this is the standard for a gun maker's response to draconian gun laws...

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

carlrodd

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
849
Location
Delaware
i know the .50 cal ban in california is old news, but i just ran across this fact about Barrett Firearms:


After AB50 was passed, Barrett proceeded to cease sales and service of .50BMG rifles to California law enforcement agencies. An official press release from the owner of Barrett Firearms can be found on the company's website, as follows: "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."

that's backbone, integrity, whatever you want to call it. i'm sure that Barrett made plenty of money of LE in CA at some point. to take a financial hit in the name of the 2nd ammendment, and in the name of their civilian customers is commendable. anybody know of other firearms manufacturers that have refused to lay down for this sort of nonsense?

incidentally, this info came from wikipedia's entry for .50BMG
 
Yeah, Barrett can do that. But expecting Remington or S&W or Any other big gun manufacturer to follow suit is a dream. They couldn't afford to simply cut off a huge block of income.
 
oldfart ~

Instead, they'll get nibbled to death by ducks.

pax

Gentlemen, we must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately. -- Ben Franklin
 
Buy Barrett!

Barrett makes the ultimate in quality--if they made handguns as well as rifles, they'd be my one-stop gunshop brand. Any business that takes such a noble stand deserves every ounce of support we can offer. I'm planning on getting one of their rifles soon. Whew, expensive...but worth every penny.
 
Barret M82s are relished in the military/swat/tatical operations/contractor/security communities as THE top of the line 50 BMG rifle.

This isn't some trivial decision even though police use of 50 caliber rifles is still small.

How many 50 BMGs do police departments buy?

Maybe 1, or 2 for special purposes?

LE (except maybe Federal) is just not a big market for 50 caliber rifles.

More companies can and should boycott selling to police departments/ agencies who support gun bans.
 
I really wish Barret made something I wanted (or rather something I wanted that I could afford :p ). I'd love to be able to support the guy.
 
Ronnie Barrett did indeed make a stand a while ago...

With his company policy to not support California government agencies that own and operate his .50 caliber weapons after they passed AB50.

The question I have is: What's happened since then? Did the California DOJ and various California law enforcement agencies subsequently sell or otherwise dispose of their now-unsupported .50 caliber Barrett M82 rifles? Things have been somewhat silent since Ronnie's shoe dropped. :confused:
 
Wow. That's what I call integrity. :) Thumbs up to Barrett! :D

They may go elsewhere for their fancy new rifles, but at least it may have made them think.
 
I agree that it is indeed a sign of integrity.

I'm not sure that expecting other major manufacturers to do the same is very reaosnable. Consider that several big makers (Sig, HK, Glock) are not US companies, and as such only give a rat's hindquarters about the 2nd Amendment insofar as it affects their bottom line (to be perfectly fair, there are plenty of US companies that feel the same way). If they had to chose between private sales and government sales, they would probably chose government sales...far more lucrative to them, due to the sheer volume involved. Therefor, they would not only feel no compunction to follow such a boycott, but the presence of such a boycott could only help them.

How? Well, let's say that S&W suddenly grows a spine and decides to withhold weapons from every CA, NJ, IL and NY government agency due to the odious gun laws in those states. What will those government buyers do? Buy from someone else. Let's say that every domestic maker, in a sudden and utterly unforeseen show of solidarity, does the same thing. Who will they buy from then?

A non-domestic maker. Glock, Sig, HK...who not only have merely a passing interest in individual freedom, but who also have a keen interest in keeping the government market- a market that suddenly just blew wide open for them due to the sudden disappearance of several key players. Let's say that the gun-buying public goes ape-feces and refuses to buy any more pistolen from der traitoren...why would they care? They just got a deathgrip on government contracts for the next decade.

I agree that we must hang together or hang separately...but the point is that the non-domestic makers feel no need to hang at all...and so they won't.

Again, though...I fully agree that Barrett has integrity.

Mike
 
So the question is:
What is the larger market; citizens or police departments?

Another question:
Which market is larger; the national citizen market or the California law enforcement market?


I don't know the answer, but I'd love to see someone answer these questions and back them up with real numbers, not just "gut feeling" (because my gut feeling is that MORE guns are sold to individual citizens every year than police departments, and DEFINITELY more sold nation wide to individual citizens than all the police departments of Califorinia combined).
 
If the gun manufactures were smart they would figure out that Calis insane gun laws = more $ to manufacture guns. This translates to higher customer prices and lower sales. In the short time they will lose money by not selling, or providing service to Cali gov agencies, but if all the manufactures stood together on this issue after a few years or less they could bring Calis LEOs to their knees. This would be enough I think to change a few laws in the state. Hats off to Barret and I am saving up for one of their fine rifles now (just dont tell the wife ;) ).
 
by exempting police and government agencies, the gun makers (domestic or not) won't need to worry about making guns with the requirements for civilians because nobody will be able to afford them. What you'll end up seeing is alot more 'gifting' or buying out of state and then transporting unregistered guns back to those states.
 
Zundfolge:

It's not a question of which is the larger market. It is a question of which is a larger market to those companies. As in, the upland game market is pretty big, but I don't see Glock being a major player in it. ;) The companies I mentioned derive a significant portion of their profits from government sales. And, moreover, they derive a significant portion of their sales worldwide from government sales. If they see a bunch of irate civilians in the US but have a solid lock on fat and happy government purchase agencies across the globe, I don't see them risking riling a portion of the latter to try and appease the former.

That said, I fully agree that we need solid numbers to push this from theory to actual fact.

Mike
 
Bullseye Mike!

Bullseye Mike! A stand, yes. A risky stand? Not so very. But, an admirable stand all the same. Thanks for that insight. I had not even thought of it in that light before your post. My mind has been expanded.

Doc2005
 
Well, here is a thought.

Get some American companies to boycott. Now, a foreign company tries to corner the market. Between our pro-gun congressmen, and anti's who could be used, we could pass a law making it illegal for any non-American company to sell guns to the government. (But leave private sales alone.) It is a long shot, but that could really hurt some anti areas IF American companies held the line.

Imagine NYC, Chicago, and DC cops minus the guns.
 
Hmm. Don't most of them have plants in the US, specifically in order to compete for gov't contracts as domestic companies? Glock is in Smyrna, Sig is in Exeter, HK is around here somewhere. I'm not sure how you could phrase the law to exclude them, and not cut out S&W (or are they all-american-owned again, now?) and probably most of the others. The thing is that most of the truly multi-national makers are global in their reach and vision, but are considered domestic for purposes of contracts (caveat: IANAL, so I might be wrong on that).

It's all hypothetical anyway. US companies wouldn't toe the line in this scenario, so I doubt you could try to divide and conquer the "importers". And, I could see that one backfiring, too, so I'd be really leery of pushing for it. We might end up with import bans on pistols (strange things happen when bills go to committee) and nothing to show for it.

Mike
 
Not only is this an unusual and refreshing stand, but for a company like Barrett, its also an inspired marketing maneuver.

Ronnie Barrett knows his company and his customers very well. He knows that he's an expensive niche market, in the big scheme of things. But he also knows that his product, while expensive, is often worth paying through the nose for. He can quite easily ride on the success of his military sales, and by taking this stand can actually increase his civilian sales in states other than California.

And he can do that because he knows that someone who may be willing to throw down several thousand dollars for the biggest rifle that average citizens are allowed to own is no slant when it comes to gun politics. Of course that customer is anti-ban. So is Barrett, and odds are very good that this particular customer doesn't live in California anyway. His statement puts his company at an unassailable position in this customer's view.

Maybe he did lose business in California with law enforcement. Odds are very good that he made back all that business and more somewhere else, and that statement of his most certainly helped. And it gives him the opportunity to market a brand new rifle to that state and everywhere else too.

You have to admire that maneuver from more than just the one angle, its just such a great idea. There's very seriously no downside for Barrett on that one.
 
If they see a bunch of irate civilians in the US but have a solid lock on fat and happy government purchase agencies across the globe, I don't see them risking riling a portion of the latter to try and appease the former.
Click to expand...

I don't think that by not manufacturing guns to meet California standards they would risk their other government contracts in other states and/or countries (as a hypothetical example; I seriously doubt the Singapore police would punish Glock because they cut off the LAPD).

The question is if they have to choose between the law enforcement market in California or a large chunk of their citizen market outside California, which will cost them the most?

We're not actually asking these companies to boycott California (unless the law gives LEOs a loophole), we're just asking them not to invest in California Compliant guns (which will cost them a bunch too in addition to the whole boycott by non LEOs outside the PRK).


While many companies don't tend to think this way, they should also want to stem the tide of any more draconian regulation of their industry because ultimately these law makers want to make them go out of business, so it IS good business for gun companies (even Austrian, Swiss, Italian, etc.) to fight to support the American RKBA. I believe that this is part of what motivated Barret. He knows that a .50BMG ban will put him out of business because most of his rifles don't go to military or law enforcement agency contracts (I also believe he was motivated by conscience).


Where would one go to find out how much money is spent on firearms in the US, broken down by "Citizen" vs "Government" sales? Also broken down by gun type would be cool too (handguns, "sporting" rifles, "non-sporting" rifles, etc).




EDIT:
I just realized that my responses to this thread are actually within the context of THIS other thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=217614 on the passage of the "Microstamping Firing Pin" law
 
I really wish Barret made something I wanted (or rather something I wanted that I could afford ). I'd love to be able to support the guy.
Click to expand...

That's the truth... if I ever moved up to that higher end market, I tell ya what...

But well wishing don't pay the bills.
 
I don't think that by not manufacturing guns to meet California standards they would risk their other government contracts in other states and/or countries (as a hypothetical example; I seriously doubt the Singapore police would punish Glock because they cut off the LAPD).
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree. I just think they would feel no real need to play along.
The question is if they have to choose between the law enforcement market in California or a large chunk of their citizen market outside California, which will cost them the most?
Click to expand...
It's not just losing the LE market in Kali vs losing a large chunk of civvie sales. They would probably view it as a chance to dominate the LE market in Kali due to the sudden absence of every domestic player, with the potential for some loss of civvie sales, maybe. From a position of crass capitalism, I think I know which one I would choose (at least, from my comfy armchair without access to the real numbers).
We're not actually asking these companies to boycott California (unless the law gives LEOs a loophole), we're just asking them not to invest in California Compliant guns (which will cost them a bunch too in addition to the whole boycott by non LEOs outside the PRK).
Click to expand...
Ah. Well, this is different than what I thought was being said, but I suspect that it is a distinction without a difference. Consider, too, how that would get posed at the monthly board meeting:
"Dieter? Did joo hear dat no von is making pistolen for Kaleeforneeyah?"

"Iss dat so, Franz? Vee could make pistolen for Kaleeforneeyah, und ROOOL ZEEE WERLD- err, market. Jah!"
Click to expand...
That would give them a lock on civvie AND government sales in Kali, with only a threat of potential boycotts of the civvie market in the other 49.

I dunno. I think they'd roll with it. Of course, I think that other companies would, too *cough*S&W*cough*SturmRuger*cough*, even without the multinational diversified sales and interests of H und K.
While many companies don't tend to think this way, they should also want to stem the tide of any more draconian regulation of their industry because ultimately these law makers want to make them go out of business, so it IS good business for gun companies (even Austrian, Swiss, Italian, etc.) to fight to support the American RKBA.
Click to expand...
They seem to be making plenty of Euros selling to the security forces of the socialist utopia over the pond. I don't think they believe you. ;)

I believe that this is part of what motivated Barret. He knows that a .50BMG ban will put him out of business because most of his rifles don't go to military or law enforcement agency contracts (I also believe he was motivated by conscience).
Click to expand...
I think that Mr. Barrett has shrewd business sense, but also conscience and a spine. The fact is that he probably did not hurt his sales too much by making a principled stand. However, don't take that to mean that I think that he is owed any less credit- I think he has cojones the size of bowling balls. If nothing else, he just made himself a lightning rod, which might be good for business in the short run but could be a bad business move in the long run, and I bet he knows it.
Where would one go to find out how much money is spent on firearms in the US, broken down by "Citizen" vs "Government" sales? Also broken down by gun type would be cool too (handguns, "sporting" rifles, "non-sporting" rifles, etc).
Click to expand...
No idea. I agree that it needs to be done, though. This is all idle speculation without the numbers.

Mike
 
I'd love to have one of Ronnie's .50 cal. rifles, but even the bare bones model with scope and mounts is going to be a $5000 package - and I have no place to shoot it. My gun club rules state "No .50 cal. rifles or full autos.":(

Of course, the new Barrett .416 could be shot at the range...:D But there's still that pesky price issue...
 
I wonder just how much money a company would lose by boycotting kalifornistan law enforcement agencies ?
For one thing, we have been told on various threads over the years that many manufacturers sell to law enforcement agencies at very minimal prices. Some have even accused Glock of selling to them at a small loss in order to make it up in maintainence agreements and good will. Let's face it, if LAPD's standard issue is Glock, this is going to have a lot of influence throughout the world (although I have no idea why personally).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Barrett Firearms tell California to get stuffed
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
G36-UK
G
T
  • Locked
Ronnie Barrett retaliates against California's AB 50
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
El Rojo
E
2
  • Locked
Letter from Ronnie Barrett
Replies
7
Views
614
JDSlack
J
4
  • Locked
My letter
Replies
11
Views
684
jdberger
J
E
  • Locked
What did Barrett really do about California rifle sales?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
5K
Elmer
E
Back
Top