View Full Version : Barrett joins fight, refusing to sell to NY agencies
citizensoldier16
02-20-13, 17:51
http://www.facebook.com/barrett.net
Barrett’s Position Regarding the Assault on Liberty
February 20, 2013
Barrett opposes those who are illegally disarming the American public from their efficient arms and creating superior armed elitist government agencies.
Elected state officials of New York, having been sworn to protect our Constitution, have instead committed an offense against it and their citizens by stripping inalienable rights duly protected and guaranteed under the Second Amendment. By their deliberate and sinister actions, these officials now cause their state and local policing agencies to enforce these unconstitutional and illegal so called “laws”.
By current law, Barrett cannot be an accomplice with any lawbreaker, therefore, cannot and will not service or sell to New York government agencies. Barrett also applies this stance to the individual elected official who, as a matter of public record, has voted for or created regulation that violates the constitutional rights of their citizens. This is an expansion of our 2002 ban against the California government due to their second amendment infringements, and shall apply to any future violators.
In the course of world history there have been officials that strip inalienable rights from the people that were given to all by our Creator. Most of these officials inevitably come to trial, some do not.
Intentionally violating constitutional rights by officials that have sworn to uphold them should have severe prison sentences.
With the clear vision of horrible events in history repeating itself, all manufacturers of firearms or related equipment remaining in partnership with such violators should have a respectable fear of being found with the guilty on their day of trial.
During this era of assault on liberty, Barrett will remain steadfast in our efforts to serve law-abiding citizens of all fifty states, and stands together with you in the struggles we will fight and win.
Ronnie Barrett
Chairman and CEO
Let me be the first to say it...
"No cop needs a .50 rifle."
:sarcastic:
Magic_Salad0892
02-20-13, 18:03
Let me be the first to say it...
"No cop needs a .50 rifle."
:sarcastic:
I was really hoping I'd be the first to post that!
Moose-Knuckle
02-20-13, 18:16
Mr. Barrett has had this stance for awhile now. He started this after CA banned .50 BMG from it's citizens. I'm sure he will follow suite with CO and anyone else to passes this shit.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
02-20-13, 19:31
Rock on Barrett!
Rock on Barrett!
x2, now if Glock would just stop supplying G37s to the NYSP and force them to switch to another platform.
D. Christopher
02-20-13, 19:46
God bless Ronnie Barrett and his family. I'm proud to call them neighbors.
Mr. Barrett has had this stance for awhile now. He started this after CA banned .50 BMG from it's citizens. I'm sure he will follow suite with CO and anyone else to passes this shit.
Yep. No surprise here. The precision .50 boys were doing this before it was cool.
Nevertheless it is very encouraging.
-Jax
x2, now if Glock would just stop supplying G37s to the NYSP and force them to switch to another platform.
A new thread has been posted saying that 500 NYSP have sent word to their union to oppose the ban or be removed from office. Might want to give THOSE guys a little room to navigate before we cut them off entirely. I'm hoping to hear of similar uprisings within other agencies.
Let me be the first to say it...
"No cop needs a .50 rifle."
:sarcastic:
Weapons of war don't belong on our streets. :D
SPARTAN HOPLITE ARMS
02-20-13, 23:57
Nypd uses some Barrett 50s for helicopter deployments/anti-materiel uses. As for Glock, the NYPD is also the single largest purchaser in the state. Hard pill to swallow for them to give up on that money train.
I respect the effort, but reality is that it's not going to make a significant impact.
The companies (ATK, Glock, Beretta, Remington, FN, SIG.) that can actually make a difference are so heavily vested in LE/Govt contracts that they'll never cut their own heads off.
Nypd uses some Barrett 50s for helicopter deployments/anti-materiel uses
Pfft. :rolleyes: Why don't they just order up some MRAPs and shit.
Oops.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ywtUjMEy71k/UAflQBADf5I/AAAAAAAAdKI/TYLZrxhYe5E/s1600/628x471.jpg
http://api.ning.com/files/*GKmXyD17LNbWHhZFpPuONd27cD25hEcABWQCT0SgbQFCTF-H8*XWR538I57hevzSF6rvV1f6QW-U742Ixeds6a681tFpHB5/CaptureHomelandSecurityMRAP...JPG?width=629&height=476
Nypd uses some Barrett 50s for helicopter deployments/anti-materiel uses. As for Glock, the NYPD is also the single largest purchaser in the state. Hard pill to swallow for them to give up on that money train.
Given that Glock was the actual force behind ballistic fingerprinting and the spent casing requirements of some states I doubt they would support anything of the sort.
People have a choice, to buy a Glock or not. The same choice applies to S&W, Ruger, Remington, etc. I'll give Ruger some credit for initiating the push on their website to let our Reps know our position. I'll give S&W credit for pulling out of that sportsman's show. There are more and more companies voicing a stand. This could catch on with the others. No matter that they may be symbolic in their gesture, but I truly believe these small actions can add up and influence larger companies to try and do the same. They might find out that the civilian market can be very loyal in the long run. They would lose market share in the LE sector but gain in the civilian sector. As always, let your conscience be your guide.
Best letter I've read thus far.
Thank you Barrett.
Given that Glock was the actual force behind ballistic fingerprinting and the spent casing requirements of some states I doubt they would support anything of the sort.
Ha, ask the NYSP how fruitful the millions of dollars spent on CoBis turned out to be... morons :rolleyes:
Here's my problem with all of these "I am going to stop LE sales nonsense letters". I realize that in 2004/5 he implemented the same policy in California when Arnold signed the bill into law.
But, I have to wonder where were all of these companies when the rights were being infringed that didn't involve their stuff? California has had two AWB's since 1989 and yet no one got involved until he couldn't sell his .50's anymore.
Also, by rational extension the President of the United States also known as the Commander in Chief is actively working with Kooky Joe to take our gun rights away at the federal level. So shouldn't all of these companies cease business with the .GOV/.MIL until they stop?
It seems like the infringing is ok as long as it isn't their product being infringed. In the case of Magpul I support their position 100%. They told the state that their laws are stupid, they testified along with others and they made it clear of the repercussions. The the governor has to decide what's more important. A feelgood piece of bullshit legislation or the loss of jobs and large portion of their tax base.
What about the other states that infringe on gun owners? I have mentioned them before- Illinois, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, Maryland, etc...etc.. Why do business with their state and local agencies? Aren't they also infringing the rights of the citizens of their states with their nonsense?
Here's my problem with all of these "I am going to stop LE sales nonsense letters". I realize that in 2004/5 he implemented the same policy in California when Arnold signed the bill into law.
But, I have to wonder where were all of these companies when the rights were being infringed that didn't involve their stuff? California has had two AWB's since 1989 and yet no one got involved until he couldn't sell his .50's anymore.
Also, by rational extension the President of the United States also known as the Commander in Chief is actively working with Kooky Joe to take our gun rights away at the federal level. So shouldn't all of these companies cease business with the .GOV/.MIL until they stop?
It seems like the infringing is ok as long as it isn't their product being infringed. In the case of Magpul I support their position 100%. They told the state that their laws are stupid, they testified along with others and they made it clear of the repercussions. The the governor has to decide what's more important. A feelgood piece of bullshit legislation or the loss of jobs and large portion of their tax base.
What about the other states that infringe on gun owners? I have mentioned them before- Illinois, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, Maryland, etc...etc.. Why do business with their state and local agencies? Aren't they also infringing the rights of the citizens of their states with their nonsense?
I agree with your point, but I think this time its different. We are seeing such a huge attack on us, on all govt levels, since Sandy Hook. They are trying to make that a water shed moment to enact their "change." They are making this THE fight on the 2A. The battle lines are being drawn, sides are being taken. I think this is more than just PR moves, as these companies are already selling every little piece of anything they can get their hands on or produce.
Why is it different? Why don't all these people (Barrett, Olympic Arms, etc... stop selling to all agencies in every state that infringes the gun rights of all citizens and not just the legislation that affects them?
Everyone says "we have to stand together or we will hang separately so why not make a new policy that states- "We will no longer sell, repair, xxx, xxxxx to any state that has prohibitive laws in place that infringes on the rights of the citizens of those states to keep and bear arms". Seems pretty straight forward to me.
I agree with your point, but I think this time its different. We are seeing such a huge attack on us, on all govt levels, since Sandy Hook. They are trying to make that a water shed moment to enact their "change." They are making this THE fight on the 2A. The battle lines are being drawn, sides are being taken. I think this is more than just PR moves, as these companies are already selling every little piece of anything they can get their hands on or produce.
Why is it different? Why don't all these people (Barrett, Olympic Arms, etc... stop selling to all agencies in every state that infringes the gun rights of all citizens and not just the legislation that affects them?
Everyone says "we have to stand together or we will hang separately so why not make a new policy that states- "We will no longer sell, repair, xxx, xxxxx to any state that has prohibitive laws in place that infringes on the rights of the citizens of those states to keep and bear arms". Seems pretty straight forward to me.
They are doing something, we don't want them to go out of business, that wouldn't be good for anyone.
I'm not advocating in anyway that they go out of business nor am I saying they shouldn't sell to the US military or the US government. but if people are going to start boycotting, my position is don't sell your products in any state that infringes peoples rights. the point that I am trying to make is that these companies are getting involved but they only seem to do so when they are affected by a law that is passed. Am I the only one seeing this or am I just completely off my ****ing rocker?
They are doing something, we don't want them to go out of business, that wouldn't be good for anyone.
Why is it different? Why don't all these people (Barrett, Olympic Arms, etc... stop selling to all agencies in every state that infringes the gun rights of all citizens and not just the legislation that affects them?
Everyone says "we have to stand together or we will hang separately so why not make a new policy that states- "We will no longer sell, repair, xxx, xxxxx to any state that has prohibitive laws in place that infringes on the rights of the citizens of those states to keep and bear arms". Seems pretty straight forward to me.
What I mean by this is different, is the overall gun grabbing push is coordinated and pushed at levels like we have never seen, and the laws already passed in NY are like we have never seen. We need these companies to stand with us, and we need this message to be sent to other states considering the same laws.
Don't get me wrong, I think you make a valid point, and I think this movement should and would be taken even further than it is, b ut we are still in the early stages of this war.
I'm not advocating in anyway that they go out of business nor am I saying they shouldn't sell to the US military or the US government. but if people are going to start boycotting, my position is don't sell your products in any state that infringes peoples rights. the point that I am trying to make is that these companies are getting involved but they only seem to do so when they are affected by a law that is passed. Am I the only one seeing this or am I just completely off my ****ing rocker?
I think it goes beyond it affecting their products, at least in the short term, because the demand is so high right now their shelves will be empty either way. Its about making a stand, drawing the lines in the sand.
I agree with IG on his point of view, why just one or two? WHY NOT ALL states that feel like infringing on the citizens rights? I'm getting real close to saying to do this to all 50, and get the point across sooner. If you think about it, we already have had the 2nd taken way from us, as we cannot own the same weapons as our Govt. How quick people are to forget their history lesson as to why/how this nation was founded.
I agree with IG on his point of view, why just one or two? WHY NOT ALL states that feel like infringing on the citizens rights? I'm getting real close to saying to do this to all 50, and get the point across sooner. If you think about it, we already have had the 2nd taken way from us, as we cannot own the same weapons as our Govt. How quick people are to forget their history lesson as to why/how this nation was founded.
Well, I believe some are. For example, in the BCM statement it says:
As such Bravo Company's policy is that law enforcement officials and departments will be restricted to the same type of products available to responsible private individuals of that same city or state.
Well, we are talking about businesses here. I'm seeing a mixture of wanting to make a point as well as wanting to keep the doors open.
I'd like it to be more aggressive (and to have some really major players step up), but I don't find this "measured" response in the least surprising.
Magic_Salad0892
02-21-13, 18:36
I'm not advocating in anyway that they go out of business nor am I saying they shouldn't sell to the US military or the US government. but if people are going to start boycotting, my position is don't sell your products in any state that infringes peoples rights. the point that I am trying to make is that these companies are getting involved but they only seem to do so when they are affected by a law that is passed. Am I the only one seeing this or am I just completely off my ****ing rocker?
I ALMOST agree. But certain companies... it just doesn't seem that way. I do think that companies with no hopes for LE sales anyway are jumping on the bandwagon so that civilian shooters see them as supporters.
I'm not advocating in anyway that they go out of business nor am I saying they shouldn't sell to the US military or the US government. but if people are going to start boycotting, my position is don't sell your products in any state that infringes peoples rights. the point that I am trying to make is that these companies are getting involved but they only seem to do so when they are affected by a law that is passed. Am I the only one seeing this or am I just completely off my ****ing rocker?
Totally not off your rocker. :)
However, some of these states (NJ for example) have had these laws on the books for years, if not decades. Some of the politicians who voted them in are long gone. Hitting the new entrants to the ban-craze as they pop their heads up is a logical course of action, for now. It can be expanded or curtailed as needed going forward. JMO of course.
brickboy240
02-22-13, 12:30
Well...this is one way to end our empty gun shelf problem.
If gun companies keep boycotting the non freedom loving states...states like mine might get their empty shelves filled back up faster.
Just kidding.....well....sort of.
-brickboy240
threeheadeddog
02-22-13, 19:54
Here's my problem with all of these "I am going to stop LE sales nonsense letters". I realize that in 2004/5 he implemented the same policy in California when Arnold signed the bill into law.
But, I have to wonder where were all of these companies when the rights were being infringed that didn't involve their stuff? California has had two AWB's since 1989 and yet no one got involved until he couldn't sell his .50's anymore.
Also, by rational extension the President of the United States also known as the Commander in Chief is actively working with Kooky Joe to take our gun rights away at the federal level. So shouldn't all of these companies cease business with the .GOV/.MIL until they stop?
It seems like the infringing is ok as long as it isn't their product being infringed. In the case of Magpul I support their position 100%. They told the state that their laws are stupid, they testified along with others and they made it clear of the repercussions. The the governor has to decide what's more important. A feelgood piece of bullshit legislation or the loss of jobs and large portion of their tax base.
What about the other states that infringe on gun owners? I have mentioned them before- Illinois, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, Maryland, etc...etc.. Why do business with their state and local agencies? Aren't they also infringing the rights of the citizens of their states with their nonsense?
I agree with you completely. Not condeming any perticular company or anything but people should ALWAYS stand up for their values, finacially speaking. I skipped a "free" trip to Hawii because I refused to spend money there and contribute to their economy. I am looking at driving home to MT from TN and am trying to find a route that doesnt support undesirables(shouldnt be hard).
Here's my problem with all of these "I am going to stop LE sales nonsense letters".
Considering how much of your livelihood evolves around the subject matter it seems surprising that you would be content to disparage a movement that may ultimately save your ability to continue legally owning the targeted firearms.
But, I have to wonder where were all of these companies when the rights were being infringed that didn't involve their stuff? California has had two AWB's since 1989 and yet no one got involved until he couldn't sell his .50's anymore.
Times are changing, pressure is increasing and thankfully the realization that it is time to be proactive has dawned on many.
What about the other states that infringe on gun owners? I have mentioned them before- Illinois, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, Maryland, etc...etc.. Why do business with their state and local agencies?
All manufacturers are welcome to start restricting sales to previously and likewise restricted states immediately.
http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/firearms-companies-restricting-sales-government-agencies-areas
I am "disparaging" the lack of consistency. Maybe you should re-read my post. If someone wants to stop sales to NY that's their prerogative. But, stop the sales to other state and locales that also restrict and infringe on the rights of gun owners.
Considering how much of your livelihood evolves around the subject matter it seems surprising that you would be content to disparage a movement that may ultimately save your ability to continue legally owning the targeted firearms.
Times are changing, pressure is increasing and thankfully the realization that it is time to be proactive has dawned on many.
All manufacturers are welcome to start restricting sales to previously and likewise restricted states immediately.
Belmont31R
02-23-13, 02:40
Should have been done a long time ago...but sometimes a long list of grievances can have greater public pull than just one of's.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.