The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

**44 AMP** · January 3, 2011, 10:14 PM

It is sad, but there is no way to show our displeasure with offical CA policy and laws through a boycott without also harming the interests of the good people of CA, of which there are not nearly enough.

Barrett's boycott is symbolic, and certainly has cost Barrett some lost profits. However, its a niche market. Other than the obivous "in your face" message, (richly deserved, IMHO) its impact on the general body of CA shooters has been slight. Their govt is the one prohibiting them from buying Barretts, so Barrett is not selling to their govt.

Now, an ammo boycott...tempting idea, but not going to be effective, except against the already overly harassed civilian buyer. CA govt agencies would simply bid out for foreign made ammo, and import it, possibly even saving the state some money in the process!

And any kind of boycott on the general population's ammo supply only punishes the innocent. The (probably intended) consequence is that some businesses will voluntarily cease doing ammo business in CA. There is always added costs (and possible legal liability) to a business when the laws and regulations governing the business increase in complexity. If that cost outweighs the profit from the business, the business goes away.

An ammo company in CA could perhaps, take up the lost business from when out of state suppliers decide it isn't worth doing business in CA anymore. But, I don't know if the cost and complexity of doing that in CA would be justified by the market.

We'll see how the court cases go. Hopefully, reason will prevail.

January 3, 2011, 10:14 PM	#29
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,843	It is sad, but there is no way to show our displeasure with offical CA policy and laws through a boycott without also harming the interests of the good people of CA, of which there are not nearly enough. Barrett's boycott is symbolic, and certainly has cost Barrett some lost profits. However, its a niche market. Other than the obivous "in your face" message, (richly deserved, IMHO) its impact on the general body of CA shooters has been slight. Their govt is the one prohibiting them from buying Barretts, so Barrett is not selling to their govt. Now, an ammo boycott...tempting idea, but not going to be effective, except against the already overly harassed civilian buyer. CA govt agencies would simply bid out for foreign made ammo, and import it, possibly even saving the state some money in the process! And any kind of boycott on the general population's ammo supply only punishes the innocent. The (probably intended) consequence is that some businesses will voluntarily cease doing ammo business in CA. There is always added costs (and possible legal liability) to a business when the laws and regulations governing the business increase in complexity. If that cost outweighs the profit from the business, the business goes away. An ammo company in CA could perhaps, take up the lost business from when out of state suppliers decide it isn't worth doing business in CA anymore. But, I don't know if the cost and complexity of doing that in CA would be justified by the market. We'll see how the court cases go. Hopefully, reason will prevail. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.