bad. I was not asking about the political effects of his boycot. Let me try again.

Ronnie Barrett has a boycott for Cali LEO's/Goverment agencies regarding selling and servicing his companies products. Have Cali LEO's/Goverment agencies been unable or difficult (more than 2X cost/time) to obtain his products or get his products fixed since his boycott started?

I know next to nothing of firearms industry/distribution business. I am begining to suspect from reading some of the responses that the answer is no, that the distributors/gunsmiths are not required to follow his boycott.

Again sorry for poor phrasing of my question.

NukemJim

 

[fearless leader]

If not for GREED getting in the way, during the failed assault weapon ban, manufacturers could have done the same thing; not sold weapons or hi-cap mags to any Gov't or Police agency until the ban was lifted.

 

[Correia]

In that case, yes it has been effecitve.

I sell guns to police departments, so allow me to explain how it works. With a large department, they don't just buy guns like we buy guns. They buy a package deal that usually includes armorer training, replacement parts, and an indepth warranty agreement.

If the manufacturer won't sell directly, then they lose out on all of the extra stuff. And PD admin live and breath on the extra stuff.

Your LE distributors aren't going to step in and train your new armorer. They're not going to have a full inventory of parts on hand, and when you break something, they're not going to fix it for free as part of the warranty. If your Barrett needs a new spring, or has a problem that you can't fix on site, then BoTach ain't gonna drive over to headquarters and fix it for you.

When you do guns onesie twosie to the Somumbulant PD, then sure, that's how it works. When LAPD buys 20 $6,000 guns, there will be a huge agreement with service.

When the highway patrol buys 4,000 guns, included in that purchase is a lot of service and extras. If that company says hasta la vista, then they are up a creek. Some of you are thinking abou this like we're talking about civillians circumventing the AWB and buying stuff out of state. That isn't how administrative purchasing works at all.

Barrett and STI are being held up as examples right now, and their popularity amongst gun owners is up. The bigger companies that have those multiple several hundred gun LE contracts are doing the math right now.

Expect more annocements at SHOT.

 

[NukemJim]

Correia, Thank you very much. Your explanation of how the system works is most helpfull. I would not have thought of the "extras".

Just to make sure I understand you correctly then Barrett's boycot would not have much of an effect on a small department buying one firearm but IS haveing an effect on departments purchasing large number of firearms.

Again thank you

NukemJim
PS I am eagerly awaiting my copy of MHI. NJ

 

[Notch]

If'n you are not part of the solution, you ARE part of the problem. Kudos to Barret and their refusal to deal with the sad sad state.