God Bless ‘em!
———————————————-

This letter written by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing came my way from
Dwight VanHorn, and ex-LEO (Sheriff Deputy) and colleague on NRA’s Board.
In his note that acompanied the link to this letter, Dwight rightly observes
that this is the sort of thing manufacturers need to do to any law
enforcement agency who does not support the individual’s RKBA. Hopefully,
this attitude will trickle down to distributors and retailers as well.

I’ve always thought highly of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing. It seems my
faith continues to be justified. Good on ya, Mr. Barrett! Well said!

David Coy
Adrian, MI
Member – NRA Board of Directors

———————————————–

Barrett Firearms Letter of Opposition to L.A.’s proposed .50 cal Ban

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

Email: [email protected] Web Site: www.barrettrifles.com
http://www.barrettrifles.com