Ronnie Barrett tells the LAPD to get bent!

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-02-05 03:56am

http://nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial ... rett.shtml

December 11, 2002
Via Facsimile (213) 847-0676 and
U.S. Mail

Chief William J. Bratton

Los Angeles Police Department
150 North Los Angeles Street

Re: LAPD 82A Rifle, Serial No. 1186

Point of Contact: Jim Moody

213 485 4061

Dear Chief Bratton,

I, a U.S. citizen, own Barrett Firearms Mfg. Inc., and for 20 years I have built .50 caliber rifles for my fellow citizens, for their Law Enforcement departments and for their nation's armed forces.

You may be aware of the latest negative misinformation campaign from a Washington based anti-gun group, the Violence Policy Center. The VPC has, for three or so years, been unsuccessful in Washington, D.C. trying to demonize and ban a new subclass of firearms, the .50 caliber and other "too powerful" rifles. This type of nibbling process has been historically successful in civilian disarmament of other nations governed by totalitarian and other regimes less tolerant of individual rights than the United States .

The VPC's most recent efforts directs this misinformation campaign at your state, attempting to get any California body to pass any law against .50 caliber firearms. In March 2002 the VPC caused the California State Assembly, Public Safety Committee to consider and reject the issue by a 5 to 0 with 1 abstaining vote.

Regrettably, the same material has been presented to your city council. I personally attended the council meeting in Los Angeles regarding attempts to bar ownership of the .50 caliber rifle in your city. I was allowed to briefly address the council. The tone of the discussion was mostly emotionally based, so the facts that I attempted to provide were ineffective to the extent they were heard at all. The council voted to have the city attorney draft an ordinance to ban the .50, and further, to instruct the city's representatives in Sacramento and in Washington D.C. to push for bans at their respective levels.

At that council meeting, I was very surprised to see an LAPD officer seated front and center with a Barrett 82A1 .50 cal rifle. It was the centerpiece of the discussion. As you know, there have been no crimes committed with these rifles, and most importantly, current California law does not allow the sale of the M82AI in the state because of its detachable magazine and features that make it an "assault weapon." This rifle was being deceptively used by your department. The officer portrayed it as a sample of a currently available .50 cal rifle, available for sale to the civilians of Los Angeles. One councilman even questioned how this rifle was available under current laws, but as I stated, facts were ineffective that day.

Your officer, speaking for the LAPD, endorsed the banning of this rifle and its ammunition. Then he used the rifle for photo ops with the Councilmen each of whom, in handling the firearm, may have been committing a felony. I was amazed.

Since 1968, with the closing of the U.S. Springfield Amory, all of the small arms produced for the various government agencies are from the private sector. Every handgun, rifle or shotgun that law enforcement needs comes from this firearms industry. Unless the City of Los Angeles has plans of setting up its own firearms manufacturing, it may need to guard the manufacturing sources it has now.

When I returned to my office from Los Angeles, I found an example of our need for mutual cooperation. Your department had sent one of your 82A1 rifles in to us for service. All of my knowledge in the use of my rifle in the field of law enforcement had been turned upside down by witnessing how your department used yours. Not to protect and serve, but for deception, photo opportunities, and to further an ill-conceived effort that may result in the use of LA taxpayer monies to wage losing political battles in Washington against civil liberties regarding gun ownership.

Please excuse my slow response on the repair service of the rifle. I am battling to what service I am repairing the rifle for. I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individuals to own firearms.

I implore you to investigate the facts of the .50, to consider the liberties of the law-abiding people and our mutual coexistence, and to change your department's position on this issue.

Sincerely,
BARRETT FIREARMS MANUFACTURING, INC.

Ronnie Barrett
President

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-02-05 04:02am

I'm not especially pro-gun, but I am notoriously anti-cop and anti-government. You can take that however you wish. Well said, Mr. Barrett.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-02-05 05:33am

More ammo to use against the Barrett haters.

It's retarded to ban weapons, which have never committed crimes and are totally unsuitable for committing them in the first place. The M82 is also at the wrong end of the rifle spectrum of another round of sniper shootings.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-02-05 06:33am

Sea Skimmer wrote:More ammo to use against the Barrett haters.

It's retarded to ban weapons, which have never committed crimes and are totally unsuitable for committing them in the first place. The M82 is also at the wrong end of the rifle spectrum of another round of sniper shootings.

Heh, maybe they'll come and get my 100 year old 6 pdr. shell, seeing as how it might be "too powerfull". Same logic applies.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-05 07:48am

I would like to see the rampage that goes on when someone robs a bank with a Barratt .50cal.

Poor sods who get in the way of that thing.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-02-05 07:56am

Sea Skimmer wrote:More ammo to use against the Barrett haters.

It's retarded to ban weapons, which have never committed crimes and are totally unsuitable for committing them in the first place. The M82 is also at the wrong end of the rifle spectrum of another round of sniper shootings.

Retarded it might be but that's never stopped the anti-gun advocates. They don't know and don't care; they're just interested in banning guns. The idea is to take away whatever type of guns they can demonize and damn the implications.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-05 08:21am

Stormbringer wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:More ammo to use against the Barrett haters.

It's retarded to ban weapons, which have never committed crimes and are totally unsuitable for committing them in the first place. The M82 is also at the wrong end of the rifle spectrum of another round of sniper shootings.
Retarded it might be but that's never stopped the anti-gun advocates. They don't know and don't care; they're just interested in banning guns. The idea is to take away whatever type of guns they can demonize and damn the implications.

Seem to forget that there is no way in Hell that guns will be outlawed in America. You may as well try prohibition again.

P.S.

Stormie, you spelled Cowboy wrong, there's no "w" in it.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-02-05 07:14pm

Look, I'm sorrry, but if they want to ban .50cal weapons I won't even try to argue against it. I mean, since when did an anti-materiel weapon any do anyone any harm?

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2003-02-09 04:43am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Stormie, you spelled Cowboy wrong, there's no "w" in it.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2003-02-09 05:32am

weemadando wrote:Look, I'm sorrry, but if they want to ban .50cal weapons I won't even try to argue against it. I mean, since when did an anti-materiel weapon any do anyone any harm?

Uhh...the way I read the article, the .50 cal is ALREADY banned from civilian market with previous laws, and is only in use by the LAPD...

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-02-09 06:19am

PeZook wrote: Uhh...the way I read the article, the .50 cal is ALREADY banned from civilian market with previous laws, and is only in use by the LAPD...

Must be just California, .50 cal is still legal elsewhere in the US.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-09 06:23am

Frank Hipper wrote:I'm not especially pro-gun, but I am notoriously anti-cop and anti-government. You can take that however you wish. Well said, Mr. Barrett.

I'm a cop. I'm inclined to be rather offended at this statement, but I will reserve judgement for now. Before you condemn all officers out of hand though, take a ride along with your local department. Maybe it will give you an idea about what a difficult, and mostly thankless job it is. Imagine the roughest looking thug you've ever laid eyes on in your life. Is he someone you'd want to meet in a dark alley for even a million dollars? Well, I'm expected to follow him down there for a whole hell of a lot less than that. As Al Pacino said in "Sea of Love", (this is a paraphrase) when people people find out I'm a cop, they don't even want to know me, but come the wet-ass hour, I'm everybody's Daddy!

But before this post turns into a completel thread hijack, the actions of the LAPD officer in this letter are not typical of cops. The vast majority of them that I know, even if they are not "into" guns, do support the second amendment. It's usually police chiefs and upper echelons in departments (who have to worry about getting Federal grant moneys) who adopt anti-gun policies. This was especially prevalent when Clinton's justice department was running things.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-02-09 06:39am

OK, you want to hear stupid? Well, here goes...

Some dumbass California teachers' association, in some half-assed bid to promote Antonio Villiaragosa in his bid for mayor, mailed empty Winchester .223 shells to most Los Angeles residents.

I kid you not. They apparently collected millions of these shells from firing ranges, packaged them with this neat little "Guns kill" letter, and sent them off to Los Angeles residents.

They could not have done anything worse to Villiaragosa's mayoral campaign.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-02-09 06:44am

Damn, next the anti-abortionists are going to start mailing dead fetuses out to all the pro-choice groups.

Maybe I shouldn't give them any ideas...

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-02-09 01:44pm

weemadando wrote:Look, I'm sorrry, but if they want to ban .50cal weapons I won't even try to argue against it. I mean, since when did an anti-materiel weapon any do anyone any harm?

The 0.50-cal Barrett was originally designed as a hunting weapon and later procured by the military as an AMR.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-02-09 01:58pm

Crayz9000 wrote:OK, you want to hear stupid? Well, here goes...

Some dumbass California teachers' association, in some half-assed bid to promote Antonio Villiaragosa in his bid for mayor, mailed empty Winchester .223 shells to most Los Angeles residents.

I kid you not. They apparently collected millions of these shells from firing ranges, packaged them with this neat little "Guns kill" letter, and sent them off to Los Angeles residents.

They could not have done anything worse to Villiaragosa's mayoral campaign.

What a great idea, since people love receiving plain ol' garbage rather than just junk mail...

LT.Hit-Man · Post by **LT.Hit-Man** » 2003-02-09 08:59pm

Hmmm.
Ok here's my take on this matter and on guns.
I say repeal all gun laws.
Why do I say that for?
Simple most gun owners I know are very responsable with there firearms
after all it's not the guns that are the problem it's how there used.
Think about it if a crimile is going to commit a vilonet crim and uses a gun to commit that crime he/she is not going to give a rats's ass about the time they will get for commiting the crime with a gun, they see a gun as a means to an end.
More then likely if law abidding civies had better acess to firearms it would more then like decress some crimes namely becuase a crimile will rethink about BEing someone's house because the person(s) in that house just might have a gun to defend themselves and with that thought in mind the crimile is more then likely to think " Do I realy want to risk getting shot for some money? "

All in all the matter of firearms will be a merky iusse untill the end of tim for both sides have there good points and there bad points.
As for me personaly " Better to have a weapon and not need it then not to have a weapon and need it. "

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-02-09 09:17pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I would like to see the rampage that goes on when someone robs a bank with a Barratt .50cal.

Poor sods who get in the way of that thing.

Seeing that it weighs too much to be effective from a standing position (It would most likely be blown out of the shooters hands), and it is too long to be of any use in a close combat situation, I doubt we will be seeing any crimes commited by this beast of a firearm.

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2003-02-10 05:28am

NF_Utvol wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:I would like to see the rampage that goes on when someone robs a bank with a Barratt .50cal.

Poor sods who get in the way of that thing.
Seeing that it weighs too much to be effective from a standing position (It would most likely be blown out of the shooters hands), and it is too long to be of any use in a close combat situation, I doubt we will be seeing any crimes commited by this beast of a firearm.

Soo, in short, the only method in which it could be misusused would be sniping?
Shit, there are some dumb people in this world.