Why are gun companies based in Anti-states

Status
Not open for further replies.
A lot of gun companies started a while ago, in states that have become wealthy because they have business activity (including these companies).

As people get rich, they get scared of losing what they have. As they get scared, they get risk-averse. Then they start voting for politicians who promise to remove all risk (and change) from their comfortable lives -- gun control, socialized medicine, regulations of every sort, extreme property-rights restrictions.

So, you have states that were once the wild frontier becoming fat, lazy and "progressive" (read "repressive) like California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Washington or even Oregon.

Eventually, companies move. Not just gun companies, either.
 
what makes you think Connecticut is an ANTI state?

Maybe this...

Connecticut, Trying to Stick To Their Guns...

In the wake of the Cheshire triple murder, local residents go to the gun stores in droves By Jennifer Abel "God made men and women, and Sam Colt made them equal.”
Who said that first? Not sure, but it explains the motivation of a certain reporter who genuflects in reverence each morning when she walks into the Advocate offices and sees the blue dome of the Colt building framed in the picture window.
“That blue dome in Hartford?” Scott Hoffman said as he stood behind the counter of Hoffman’s Gun Center in Newington. “If it were anything else but guns, it would be a national monument. It started the industrial revolution … you hear them talk about Eli Whitney and the cotton gin, but not about guns.”
That’s true. Generally speaking, the only time you hear “them” say much about guns is when one’s used to commit a well-publicized crime. Then “they” talk about how peaceful life would be if only everyone would beat their guns into plowshares. But there weren’t any guns waved about during last month’s horrific home invasion in Cheshire. Turns out that a pair of criminals determined to rape and murder three people don’t need a gun to do it.
Might things have worked out differently had the family owned a gun? That question’s been picking at the back of many minds, if the increased customer traffic at Hoffman’s is any indication.

“We’ve had a lot more people coming in since then,” he said. “Can’t count how many offhand … what we noticed was a lot of people who were in the middle, not anti-gun, not pro-gun … this pushed them over the edge. When you hear of a shooting in Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, the average suburbanite isn’t affected by that.”
But a triple murder in a tranquil town like Cheshire is more likely to strike a suburban chord. “People are scared. You can see it in their eyes.”

Despite the extra customers, Hoffman’s store had a well-stocked look when the Advocate dropped by. Not what you’d expect the shelves to look like after a sudden surge in sales. That’s because same-day purchases are effectively illegal. Hoffman’s extra customers haven’t decreased his stock because they’re legally precluded from doing so.[/U]“Over the years, I’ve seen people come in [the store] after being assaulted, robbed, raped … and they say, ‘I have to get a pistol permit and wait three months?’ People are amazed by how stringent the laws are in our state.”What might be even more amazing is that these laws restrict citizens’ ability to exercise a right explicitly spelled out in the state constitution, where article one, section 15 says: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”
“Right now a gun is the most effective weapon for that purpose,” Hoffman said.
The right to own weapons is spelled out more clearly in Connecticut’s constitution than the national one, which says “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There’s been a long debate over just what the Founders meant by this: must the “people” allowed to bear arms be members of that “well-regulated militia”? Those who support additional restrictions on the right to gun ownership say yes.
The opposing view says that once America had her independence, the Founders understood the need to maintain a peacetime army but were concerned that a regular army could be used repressively. In this context, the second amendment is interpreted as “Since the government must maintain an armed militia, ordinary citizens must be allowed to have weapons, too.” Which interpretation is correct? It doesn’t matter in Connecticut, where the right to self-defense is written less ambiguously: “every citizen has the right to bear arms.”
But there is a waiting period. If you start the pistol-buying process right now you can use that pistol to defend yourself from a home invasion that takes place after Thanksgiving.
Suppose you’re destined to be attacked sooner than this? Hoffman says that legal shotgun acquisition can be accomplished more expediently, in just over two weeks. “You fill out two lengthy forms we submit to the state police. Two weeks later, you come back, they do a national background check.”Though Hoffman would like to see this process streamlined, he has no blanket opposition to gun laws in general. “I don’t mind gun laws. I don’t want [just] anybody to be able to buy a gun.”
Here’s a rare occurrence: you don’t often hear the owner of a gun shop agree with a spokesperson for an organization with a name like “Connecticut Against Gun Violence.” But that’s what happened when the Advocate called that group and spoke with Executive Director Lisa Labella.
“In Connecticut our Constitution says you can have guns for protection. We respect that fact,” said Labella. “We want to make sure gun owners are law-abiding citizens.”
At the same time, Connecticut Against Gun Violence wouldn’t mind seeing the number of gun owners shrink. “I personally would not want a gun … I think a home alarm is more effective than a gun you may or may not have next to you.”


Seems pretty anti compared to a lot of other places.

I don't live there, so I don't know the accuracy of the article. Nevertheless.
 
Well living in MA I can tell you that S&W is not going anywhere anytime soon. Yes they have to much invested here to just move but I also think they have many back room deals with the state.;) That being said I love S&W as do most of us here in New England.

The worst thing about the MA guns laws and the AG's power is we can't even buy new Kahr handguns along with many Sigs, and forget Bushmasters other then the few "post-ban" models they make.:fire:

Then there is Springfield Armory, they steal one of our great names, use it in another state and then refuse to sell handguns in MA.:banghead: But I guess I need to blame the MA .gov for that..

Someday I will leave MA...
 
In response to the CT part of this thread I was born in CT and my family is from there, I admit my impression of CT gun laws was only the from the impression of those laws I have gotten from my parents. My dad has mentioned that his CT permit was a pain to get (he got his permit some time in the mid 70's or 80's).

But looking online I see they are more average.

BTW I did not try and confuse blue with Anti gun, as an Oregon resident we have pretty great gun laws and a VERY blue state at least in the portland area. The joke in the Oregon gun community is "dont talk about the fact that we have gun rights, or we will loose them"
 
Yup, Wyoming may have great gun laws, but where are you going to find skilled labor?
In Oklahoma!

About 3 or 4 years ago the OK legislature established and funded thru both the University system and the Vocational system (the top rated one in the country - other states send people here to study our votech system) a gunsmithing curriculum. The program was established with the express goal, written into the law, of attracting gun manufacturers to our state. So far - no luck - all those IL, NY, MA gun companies just don't want to leave where they're at even though we'd give 'em tax breaks, have a ready willing and able work force, lower cost of living, lower costs of doing business, lower property taxes and a gun friendly environment. Gun manufacturers are missing a really good opportunity by not considering relocating to OK.

From everything I hear the program is one of the best in the nation but is so young that it is still not well known. Time will tell if the plan works out.
 
S&W
Savage / stevens
Kahr / Auto Ornance
and many many historic companys
such as H & R Firearms and the ultimate in firearms production.
the Vatican of guns .

The US Armory at Springfield , aka Springfield Armory (the real one.)

why are all these places in MA? because. were an old industrial state, origin of the US industrial revolution, had skilled workers and still do.
 
Beretta USA is in Maryland.
Maryland is not gun friendly, but I would not call it an anti state.

I have a theory why Beretta is located here. I think it is because it is close to the District of Colombia. That is why I think H&K USA is located in Virginia too.
 
here is the list of MA legal Kahrs

Actually you can't buy any new Kahr's in state for the same reason you can't buy new Glocks and many other handguns that are on the Mass approved handgun list. The former AG decided not approve them for sale in the Commonwealth because he found something wrong with their design. The AGs office has power to bar any handgun from sale in the state even if it passes the state mandated safety tests. That is why many companies refuse to sell their handguns in this state, in fear they will spend ten of thousands of dollars for testing, only to find out the AG bans their handguns.
 
the truth is sometimes stranger than ted kennedy

this'n oughtta keep ya stymied for a while...

Kimber started life as an ~Oregon State~ company, then moved to ?Yonkers, NY?....

only three possible scenarios enter my mind...

1...they are trying to show that the sullivan act was really forced on NY citizens by those who had enough money they felt no need to be able to defend themselves. hire it done instead. they just don't feel like those of lower economic stature should be allowed to have them. [see: diane fienstein's legal case caused by the .38 revolver hidden in her closet for a better explaination]
however, if you're generating MORE money in the economy, go ahead and mfg them here!

2...kimber felt their production facility wouldn't have its schedule interrupted by would-be walk in sales customers.

3...they were trying to undermine NY's federal case to sue neighboring states for their SINFULL handgun sales finding their way to a exponential mark-up in their totalitarianly gun free state.

gunnie
 
Kimber started life as an ~Oregon State~ company, then moved to ?Yonkers, NY?....

I just checked Kimber's website which stated their Manufacturing is in Yonkers but sales and marketing is in Kalispel Montana.
 
I figured Beretta was close to the Aberdeen proving grounds for contract QC purposes and political advantage.

As far as Maryland not being anti-gun, I would disgree. Perhaps not completely anti-gun, but far from gun friendly.
 
"I just checked Kimber's website which stated their Manufacturing is in Yonkers but sales and marketing is in Kalispel Montana."


"curiouser and curiouser", quote from alice of wonderland fame.....

gunnie
 
The vast majority of guns are made north of the Mason-Dixon line, actually...NY State and New England + Illinois.


That is slowly changing.
 
cbsbyte, you are correct.

Hoppy590, I sent you a PM back with just about the same info as cbsbyte said. If you have a dealer that will sell you new Kahr handguns then that is illegal and you should stay away.

All MA and New England residents should check out and join www.northeastshooters.com
 
Connecticut has a number of gun manufacturers- Colt, Stag Arms, JLD Enterprises, Mossberg, Marlin, Galazan (Connecticut Shotgun Manufacturing) and probably others. Pretty sure Savage corporate HQ is in CT too. The thing is, New England has historically been a manufacturing center- New Britan was once the hardware capital of the world. Smith and Wesson is just over the border in Mass, as is H&R, NEF, and Z M Weapons. The political situation isn't great for guns up here, but it really could be immensly worse. Being in an anti-gun area doesn't necesarily stop gun business from booning. CDM, a company that marketed Saturday Night Specials back in the day was out of New York City:what: Henry is still based in Brooklyn.
 
The vast majority of guns are made north of the Mason-Dixon line, actually...NY State and New England + Illinois.


That is slowly changing.

I would not doubt that this is an old Civil War leftover, at least from the old, old companies.
 
Old gun plants tended to be in the North East because that was the machining and manufactoring center of the country going back to prior to the War of Northern Agression.

That's where the core of talented engineering and machining talent lay for a long time but the years since the 50s have seen high taxes, a sullen political atmosphere, overly restrictive state requlations and labor unions cut into New Englands gun making dominance.

Now, most new plants of all kinds are being built in the South or South West, as they should be! ;)
 
chris in va:

Perhaps that is why guns cost so much...they have to 'grease' the local government a bit to allow manufacturing in their state.

That's fascinating, chris. I didn't know that gun manufacturers bribed local governments to let them stay in business. Can you provide any documentation of that bribery? I'd be interested in knowing more.
 
I figured Beretta was close to the Aberdeen proving grounds for contract QC purposes and political advantage.
No where near the Aberdeen Proving Grounds actually. In a straight line it is maybe 80 or 90 miles. but by driving it is a good two hours with the best of traffic. Aberdeen is way NE of Baltimore and the Beretta plant is South of DC.
The Beretta plant is not too far a drive from the Pentagon or Congress though ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top