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

[Vector]

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]

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]

Best as I can - No

 

[Akita1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I will make a special effort to do business with companies in gun friendly states.

 

[herrwalther]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

If leaving is good P.R. with your customer base and will help sales, move out.

 

[22-rimfire]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.