Skip to comments.Letter from Barrett firearms to LAPD
Posted on 02/04/2003 6:32:45 PM PST by Inspector Harry Callahan
Chief William J. Bratton
Los Angeles Police Department
150 North Los Angeles Street
Re: LAPD 82A Rifle, Serial No. 11**
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.
BARRETT FIREARMS MANUFACTURING, INC.
You'd be making a Destructive Device by making a rifle with a bore diameter of over .50. Still legal to do on an ATF Form 1, if DDs are legal in your state and the CLEO will sign your Form 1.
Good writing doesn't make bad intentions noble.
have you found that they don't impair your hit ratio?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
- Well, the next Mrs. Weaver may be holding a baby behind a
- cinder block wall.
You can also be certain that it makes their pee-pee feel bigger.
(Service the rifle for a PD that is trying to ban them.)
While I agree this is an excellent article and this man is a true patriot, there are certain buzz words we as a people in a constitutional republic should not use in certain context.
The people in this country have got to stop using words like tolerate, allow, civil rights, etc., and start using the correct words and statements that go along with them.
Instead of stating "...other regimes less tolerant of individual rights than the United States . " , I'd say something like other regimes that do not have a constitution securing the individual rights.
To use the word "tolerant" implies that we (like other countries) need governmental permission to do anything.
Tolerate "To allow , to be or done without prohibition; permit. "
As I've stated in the past, liberals don't care about the constitution, liberty, rights or any of that. Liberals believe that they are all knowing and that they and they alone can dictate what you can and can't do. We can continue to show them FBI (and other) reports that guns curb crime more often then help crime. It doesn't matter. Liberals believe that we are living in a democracy and if enough of them get together they can vote away all your God given Constitutionally secured rights.
We are fighting people who really don't give a tinkers damn about anyone's rights but their own and even then they call 'em privileges.
Every domestic firearms manufacturer should simply refuse to sell guns in Kalifornia. Between the LAPD hypocrisy and the 50 cal ban, the "safe" gun "drop test" BS, and the Perata "assault weapon" ban, California has already demonstrated THEY DON'T WANT GUNS IN THEIR STATE.
So stop selling them, ESPECIALLY to law enforcement agencies in California. They can buy some nice AK's from Kanuckistan, and get their pistols from Mexico. This attitude that so many LEO's have, especially at senior levels, that whats OK for me should be prohibited to you, is a complete and total refutation of everything the 2nd Amendment stands for.
Nice work Mr. Barrett, good on you.
"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Thats why we must get rid of that democracy that has infested our republic.
Restore the republic and reclaim your God given Constitutionally secured rights or loose them by a mob vote.
How about "Criminal use" of a knife, bat, 2X4, automobile, rock, rope, etc., etc., etc.
Freedom Fighter Bump!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.