LaRue Tactical: If citizens can't have them, neither can law enforcement

[madfranks]

From LaRue Tactical's facebook page:

http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/url1.jpg


Due to the recent and numerous new Anti-gun/Anti-2nd Amendment laws passed and/or pending across our country, LaRue Tactical has been forced to reconsider how we provide products to state and local agencies. Effective today, in an effort to see that no legal mistakes are made by LaRue Tactical and/or its employees, we will apply all current State and Local Laws (as applied to civilians) to state and local law enforcement / government agencies. In other words, LaRue Tactical will limit all sales to what law-abiding citizens residing in their districts can purchase or possess.
State and local laws have always been a serious focus of this firm, and we are now dovetailing that focus with the constitutional rights of the residents covered in their different areas by the old and new regulations.
We realize this effort will have an impact on this firm’s sales – and have decided the lost sales are less danger to this firm than potential lawsuits from erroneous shipments generated by something as simple as human error.
Thanks in advance for your understanding.
Mark LaRue



http://www.guns.com/2013/02/09/larue-tactical-to-restrict-law-enforcement-sales-in-response-to-gun-control-laws/

I think it's interesting that their cover is to protect the firm from "erroneous" mistakes, but it's obvious what their true intention is.

[Dogman]

Good for them!

I hope all firearms manufactures follow their example!

Barrett was the first when it came to California and their .50 cal.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1389702/posts


An Open Letter From Ronnie Barrett (Barrett 50 caliber) (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1389702/posts)

April 21, 2005 | Ronnie Barrett

Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 9:53:08 AM by Mulder (http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Emulder/)

Dear Fellow Citizens

In the never-ending battle to destroy our constitution, more "big lie" propaganda is being dumped on our elected officials. The rhetoric given forth by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) so easily deceived the legislators of California, resulting in the banning of fifty caliber rifles because they are powerful and their bullets punch holes when they strike. Even single shot .50 cal rifles were banned. It's hard to believe we live in such a dark time that someone has actually banned a single shot rifle. But as you will see, this is the cleverest of all gun bans, and the end goal is civilian disarmament, the confiscation of your tools of liberty, your rifles.
What lies before us is the continuation of the misinformation campaign, trying to coax yet another state to infringe upon the U.S. Constitution as California did. The anti-freedom/anti-gun movement has discovered how transparent they appear when they propose sweeping gun bans and now are successful by biting off a little at a time. Ever so small, many politicians are trading off your rights without you recognizing their violations.

First we had the "Saturday Night Special" which was all affordable handguns, then "sniper rifles" which were any scoped deer rifles. Those were obvious, too big a scam to go unnoticed, but with the creation and demonization of the term "assault weapon," the Clinton's Crime bill produced a wasted 10-year setback on your freedoms and safe gun design. Now comes another scam. This time they are shocked to discover that rifles are "accurate and powerful."

This is the same bull the officials in the 1950's fell for when they banned the self-unfolding knife. First the knife was demonized by giving it an evil name, "switchblade," then we (the trusting public) were told that the problem of gang violence was solved with its banning. How ridiculous. It's surprising they didn't ban the leather jacket. In reality, gang violence was and is a serious social problem, but it was not related to manually unfolding verses self-unfolding knives. The elected officials voting to ban an object like a knife proved themselves unwilling or uncaring to understand the problem, and thus, incapable of any real solutions.

The handful of people that make up the VPC are solely responsible for the big lie on .50's, claiming fantastic destruction capabilities. They manipulate fear by claiming terrorists will use these rifles on targets of our infrastructure. "They will shut down our airports in flames" they claim. VPC's Tom Diaz refers to them as "super guns" lying to his dupable group of politicians, concealing the facts that there are many rifle cartridges that are comparable in performance (those will be added to the list in phase two). He is boldly telling these officials (and all who will listen) that the risk of terrorist attacks on these targets will be solved with the banning of powerful rifles, in this case, the .50 caliber rifle. In reality, terrorism is complex and will be defeated with improved intelligence. In this instance, the officials voting to ban an inanimate object like a rifle prove themselves to be ignorant of the problem of terrorism and are wasting time and resources.

You must understand the brilliance of this dangerous back door deception. Your politicians are being told that the fifty is a highly destructive cartridge that can destroy airplanes, fuel transport trucks and depot storages of fuel. They show videos like the one on 60 Minutes showing a 1/2 inch plate of steel being pierced by a .50 cal round while stopping a .308 caliber. This is all to confuse the people, those with little exposure to firearms; their impression concludes that the .50 punches holes in sensitive targets where other rifles cannot. Had they shot actual aluminum that is used on airplane construction, or aluminum or steel used in actual transport or tank construction, both the .50 and the .308 will pierce along with most all centerfire cartridges. But this, they must keep secret.
First, with the confusion of massive, (although incorrect) technical data and the hammering of urgency, the VPC demands a ban or strict regulations on rifles that chamber a cartridge that has the ability to penetrate targets. Sound ridiculous? It is.

VPC's Tom Diaz appears often on TV with maps of Washington, DC, irresponsibly instructing where to position one's self to illegally fire on vulnerable important targets of our government, promising these specific targets will be safe when .50's are banned. He pressures politicians to act quickly on this URGENT legislation needed to make these terrorist targets safe, hoping they will act before the VPC lies are discovered.

Now slow down. A ban on a rifle because the cartridge it shoots penetrates targets? By the legislation naming and defining the targets that are damageable by rifle fire, and in this case, .50 cal. rifle fire, they create a new class of rifles. This new class is not defined by such foolishness as detachable magazines, flash hiders, or pistol grips. Instead, the test is; does it fire a bullet that punches a hole, and can the hole result in damage to specified and named targets? If so, the law-abiding citizen shouldn't be allowed to have this, so they must ban this class of rifle before they can be misused. This is the very thing California has just passed!

"Now, we are only talking about those powerful .50 cals, right? It's such a small class, no one will mind or even notice." That's what the VPC's lies have lead you to believe. No, remember they are banning rifles because specific targets named in our infrastructure are susceptible to damage. Now tell me, what centerfire rifle cartridge won't punch holes in those targets? What centerfire rifle cartridge is not powerful? Not many or not any? So, in order to comply with the spirit and intent of the law, the Attorney General or State Secretary must add those cartridges to the banned list. The big lie is exposed. They aren't just talking about .50's. They're after your hunting rifles, centerfire target rifles-just about any rifle you own.

Unlike California, we cannot allow any of our local, state, or federal officials to be deceived with any of this "big lie" gun control propaganda. The U.S. has every gun law that could possibly be needed. Virtually every real world scenario of firearm abuse is already covered in some law that is currently on the books.

Many of you have inquired as to the outcome of the letter I wrote to Police Chief Bratten of the LAPD. Unfortunately, the chief's position did not change. He continued to use his officers in the same deceptive practices formerly utilized with the city council. These few officers testifying in Sacramento ultimately contributed to the unconstitutional AB50 law being passed. It saddened me to have to tell members of the LAPD SWAT team that they would have to send someone for their rifle, because I refused to assist anyone or any organization that is in violation of the United States Constitution. In turn, the department arranged to pick up their un-serviced rifle.

Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers. Therefore, since California's passing of AB50, the state is not in compliance with the US Constitution's 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we will not sell nor service any of our products to any government agency of the State of California.

I appreciate all the phone calls and e-mails from LAPD officers and civilians during that time, encouraging and supporting our actions. We shall see if other firearms companies will follow this path. I know many are corporately owned and feel like they are unable to risk the life of their company for the liberties of our nation, but if we lose our Republic, our freedom, what good is any of it? I am in the proud and fortunate position that many of our forefathers were in when they risked all for our liberties.
"Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -Patrick Henry

This "ban large bore" insanity failed in Washington years ago, but that didn't discourage the VPC. Now it's resurfacing in city council meetings, in individual states, and it's being reintroduced in Washington. NRA-ILA Executive Director, Chris Cox, once told me "These (anti-freedom, anti-gun) guys never go away, and they never quit."
I've received thousands of e-mails and letters from you offering encouragement and support. Our Republic, our liberty, needs and demands your support. You must take action to guard your rights. First, find your State Senator and State Representative. Tell them not to fall for this scam. This lie depends on the elected official being naive about firearms and their capabilities. Stand ready to carry this same message to your U.S. Senator and Representatives. Know all of your elected officials' positions on gun issues.

DO NOT ELECT ANY ANTI-GUN PERSON TO ANY POSITION!

Position yourself with me in the battles that we must fight. You need to join the NRA, the Fifty Caliber Shooters' Association, and the NSSF in order to stay informed. These people have been with me in the trenches, fighting for every inch of the liberty you enjoy.

Today we draw a line; there will be no more nibbling at our freedom. Today you stand idle no longer. Today you do something to save our country!

Ronnie Barrett Owner and CEO Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.

[hoarder]

I hope all firearms manufactures follow their example! Yeah dream on. Most firearms companies have been bought out by Jews, especially in the last decade. They have cheapened their quality across the board to increase their market share. These buyouts are a strategic rather than economic move, IMO.

[osoab]

Aren't the still selling to the Feds and just quitting state and locals?

[Hitch]

While I applaud these efforts to protect and support our constitutional rights, I don't think comparing LE gun rights to citizen gun rights protects the 2nd amendment.

I will explain. The 2nd amendment is an unalienable right. LE gun rights are strictly regulated, requiring a P.O.S.T. certification, ongoing re-qualifying of skills, hours of training to re-certify.

By saying if LE can have a 'said' gun, we open the door to a big OK. OK then, citizens are then required to produce proof of the same level of training LE has to endure to own guns. Weeks of training at an academy level, passing scenario testing, physical exams, psych exams....and yearly testing to maintain the certification.

By comparing citizens and LE, that argument is in fact, against the whole point of the 2nd amendment. It must be kept clear and separate. The 2nd amendment must remain unalienable. It's the gray area that they use to twist things, and take more rights away.

[madfranks]

While I applaud these efforts to protect and support our constitutional rights, I don't think comparing LE gun rights to citizen gun rights protects the 2nd amendment.

I will explain. The 2nd amendment is an unalienable right. LE gun rights are strictly regulated, requiring a P.O.S.T. certification, ongoing re-qualifying of skills, hours of training to re-certify.

By saying if LE can have a 'said' gun, we open the door to a big OK. OK then, citizens are then required to produce proof of the same level of training LE has to endure to own guns. Weeks of training at an academy level, passing scenario testing, physical exams, psych exams....and yearly testing to maintain the certification.

By comparing citizens and LE, that argument is in fact, against the whole point of the 2nd amendment. It must be kept clear and separate. The 2nd amendment must remain unalienable. It's the gray area that they use to twist things, and take more rights away.

The sad truth is, our definition of "unalienable rights" and their definition are vastly different. They will straight up say that your "constitutional" rights are not absolute, and then use erroneous comparisons to justify why "common sense" regulations are necessary. They pay lip service to our God-given rights, but in their hearts they don't believe in them.

The reality is, no man may tell another man what he may rightfully own as a defensive weapon, even if multitudes of men get together and decide it must be this way or that. Our natural rights do not include the right to tell others what they may and may not have, and following this logic, any weapon a cop has at his disposal for defense should be available for everyone else to have as well.
BTW, I see it's your first post; welcome to the forum. --H H--

[Dogman]

The sad truth is, our definition of "unalienable rights" and their definition are vastly different. They will straight up say that your "constitutional" rights are not absolute, and then use erroneous comparisons to justify why "common sense" regulations are necessary. They pay lip service to our God-given rights, but in their hearts they don't believe in them.

The reality is, no man may tell another man what he may rightfully own as a defensive weapon, even if multitudes of men get together and decide it must be this way or that. Our natural rights do not include the right to tell others what they may and may not have, and following this logic, any weapon a cop has at his disposal for defense should be available for everyone else to have as well.
BTW, I see it's your first post; welcome to the forum. --H H--

If the DHS can do this, Do you think they can not suspend all of it!

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/cfzone-461x300.jpg

[Hitch]

The reality is, no man may tell another man what he may rightfully own as a defensive weapon, even if multitudes of men get together and decide it must be this way or that. Our natural rights do not include the right to tell others what they may and may not have, and following this logic, any weapon a cop has at his disposal for defense should be available for everyone else to have as well.

I agree with the logic, I just thought I'd point out 'how' that logic is going to be used against us. It's a slippery slope, imo. Just as DHS purchases 7000 'personal defense weapons'...yet, if you or I bought one, it's called an assault rifle.

Thanks for the welcome.--H H--

[palani]

The sad truth is, our definition of "unalienable rights" and their definition are vastly different.

It is a function of your status. If you choose to be a 14th amendment citizen you have very few bill of rights available to you. The 2nd amendment is not one of these. Doubt me? Check the annotated constitution if you doubt.

http://i50.tinypic.com/2ccqgi1.jpg

[madfranks]

It is a function of your status. If you choose to be a 14th amendment citizen you have very few bill of rights available to you. The 2nd amendment is not one of these. Doubt me? Check the annotated constitution if you doubt.

http://i50.tinypic.com/2ccqgi1.jpg

I have never chosen to be a 14th amendment citizen yet am treated as such every day by those in charge.

[palani]

I have never chosen to be a 14th amendment citizen yet am treated as such every day by those in charge.

You volunteered yourself into the status. There actually ARE real 14th amendment citizens. They were born in D.C.

[madfranks]

You volunteered yourself into the status. There actually ARE real 14th amendment citizens. They were born in D.C.

No, I didn't.

[palani]

No, I didn't.

You have never applied for a privilege in which you declared yourself a 'u.s. citizen'?
Drivers license?
social security?
bought a firearm and completed BATFE paperwork?
applied for a pilots license?
applied for a ham license?
signed a 1040 form under penalty of perjury?
passport?

[midnight rambler]

You have never applied for a privilege in which you declared yourself a 'u.s. citizen'?
Drivers license?
social security?
bought a firearm and completed BATFE paperwork?
applied for a pilots license?
applied for a ham license?
signed a 1040 form under penalty of perjury?
passport?

'voter' 'registration'
get mail delivered by USPS, Inc.
use a 'ZIP code'