NationStates Jolt Archive

Saw this in a Barrett ad as I was perusing July's issue of American Rifleman.
The California Legislature has banned the ,50 BMG from the good citizens of the State of California violating their rights and the constitution of our republic. Therefore, Barrett will not sell to or service any California government agencies.

The full story is that a law enforcement agency in california was holding a Q&A about .50 bmg.

In it they demonised the thing, and to demonstrate it they used a .50 rifle.

Mr. Barett was in the audience. Turns out the rifle they had on display was none other then the departments own barett rifle.

After that Mr Barett made it a point that any rifle sent to him for service from LEO in Ca would be kept and not returned.

See http://www.barrettrifles.com/news/ca_outcome.htm

It would appear that other gun manufacturers are thinking of following suit. If that does happen, it means that the state of California will have no means of purchasing firearms for its law enforcement officers - or of getting maintenance for the ones they have.

This is different than what I thought the thread would be - I thought I'd write Halliburton and stop posting. But that's a different sense of "screw."

What I guess would happen is that one gun company would end up getting a monopoly on sales to the Californian government, which would make them a lot more money than repealing California's law about the 50 cal.

They have the right to refuse. All they are doing though is creating the circumstances whereby they will lose the business for good, as there is always going to be someone willing to meet the demand.

Saw this in a Barrett ad as I was perusing July's issue of American Rifleman.

The full story is that a law enforcement agency in california was holding a Q&A about .50 bmg.

In it they demonised the thing, and to demonstrate it they used a .50 rifle.

Mr. Barett was in the audience. Turns out the rifle they had on display was none other then the departments own barett rifle.

After that Mr Barett made it a point that any rifle sent to him for service from LEO in Ca would be kept and not returned.

See http://www.barrettrifles.com/news/ca_outcome.htm

It would appear that other gun manufacturers are thinking of following suit. If that does happen, it means that the state of California will have no means of purchasing firearms for its law enforcement officers - or of getting maintenance for the ones they have.
Seems to me they would just be getting what they want: a gun-free State! As IF! Mwahahahahahahaha! :D

Somewhat old news but..

I hope all the handgun and ammunition companies follow suit in the wake of their serialization bills that are most likely going to pass.

What I guess would happen is that one gun company would end up getting a monopoly on sales to the Californian government, which would make them a lot more money than repealing California's law about the 50 cal.

From what I can tell so far, that isn't going to happen. The way things are right now, any business you make from dealing with the California LEOs is minimal compared to the business they are losing from the California habit of banning specific types of gun over time (which is rapidly arriving at a total gun ban in time).

The various companies that sell to the different LEO agencies in California are prepared to screw them.

The private ranges in California (which comprise most of the firing ranges used by police) have already closed to LEO use - which is their right. This leaves the whole state with a handful of firing ranges for police training and practice.

From what I can tell so far, that isn't going to happen. The way things are right now, any business you make from dealing with the California LEOs is minimal compared to the business they are losing from the California habit of banning specific types of gun over time (which is rapidly arriving at a total gun ban in time).

The various companies that sell to the different LEO agencies in California are prepared to screw them.

The private ranges in California (which comprise most of the firing ranges used by police) have already closed to LEO use - which is their right. This leaves the whole state with a handful of firing ranges for police training and practice.
I mean, you could be right. I haven't studied this (or the whole gun situation, for that matter) in depth. So I'll keep an open mind on both.

It's just that, to me, economics would dictate that some company would see the potential for business with the Californian government and would deal with them. And if every other company has stopped, they could probably convince the state to not ban the guns they make the most money off of in the private sector.

I mean, you could be right. I haven't studied this (or the whole gun situation, for that matter) in depth. So I'll keep an open mind on both.

It's just that, to me, economics would dictate that some company would see the potential for business with the Californian government and would deal with them. And if every other company has stopped, they could probably convince the state to not ban the guns they make the most money off of in the private sector.

Economically, it soon may not be worth it to sell to CA at all. They are presently trying to establish a serialization plan for "handgun" ammunition(which also will affect much rifle ammo) and a plan to have pistols serialize casings as they are fired.

These plans would cost manufactures hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement (if not more) as very few others would purchase said ammo/handguns. They would have to retool and focus strictly on CA.

Economically, it soon may not be worth it to sell to CA at all. They are presently trying to establish a serialization plan for "handgun" ammunition(which also will affect much rifle ammo) and a plan to have pistols serialize casings as they are fired.

These plans would cost manufactures hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement (if not more) as very few others would purchase said ammo/handguns. They would have to retool and focus strictly on CA.
Does this plan still apply to sales to the government? Because I bet if one company got all of the government's business, they'd more than make up their losses.

Take that California! :cool:

Does this plan still apply to sales to the government? Because I bet if one company got all of the government's business, they'd more than make up their losses.

IIRC, it depends on the version of the bills. Some have had amendments made, others haven't.

It would be interesting to hear the arguements as to why the police shouldn't require the serialization while ather LAC's would. Following their arguement, it would only increase the efficiency of crime scene investigations by knowing which officer fire which bullet.

That way they could have discovered which officers hit nearby homes and another officer in a case where over 100 rounds were fired from short distances and only four actually hit their target.

Seems to me they would just be getting what they want: a gun-free State! As IF! Mwahahahahahahaha! :D
Very intelligent reply :rolleyes:

can't california buy foreign weapons?

Does this plan still apply to sales to the government? Because I bet if one company got all of the government's business, they'd more than make up their losses.

If you consider that the number of private owners and purchasers of handguns and longarms in California outstrips the LEO purchases by orders of magnitude, and that the private purchases are essentially going away over the next few years in California, there isn't enough left in the LEO purchases to make it worthwhile.

LEO agencies usually purchase every 10 years or so - sometimes longer. And they ration the use of ammunition - there's usually a bulk purchase every 10 years or so.

The typical LEO fires 50 rounds twice a year for qualification. Compare that to the average civilian, who fires thousands of rounds per year on average.

can't california buy foreign weapons?

Sure they could. Think, though, of the political ammo that the police using foriegn equipment as opposed to US made. Which side is sending US business overseas again?

Sure they could. Think, though, of the political ammo that the police using foriegn equipment as opposed to US made. Which side is sending US business overseas again?

All of the foreign companies have US subsidiaries, through which these same deals are made.

All of the ammunition companies so far, including all the foreign ones, have said that it's too expensive to retool to produce serialized ammunition for California, so they won't make any. They also said that the LEO market which would remain is also to small to service, so they would stop selling ammunition to California.

Same for all the distributors in the US.

You have to be a licensed FFL holder to sell firearms in the US. Which means you need a US subsidiary. Everyone is already here.

It's really going to crimp the California police - they already have been reduced to a handful of shooting ranges, and soon, they won't have any new supplies of firearms or ammunition.

It's really going to crimp the California police - they already have been reduced to a handful of shooting ranges, and soon, they won't have any new supplies of firearms or ammunition.

'snicker'

I say go for it. At some point, and California's rapidly approaching that point, it becomes counterproductive to do business with a customer no matter how 'easy' it looks to make a big profit.

Barrett has the right idea-don't do business with people who are trying to put you out of business. If the rest of just the Domestic gun-industry follows, it will put a severe cramp on Calfornia's budget-they'll have to go exclusively to imports, which, with Tariffs and Import regulations that apply to large purchases of firearms from overseas, means that they'll be paying through the nose for both guns, and ammo-and won't be able to buy at all if they pass the serialization bill, since none of the Foreign makers are likely to be tooled up to service California exclusively.

I'd like to see the major manufacturers also embargo Chicago and Washington D.C... Without the sweetheart deals (Service and support, low-cost ammunition, nearly-wholesale pricing) those departments will have a hard time, which will put pressure on their local governments and elected officials to do something to lift it.