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
mailto:mail@barrettrifles.com Web Site: http://www.barrettrifles.com/
- -
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:22:57 GMT
From: utbagpiper@juno.com
Subject: A couple of pro-gun lectures at USU
Any who live near USU may want to attend these if possible.
From the latest USU "Statesman" newspaper's LTE section.
Charles
LETTER: Let gun opinions come out
Editor,
The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News recently printed articles attacking Sen. Mike Waddoups' bill that would clarify current law allowing concealed weapon permit holders to carry on public schools. I don't mind that these articles were biased in their views, my problem is that both newspapers censored out several articles and opinions that were sent in expressing support for Sen. Waddoups. As a result, Utahns are only getting half the story, told in an emotional way without all the facts.
These papers prefer the legislators to "write a law clarifying that holders of concealed-carry permits are forbidden to bring guns into schools." They ignore the fact that CC permit holders committing any kind of gun crime is almost unheard of, and that firearms are used to protect life and property more often than criminals use them to break the law.
What these newspapers prefer is for mothers who pick their children up from school to make a choice of breaking the law by being prepared to protect her family and self, or conform with the law and be a submissive victim.
The Students of the Second Amendment will be hosting Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff to discuss concealed carry bans by universities on Feb. 20 at 3 p.m. in the Taggart Student Center Auditorium. The following week, the club will host Mitch Vilos who will be teaching a class on concealed carry permits. Don't rely on our managed news propaganda, but seek out the other side also.
Yesterday, the Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee interviewed both nominees for the Utah Supreme Court, including judge Nehring. Both candidates talked a good talk and claimed to oppose judicial activism. However, both also cited "ethical guidelines" in refusing to discuss anything meaningful about the right to own and carry self defense.
These past two articles remind us that Judge Nehring will say one thing and then do another. In the DesNews article, he makes clear he is opposed to gun lockers, but seems to say he'll follow the will of the people as expressed via the legislature, "...God bless them."
However, as reported in the second, he voted as a member of the State Judicial council to support Judge McIff in his CLEARLY illegal ban on both guns and lockers.
PLEASE remember that all of this happened BEFORE the judges found the "loophole" in the law they claim allows them to ban guns via fiat (rather than via declaring a legally secure area), while still not providing lockers. At the time of these articles, the judges--with Nehring as one of their leaders--were simply declaring themselves above the will of the legislature.
So far, the legislature has done nothing on this issue to support our rights to bear arms as we travel to and from court.
They should reject Nehring's nomnation as he clearly is willing to ignore the rule of law.
If possible, when communicating with your senators, stress "activist judge pushing his own views instead of interperting the law," rather than "gun lockers". If anyone knows of some additional incidents to cite beyond the gun lockers that backs up this point, please let me know.
"Utah deserves better!" than a activist judge who isn't even honest enough to admit he is an activist.
Anyone can talk the talk for an hour. We've seen the walk he walks.
From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc <chad@pengar.com>
Subject: I'll be at the gunshow Saturday only
Your friendly list sponsor will be at the Sandy Gun Show on Saturday
only (2/15/03). I don't do shows on Sunday. Stop by the eguns.com
tables and say HI
thanks
Chad
- -
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:43:25 GMT
From: utbagpiper@juno.com
Subject: SB 103 passes house
Sen. Curt Bramble's SB 103 which removes the unenforcable, unneeded 60 day limit on out-of-State CCW permits has passed the house on a 48-19 vote with 8 absent or not voting. It will now go to the governor. Barring his veto (always possible with any good bill) this bill will become law a couple months from now.
My thanks to Sen. Bramble for sponsoring this bill. My thanks to all those who called or otherwise voiced their support.
The following story is in today's SLTrib. It may be a waste of time. Or it may be a chance for freedom-loving, RKBA supporting individuals to provide a little diversity to the otherwise gun hating, big government loving group-think that seems to pervade newsrooms these days.
For those interested in joining, the email address is <readerpanel@sltrib.com>.
Charles
http://www.sltrib.com/readerpanel/
The Tribune Wants to Hear From You
As towns and cities in Utah get larger, representing an entire community can be a daunting task for a newspaper. We at the Web edition of The Salt Lake Tribune, Utah Online, are stepping up our efforts to improve communication with you, our growing online community. Join The Panel:
You can join the Tribune Reader Panel by emailing us here.
Our hope is to compile a list of thoughtful readers willing to share their ideas, opinions and thoughts with us and with the community.
The Salt Lake Tribune is one of 27 newspapers chosen from around the country to join in an effort to forge new methods of communication between the newspaper and its readers. This project, sponsored by the Associated Press Managing Editors organization, is another step toward accomplishing that goal.
Ken Sands, Online Editor for the Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Washington, and the coordinator of the APME Reader Interactive program has created a contact list of readers. The readers who volunteer are asked to provide feedback regularly on issues via email. The Spokane newspaper has seen impressive results in the quality of feedback they receive. We plan to emulate this successful program.
How does it work? To use a real-life example, The Spokesman-Review contacted readers on their list after the attacks on September 11, 2001. Of the 500 people they contacted, about 70 provided good leads or possible interviews future stories.
Another newspaper participating in the program had solicited responses before the State of the Union address and posted reader feedback on online only thirty minutes after the president finished.
We have no desire to make this burdensome on you, the reader. We plan on contacting participants no more than once every two weeks. We also do not provide email addresses on our list to anyone else.
If you are interested in joining The Tribune's reader panel or if you have more questions, please send email to readerpanel@sltrib.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Subject: SB 251, Banning shooting in ANY direction passes out of Senate Committ ee
Sen. Bev Evans' SB 251 which is worded so broadly and vaugely as to make possible the prohibition on discharging a firearm for hunting or recreation almost anywhere in the State passed out of the Senate Judiciary committee this morning.
It will now go to the floor of the Senate. Please contact your State Senator and ask him to oppose SB 251.
Subject: OFF-topic perhaps: SB 125, Riding in a pickup bed to be heard Tuesday morning in House Transportation Committee
SB 125 that would micro-manage one more aspect of our lives by banning everyone under the age of 18 from riding in the bed of a pickup (except for parades and agricultural uses) has been released from the House rules committee and is scheduled to be heard tomorrow, Tuesday, mornning at 8:00 am in the House Transportation committee. Please contact committee members and ask them to oppose this bill.
If possible, please attend the hearing and speak against this bill.
This bill is simply not needed. It is a bad idea. Even if one were to concede it is needed, which I don't, it is also a grossly stupid implementation. It makes no distinction between a busy interstate freeway and a quiet country lane. If you're on a public road, no one under 18 can ride in the back of the truck.
I also find it intriguing that a 16 year old can get a license to ride a motorcycle and is then perfectly free to ride from here to St. George and back. However, that same 16 year old is, under the presumptions of this bill, too immature to decide whether or when it might be appropriate to ride in the bed of a pickup? Similarly, a father can choose to take his 7 or 8 year old for a ride on his motorcycle, but under this bill is too stupid and irresponsible to decide when it might be ok to hold his child on his lap as they ride a couple miles in a pickup bed. As a long time motorcycle rider, I am convinced that riding a motorcycle--as either a passenger or operator, there is no real difference--is far more dangerous than riding in the bed of a pickup.
This bill will almost certainly be supported by talking about "children." But the bill was sponsored because the Boy Scouts (a group I support in most things) are having trouble enforcing their internal policy against anyone riding in the bed of a pickup while on a scout activity. Thus, this bill is NOT aimed at correcting some widespread problem of people making their 4 or 5 year olds ride in the bed of pickup. Rather, it is targeted at 12-17 year old adolecents and young adults and removes all discretion for parents to decide under what conditions such activities might be appropriate.
Please oppose this bill.
Charles Hardy
Members of the House Transportation Committee are below and messages for several representatives can be left at once by calling the House switchboard at 538-1029, faxes can be sent to 538-1908:
