Posted on 08/29/2004 9:27:53 AM PDT by risk
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.
Respectively,
Ronnie G. Barrett President 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
AB50 ping (oldie, but goodie - post includes link to govmail)
I already emailed the gov. However, I'm thinking about buying a receiver this fall to beat the ban should this particular piece of tyranny become law. My Senator is Torlakson, he's a gun grabber. My assembly member is Hancock, she's a gun grabber. I called, I faxed, I emailed. They both voted yes.
 |
.38sw: Thanks, risk. Also don't forget to contact the governator about SB1152, the ammunition registration bill. It requires a purchaser of ammo to leave a thumbprint, name, address and date of birth. It treats a law-abiding citizens like a criminal. It is a burder on small businesses. It doesn't solve or prevent crime. |
|
| More Announcements / Options |
My philosophy about government is that we have to do our level best to oppose what we believe is wrong. I know they vote the way they want. But there are always upcoming elections, and every little bit helps. By expressing my opinions I feel that at least I have contributed toward improving the situation, even if by just one iota. They may win the short term advantage but history will bear out our position.
It might interest you to know that the MCClure-Volkmer bill, which had the 11th hour ban on new machine guns added to it, FAILED to have the ban added by majority vote! It was a simple, unrecorded voice vote in the House of Reps, and CLEARLY lost. However, then-Speaker Tip O'Neal proclaimed that it passed, and because of the rules of Parlimentary procedure (and Republican timidity!) no one could challenge that BLATANT lie. If you can find an audio recording of that vote on the web, LISTEN to it - the amendment was never actually passed!
They can only pass these limits on our freedom through lies, intimidation of passive (i.e. willfully incapable of self-defense) Americans, and incrementalism. Freedom will win as soon as Americans (most of whom own guns or would like to) realize what is going on. I had to move to California to understand just how far things had gone. We Californians have to tell the rest of the country what's coming their way: draconian measures.
It is one of the reasons (the AWB is the other) that US troops now use foreign-made magazines and parts for their rifles, and that the next service rifle adopted (the M-8) will be a German design.
There are a bunch we need to target to get removed from office. We also need to hit the party on their leftward swing.
Maybe not the best choice of words for a pro-gun thread, but I agree that we need to point out to these anti-gun constituencies why their legislators might be wasting everyone's time and setting California up for expensive and irresponsible enforcement costs against a weapon that hasn't hurt anyone criminally to our knowledge -- in its entire civillian history.
What was the story on nthe "ghost vote" ?
Alledgedly the members present walked over to the members absent and pushed their vote buttons on their desks or something to that effect...... ?
Did that happen ? Was it real ?
It was here somewhere on FR that the first vote was beaten and they voted again right after the first vote ? If a bill is voted down does it not have to go back through the process ?
But, even if the gun had been used criminally to hurt people, that's no reason to ban things. Criminals aren't deterred by such bans anyway, and good people still need the use of things even if bad people criminally misuse them. (And why might citizens need such weapons, Mr. and Mrs. gun grabbing "representatives?")
The first I'd heard of the "ghost vote" business was an email from the .50 caliber association (I'd have to check back to be sure) that dems pressed the vote button on their own desks, then walked over to the desks of absent colleagues, and voted for them. I don't know if it is true or not, but know how this legislature plays games and breaks the rules, I wouldn't be surprised.
They also have a habit of "reconsidering" bills that have failed a time or two, and voting until they can get it passed. It doesn't have to go back through any process, they can just vote on it again, but they usually wait a day or day, and probably brow-beat a few holdouts.
That's not legislature that's a friggin gang of seditionists ! Doom on em all .........pray ya get yer beautiful state back some day !
Stay safe !
I agree, C. Examples of criminal behavior does not warrant the removal of firearms rights, anymore than DUIs would justify the outlawing of automobiles or alcohol. Our country's more serious problem is why we don't treat the offenders in gun and automotive crime more seriously. It's symptomatic of a larger problem, and the impetus to outlaw the object involved with the crime represents another symptom of the same mistaken approach. Objects don't trigger crimes, criminal people do.
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.
