I was browsing around Barrett Rifles and dreaming, as I am wont to do, and recalled remembering reading something about Ronnie Barrett refusing to provide service or sales of his products to the State of California as a result of their recent banning of the .50 caliber round (and rifles that fire it) from civilian ownership.
So I did some Googling and turning up information I was looking for:
An Open Letter from Ronnie Barrett
LA Gun Bans - Letters of Opposition
Essentially, what Ronnie Barrett told the State of California in 2005 was if you ban the .50 caliber from civilian ownership and strip law-abiding citizens of their right to own a rifle that is perfectly legal in other states, he was not going to service any existing weapon of his in the State inventory of any government agency nor sell new ones to said agencies. He felt that the State agencies should not have special exceptions for them while denying rights to citizens.
Especially given that the main argument for banning the .50 caliber from civilian hands is the fact it is "too dangerous" for them to use and could be used to kill people from far away, shoot down planes, destroy oil refineries and so on. That despite that a .50 caliber weapon of any type has never been used in a crime ever in the United States. Rights abrogation through blatant hysteria.
This being 2007, I found myself wondering if this policy of refusing sales and service to California (although if New Jersey gets its way, it would be next on the list) was still in effect. After all, corporations will often trumpet about their morality and policies on whatever topic will get them coverage and then a few months later, when no one is looking, quietly go back to "business as usual".
So I wrote the following e-mail to Barrett Rifles:
April 12, 2007
Dear Barrett Firearms,
First I would like to thank you for making such a wonderful product. Althought I cannot afford (at this time) to purchase one of your fine rifles, I have had the opportunity to handle one and would like to eventually own one for recreational and competitive shooting.
I have read a letter attributed to Ronnie Barrett (located at http://nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/la50banbarrett.shtml), president of your company that indicated that Barrett Firearms would not service .50 caliber rifles in the possession of the State of California or one of its agencies due to the fact their State Legislature had banned possession and future sales of .50 caliber rifles to civilians in that state.
Is it still or has been the policy of Barrett Firearms to refuse service and/or sales of .50 caliber rifles to government agencies in any state such as California that infringe the rights of their citizens to own the same?
I admit this is relatively old information but I am curious if this is your company's policy? If so, you have my deep admiration and thanks as a civilian firearms owner for taking a stand that few companies would do in favor of a few more sales or a government contract.
And here is the response I received not 24 hours later:
Barrett has not changed our position. Thank you for the question.
Thank you for your interest in our products and our company.
Sincerely,
Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.
WWW.BarrettRifles.com
(615) 896-2938
Short, sweet and absolutely fantastic!
Some might say that what Barrett is doing is nothing more than good public relations. After all, how much are they really losing by telling the State of California to fix their own guns? The LAPD is known to own at least one Barrett .50 and if it breaks, so what? They can try to find parts and someone to service it. Failing that, I don't know if Barrett's policy extends to parts sales as well even though warranty work is definitely out. I would hope that Barrett Rifles has issued instructions to their staff to not sell anything to California and told the same to their official dealer(s).
At worst, Barrett Rifles loses a few thousand dollars in sales. And wins probably that much more in goodwill in the gun community. I know they had a good run on .50 caliber rifles by civilians in California who were beating the ban to get their rifles grandfathered in. So the loss of a few rifles to law enforcement or other state agency in California was more than made up elsewhere.
Some would dismiss Barrett's policy as nothing more than marketing and PR and leave it at that. Just another corporation making itself look good but at its heart, still a corporation.
I see it a little differently. This man made his company stand for something, no matter how small, and then stood by that stance.
Small stands do matter.
For that reason alone, I consider a Barrett really the only .50 caliber rifle I would want to own. Ronnie Barrett stood up and said his company supported civilian rights and put their interests ahead of his own. It isn't the dollar cost that matters here but the priniciples by which he did it. Even if you don't consider it noble but rather self-serving, how many companies do you see taking a politically incorrect stance on anything in the name of the average citizen?
Unlike "green" policies of many companies (including my own), no one else jumped on this bandwagon. In the firearms industry, I think Barrett stands alone on this one. You don't see ArmaLite telling the State of Illinois they won't be selling or servicing their products there to law enforcement and state agencies in reaction to their proposed civilian assault weapons ban? Sure, the President of ArmaLite called an Illinois State Senator a liar for highlighting one of their civilian products as a military weapon (which it never has been) and, although sweet, went no further. What about Beretta USA doing the same here in Maryland? Silence.
Many companies will follow a policy that provides perceived goodwill so long that they really don't suffer as a result. They strike a balance. Barrett didn't. He said "If you ban the .50, get your product from us serviced elsewhere or buy a .50 from someone else. We won't support your efforts by profiting at the expense of the Rights of your law-abiding citizens.". Given the relatively small market for .50s, that is a stance that can hurt them in the law enforcement community and at the State level. But their principles were more important than their sales.
That shows corporate character. And moral principle.
For that, I thank you, Ronnie Barrett. Your stand, no matter how small, does have a fan.
So I did some Googling and turning up information I was looking for:
An Open Letter from Ronnie Barrett
LA Gun Bans - Letters of Opposition
Essentially, what Ronnie Barrett told the State of California in 2005 was if you ban the .50 caliber from civilian ownership and strip law-abiding citizens of their right to own a rifle that is perfectly legal in other states, he was not going to service any existing weapon of his in the State inventory of any government agency nor sell new ones to said agencies. He felt that the State agencies should not have special exceptions for them while denying rights to citizens.
Especially given that the main argument for banning the .50 caliber from civilian hands is the fact it is "too dangerous" for them to use and could be used to kill people from far away, shoot down planes, destroy oil refineries and so on. That despite that a .50 caliber weapon of any type has never been used in a crime ever in the United States. Rights abrogation through blatant hysteria.
This being 2007, I found myself wondering if this policy of refusing sales and service to California (although if New Jersey gets its way, it would be next on the list) was still in effect. After all, corporations will often trumpet about their morality and policies on whatever topic will get them coverage and then a few months later, when no one is looking, quietly go back to "business as usual".
So I wrote the following e-mail to Barrett Rifles:
April 12, 2007
Dear Barrett Firearms,
First I would like to thank you for making such a wonderful product. Althought I cannot afford (at this time) to purchase one of your fine rifles, I have had the opportunity to handle one and would like to eventually own one for recreational and competitive shooting.
I have read a letter attributed to Ronnie Barrett (located at http://nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/la50banbarrett.shtml), president of your company that indicated that Barrett Firearms would not service .50 caliber rifles in the possession of the State of California or one of its agencies due to the fact their State Legislature had banned possession and future sales of .50 caliber rifles to civilians in that state.
Is it still or has been the policy of Barrett Firearms to refuse service and/or sales of .50 caliber rifles to government agencies in any state such as California that infringe the rights of their citizens to own the same?
I admit this is relatively old information but I am curious if this is your company's policy? If so, you have my deep admiration and thanks as a civilian firearms owner for taking a stand that few companies would do in favor of a few more sales or a government contract.
And here is the response I received not 24 hours later:
Barrett has not changed our position. Thank you for the question.
Thank you for your interest in our products and our company.
Sincerely,
Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.
WWW.BarrettRifles.com
(615) 896-2938
Short, sweet and absolutely fantastic!
Some might say that what Barrett is doing is nothing more than good public relations. After all, how much are they really losing by telling the State of California to fix their own guns? The LAPD is known to own at least one Barrett .50 and if it breaks, so what? They can try to find parts and someone to service it. Failing that, I don't know if Barrett's policy extends to parts sales as well even though warranty work is definitely out. I would hope that Barrett Rifles has issued instructions to their staff to not sell anything to California and told the same to their official dealer(s).
At worst, Barrett Rifles loses a few thousand dollars in sales. And wins probably that much more in goodwill in the gun community. I know they had a good run on .50 caliber rifles by civilians in California who were beating the ban to get their rifles grandfathered in. So the loss of a few rifles to law enforcement or other state agency in California was more than made up elsewhere.
Some would dismiss Barrett's policy as nothing more than marketing and PR and leave it at that. Just another corporation making itself look good but at its heart, still a corporation.
I see it a little differently. This man made his company stand for something, no matter how small, and then stood by that stance.
Small stands do matter.
For that reason alone, I consider a Barrett really the only .50 caliber rifle I would want to own. Ronnie Barrett stood up and said his company supported civilian rights and put their interests ahead of his own. It isn't the dollar cost that matters here but the priniciples by which he did it. Even if you don't consider it noble but rather self-serving, how many companies do you see taking a politically incorrect stance on anything in the name of the average citizen?
Unlike "green" policies of many companies (including my own), no one else jumped on this bandwagon. In the firearms industry, I think Barrett stands alone on this one. You don't see ArmaLite telling the State of Illinois they won't be selling or servicing their products there to law enforcement and state agencies in reaction to their proposed civilian assault weapons ban? Sure, the President of ArmaLite called an Illinois State Senator a liar for highlighting one of their civilian products as a military weapon (which it never has been) and, although sweet, went no further. What about Beretta USA doing the same here in Maryland? Silence.
Many companies will follow a policy that provides perceived goodwill so long that they really don't suffer as a result. They strike a balance. Barrett didn't. He said "If you ban the .50, get your product from us serviced elsewhere or buy a .50 from someone else. We won't support your efforts by profiting at the expense of the Rights of your law-abiding citizens.". Given the relatively small market for .50s, that is a stance that can hurt them in the law enforcement community and at the State level. But their principles were more important than their sales.
That shows corporate character. And moral principle.
For that, I thank you, Ronnie Barrett. Your stand, no matter how small, does have a fan.
3 comments:
He also sent this letter to the Illinois Senate, which, like the New Jersey legislature, is poised to ban these rifles. As an Illinois resident, Mr. Barrett has my undying gratitude and admiration.
He not only cut off all California law enforcement service, he had, at the time, one of their rifles in his company's possession for service and refused to ship it back to them or service it. They had to send officers in person to retrieve it. He apologized to the LEOs who used the rifle but said that he had to take a stand somewhere.
I think that more firearms manufacturers should follow these leader. Imagine if no manufcaturers, or ammunition suppliers, or gunsmiths would deal with these agencies. Why support an entity that seeks to defame you?
Post a Comment