This is an easy one to answer, but it's going to get a lot of flak: both states have lots of very wealthy and educated people. Very wealthy and educated / (aka "intellectual") people generally don't like to share their earned or bought or inherited privileges, social, economic, political or otherwise, with the (as perceived by them) "lesser" middle and blue classes. Therefore they don't give a rip about maintaining the Constitutional rights of those "lesser" classes. Elites have rights; others have privileges the elites condescend to allow them. Gun "rights" is only one small piece of this pie.
This, too, may be why the local population doesn’t care one whit about the firearms industry in the Connecticut River Valley. A NIMB mentality. It doesn’t benefit the vast majority of the wealthy in the region, the factory itself is probably regarded as a scar upon the landscape, and not understanding firearms, and their usefulness, they would just as soon have them all removed from the planet. As I stated in a previous post, what these wealthy elites fail to realize is that if it were not for the firearm, the best case scenario they could hope for today is that they at least have a meager savings after being British subjects and being taxed by the British monarchy, we all being British subjects.
Also, you state that the wealthy/elite don’t like to share their wealth or privileges. That’s why I find it rather confounding that ANY individual with at least some wealth can be affiliated or belong to a certain party, it being alphabetically first relative to the other major party. I’m not getting political, as we try not to do so in this forum, but that party engages in the redistribution of wealth, and so the wealthy would be paying more in taxes and giving up more of their wealth, which is not to their benefit. An oxymoron. Unless, of course, that individual is one of the last coy ones who benefits from increased spending due to increased taxation. Being in the right place at the right time.
But, relating this again to firearms. I cannot believe that even the modestly wealthy would want to give up firearms or be anti 2 A, as you never know when you might need to defend yourselves. By these modestly wealthy, I’m referring to the bulk of the wealthy and elite in this country, a large proportion who reside in Connecticut, Massachusetts,NYC…. Maybe they had successful parents, led a sheltered existence, have a few houses, an impressive stock portfolio, drive a fancy car, attended Ivy League institutions. And while at these institutions, it was ingrained in their psyche that the police are “rhe good guys”, there to protect you at a moments notice. Most cops are the good guys, with the exception of a few bad apples. But what this elite class fails to realize is that in the case of defending oneself, seconds matter, and even having a police barracks just around the corner may not be enough in an impromptu situation.
Lastly, for the very wealthy and/or elite te to be anti firearm and not want to support the firearms industry in the Connecticut River Valley is extremely hypocritical. I get it that the firearms industry in that area needed help generations ago, and this current crop of politicians is just pouring more salt in the wound, causing Smith & Wesson to relocate to Tennessee. But, I’m sure George Soros employs an armed bodyguard. I’m quite sure the Secret Service is armed and President Biden would feel quite uncomfortable if they were not.
Just some random thoughts…