David Codrea.
Licht’s Ronnie Barrett reference, of course, recalls a 2002 letter the President of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, sent to then-Chief William J. Bratton of the Los Angeles Police Department, about his company’s .50 caliber rifles:
“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.”
Barrett again sent similar letters, one to the State of California in 2005, the Honolulu Police Department in 2008, and the State of New York in 2013.
I recounted these and more in my 2018 AmmoLand article, “More in the Firearms Industry Should Follow Hornady’s New York Example,” documenting President Steve Hornady’s announcement saying in part:
“Hornady will not knowingly allow our ammunition to be sold to the State of NY or any NY agencies. Their actions are a blatant and disgusting abuse of office and we won’t be associated with a government that acts like that. They should be ashamed.”
Yes they could stop the disarmers, and yes they should be ashamed. But they’re not – they are only interested in the revenue. I’ve pointed out that Cloud Defensive has taken such a stand, and it cost them money to do it.
But here’s the question. We can point to Barrett, Cloud Defensive, Hornady, and a few others, perhaps, but what pistols and rifles do the disarmers shoot?
Until Smith & Wesson, Glock, and a host of other large manufacturers can be persuaded to join the club of those who truly respect the 2A, this effort won’t go anywhere. It will be symbolic, and not much else.
I think it would be a good thing to do if someone took it on to mail each and every CEO of the manufacturers, but this is too much time for me to spend. If some enterprising reader wants to start a thread on this, I’ll find a way to host it.