Will you continue to purchase from companies that stay in anti states?


PDA






gunslinger15
April 11, 2013, 01:43 PM
I just read an article stating that Remington has no plans to leave N.Y and in fact has plans to spend $20 million updating their facilities. I for one will be choosing not to spend anymore money with companies who choose to stay in Anti States. I do not want profits from my purchases going back to N.Y and being used through taxes to enforce these unconstitutional laws. I also feel that by staying in N.Y and not taking a stand Remington is just as bad as the Antis. I know I am one person and losing my business alone wont even be felt, but I think it is our duty as gun owners and consumers to make sure these companies are walking the walk.

If you enjoyed reading about "Will you continue to purchase from companies that stay in anti states?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bubbles
April 11, 2013, 01:46 PM
Thank you. I've reached the point where I've ceased to do business as much as possible with any company in an anti state, and for the same reason.

SSN Vet
April 11, 2013, 01:46 PM
I hear ya....

Colt rattled their saber about puching out of CT if their new draconian gun laws passed. Now they've passed! Let's see what they do.

morcey2
April 11, 2013, 01:47 PM
There are probably many smaller manufacturers that would be put out of business because of the cost of relocating. Others will probably stay put an fight the good fight from inside their respective states.

Also, the title of your thread and the question in the poll are inverses of each other. Could lead to confusing responses.

Matt

HoosierQ
April 11, 2013, 01:48 PM
Boycotting gun manufacturers for where they are located serves no purpose. Have you ever moved? Do you know how hard it is to move a business along with all the people needed to run it?

I could see the laws of the state driving out a company because their product might specifically break the law...like Magpul and the 15 round mag thing.

Boycotting gun companies is a stupid approach to dealing with our problems.

CoRoMo
April 11, 2013, 01:49 PM
Didn't the Remington company also petition the state legislature to not pass SAFE? If they did, but now are going to simply get comfy and stay in the state of NY, then their words were empty.

I've started looking on the backside of all products recently to see where they are made. If my toothpaste came from a factory in Connecticut, maybe there is another brand that I can go to.

tarosean
April 11, 2013, 01:59 PM
Regardless if Remington wanted to move they are owned by an investment group. Their shareholders will make the decisions.. A little different than these smaller privately owned companies who can just pick up and move.

If your going to hold Rem accountable be sure to include every company Freedom Group owns.

Advanced Armament Corporation
Barnes Bullets
Bushmaster Firearms International
Dakota Arms
DPMS Panther Arms
H & R Firearms
Marlin
Mountain Khakis
Para USA
Parker Gunmakers
Remington Arms
Remington Military
Remington LE
Remington PMPD
TAPCO

mdauben
April 11, 2013, 02:04 PM
I would probably go out of my way to support businesses that move out of anti-gun states, but I would not purposely boycott other just because they are located in anti-gun states.

oneounceload
April 11, 2013, 02:06 PM
Do you also boycott all of the guns and ammo and accessories made in countries where their citizens do not have the right to own guns, or they are severely restricted - like China, most European countries, most SA companies, etc? Are you boycotting Hodgdon since most of their product comes from Australia?

Why stop at guns? Boycott all of the fruits, veggies, etc. from all of these countries/states as well.

Have a 401K invested in Wall Street? Better pull your money out of there as well

This goes on and on. Folks who demand that a company move obviously have never been involved with that decision, with the millions of dollars involved, loss of key and highly trained employees, etc.....

Besides, Remington has already moved a chunk of operations to NC

CoRoMo
April 11, 2013, 02:07 PM
...as a matter of conscience you should also boycott companies that sell to those same states.
True. The results won't be perfect, but there's no harm in trying. If a few of my pennies end up as tax revenue in New York, enforcing unconstitutional laws, it is to be expected. But if I try to keep that from happening, rather than living oblivious to the issue entirely, I can live with myself.

Just like getting involved in activism; you do what you can. It won't always give you the results you're after, but at least your trying and speaking out (with your wallet in this case). When they stripped our rights here in Colorado last month, I was more active than I've ever been. The men standing right beside me at the range did nothing whatsoever and I don't know how they live with themselves.

mcdonl
April 11, 2013, 02:18 PM
Yeah, that would be unfair to expect a company to suffer even more in this economy by moving and potentially laying off their staff.

Now, boycotting companies that sell to the government agencies in those states. Thats a different story.

richie
April 11, 2013, 03:03 PM
I'm sorry you fellas feel like that, but I for one feel good that there gonna stay and fight the fight, you think there happy about King Coumo and his puppets, this was all done behind closed doors and sprung on all of us at the same time. I can assure you Coumo knows how us lawful gun owners feel, New York Rifle & Pistol Ass. and the NRA have both filed suit against the SAFE act, lets hope and pray a level headed judge repeals it. You have any idea how many families and businesses would be affected if Remington up and left, hundreds, there the largest employer in Herkimer county, there are also smaller machine shops that would loose all the out sourced jobs that Remington can't handle, plus the store owners. Its easy to say pack up and move, but for many they would be leaving families behind. New York is a beautiful state, we have lots of public land, great hunting and fishing, beautiful mtns with many hiking trails. NewYork State is not NYC. Thats Blooburgs empire. We'll win our rights back, I'm sure the next election will see some changes, our local politicians all voted against the SAFE act. Mainly because they didn't want to loose Remington.

gunslinger15
April 11, 2013, 03:21 PM
I understand that it is very difficult to completely boycott all the companies that are behind enemy lines simply due to the fact that many are linked together. However, I will not be purchasing from one of them if a substitute good is available from a company located in a free state. My only exception to this is if they cut off sales to federal and state leo.

Beyond that exception If they choose not to or do not have the means to move well that is going to have to be their loss, my dollar will be going elsewhere.

For example our ski trip, backpacking trip, and a mule deer hunt have all been canceled because we will not spend our money in Colorado. I am sorry the local economy is going to have to take a hit, but if that is what it takes to get them motivated and get unjust laws their states changed so be it.

When looking for sympathy in response to the destructive actions of the liberal regime look elsewhere. This is a direct effect of their actions and ideals.

bergmen
April 11, 2013, 03:31 PM
"Will you continue to purchase from companies that stay in anti states?"

Absolutely. Any company in California (and there are many, mostly small shops) very much deserve our business and support if they manufacture parts and accessories worth considering.

Healthy revenue is crucial for their survival and boycotting them will only hurt them which I believe is totally inappropriate.

They are not the cause of this mess and do not deserve to be punished for it IMO.

Dan

buck460XVR
April 11, 2013, 03:39 PM
I see no reason to punish stockholders and employees of a corporation just because of what the legislators in the state they are located in do. Now if they are in support of what those legislators do is another story.......

SabbathWolf
April 11, 2013, 04:01 PM
Regardless if Remington wanted to move they are owned by an investment group. Their shareholders will make the decisions.. A little different than these smaller privately owned companies who can just pick up and move.

If your going to hold Rem accountable be sure to include every company Freedom Group owns.

Advanced Armament Corporation
Barnes Bullets
Bushmaster Firearms International
Dakota Arms
DPMS Panther Arms
H & R Firearms
Marlin
Mountain Khakis
Para USA
Parker Gunmakers
Remington Arms
Remington Military
Remington LE
Remington PMPD
TAPCO
Looking at that entire list I came to a realization.
I don't own a single thing from any of those companies at all except for a Gordon Tech/Tapco G2 trigger in my AK.
I guess I'm "already" boycotting those guys and didn't even know it.

:eek:

:D

Barnes bullets may be an exception though because a lot of ammo makers use their bullets.

GrOuNd_ZeRo
April 11, 2013, 04:11 PM
Happy I didn't buy a Remington 597 instead of my S&W M&P, while I don't blame Remington I very much blame the lawmakers of the state.

However, I wouldn't considder MA a very pro-gun state either...

tarosean
April 11, 2013, 04:18 PM
Barnes bullets may be an exception though because a lot of ammo makers use their bullets.

Yeah I'm guessing peeps wouldn't be shooting many bulletts at all if they were serious about boycotts.. Winchester, Remington, Wolf and others are located in hostile states not to mention powder and brass companies..

Gregaw
April 11, 2013, 04:23 PM
Moving may not be an option for every company. There are other ways to stand against laws in the state where you reside. I think it would have to be a case-by-case decision.

tarosean
April 11, 2013, 04:27 PM
However, I wouldn't considder MA a very pro-gun state either...

But it's owned by a company in AZ.. Does that make you feel better?

mljdeckard
April 11, 2013, 04:28 PM
Not exactly.

Should we alienate gun owners who live in anti states because they aren't in a position they can move?

Rather than penalize gun companies in anti states, I do try to reward companies in pro states, and companies that are moving to pro states. If I compile a poop list of every company that doesn't do every single thing I THINK they should do, I wouldn't have many left with whom I could do ANY kind of business at all.

Now, if a company comes out IN FAVOR of new gun laws, I would penalize them.

osteodoc08
April 11, 2013, 04:31 PM
It would not be feasible to move an existing plant. Now if making a new one, do so in a gun friendly state.

ngnrd
April 11, 2013, 04:41 PM
I would probably go out of my way to support businesses that move out of anti-gun states, but I would not purposely boycott other just because they are located in anti-gun states.

^^^ This.

SabbathWolf
April 11, 2013, 04:41 PM
What we need to do is start a new church.
We can call it the "2nd Amen Church of America."

Get everybody in the firearms industry to join, and then file for tax exemption in non-friendly states.......lol

:evil:

TennJed
April 11, 2013, 04:54 PM
I would probably go out of my way to support businesses that move out of anti-gun states, but I would not purposely boycott other just because they are located in anti-gun states.
this is the correct answer

Bubba613
April 11, 2013, 04:58 PM
What is this insane desire to boycott companies for the slightest of reasons? People boycott S&W because of something done by a different company 20+ years ago. People call for boycotting Accuracy International for using some guy in an ad. People want to boycott companies because they don't want to spend millions of dollars uprooting everyone and relocating.
The arms and accessory makers are on our side. They invest in R&D to make better products for us. They frequently sponsor competitions and give to pro gun orgs. Why would anyone want to punish them for making a rational business decision?

Claude Clay
April 11, 2013, 05:05 PM
see sig line

rdhood
April 11, 2013, 05:05 PM
Glock, for example, isn't in New York, but they still sell millions of firearms to law enforcement in New York.

Should we not boycott them as well?

I'd sooner boycott companies that sell to any government entity in anti states than those that manufacture there. Getting caught in an anti state, like Magpul in CO, is the luck of the draw. Doing business with LE in those states is a CHOICE.

Claude Clay
April 11, 2013, 05:09 PM
3 small companies owned by friends told me their moving.
timing such that one just bought a home and another is waiting on equipment he ordered before the fire got so hot. but they know they can't make stuff thats illegal to own in the state they pay taxes in.
sad.....real sad

Cosmoline
April 11, 2013, 05:24 PM
Also, the title of your thread and the question in the poll are inverses of each other. Could lead to confusing responses.


I almost did. BAD POLL. Please alter your thread title to match the poll question.

Anyway this situation calls for a carrot not a stick. Entice them away from the bad states. Don't attack them for staying. I mean are we going to start attacking gun owners who live in NJ or NY?

HKGuns
April 11, 2013, 06:34 PM
If Colt doesn't move, my next 1911 will be something other than the Colt that has been on my list.

nwilliams
April 11, 2013, 07:32 PM
There really aren't a lot of gun companies located in anti-gun States that I feel the desire to buy from, with exception of perhaps S&W.

Let's look at a small list (I'm sure I'm missing a couple)

With Headquarters or manufacturing facilities in anti-gun States:

S&W: Springfield, Massachusetts
Colt: Hartford, Connecticut
Charter Arms: Shelton, Connecticut
LMT: Milan, Illinois
Kimber: Yonkers, New York
Armalite: Geneseo, Illinois
Henry: Bayonne, New Jersey
Rock River: Colona, Illinois
Savage Arms: Westfield, MA
Seecamp: Milford, Connecticut
Kahr: Blauvelt, New York
Stag: New Britain, Connecticut
Springfield: Geneseo, Illinois
Beretta USA: Accokeek, MD

With Headquarters or manufacturing facilities in gun friendly States:

Alexander Arms: Radford, Virginia
Browning: Mountain Green, Utah
DPMS: St. Cloud, Minnesota
HK: Columbus, Georgia
Wilson Combat: Berryville, Arkansas
Sig Arms: Exeter, NH
Robinson: Salt Lake City, Utah
Hi Point: Mansfield, Ohio
Knights: Titusville, Florida
Les Baer: LeClaire, Iowa
NAA: Provo, Utah
Bushmaster: Madison, NC
Arsenal: Las Vegas, NV
STI: Georgetown, Texas
CAI: Delray Beach, FL
Noveske: Grants Pass, Oregon
FN USA: McLean, VA
Glock: Smyrna, GA
Daniel Defense: Black Creek, GA
Windham Weaponry: Windham, ME
Remington: Madison, N.C
Ruger: Newport, NH and Prescott, AZ

tomrkba
April 11, 2013, 08:34 PM
If it is a choice between a gun company that operates in a slave state and one that does not, then I will choose the brand that will not contribute taxes to the slave state government.

oneounceload
April 11, 2013, 09:53 PM
NH - Ruger belongs on both lists - their HQ is still in CT

Better add accessories too - Pelican is located in CA

HorseSoldier
April 11, 2013, 10:11 PM
DS Arms is in Illinois, unless they moved. A few years ago "community organizers" were targeting them for protests because they made evil and scary assault weapons.

powder
April 11, 2013, 10:29 PM
...and how many of you boycotted General Motors when they started moving operations to China and bought Dae Woo factories in Korea?

nwilliams
April 12, 2013, 01:49 AM
I wonder how many anti-gun people in CT, NY, MA and IL realize a large portion of their State's revenue is being generated from the firearms industry. I would love to see a breakdown of how much tax revenue is being generated yearly in each individual State from the firearms industry. I wager that IL, CT, MA and NY are among the top ten States in the country that receive the largest amount of tax revenue from the firearms industry.

...and how many of you boycotted General Motors when they started moving operations to China and bought Dae Woo factories in Korea?

That's a completely different reason to boycott a company than what is being discussed in this thread.

tarosean
April 12, 2013, 02:36 AM
That's a completely different reason to boycott a company than what is being discussed in this thread.

Is it really??? cause all I see in this thread is hot air and chest thumping.. If they were truly serious about boycotting a business that does commerce with an Anti state..

They would basically have to live off the land making your home out of mud and straw, growing your own vegetables, meat. clothing, etc.

Just a fact off life in this world economy.

The-Reaver
April 12, 2013, 06:14 AM
I'm sure I can find just as good of products elseware. That or just deal without or make my own.

No!

Deus Machina
April 12, 2013, 07:24 AM
Yes, I will. It takes enough to move that it could kill off some smaller companies.

But if I have a choice, I'll be supporting Magpul and the like who did.

adaptandovercome
April 12, 2013, 07:29 AM
I did here that bereta might build a plant here in WV

KimberUltra
April 12, 2013, 10:19 AM
Being a ct native I think you should boycott ct business and the state itself. I would love nothing more than a year from now to watch all our bozo lawmakers scratching their heads on where all our money went and they realize the impact of the laws they made.

RustHunter87
April 12, 2013, 11:10 AM
I voted yes but I am Way more likely to support one of the companys that have or plan to move!

gunslinger15
April 12, 2013, 11:23 AM
I am really surprised by how close the poll results are seems like a pretty even split. From what I read in the comments it appears like the consensus leans towards not necessarily boycotting manufacturers in anti stats but giving more business to the manufacturers that either chose to leave, or stayed but have fought valiantly for or 2nd amendment. I think that is a good approach.

I would really like to see all not just a few of the major companies standing up and being more vocal however, and that approach just might make them see that we show favor and loyalty to the companies willing to do so. From a business standpoint you would think they would all be screaming at the top of their lungs.

nwilliams
April 12, 2013, 01:28 PM
Is it really??? cause all I see in this thread is hot air and chest thumping.. If they were truly serious about boycotting a business that does commerce with an Anti state..

They would basically have to live off the land making your home out of mud and straw, growing your own vegetables, meat. clothing, etc.

Just a fact off life in this world economy.

Really I see none of that. I see people stating that they would rather not do business with a firearms related company that operates in a State where the 2nd amendment isn't supported by that State government. How is that hot air and chest thumping?

It''s very true that companies can't just pack up and move and it will put the company under stress and it's employees which is a shame. Also I agree we are better off with these companies than without them, even if they are located in anti-gun States. My hope is that these companies that are located in anti-gun States take it upon themselves to figure out the best way to fight back against anti-gun politicians, whether it's by moving their company to another State or by refusing to sell to States that infringe upon the 2nd amendment right of the people.

Highland Ranger
April 12, 2013, 01:33 PM
You have to respect that business is business and moving a manufacturing plant is a major cost, disruption and risk that the business may or may not be able to support or even survive.

Its questionable to not support otherwise pro 2nd amendment companies just because they may or may not be in a position to move, let alone it making good business sense.

anothernewb
April 12, 2013, 01:36 PM
I will. they need money too - and they'll need a surplus of money to fund moving their operations.

Taking an ammo maker out of the game - just makes the game more expensive for the rest of us. The more makers, the more the competition, the lower the prices.

joecil
April 12, 2013, 01:54 PM
Besides many buy guns from manufacturers located in countries where guns are banned period for their populations or are heavily restricted. Most European countries, Asian, South American and the Philippines come to mind with real restrictive gun laws, much stronger than any state in the USA including NY, etc.

SilentStalker
April 12, 2013, 02:02 PM
That is a negative sir. IMO, the companies that stay in anti states are idiots. They are not helping our cause and well if the rest of the states go the way of the ones they are in then they will be putting themselves out of business by not doing anything. You see what I am driving at here? It is going to take big companies to help out with the battle and if they aren't moving out to show the anti's a stance then they do not need my business.

Romeo 33 Delta
April 12, 2013, 02:03 PM
One needs to remember that ECONOMICS rules (or should). While you may want to move your business, it may not be financially practical at a particular, given time. Folks, it's LOGIC over EMOTION! I spent 40+ years running my manufacturing business before I retired and ALWAYS tried to base my business decisions on LOGIC ... not EMOTION.

There is a difference between a small operation, 5 people in a small shop as opposed 50 people in a medium one and 500 people in a large one.

I wouldn't refuse to buy a product from a company in a anti-state, but I might easily look first for a product from a company that moved.

KimberUltra
April 12, 2013, 02:13 PM
It womt hurt them by moving. They are already losing money from the start just because their products may not be legal in their own state. And the state still wants to tax them. I'd tell them to pound sand. Screw the jobs honestly. The price to pay for voting in a whole state full of flaming liberals.

SilentStalker
April 12, 2013, 02:30 PM
One needs to remember that ECONOMICS rules (or should). While you may want to move your business, it may not be financially practical at a particular, given time. Folks, it's LOGIC over EMOTION! I spent 40+ years running my manufacturing business before I retired and ALWAYS tried to base my business decisions on LOGIC ... not EMOTION.

There is a difference between a small operation, 5 people in a small shop as opposed 50 people in a medium one and 500 people in a large one.

I wouldn't refuse to buy a product from a company in a anti-state, but I might easily look first for a product from a company that moved.

I understand that but when you refuse to help fight the battle that may or may not keep you in business then the end result is all about economics. If the civvies can no longer purchase your products because of legislation you refuse to battle then you will ultimately be putting yourself out of business. I understand that it may not be financially feasible for them to just up and move right now, but being the huge company that they are a simple statement saying that they are working towards moving will probably open some eyes.

Bobson
April 12, 2013, 02:34 PM
I voted yes, just because I wouldn't want to limit myself to inferior companies if that's what it came to. Colt's a good example. I'm not going to go out and buy a Sun Devil AR15 just because they're made in AZ - I'd buy a Colt even if they moved the company to New York.

KimberUltra
April 12, 2013, 02:46 PM
Tax are high in ct as it is for businesses. They would save money in the long run by moving and that not including the tax breaks other states have offered.

Owning a business and living in ct is absolutely stupid and if anyone with a little brains would leave if they had the choice to do it all over.

anothernewb
April 12, 2013, 03:53 PM
One additional thing to consider a company moving is that it may require EPA certs and the like. With Obummer in control of that out of control agency - the likelyhood of that happening is similar to needing a parka in hell.

Staying put may be some companies only choice for staying in business.

A second caveat may be some of the machinery may be incredibly cost prohibitive to move. some of those machines (could) weigh many many tons...

ApacheCoTodd
April 12, 2013, 11:38 PM
I see no need to punish a company due to the current politics of their state of residency, nor do I feel empowered to demand that they take on the monumental business and personal task of moving the operation and their families to a state that might only currently be "pro-gun".

If the business is a closet appeaser organization actually contributing to the problem - that's another issue altogether.

As far as boycotting... why not boycott/blacklist members of this forum who haven't relocated.:banghead:

Nonsense.

Hacker15E
April 13, 2013, 09:07 AM
How many different ways will the pro RKBA community think up to further fracture ourselves into factions and weaken support for the overall cause?

earlthegoat2
April 13, 2013, 09:53 AM
Im not for companies up and moving and putting a crap load of Americans out of a job. Unless the state taxes them into submission there is really nothing to gain by moving.

They cannot help their home states political climate. Especially if they have been there for a number of years already and had to witness the changes that took place.

I would be against any company that decides to newly set up shop in an anti state.

RX-178
April 13, 2013, 10:12 AM
The bottom line for me is, guns are tools, and I buy tools based on performance, not principle, and certainly not politics.

For example, I don't like HK as a company, for the obvious 'we suck and they hate us' reason. I bought a USP45 as a defensive pistol, since it was the best pistol on the market that had the features I wanted. It is the only HK I own, and is likely to remain that way for a while (unless I decide to replace the USP with an HK45CT... it's something I've given passing thought to in the past, I'll admit).

The other thing is, I can acquire guns made by gun companies without directly supporting them with my money. I dislike Taurus, because of their dangerous marketing practices (marketing a revolver loaded with birdshot as a personal protection firearm).

I bought a Taurus .38 super on the used gun market. The way I see it, someone ELSE supported Taurus by buying the gun from them. When I bought it, none of my money went to Taurus (unless the seller donated some of it? And that's their business, not mine I suppose).

guyfromohio
April 13, 2013, 10:23 AM
Why punish due to location? If they support polititians or policies, ok. Sometimes you can't help which jack wagons get into office.

Water-Man
April 13, 2013, 10:34 AM
Sure, boycott those companies and possibly put them out of business.

Then you'll bitch about them not being around any longer.

Brillant! Real genius!

beatledog7
April 13, 2013, 10:52 AM
I do not base purchase decisions on anyone's political positions, not even RKBA. If I did that, I'd never see a movie, drive a motor vehicle, or have a meal.

When I have a need I can't fulfill within my own skill set, I purchase whatever best meets the need from whomever can legally provide it, when I need it, at a price I can afford to pay. If that vendor is a flaming anti-freedom whacko, but I saved money on what I needed...well, call it flagrant self-interest if you want, but I won't pay a premium just to to buy from a like-minded seller.

Think of it this way: If can work a deal with a freedom-hating person to sell me, a freedom lover, some item or service at a good price, then I have demonstrated to that person that freedom allows me to make a business deal with anyone I choose, politics and philosophy aside. Maybe that plants a seed.

Shanghai McCoy
April 13, 2013, 11:03 AM
The last rifle that I bought was built in 1949.
I don't plan on buying anything new in the future wherever it was built.
But then, I am old so it probably don't matter anyway....:rolleyes:

The Bushmaster
April 13, 2013, 11:05 AM
THAT IS A STUPID QUESTION!!! Why wouldn't you continue to purchase from them. Financially they may not be able to move. Kimber is in New York. Make a fine product.
To stop purchasing from them, or any other company is just plain ASININE!! Bit childish too...

Neo-Luddite
April 13, 2013, 11:08 AM
Running away may send a message, but also lets the anti's know they've won the battle and are favored to win the war as well. I wouldn't make divisive politics of whether a company goes or stays among like-minded gun folks such as we have here. The spin doctors will spin that in the media, I don't see how we need to.

JohnBT
April 13, 2013, 04:33 PM
"Will you continue to purchase from companies that stay in anti states?"

Certainly, if they have a product I want. You want 'em to move, you can buy the companies and move them.

Double Naught Spy
April 13, 2013, 08:19 PM
Armchair Special Forces - "Boycott the all and let God sort them out!"

If we didn't boycott companies in anti-gun states before now, then doing so after panic buying or after nothing is available is pretty silly.

If you want to try to do financial harm to a company, then do it to an anti-gun company and not to an ally.

alsaqr
April 13, 2013, 08:32 PM
If we didn't boycott companies in anti-gun states before now, then doing so after panic buying or after nothing is available is pretty silly.

If you want to try to do financial harm to a company, then do it to an anti-gun company and not to an ally.

Bingo!!!
Excellent post.

Hacker15E
April 13, 2013, 08:49 PM
Running away may send a message, but also lets the anti's know they've won the battle and are favored to win the war as well. I wouldn't make divisive politics of whether a company goes or stays among like-minded gun folks such as we have here. The spin doctors will spin that in the media, I don't see how we need to.

I don't mind the message that companies like Magpul and Colt send by moving; it hits the state where it really hurts, the tax base and taxpayer jobs. It sends a message to local politicians that firearms are a valid, legal consumer product and passing laws that are obtusely for "public safety" have economic and other real-world consequences on where they live and who they represent.

For companies that can afford to do it, I think that's great.

If a company can't/won't do it, though, I just don't see the point in boycotting/penalizing them because of it.

powder
April 26, 2013, 03:47 AM
"Is it really??? cause all I see in this thread is hot air and chest thumping.. If they were truly serious about boycotting a business that does commerce with an Anti state.. "

Thank You!!!

A supposed "American" company like General Motors took YOUR tax TARP $$$ to build factories in China and India and Korea.

Those countries are about as ANTI-FIREARM as you can get, anti-America, and anti-US jobs as possible.

Wake up folks.

TheSaint
April 26, 2013, 03:54 AM
I am torn on the issue. As someone who has been a resident of both CA and IL, I can tell you a lot about anti-gun culture. That being said, there thousands of wonderful 2nd-amendment supporters in anti-gun states. These people run small businesses, as outside of the really big outfits like Colt or Magpul, they may not have the operating capital to relocate to another state. While I admire Magpul's stance, that's just not realistic for many businesses. I fully intend to do a lot of business with Magpul and write them a thank you letter and tell them I stand behind their choice.

That being said, I'm not boycotting the LGS here in California, even though they can only sell me 10 round mags or bullet button AR's. If you're in a swing state as it relates to firearms freedoms, focus your efforts on anti-freedom politicians and get them booted out at the ballot box. If you live in a dictatorial anti-gun zealot state like Kommiefornia, then we must give generously to the legal foundations that are suing the unjust laws in court.

tomrkba
April 26, 2013, 09:25 AM
Sometimes I find out that a company is anti-rights only after I have purchased something.

I will never buy a GM product ever again. I won't even take one for free.

But, it's time to be realistic: there are many companies that are anti-rights simply because of their employee policies. I have worked for only ONE company that allowed employees to carry and only have heard of two overall (excluding the NRA).

I try my best to avoid purchasing products from companies that are overtly anti-rights. It's about the best I can do. Many times I have no idea whether or not the manufacturer is anti-rights. How would I know that the maker of one subcomponent is anti-rights?

Just choose as carefully as you can. Write letters when it makes sense to do so. Get your friends onboard.

Bruno2
April 26, 2013, 09:45 AM
I am not sure how to approach this subject. To start out with US manufacturers have been suffering. Not only because of the economy , but also because of foreign competition. Remember when Winchester said they were phasing out their operations because they could no longer produce goods with the quality their customers wanted and stay competitive ? Do you think Remington is going through the same problems? Then factor in a shut down with no production to generate revenue for a month or so and then limited production when the plant goes back online and having to train new people as well. True the could save money by getting away from the higher taxes, but the move could bury them as well.

Remington is willing to stay and fight. So I say let them stay and fight with our support.

Double Naught Spy
April 26, 2013, 10:08 AM
Sometimes I find out that a company is anti-rights only after I have purchased something.

I will never buy a GM product ever again. I won't even take one for free.

But, it's time to be realistic: there are many companies that are anti-rights simply because of their employee policies. I have worked for only ONE company that allowed employees to carry and only have heard of two overall (excluding the NRA).

It is fairly safe to assume that if you have purchased something from any major corporation, you have done business with a company that is anti-gun in some way. Few companies openly/overtly/by policy allow firearms in the workplace. Either they disallow for everybody or they disallow for employees. You can't boycott everybody unless you go back to a colonial way of living and manufacture most of your own products and go off grid.

Even if you find products from major companies that are gun friendly, then they are located in a state with anti-laws. Some states are worse than others, but every state has some laws that infringe on the literal interpretation of the 2A. Plus, chances are that the pro gun company also does business with anti-gun companies. In short, you can't escape. You can try to mitigate your contribution to anti-gun companies or pro-gun companies in anti-gun states, but in reality of living in modern society, you are kidding yourself that you have effected a difference or that your money isn't going to companies or entities that are anti-gun.

If you can, I would like to see what companies you are dealing with, vehicle you drive, cell phone you use, computer you use, etc.

Vector
April 26, 2013, 12:51 PM
I would probably go out of my way to support businesses that move out of anti-gun states, but I would not purposely boycott other just because they are located in anti-gun states.

This would be akin to my thinking as well.

The only companies I would boycott are more along the lines that would passively go along with a means to infringe on the 2A. I cannot remember the circumstances, but a major manufacturer seemed to be to cozy with Clinton admin back in the 1994 "assault weapons ban" days. Anyone recall who it was and under what circumstances?

grter
May 8, 2013, 05:17 AM
Yes I would provided they run their business in an eithical way and realize that this is their fight also.

However

If I get raided and assualted in my own home by gun weilding law enforcement zealots with a very distorted view of what is right and wrong, I may develope a natural tendency to not want to support the company who's firearms I see in their hands and in my face too often.

I would get the impression those companies are just looking to put profits first and are not standing with us against corruption that threatens this Country's freedom, security, and way of life.

It would then be up to us to make sure they no longer conduct business as usual.

If on the other they decided on ethical grounds to no longer support those kind of people for example by not supplying corrupted officials with weapons to inflict harm on others then I would be much more supportive.

As far as I am concerned the jury is still out on whether to vote yes or no.

Texshooter
May 8, 2013, 08:06 AM
Best as I can - No

Akita1
May 8, 2013, 02:23 PM
Wishful thinking. I hope those that are able to move will, due expectedly to adequate resources and an immaterial impact on their business (both of which provide the courage of conviction). We can't expect them all to do it and I would hate for a glut of them to suffer because we may have closed minds about the realities of each situation. There's no blanket solution for them, except perhaps political action. Sure, it ticks me off but not everyone can be Magpul or Barrett. mdauben & Vector have the right answer, IMHO.

Warp
May 8, 2013, 02:42 PM
I would probably go out of my way to support businesses that move out of anti-gun states, but I would not purposely boycott other just because they are located in anti-gun states.

Pretty much this.

wep45
May 8, 2013, 05:43 PM
Will you continue to purchase from companies that stay in anti states

yes.. its not the companies fault. get the government on the right track.

its suppose to be "OUR" government, not the other way around...

silicosys4
May 8, 2013, 06:10 PM
Hurting the companies that are supporting our industry makes no sense. Take the fight to where it makes a difference, the polls. I mean, who's mind are you changing? Is the "corporation" going to change its vote and vote in better state representation? I am pretty sure the employees of a gun friendly company are already voting pro 2a anyways.

Bad Andy
May 8, 2013, 10:54 PM
I will make a special effort to do business with companies in gun friendly states.

herrwalther
May 9, 2013, 03:29 AM
It is quiet a bit easier for smaller companies like Magpul in Colorado to pickup and move production to another state. But for historical companies like Colt and Remington, the decision will be much harder.

Regardless I was never a big fan of Remington to begin with, so this is mostly topping for me. Colt will be a bit harder considering there are a few Colt firearms I have on my dream list.

Arkansas Paul
May 9, 2013, 02:22 PM
I would probably go out of my way to support businesses that move out of anti-gun states, but I would not purposely boycott other just because they are located in anti-gun states.

This.
I understand companies that want to move. I also understan companies who do not want to lay off their employees and pack it up. Would it not serve our movement better if they stayed in those states and funded pro 2A advances there? Are we supposed to just write off the states that passed the legislation? Sounds an awful lot like giving up to me, and that's dangerous.

Creature
May 9, 2013, 05:05 PM
I will withhold my money from companies who talked the talk...but didnt walk. And I will let them know why I am will no longer purchase from them and what it will take for them to regain my business. If they feel it in their pocket book enough, there may be enough incentive there for them to make good on their promises. Remington being one of those companies. Remington operates multiple manufacturing facilities within the United States.

oneounceload
May 9, 2013, 05:18 PM
Remington being one of those companies. Remington operates multiple manufacturing facilities within the United States.

So? Each facility does different things. Are they supposed to walk away from a part of their business model because at this time, the elected politicos are leftists?

sixgunner455
May 9, 2013, 05:27 PM
Some companies, like some people, are choosing to stay in those states to continue the struggle, because they can't afford to move, etc. Others will leave.

Magpul's main business was being specifically targeted by the government of the state of Colorado. I fully expected them to move. Remington and Colt probably won't/can't unless things get impossible for them to stay.

AKElroy
May 9, 2013, 05:52 PM
I voted yes. In my business view, I would only move if it were more profitable to do so. To do so for any other reason is to let the wackobirds win. They WANT these companies to leave. I would not be driven out.

Warp
May 9, 2013, 06:46 PM
I voted yes. In my business view, I would only move if it were more profitable to do so. To do so for any other reason is to let the wackobirds win. They WANT these companies to leave. I would not be driven out.

Do you really think so?

The whole Magpul/Colorado thing, which I followed, certainly seems to indicate otherwise, IMO.

AKElroy
May 12, 2013, 03:17 PM
Magpul was specifically unable to function, as high cap mags are a large part of their focus. As I stated, I would only leave if economics forced it. In their case, it did.

Warp
May 12, 2013, 03:24 PM
Magpul was specifically unable to function, as high cap mags are a large part of their focus. As I stated, I would only leave if economics forced it. In their case, it did.

What are you talking about?

Magpul was not unable to function.

The law Colorado passed specifically and explicitly allowed standard/full capacity magazines to be manufactured. The legislators went out of their way to point out that Magpul would not have to leave and would be able to continue to produce everything they were currently. They just wouldn't be able to sell standard cap mags to CO residents. Obviously moving out of the state won't change that.

johnandersonoutdoors
May 12, 2013, 03:49 PM
For those people out there saying they would choose not to support Remington or some other company in an anti-gun state, have you thought about the pro-gun impact those companies have in their local or regional area?

Places like New York and Massachusetts are very tough on guns, but it isn't exactly an anti-gun wasteland the moment you step off manufacturers' property.

I also find it funny when people ask why many of our gun companies are located in the North East. Is history not taught anymore? That is where they were founded hundreds of years ago and they have been there ever since.

swalton1943
May 12, 2013, 03:53 PM
If leaving is good P.R. with your customer base and will help sales, move out.

22-rimfire
May 12, 2013, 04:14 PM
Yes, I will continue to buy their products. But if a particular company was in cahoots with anti-gun legislators (aka formulating the actual legislation) where they are trying to profit and benefit from the changes, I'd not buy their products.

AKElroy
May 12, 2013, 09:46 PM
I stand corrected. I was unaware of this exception for magpul. If I ran this company, the thought of operating in a state that wants my company but not my product would be tough to live with. My understanding is that the town they are relocating to is just across the boarder, with many employees currently commuting from the more friendly state.

Back to the poll, I will still buy from any company that operates in any state so long as they maintain a strong commitment to RKBA values. Springfield, colt, S&W are all quality companies based in hostile territory, and I own and will continue to buy guns from all of them. Now, if they modify their culture to cater to a liberal agenda, I'm out. They lose me at that point.

larryh1108
May 12, 2013, 11:43 PM
With almost 50% of the voters saying it will affect their decision I hope the gun companies take notice. It just doesn't sit well with me that a state will say that what you make is evil and you can't sell it here but you can surely pay the corporate taxes to fund our agenda to wipe out your rights. It just doesn't feel right to me.

22-rimfire
May 13, 2013, 12:41 AM
With almost 50% of the voters saying it will affect their decision I hope the gun companies take notice. It just doesn't sit well with me that a state will say that what you make is evil and you can't sell it here but you can surely pay the corporate taxes to fund our agenda to wipe out your rights. It just doesn't feel right to me.
It is not right to me either, but I separate manufacturing from use for the most part.

Arkansas Paul
May 13, 2013, 11:07 AM
I still think it's dangerous to just write off states who pass poor gun laws. If we just give up on them and move away, we're eventually going to run out of states to move to. We should encourage those in less than gun friendly states to fight the good fight. If one group makes laws, the next can do away with them or amend them if the right ones are voted in.

I do realize that this is easy for me to say, being in a gun friendly state.

larryh1108
May 13, 2013, 05:22 PM
Perhaps, but I see it as showing states who have not yet voted to take away our rights that we will do as we say and hurt them economically. There are pro-gun states and there are anti-gun states and then there are a lot of states who don't know what they are yet. If enough states pass anti-gun legislation then it becomes a monkey-see, monkey-do kind of thing. States on the fence join the PC crowd and pass their own anti-gun laws to keep pace. Some states will never pass these laws and some are even passing legislation stating they will now follow a federal ban. The courts will be filled with lawsuits and if/when the time comes and the SC states that this form of gun control is legal, then all is lost.

If more than half of the states pass laws like NY, CT and CO then when it comes to a federal vote, those states will vote in favor because they already have these laws in place. Obama will then push thru the NATO agreement on small arms and he wins and we lose.

Yes, we have to show that further gun control laws will cause harm to the entire state if they push them thru in the middle of the night. It may be only one state but it's one state at a time until they have the majority. Then all bets are off. We have to punish the states that think they can turn over the 2nd amendment. We have to hit them where it hurts, in their pocketbooks. They don't want us and our money so why give it to them? Cuomo and Malloy, et al, take the corporate taxes they collect from gun makers and use it to push further legislation. You've heard it slip many times now. They want our guns and will not stop until they get them... every one of them. THE UBC is the first, and biggest, step towards registration.

larryh1108
May 13, 2013, 05:39 PM
I live in CT. I live where they passed these stupid laws. I wanted a couple of guns that I now cannot buy... ever, if I stay here. I refuse to stay here and am looking at VT, NH and PA but in the mean time I am at the whim of the government.

A week ago I drove to visit family in TN, AR and IL. I drove thru CT, NY, WV, MD, VA, KY, TN, AR and IL. I got gas every 250 miles. In CT, gas was $3.69/gal. NYS was $3.79. PA was $3.38. KY and TN were between $3.08 and $3.18. AR was $3.28. IL was then $4.19 a gallon. The difference is all in taxes. CT, NYS, IL are hosing us and their governments are out of control and the states are broke.

I also smoke. Cigarettes in CT are $8.50 a pack. NYS is $9.50 a pack. South it was $5.75 a pack. Point? Gas taxes, liquor taxes, cigarette taxes, etc. CT and NYS also have the highest income taxes in the country and include IL in there too. These states are killing us with their taxes to feed their machines and are using our tax dollars to us thru their agendas. It is sick, really, what they are doing to us and unless you drive around the country and look, you don't see how bad they are treating their citizens. They are robbing us and using the money to tell us how to live and what we can buy and how much soda we can drink, etc. They've become monsters and are totally out of control.

Cactus Jack Arizona
June 8, 2013, 05:57 AM
Since the event of Dec. 14th, I don't need to remind anyone of the putrid attempt at further limiting our 2nd Amendment rights. Everyone knows all about it, unless you've been living under a rock for the past few months. :rolleyes: :neener:

Roughly 180 gun manufactures have left states that wish to limit the rights of their residents. This is somewhat good news. However, the big major companies still remain in these states. With this in mind, my question is:
Why continue to support a gun manufacturing company, such as S&W, which refuses to relocate to a gun friendly state? I'm not picking on just S&W, I'm referring to any and all gun manufacturers remaining in states with such gun hating politicians :p

I, for one, have made a decision to withdraw any future purchases from any gun manufacturer remaining in such a state. Seriously, why should these gun hating politicians reap the economic benefits from such companies? Maybe if these companies would leave such states, or at least threaten to leave, they might adjust their attitudes towards the 2nd Amendment.

Just my 2 cents.

Frosty Dave
June 8, 2013, 07:36 AM
I applaud a company like Magpul who will pull up stakes and move to a gun-friendly state but I won't boycott a company that doesn't find it feasible to move. Gun manufacturers are not the people I have a problem with, it's the people making gun-vicious laws.

I'm imagining a hypothetical company that moved to Colorado from Illinois a year ago. They would be banging their heads on their desks while Colorado went downhill and they watched Illinois starting to come around. Do they move again before the paint on the building is dry?

Better to keep pressure on the politicians than start eating our own.

tarosean
June 8, 2013, 07:56 AM
I, for one, have made a decision to withdraw any future purchases from any gun manufacturer remaining in such a state. Seriously, why should these gun hating politicians reap the economic benefits from such companies?

How far are you willing to take it???

For example, lets take Remington Arms located in NY. They are owned by Freedom Group who in turn is owned by Cerberus Capital.. Now here is where it gets tricky...

Do you like to eat? Well they own the grocery store you probably shop at. If not the store the production/shipping/importation/of some of the brands on the shelf.. Need some Clothing? They own those stores, malls, etc. too. Need a Home? well they own the lumber companies down to the paper you will sign your contract on. Get sick? They have stakes in pharmaceutical companies. Need a vehicle loan? etc. etc. etc.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.

Point being, while you're on your pedestal proclaiming not to pay the man for your convictions. You are in fact turning around and paying the same man.

Me? Every US manufacturer needs our support right now.

230RN
June 8, 2013, 08:24 AM
I admire those who chose to move, but it ain't exactly like throwing a couple of boxes in the pickup and taking off. There's new real estate prices, new licensing and corporate papers, new employee benefit laws in the new state, new arrangements for shipping and receiving raw materials and product, and on and on and on.

I came out to Colorado in the early sixties just to go to school, and loved it and its gun freedoms so much I've been here about 50 years. Don't you think I feel "violated," too? I could move up to Wyoming but that gets me pretty far away from family and friends, and I don't like to drive that much any more. Besides, I suspect Wyoming may be the next battleground for 2a rights.

So a move, expecially for a big company, just ain't that simple, and "boycotting" companies which don't move is sorta like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Terry, 230RN

BaltimoreBoy
June 8, 2013, 08:51 AM
As has been pointed out, it is not just a matter of pulling up stakes for a company to move - even a small company.

To retain my patronage, all a company from a gun hostile state has to do is promise to sell nothing to the governmental bodies of any given state that are not allowed to be owned by the regular inhabitants. (And enforce it with their resellers.)

Actually that would be a good policy for any firm from any state and in any line of business.

Sav .250
June 8, 2013, 08:58 AM
Win the battle but lose the war .......... You can do what ever you like.

If they go out of business I guess you`d be happy . Go figure.

steelerdude99
June 8, 2013, 09:01 AM
...
I, for one, have made a decision to withdraw any future purchases from any gun manufacturer remaining in such a state. Seriously, why should these gun hating politicians reap the economic benefits from such companies? Maybe if these companies would leave such states, or at least threaten to leave, they might adjust their attitudes towards the 2nd Amendment.



I donít see how a "withdraw any future purchases" (i.e. a boycott) against a pro-gun company that stays in an anti-gun state helps anything. Itís not trivial to pick up and move and may hurt the company and its employees more than the "gun hating politicians". A certain percentage of your skilled labor base may decide itís too close to retirement to put up with the hassle of moving. Besides personnel, thereís the cost moving: finding a site, permits, zoning Ö etc. It can be expensive and only drive the price of the product up or the company out of business.

As long as the local or state law does not directly prevent the manufacturing and/or possession of ďillegalĒ items, they should just balance the moving costs vs. the staying issues. Related: Jack Daniels is distilled the dry county of Moore Tennessee.

chuck

larryh1108
June 8, 2013, 11:07 AM
We have 50 states, DC and many territories. The point of "boycotting" is more to stop further erosion of our rights in states that haven't decided which way to go yet. If fence sitting states see other states losing revenue and jobs with anti-gun legislation then maybe they won't pass a restrictive law.

It's not about the states who already passed these laws, it's about the states considering passing similar laws. They have to see it will come at a cost and it will cost their state revenue and jobs but it has to be enough to make them take notice, not pass it off as collateral damage for "doing the right thing".

beatledog7
June 8, 2013, 12:26 PM
Companies exist to make money for their owners, be they private parties or shareholders. If moving is good for profitability, then moving is the right thing to do. If not, then it's a bad business move.

Companies don't exist to make customers happy--they exist to make owners happy. If it takes making customers happy to make owners happy, then owners will strive to make customers happy, including moving out of gun-negative state, but again, not at the expense of profitability.

Boycotts are silly and almost always ineffective. They are a kneejerk reaction based on emotion rather than logic, exactly what we say about antis when they whine about saving just one life.

asia331
June 9, 2013, 06:36 PM
I don't see how putting an American firearms manufacturer out of the business benefits the shooting community.

larryh1108
June 9, 2013, 09:49 PM
Oh, I don't know. What happens to companies if enough states prohibit the sale of AR type rifles? Does companies like Stag Arms build 1911s? If enough states pass legislation to stop selling AR type rifles then when another vote comes up in Congress for a national ban, it will pass since half the states already have the law in place. We have to stop the state-by-state butchering of our rights or in a few years we will all lose. One state at a time, one year at a time. They get enough states with large populations and it will pass thru the house and get more than half the states then there goes the senate. So, if 26 or more states go the route of NY, CT, CO, etc., how long before it goes national?

Yes, gun makers can choose to stay put and feed the hands that are strangling them. That's their choice. From what I read, many states are offering substantial freebies and discounts to make it worthwhile to leave. Free land, free infrastructure, tax breaks plus the benefits in place from hiring currently unemployed workers.

If a large corporation truly wanted to move they can do it with the help of the states that actually want them to succeed. They can remain in the states they are in to be "safe" and gamble that this goes no further but we all know this administration won't back down either. So, off they go, getting one state at a time.

They have nothing to lose and we have everything to lose. They'll go after the fence sitters and stay away from the hard core pro-gun states and before we know it, there will be more anti-gun states than pro-gun states. But hey, that may not happen until our kids are our age so we have nothing to worry about, right?

bobinoregon
June 9, 2013, 11:35 PM
What state in the US it was manufactured in will never be a factor in my purchasing a gun. Political climates change, you cant expect major factories to pick up and move in response . Like it has been said before, when you follow back ownership, who owns who gets extremely convoluted. In my personal opinion boycotting a firearms manufacturer because of where they are based only hurts ourselves.

jim243
June 9, 2013, 11:49 PM
No problem, I haven't purchased anything from Remington for the last 4 years and then it was only rifle cases. They won't miss my money, they never had any of it. (LOL)

Their products are not what they use to be. (some may disagree, but that's my opinion)

Jim

larryh1108
June 11, 2013, 07:43 AM
On the news last night, there is a story about how Texas govenor Perry is coming to CT to launch a $1M ad campaign to recruit businesses from CT to TX. The story stated they are specifically going after gun and gun related makers, specifically Stag Arms and other high profile companies. He's promoting sweet deals and a gun friendly atmosphere. I'd imagine the employees can even tell their friends and neighbors, with pride, that they work for a gun company. Up here they probably lie about where they work if they worked at a Stag Arms, etc. I'm glad to see this. I hope other states jump in on the recruiting.

45_auto
June 11, 2013, 10:23 AM
I for one will be choosing not to spend anymore money with companies who choose to stay in Anti States.

Do you spend money with companies who manufacture goods in anti-gun countries like China and Japan?

larryh1108
June 11, 2013, 07:38 PM
I didn't realize we lived in China or Japan. I missed the legislation they passed in the middle of the night to take away our rights. I guess I've been sleeping thru all of that.

I'm guessing that if your state did what NY, CT and CO did you'd see things a bit different. However, since it doesn't affect you then you have no iron in the fire?

orionengnr
June 11, 2013, 08:47 PM
Sure is easy to get caught up in the moment and want to "do something".
Just remember, that is the disease of the mind that infects many "good citizens" and entirely too many politicians.

I grew up in CT and have lived in CA and IL (among other places). I currently live in TX. Our Governor, Patrick Richard "PRick" Perry is trying to lure gun manufacturers to TX. I would be very happy to see Colt or S&W in TX...however, I doubt that will happen.

In the mean time, I have no plans to punish Colt or S&W for standing and fighting, and doing business where they have for well over 150 years.

Those companies are employing Americans like you and me. Just because those Americans live behind the Iron Curtain does not make them Communists, and does not make them worthy of a boycott, which will endanger their jobs.

oneounceload
June 11, 2013, 09:22 PM
Why continue to support a gun manufacturing company, such as S&W, which refuses to relocate to a gun friendly state? I'm not picking on just S&W, I'm referring to any and all gun manufacturers remaining in states with such gun hating politicians

Let's look at this for a moment. S&W is running production at record capacity. You want them to shut down their operations, relocate a large group of folks and their families, spend tens of millions (or more) to build new facilities and make the move?

I guess you do not have any knowledge of manufacturing or running a business or you would realize that this is not something you just decide to up and do when you are a large manufacturing concern

Remington is currently expanding their ammo production at their existing plant. It is predicted to take well over a year to get completed.

Then there is also the question regarding experienced workers. The NE has been the traditional home to gunmakers and the tool/die/machinists and replacing them with equally skilled workers in today's workplace is getting harder and harder as more and more folks seem only educated enough to ask if I want my fries supersized

InkEd
June 11, 2013, 10:56 PM
Considering most of the good companies are in crappy states :banghead: I don't have my choice in the matter if I want to buy any new guns. :rolleyes:

tarosean
June 12, 2013, 02:53 AM
Let's look at this for a moment. S&W is running production at record capacity. You want them to shut down their operations, relocate a large group of folks and their families, spend tens of millions (or more) to build new facilities and make the move?
I guess you do not have any knowledge of manufacturing or running a business or you would realize that this is not something you just decide to up and do when you are a large manufacturing concern


Wanna guess who the first people would be crying about the huge increase in a Firearms price?

If you enjoyed reading about "Will you continue to purchase from companies that stay in anti states?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!