Gotta Love that Ronnie Barrett

[Mr.Goodtimes]

FULL AUTO FOR EVERY ONE!!!!!

[CarlosDJackal]

Didn't he also not return some 50 cal rifles from Cal LE that he had in his shop for maintenance or something?

That's what I also heard. Some CA LE Agency sent two of their .50-cal rifles for some shop service and he refused to send it back (for fear of breaking the law?).

While I agree with an applaud what Mr. Barrett is doing. I do not agree with the method nor do I think that his approach would work in every instance. For the most part, .50-caliber firearms are a novelty in the LE community and as far as I'm concerned, its use or need is very specific to the terrain and threat that Agency's jurisdiction faces.

If Glock, Sig, Remington, etc. were to take this same stance (as suggested by a poster), the people who would suffer the most is the Public. There is nothing in our oathe as Law Enforcement officers that says that we have to risk our own lives. We do so only because we want the best for our communities and consider it our duty to do our most to protect the innocent.

I for one would never willingly put myself in a situation in which I have to trust my life and the safety of my community to anything but the best I can get my hands on. If the other manufacturers were to follow Mr. Barrett's lead and refuse to allow me to purchase their products for duty use, I would resign as would a lot of the other "Gun Friendly" LEOs. What the public will probably be left with are LEOs who are not as well-versed on firearms; but are working that job becausse it is a paycheck.

How many of those LEOs do you think would be willing to run towards the sound of gunfire instead of away from it? JM2CW.

[Honu]

If Glock, Sig, Remington, etc. were to take this same stance (as suggested by a poster), the people who would suffer the most is the Public. There is nothing in our oathe as Law Enforcement officers that says that we have to risk our own lives. We do so only because we want the best for our communities and consider it our duty to do our most to protect the innocent.

I for one would never willingly put myself in a situation in which I have to trust my life and the safety of my community to anything but the best I can get my hands on. If the other manufacturers were to follow Mr. Barrett's lead and refuse to allow me to purchase their products for duty use, I would resign as would a lot of the other "Gun Friendly" LEOs. What the public will probably be left with are LEOs who are not as well-versed on firearms; but are working that job becausse it is a paycheck.

How many of those LEOs do you think would be willing to run towards the sound of gunfire instead of away from it? JM2CW.

I can say maybe then the public would realize guns are not the evil things that kill everyone but the things that can protect us !!!

maybe they need to get a wake up call and realize that criminals do not care about gun laws at all ! and will still have them ! maybe they need to realize guns are part of this world !
guns are not the problem there views on criminals are whats wrong

so I am one of those that think gun manufactures should just say fine we wont ship to your state anymore !!! and lets see what happens to the public view then

of course the lefty wacks will blame the guns not the criminals ?

and when you wont go put yourself on the line unarmed which I would understand maybe the public will be forced into realizing things are not ideological like they think they are and loving the criminals cause they are someones children does not work

[RyanB]

I think the firearms industry should voluntarily apply all laws to law enforcement as they apply to civilians. Yes it would hurt. Thats the point. When LE administrators couldn't get good weapons that worked and the TV news picked up on it, things might change.

[Jim D]

If Glock, Sig, Remington, etc. were to take this same stance (as suggested by a poster), the people who would suffer the most is the Public. There is nothing in our oathe as Law Enforcement officers that says that we have to risk our own lives. We do so only because we want the best for our communities and consider it our duty to do our most to protect the innocent.

I for one would never willingly put myself in a situation in which I have to trust my life and the safety of my community to anything but the best I can get my hands on. If the other manufacturers were to follow Mr. Barrett's lead and refuse to allow me to purchase their products for duty use, I would resign as would a lot of the other "Gun Friendly" LEOs. What the public will probably be left with are LEOs who are not as well-versed on firearms; but are working that job becausse it is a paycheck.

How many of those LEOs do you think would be willing to run towards the sound of gunfire instead of away from it? JM2CW.

And when the LEO's make a stink about having to play by the same rules as the public, it'd draw more attention to the lack of the public's ability to defend itself.

The ramifications of such an industry boycott would be huge....but it may be what is needed to wake people up. IMO.

[Jay Cunningham]

So, do LEO's make the law?

Let's act like adults here and keep the LEO bashing non-existent, shall we?

[RyanB]

I don't see any LEO bashing here. Certainly officers would be the ones to suffer but it's like a strike, you have to make someone uncomfortable or nothing will change. The day that a mayor has to go on TV and tell his citizens that his officers are undergunned against criminals because they have the same equipment you or I can buy, we might see some change.

[SW-Shooter]

That's what I also heard. Some CA LE Agency sent two of their .50-cal rifles for some shop service and he refused to send it back (for fear of breaking the law?).

While I agree with an applaud what Mr. Barrett is doing. I do not agree with the method nor do I think that his approach would work in every instance. For the most part, .50-caliber firearms are a novelty in the LE community and as far as I'm concerned, its use or need is very specific to the terrain and threat that Agency's jurisdiction faces.

If Glock, Sig, Remington, etc. were to take this same stance (as suggested by a poster), the people who would suffer the most is the Public. There is nothing in our oathe as Law Enforcement officers that says that we have to risk our own lives. We do so only because we want the best for our communities and consider it our duty to do our most to protect the innocent.

I for one would never willingly put myself in a situation in which I have to trust my life and the safety of my community to anything but the best I can get my hands on. If the other manufacturers were to follow Mr. Barrett's lead and refuse to allow me to purchase their products for duty use, I would resign as would a lot of the other "Gun Friendly" LEOs. What the public will probably be left with are LEOs who are not as well-versed on firearms; but are working that job because it is a paycheck.

How many of those LEOs do you think would be willing to run towards the sound of gunfire instead of away from it? JM2CW.

I for one don't count on Law Enforcement for my protection. I view them merely as an administrative organization. When I need to file a report I'll call them to fill out the paperwork, other than that I have no use for them. Now EMS & Fire, that's a whole other story. For the most part the police don't prevent crime they respond to it. It's each citizens responsibility to ensure the physical security and safety of their family. So I'd be pleased as punch if every company took Mr. Barretts stance.

It's been my experience that a large majority of L.E. officers that I've met are some of the least knowledgeable folks about firearms and the laws pertaining to their ownership. But there are also those that take their job seriously and don't just "do their job", they are some of the the most professional out there.

So basically I take the responsibility to have the tools and training to take care of mine, myself! I'll take my lumps now.

[Savior 6]

I don't see any LEO bashing either and I don't believe anyone's intent would be to keep officers at the mercy of criminals and their firepower. I think the intent would be to put the public at a discomfort knowing their LEO community would be at a disadvantege and in turn force their politicians to revoke their unjust laws. Politicians do not suffer in the streets, they can only suffer in the polls.

[sjc3081]

So, do LEO's make the law?

Let's act like adults here and keep the LEO bashing non-existent, shall we?

No LEO's don't make the law. But if they choose to enforce laws that are in direct contrast to the Founding Fathers original intent. They are just as guilty as the traitors that write the law, and they should be held just as accountable.