Posted on 03/22/2004 3:13:55 PM PST by B4Ranch
Board takes up ban on gun sales Law would prohibit selling high-powered rifles in unincorporated areas
By Tamara Grippi, STAFF WRITER
MARTINEZ -- High-powered rifles are the target of a new ordinance that will be introduced by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors at their meeting Tuesday.
The proposed law would prohibit the sale of .50-caliber rifles in unincorporated areas of the county.
Supervisors John Gioia of Richmond and Gayle Uilkema of Lafayette, who are recommend-ing the ordinance, say the ban is intended as a public safety measure.
Telecommunications towers, industrial plants such as oil refineries and railroad cars could all be vulnerable to serious damage from the high-powered rifles, said Uilkema.
"Guns of that magnitude of .50-caliber have the capability of potentially harming or destroy-ing any of those facilities," Uilkema said.
Unincorporated Contra Costa has only two gun dealerships and neither one sells .50-caliber rifles.
The supervisors said they hope the ban on .50-caliber rifle sales could be used as a "model ordinance" and adopted by various Contra Costa cities.
Gioia said nothing is stopping customers from asking gun dealers to order .50-caliber rifles.
"Theoretically, yes," said Chuck Michel of the California Rifle and Pistol Association. "But they haven't."
Michel didn't buy the supervisors' argument that the ban would further homeland security. "A .50-caliber rifle is a pea shooter for a terrorist. The real problem is not the gun, it's the ammunition. If you use explosive ammunition, it doesn't matter what the caliber is."
Such explosive, armor-piercing ammunition is already illegal.
Several gun control organizations, including the San Francisco-based Legal Community Against Violence, are backing the ordinance.
"This is a class of dangerous and deadly weapons specifically designed for military use and urban combat," said Sam Hoover, staff attorney for the Legal Community Against Violence.
Michel disagrees. "The message that legitimate hunters and target shooters get from this is that 'you don't count' and that 'we don't care about your sport,'" he said.
The California Rifle and Pistol Association plans to sue the county if it approves the ban on the basis that it contradicts state law, which has drawn the line at .60-caliber rifles, Michel said.
The California Penal Code prohibits the possession of "destructive devices," which include weapons capable of firing ammunition .60-caliber or larger.
The county supervisors, however, hope Contra Costa will be one of the forces to persuade the state to adopt tougher legislation.
Similar proposals are already in the pipeline.
Legislation proposed by Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, would make it unlawful to manufacture, sell or possess a .50-caliber rifle within California without a permit.
That bill was approved by the state Assembly last year but failed to make it past the state Senate's Public Safety Committee. The legislation has been placed before that committee for reconsideration but no hearing has been scheduled.
I don't think anyone has been killed in a criminal action to date.
I follow your logic: So those proposing to make California driver's licenses available to foreigners are supporting terrorists, and we know what the president said about that. To Guantanamo with them!
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.
* W. Hays 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.
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.
Respectively,
Ronnie G. Barrett
President
Barrett Firearms Mfg., Inc.
Murfreesboro, TN USA
Not really something that complex. The real reason is nothing more than drawing a line over one more firearm on their list of all firearms. When .50 is outlawed, then simple logic (?) will show that if .50's are bad, then she .45's can't be too far behind. Incrementalism is Di Fi's MO.
Precisely. Just as the California Instrument Company refused to make any further sales of over 10-round magazines to the California Prison system, after the state declared that the nifty little Calico weapons could no longer be sold to civilians there. The company then relocated out of the state, refusing to perform warranty work on the previously sold equipment. After all, German firms that built gas chambers in the concentration camps were prosecuted as war criminals after the war, and governmental entities that commit civil rights violations against the local population or commit acts of war against American citizens can hardly expect to always be successful in extortin others to be their criminal accomplices.
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: mail@barrettrifles.com . Web Site: www.barrettrifles.com
My post #57 above, a copy of Ronnie Barrett's letter to LAPD Chief Bratton, is a BTW followup to your #53. Ronnie's attitude is as consistant as the performance of his big rifles.
Glocks may rock, but the GAU-8 rules!
You aware that there's a scaled-up semiauto version of the Finnish L/39 Lahti antitank rifle that uses the 30mm round of the GAU-8 as anti-helicopter medicine, against the ground attack Hinds in particular. They were developed as a backup plan in the event the Stingers supplied to the Mujahadin in Afghanistan and the Contra's in Nicaragua didn't work as well as was hoped.
Since even the 20mm Lahtis weigh in at around 100 pounds or so, I'd expect a 30mm version would be even worse in that respect. But as a weapon for arming light *technical* trucks or HUMVEES, it has interesting possibilities.
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.