Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 8/26/2004 3:44:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 3:46:35 PM EDT
We should contact Ronnie and make sure he's gonna say something. But I am sure he's already on his way to see Ahhhhnold
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 3:48:50 PM EDT
I guess I will have to start saving my money to buy a barrett.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 3:50:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15:
I guess I will have to start saving my money to buy a barrett.

After conflicts you can pick them up. If we ever clear out of Crapraq, you should see a few for sale with desert furniture.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 4:04:07 PM EDT
Link not working for me. Can someone post text? Thanks!

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 4:41:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 4:42:13 PM EDT by Airwolf]
June 30, 2003

Chairman, Public Safety Committee
State of California
Sen. Bruce McPherson

Via: Fax (916) 445-4688

Dear Senator McPherson,

United States defense contractors such as Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc., Murfreesboro, TN USA rely on orders from the US Military as a primary source of income but this government income for most contractors is only part of the necessary income for long term survival. Commercial or civilian product sales are also a main source of income that makes payroll and for good working conditions for their employees. We must support these defense contractors in both peace and war and allow them to operate, market and sell their products under the rules, regulations and law of the Federal Government. There is a balance of customers among defense contractors that is necessary for sound, long term business and by eliminating commercial sales in California this balance is disrupted. To vote against .50 cal rifles puts jobs of your constituents as risk, the lives of your police at risk, and in the end the safety of the State of California at risk. Are you willing to jeopardize this?

The defense industrial base in America is at risk of being unable to fully support our country in time of need without adequate opportunity for commercial sales of various products. In the Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc situation the civilian legal Barrett .50 cal rifle is at risk in the state of California. The attempt to ban a legal firearm not only violates the basic principals of the US Constitution but sets a precedence that endangers many vital defense contractors. In the Barrett case it also endangers California law enforcement agencies from having a proven and important tool in the fight against terrorism.

* H. Hayes Parks, Special Assistant to the Judge Advocate of the US Army wrote:
“The M82A1 Barrett… are manifestations of the important historic cooperation played by private citizens and small business in the United States in the development of weapons and munitions necessary for the US Armed Forces to perform their mission to protect the national security interests of the United States by fighting and winning, with as few friendly casualties as possible.” This statement sums up the vital role both government and commercial business play in the sound business practices of various defense contractors of which Barrett is one.


Page 2
Chairman, Public Safety Committee
June 30, 2003

The Barrett .50 cal rifle was ascertained by the troops on the front lines in Iraq as the best performing small arm and they have the private defense contractor to thank for that weapon. Ban .50 cal rifles in California and you take this tool from your police also. The war on terror is not over! The Barrett .50 cal rifle has been in the hands of competitive shooters, hunters, and collectors for over 20 years and is a mainstay of the long range competitive shooters matches. It also serves on Police SWAT teams as the primary long range anti-sniper weapon.

It is the Barrett position that we choose not to support in anyway state or local governments who are against the US Constitution and the safety and security of this nation. If California were to ban the sale of the Barrett .50 cal rifle we will stop the sale and service of all Barrett products to all State Law Enforcement agencies of the state of California immediately and ask all small arms manufactures to consider similar action. Re-classify the .50 cal rifle and you align yourself and the State of California as being part of the very terrorists who are attempting to destroy this great nation of ours.

Please vote against banning or re-classifying .50 cal rifles.


Ronnie G. Barrett
Barrett Firearms Mfg., Inc.
Murfreesboro, TN USA

* Quoted from: Memorandum for Staff Judge Advocate, US Army Special Forces Command, (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC Sept 7, 1999


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
Los Angeles, California 90012

Re: LAPD 82A1 Rifle, Serial No. 1186

Point of Contact: Jim xxxxx

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 ban 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 Sacrament 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 M82A1 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 Armory, 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 individual 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.


Ronnie G. Barrett


After seeing what Ronnie did during the L.A. ban (the second letter above) I swore that when I left this cesspool the first instant that I could do so I would add an 82A1 to my collection. That promise still stands and after seeing that later letter it's even more of a done deal when I escape.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:12:45 PM EDT
That man deserves ..... well, what do you get a guy that has all the Barrett rifles he wants?

Some day I'll help support him the best way I can, by buying one.

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:19:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WWoodworth:
That man deserves ..... well, what do you get a guy that has all the Barrett rifles he wants?

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:22:37 PM EDT
What do you buy the man who has everything? A steak dinner! We all like steak.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:29:13 PM EDT
I intend to buy a Barret as soon as I have that kind of cash to spend on one. And when I do, I will write a letter to Mr. Barret, including a picture, and tell him why I bought a Barret, and not a Serbu, not a MacMillan.
Top Top