Barrett At It Again
A while back, I wrote about Barrett (makers of a popular 50 caliber rifle) refusing to service LAPD rifles since the LAPD had a policy of actively infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Now, via reader Airboss, Barrett is refusing to sell to any California government agencies. No doubt, this is due to the recent 50 caliber ban in California.
Kudos to Barrett.
April 13th, 2005 at 10:38 am
Very nice. Even though I don’t have the money or need this makes me want to purchase a rifle from Barrett. Finally we have a gun manufacturer that will stand up and fight for our rights.
If only the handgun manufacturers would do this to some of the big cities that prohibit guns like NYC or DC…
April 13th, 2005 at 10:56 am
LEO agencys have ZERO business with full auto, 50 cal, or even .308 sniper rifles.
ZERO. When they get these weapons, they immediately start looking for applications and you end up with SWAT teams serving traffic ticket warrants or other nonsense.
I can’t think of ONE use that an LEO agency has for a 50 caliber Barrett Rifle.
This ESPECIALLY applies to police agencys.
April 13th, 2005 at 11:07 am
What is really sad is that if they did start doing that, there is a good chance that Bush would step up and
enslaveforce them to start shipping to them again “for the public good”.April 13th, 2005 at 11:09 am
The only LEO use I can think of for a .50BMG rifle is anti-vehicle. Of course, we see high-speed chases all the time on TV from LA, and you never see them shooting the engine block, so that can’t be it.
April 13th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
I’m pretty sure that Barrett doesn’t do enough business for this to be much more than a symbolic gesture.
Now, get Glock do the same thing, and watch the PRK squirm.
April 13th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
Barret: An Fine Example To All Gun Makers
Via Say Uncle I read that Barret is refusing to sell firearms to any Califonria government agency. The sole piece of evidence I’ve seen to substantiate this claim is the photo int he last link. It’s possibe that it could…
April 14th, 2005 at 2:01 am
The “sole piece of evidence” cited by Publicola is dated December 11, 2002.
It may be news, but it isn’t NEW news.
April 14th, 2005 at 3:28 am
Well… this makes me seriously consider changing from getting that gas piston upper to the M468 upper instead… I might do that…
April 14th, 2005 at 8:20 am
Sorry Jerry, but the image is not dated and the ad has a pic of the M468, which was not in existance in 2002.
November 13th, 2007 at 9:51 am
[…] in the footsteps of Barrett, STI has stopped selling firearms in California: The move by STI comes after Gov. Arnold […]