Arms manufacturers in at least two states with strict new gun laws are making good on their promise to move their operations -- along with thousands of jobs and millions in tax revenues -- to locales they deem friendlier to the industry.
In Connecticut, where venerable gunmakers like Colt and Sturm, Ruger & Co. have been joined in the last decade or so by upstarts like Stag Arms and PTR, reform of gun laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shootings has left the industry feeling unwelcome. Bristol-based high-end rifle manufacturer PTR Industries announced this month via Facebook that it would be taking its 40 jobs and $50,000 weekly payroll to an unspecified new state, widely believed to be Texas.
“With a heavy heart but a clear mind, we have been forced to decide that our business can no longer survive in Connecticut – the former Constitution state.”
- Gunmaker PTR INdustries, in Facebook statement
“With a heavy heart but a clear mind, we have been forced to decide that our business can no longer survive in Connecticut – the former Constitution State,” PTR said in a statement earlier this month.
AR-15 manufacturer Stag Arms could soon follow suit, along with Colt's Manufacturing and Mossberg & Sons. The moves could cost the Nutmeg State 3,000 jobs as well as the estimated $1.75 billion in annual taxable revenues.
Texas is making no secret of its desire to lure the gunmakers. This month, Gov. Rick Perry turned to Twitter to welcome PTR to move to the Lone Star state.
“Hey, PTR," Perry posted on Twitter. "Texas is still wide open for business!! Come on down!"
This month, Connecticut lawmakers approved a wide-ranging bill that includes new restriction on weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines. The 139-page bipartisan bill passed 26-10 in the Senate and 105-44 in the House. The new law adds more than 100 firearms to the state’s assault weapons ban and creates what officials have called the nation’s first dangerous weapon offender registry as well as eligibility rules for buying ammunition.
The push to reform gun control laws accelerated after the Dec. 14 massacre of 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. Although proposals for strict new federal laws have not gained traction, states have taken it upon themselves to crack down on arms. Connecticut joins California, New York and Massachusetts in having some of the country’s strongest gun-control laws on the books.
Like Connecticut, the fight over tighter restrictions prompted several gun manufacturers in Colorado to threaten to leave.
In March, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper signed bills that would require background checks for private and online gun sales and ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds
Magpul Industries, which manufactures firearms accessories and ammunition magazines, said on its Facebook page that it would have "no choice" but to leave if the magazine bill was signed, causing an opening for states eager to prove they're more gun-friendly.
Magpul employs more than 200 people and generates about $85 million in annual taxable revenues.
Grassroots Facebook pages have popped up -- some, before the Colorado bills were even signed -- encouraging Magpul to settle in places like Alabama, West Virginia or Alaska.
Alaska state Rep. Tammie Wilson's staff created a Facebook page, too, called "Magpul Industries -- Alaska Wants You."
But no one has worked harder than Texas to make gun companies feel welcome. Lawmakers there have green-lighted a measure that would free up money to local and regional economic development agencies to offer incentives to gun manufacturers to relocate in the state. Perry says it's all about bringing jobs to his state, "whether you’re a weapons manufacturer or whether you’re a tubular steel manufacturer.”
"There is still a place for freedom that is very much alive and well," Perry said. "That place is called Texas."
The other boot dropping when senators and representatives comes up for state reelections. Individuals in their hast thought NOW NOW NOW without breathing. So the states are out of jobs and revenues. Opponents are going to be all over them. Perry made a good move on advertising a weapon friendly state. I actually ask my wife if she consider TX as her next carreer move...be either a ADD or a DD. Wonder what those states are going to do to make up the lost revenues....thats a pretty big chunk no longer in their coffer. Magpul I think will go TX...two major army base there to start off wife...well...heck its a military friendly state and I do use magpul mags...
edit
Perry and TX made a good move on trying to recruit them to their state. I've done the same in his boots. What sayeth ye all from Dakka Dakka
I agree GT. The burden of picking up the slack going to either be state taxes on the people from that state or federal gov't money. I shed no tear on them. Hard to think....really starting to think that Texas success will be claimed by Obama in a funny sort of way
There probably wouldn't be much significant growth in Texas for a few years. probably after Obama's already finished his term. But won't stop him from claiming credit.
But I don't think that would work very well as the states losing these employers will suffer the negative effects far sooner. which will probably grab more attention than any increase where these companies are moving. After all, the media does love negative stories.
PA is a gun friendly state. I would love to quit making tobacco in order to start making AR-15s. Come here!!
Slightly more on topic, I see Connecticut backtracking this decision within 3 years because of lost revenue, not to mention that adding an extra 3300 people to the unemployment line is gonna hurt come election time.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote: PA is a gun friendly state. I would love to quit making tobacco in order to start making AR-15s. Come here!!
Slightly more on topic, I see Connecticut backtracking this decision within 3 years because of lost revenue, not to mention that adding an extra 3300 people to the unemployment line is gonna hurt come election time.
Why are you making Tobacco?! You live in Pottstown, go make beer down at the Yuengling factory!
Also this does seem like a dumb move on some parts, just looking at the eligibility requirements for buying ammunition on the surface seems stupid, but according to NPR, it's not that "bad", it just seems to be a hassle, especially if you, as the ammo buyer had to pay for the background check. As an educator (well I went to college for such), I had to pay to get an FBI and BCI background check, one lasted for 5 years, and 1 lasted for 1 year. It was a hassle for that, and I can see why (I'm dealing with kids), idk... on the surface it seems like it's more of a royal pain in the ass to go through with that. Also, this would completely eliminate ammo purchases online for residents of that state wouldn't it?
"Beginning Oct. 1, all purchases of ammunition and long guns would require an eligibility certificate. To obtain certification to buy ammunition, purchasers would have to pass a federal criminal background check."
While I can't see Conn. getting too upset over the unemployed people (unless most of them are moving to wherever their company's are going), the loss of revenue, IMO will create some significant ripples in the state. The districts that house the various firearms manufacturing will most definitely see a changing of the guard (depending on votes regarding recent gun-control bills) in who they elect to represent them, the economy could see some pretty big holes, without that money coming in, etc.
I wouldn't expect huge changes. Most of these companies are smaller ones that employ upwards to 250 people. A good chunk of those jobs will go where ever they relocate to, so the impact on unemployment won't be huge. Local revenue will take a hit, but again, not as large of one.
Because its not just those jobs that are effected, its all the jobs that got their income from those people as well.
Those 250 people will no longer be spending money in the area, which in turn will reduce the income of other jobs. That's assuming 100% of these people actually relocate with the company and don't cause an unemployment burden.
You have a few of these companies and suddenly the area is out tens of millions of dollars a year. Thats including the ripple effects of money that no longer circulates.
How it works is this.
Joe works at the Gun shop. He gets paid $60,000 a year. Of that 60,000, 40,000 gets spent locally. That's $40,000 getting pumped into the economy, the majority of which will stay in the immediate area. Even if its spent at a national corporation's business.
If Joes work moves, that is 40,000 no longer getting put into the economy. But its not just $40,000 lost. its 40,000, plus how ever many times the money gets recirculated.
Joe goes to Burger King and spends $5. That $5 gets split. $1 goes to BK corporation as profit. $2 goes to the supplier of the food BK serves. And $2 goes into wages. The supplier in turn turns that $2 into $1 of wages and $1 of packaging the food. The employees of both BK and the supplier have a combined $3 to spend.
So Joe's $5 is actually contributing $9 to the economy. He gained the benefit of $5 and another $4 were generated in wages/profits.
That's an extremely simple break down(we could trace that money much further down the chain and find that $5 is contributing way more) but you get the basic idea.
So even a small company relocating its operations can have a drastic effect on the local economy. And a local economic depression can in turn effect a larger area.
I know how it works. It's the same exact concept as when you have the idiots who argue that the military should receive a 50% cut. A million people suddenly unemployed, it would cause a cascade that would affect millions more.
Dangit PTR why couldn't you move to Kentucky. I've been eyeing a PTR 91 for months now.
Also, do we really need this many gun control related threads? It's starting to get a bit out of hand...
EDIT: Grey Templar puts it best. A single company closing down can kill off an entire town if it's in the right spot. I've seen small towns in Kentucky slowly dwindle away after a factory closed down or a college relocated.
I dunno.. I think less of your citizens and their children shot is probably worth an initial difficulty. Car manufacturers probably caused similar ripples when they had to have seat belts etc etc
Slaanesh-Devotee wrote: I dunno.. I think less of your citizens and their children shot is probably worth an initial difficulty. Car manufacturers probably caused similar ripples when they had to have seat belts etc etc
I don't think having a firearms manufacturer based in or near your town increases the chances of citizens or children being shot. There are no gun manufacturers in Chicago that I know of, and they have some of the worst gun crime in the country.
Grey Templar wrote: Its going to punish the economy of the states that drove them out.
dead people don't pay taxes, it'll likely be a wash
btw: how does 50 people become thousands of jobs? those guys must be working some serious overtime.
The one company employs 50 people, but many of us are talking about the many other companies as well. Plus, when you think about it, a downsize, or elimination in manufacturing means a downsize in logistics (face it, with less outbound guns for sale to other locations, UPS and FedEx, et al. do not need nearly as many delivery drivers, nor package handlers at warehouses in the area, etc., this in turn means a downsize in various retail outlets and on down the line.
I live pretty close to the arsenal that manufacturers most of the ordnance dropped in Iraq, and there hasn't been a single 2,000 lb bomb that has fallen in my neighborhood, so I'm not sure that the manufacturing facility has a correlation to an increase in crime.
On the other hand, there is a sporting goods store across the street from my job. In the 7 years I have worked here, they have been burglarized and firearms stolen perhaps a dozen times, it's unreal. Is there any point at which they become liable for what happens with those guns that walked? I think so, certainly with the frequency from which it has happened.
Slaanesh-Devotee wrote: I dunno.. I think less of your citizens and their children shot is probably worth an initial difficulty. Car manufacturers probably caused similar ripples when they had to have seat belts etc etc
I don't think having a firearms manufacturer based in or near your town increases the chances of citizens or children being shot. There are no gun manufacturers in Chicago that I know of, and they have some of the worst gun crime in the country.
Nonsense. The 'Free Sample' room where anyone over 4 can get a gun for free with no background check at all these gun factories is known to directly lead to scores of dead folks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I live pretty close to the arsenal that manufacturers most of the ordnance dropped in Iraq, and there hasn't been a single 2,000 lb bomb that has fallen in my neighborhood, so I'm not sure that the manufacturing facility has a correlation to an increase in crime.
On the other hand, there is a sporting goods store across the street from my job. In the 7 years I have worked here, they have been burglarized and firearms stolen perhaps a dozen times, it's unreal. Is there any point at which they become liable for what happens with those guns that walked? I think so, certainly with the frequency from which it has happened.
Absolutely! The victim of a crime is ALWAYS to blame for what happens and how anything stolen is used by the criminals that stole it in the future.
Grey Templar wrote: Its going to punish the economy of the states that drove them out.
dead people don't pay taxes, it'll likely be a wash
btw: how does 50 people become thousands of jobs? those guys must be working some serious overtime.
The one company employs 50 people, but many of us are talking about the many other companies as well. Plus, when you think about it, a downsize, or elimination in manufacturing means a downsize in logistics (face it, with less outbound guns for sale to other locations, UPS and FedEx, et al. do not need nearly as many delivery drivers, nor package handlers at warehouses in the area, etc., this in turn means a downsize in various retail outlets and on down the line.
Yeah, I understand taht
But the story is exactly that "this bill will cause a brazillion dollars and a milliondy jobs"
"here's one 50 man company thats leaving"
"and here's a few big ones who are thinking about it"
in other words, the first line is a lie, its cost 50 jobs so far, and they haven't moved /yet/.
Jobwise, I can't find to much info, but Beretta alone pays 31 million a year in taxes to Maryland. They also employ 400 people.
They've said they'll move if the governor signs a new bill that's been passed in Maryland.
PTR has moving, and Magpul is in the process of a move as well. They've already moved some of their production line out of Colorado, and their looking for a new place to set up head quarters.
Its like military base closure. Everyone do not want to have whatever base in their state to close. Not just active duty bases but reserve and NG units and buildings. Base closing are a city killer. Reserve and NG unit deactivation is a hefty economy hit to towns and small cities.
To clarify the Reserve and NG units. Going to go with a company of troops. 140 troops on a weekend drill in a small town. Those troops that live 50 miles out the gov't get rooms for them at a hotel/motel. Service member also pays for breakfest and dinner. Lunch is on the gov't at whateer buffet style resturant. That alone is a good chunk of money on a weekend going to the local economy. Just an idea thrown in to help some understand where we're going with this
Grey Templar wrote: Businesses don't generally kid around when they say they'll be moving. The businesses WILL move.
Like all those companies that said they'd take all these ridiculous measures if Obamacare passed, and then didn't?
Talk is cheap. I'm not trying to turn this into a healthcare thread, just saying that the bluster of some CEO doesn't automatically have more weight than anyone else.
Example. Magpul. Colorado passed a state law it seems that magazines can only contain 10 rds. Magul makes 30 round magazines.. Conn adding like 10 weapons to their ban list that hit two manufacteurers outright....makers of AR/M4's type of weapons.
Slaanesh-Devotee wrote: I dunno.. I think less of your citizens and their children shot is probably worth an initial difficulty. Car manufacturers probably caused similar ripples when they had to have seat belts etc etc
I don't think having a firearms manufacturer based in or near your town increases the chances of citizens or children being shot. There are no gun manufacturers in Chicago that I know of, and they have some of the worst gun crime in the country.
I never said having them around increases your chances of being shot. However, they are getting butthurt and leaving a state because it is passing laws to try and stop people being shot. They aren't passing laws that make gun manufacturing illegal. So its the manufacturers who causing a problem by leaving, as they have the right to. I am simply saying that the laws are probably worth passing in the long run anyway, though acknowledging the associated short term ripple in the economy of an undetermined scale.
There is a difference in the effect Obamacare has/will have on businesses and the effects of these other laws. IE: this will have a serious effect on the company's business.
It would be like Sonoma county passing a law saying that customers in the county can purchase no more than 1 bottle of wine per week. You'd see many wineries close up pretty fast/move.
Slaanesh-Devotee wrote: I dunno.. I think less of your citizens and their children shot is probably worth an initial difficulty. Car manufacturers probably caused similar ripples when they had to have seat belts etc etc
I don't think having a firearms manufacturer based in or near your town increases the chances of citizens or children being shot. There are no gun manufacturers in Chicago that I know of, and they have some of the worst gun crime in the country.
I never said having them around increases your chances of being shot. However, they are getting butthurt and leaving a state because it is passing laws to try and stop people being shot. They aren't passing laws that make gun manufacturing illegal. So its the manufacturers who causing a problem by leaving, as they have the right to. I am simply saying that the laws are probably worth passing in the long run anyway, though acknowledging the associated short term ripple in the economy of an undetermined scale.
Except the laws really will not prevent people from being shot and will only hurt the businesses.
That's why its stupid. All these laws that will have no positive effects on crime and only a negative effect on the local economy.
Slaanesh-Devotee wrote: I dunno.. I think less of your citizens and their children shot is probably worth an initial difficulty. Car manufacturers probably caused similar ripples when they had to have seat belts etc etc
I don't think having a firearms manufacturer based in or near your town increases the chances of citizens or children being shot. There are no gun manufacturers in Chicago that I know of, and they have some of the worst gun crime in the country.
I never said having them around increases your chances of being shot. However, they are getting butthurt and leaving a state because it is passing laws to try and stop people being shot. They aren't passing laws that make gun manufacturing illegal. So its the manufacturers who causing a problem by leaving, as they have the right to. I am simply saying that the laws are probably worth passing in the long run anyway, though acknowledging the associated short term ripple in the economy of an undetermined scale.
While they haven't made gun manufacturing illegal, some of the states have made products that the manufacturers make illegal. Like many Magpul magazines in Colorado, or AR-15s in Connecticut.
It would be like Sonoma county passing a law saying that customers in the county can purchase no more than 1 bottle of wine per week. You'd see many wineries close up pretty fast/move.
no you wouldn't, because you can't move a winery, you can't rent a big zepplin and fly it over the border, they'd eat it and focus on exports to other states.
Depending on the contents of the law, the only real impact on your business is local sales, which I don't think are very large.
If you move a company, you have to eat at least a month of lost manpower for every person, and either pay to move, which is tremendous, or lose the skillset/experience of your entire workforce, its not very doable.
Magpul is a great example, since they don't actually manufacture many of their gear so moving operations doesn't hurt them nearly as much.
Grey Templar wrote: Businesses don't generally kid around when they say they'll be moving. The businesses WILL move.
Like all those companies that said they'd take all these ridiculous measures if Obamacare passed, and then didn't?
Talk is cheap. I'm not trying to turn this into a healthcare thread, just saying that the bluster of some CEO doesn't automatically have more weight than anyone else.
Well... South Carolina chose not to play ball with Obamacare. But, this is OT, for OT...
I'm following Magpul's lead and leaving Colorado the second I finish my training. Personally I hope the big boy manufacturers move to Arizona or Texas in droves. I wouldn't mind living in either state.
I imagine all sorts of businesses have failed, started, and/or relocated in the last 10 years. Somehow, the world will only fall apart if arms manufacturers do it?
Ahtman wrote: I imagine all sorts of businesses have failed, started, and/or relocated in the last 10 years. Somehow, the world will only fall apart if arms manufacturers do it?
Only if they don't relocate next to me, such that, when the wind is right, I can smell the machine oil...of FREEDOM!
*Much preferred than the smell of burning wood. Frazzled is now terrified like a tree hugging hippie at a biker rally of wildfires now. And of course Biker rallies...
Ahtman wrote: I imagine all sorts of businesses have failed, started, and/or relocated in the last 10 years. Somehow, the world will only fall apart if arms manufacturers do it?
I don't think any of us are quite saying that, but the areas that the larger of these manufacturers are will be affected. IMO, it's kinda like the proverbial "Mill town" that you see in some movies... Ya know, that small town where if you don't make it out of town to play football, you get to work at the mill, that sort of place. Well, when a single entity supplies the lions share of the economy goes down, the rest of the town will be affected.
For instance, if the logging industry left Philomath, Oregon, the town would effectively cease to exist. This is because essentially every business is either in the industry (the saw mills, farms, and cutting companies), OR they support the industry's workers (clothing, grocers, etc.). There are places in the US, where the military is the sole reason a town continues to exist (and as such, these places have avoided closure under BRAC). While these examples are on the extreme end of things, I think that on the small scale, similiar could happen in the towns where Colt and Mossberg, etc. are located, should they decide to move, since some of their products are illegal to own where they are made. Although, conversely, it is still illegal to purchase alcohol in the county where Lynchburg, Tennessee is located, yet Jack Daniel's distillery is still thriving (the argument could be made that at the time these were emplaced, it WAS definitely not cost effective to try and move locations to one more friendly to alcohol consumers.
I'm following Magpul's lead and leaving Colorado the second I finish my training. Personally I hope the big boy manufacturers move to Arizona or Texas in droves. I wouldn't mind living in either state.
I'd love to have you back in AZ where you belong, KM!
Yeah, if I go straight into private industry my buddy and I are looking at setting up shop in Flag Staff, try to avoid the heat a little bit. We're also gonna make sure we get down to Big Sandy our first year!
Here's a sneak peek into what things look like when I'm training in class by the way.
Didn't Chicago Mayor also make a run at the banks insisting they need to put weapon dealers and manufactereurs on a black list for loans? I know GE is no longer loaning money out to weapon manufacteurers and are looking to sell their asset in the weapon markets? I remember Perry push in TX gov't for their banks to offer sweet deals to any weapon manufacteurers and accessory makers to entice them to move to TX. I truly believe that Magpul will go to TX being the amount of military there. Also the size of the state police force lol
Slaanesh-Devotee wrote: I dunno.. I think less of your citizens and their children shot is probably worth an initial difficulty. Car manufacturers probably caused similar ripples when they had to have seat belts etc etc
I don't think having a firearms manufacturer based in or near your town increases the chances of citizens or children being shot. There are no gun manufacturers in Chicago that I know of, and they have some of the worst gun crime in the country.
I never said having them around increases your chances of being shot. However, they are getting butthurt and leaving a state because it is passing laws to try and stop people being shot. They aren't passing laws that make gun manufacturing illegal. So its the manufacturers who causing a problem by leaving, as they have the right to. I am simply saying that the laws are probably worth passing in the long run anyway, though acknowledging the associated short term ripple in the economy of an undetermined scale.
They're passing laws that make the products these companies are making illegal in their home state. True, they haven't banned these companies for making their products, but what's to say that won't happen in the future?
As in, they're making 30 round mags in an area that BANS 30 round mags from being in your possession, or building AR 15's in an area that specifically bans that type of rifle. I'm sure there's some sort of exception for these companies at the moment since they bring in a healthy chunk of money for their local economies, but if you're a business owner, would you want to keep making a product in a state where it's actively banned? And just because you have an exception now, doesn't mean that'll last. Even if you're not worried about legal issues, the government has effectively said "we don't want what you make here, but you're welcome to stay and keep paying us taxes." No wonder some of them are getting upset and leaving for states that are more welcoming.
It's similar in a way to the whole "LEO ban" that some companies did, where if you were in law enforcement, you were limited to what a civilian in your area could buy. It's impact is debatable at best, since no big name companies are willing to go through with it, but many companies have flat out said "If you're a cop in New York, Chicago, California, or a similar area with restrictive laws, you will be limited to what a civilian could buy. If a 30 round mag is banned for a civilian, we consider it banned for you to use as well". So if Kentucky limited us to 10 round mags tomorrow, those companies would not sell a mag over 10 rounds to cops there. It's an interesting way to protest the laws and I wished more companies would give it a try.
Although to be honest I think most businesses are moving more out right now because at least if they do it now, they can choose where they go and have time to do the move right. If they wait, and the state got so hostile that they "crack down", you'd have to move in a hurry, face possible losses of "illegal" goods, and in general just deal with a ton of unwanted headaches. It just makes sense to move now before things get worse essentially. If these states are to the point where they're banning what you make, what' makes you think there won't be someone down the line who's "Feinstein" level committed, where they want you out completely?
Whats funny is some people think they won't go because of roots. But why work in a state thats literally hostile you. Would you as an individual continue to work in a hostile environment knowing somehow some way they're out to get you. Granted their products literally tripled in prices so they do have the funds to move. Banks in TX are quite willing to give them loans favorable to them.....Perry image as a job creater is solidified somemore. I really hope those industries in MD to get up and MOVE to TX..
Soladrin wrote: Yeah, but are these costs going to effect anyone outside of said companies?
The state of Maryland will soon be losing out in 31 million dollars of taxes. That'll have wide spread affects. Employees who don't move with the company, could be hundreds, will now be unemployed. The millions of dollars in income that the employees of the company spend on the local economy will no longer be in that local economy, so it'll have an effect on a bigger picture then just the company.
Anytime a sizable business packs up and moves, a lot of people feel it's affects.
Perhaps it would be a good idea if Connecticut passed a law allowing people to carry grenades and flamethrowers. The new, business friendly environment would lead to the creation of much employment and tax revenues from companies setting up to manufacture the weapons.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps it would be a good idea if Connecticut passed a law allowing people to carry grenades and flamethrowers. The new, business friendly environment would lead to the creation of much employment and tax revenues from companies setting up to manufacture the weapons.
It's similar in a way to the whole "LEO ban" that some companies did, where if you were in law enforcement, you were limited to what a civilian in your area could buy. It's impact is debatable at best, since no big name companies are willing to go through with it, but many companies have flat out said "If you're a cop in New York, Chicago, California, or a similar area with restrictive laws, you will be limited to what a civilian could buy. If a 30 round mag is banned for a civilian, we consider it banned for you to use as well". So if Kentucky limited us to 10 round mags tomorrow, those companies would not sell a mag over 10 rounds to cops there. It's an interesting way to protest the laws and I wished more companies would give it a try.
On this one, it was actually some of the companies coming out and telling the law enforcement agencies, not individual officers, that if the citizens could not buy the company product, then they would not sell it to any law enforcement (basically, the gov't) as they felt that citizens rights are being infringed if they cannot legally own some of the same things that LEAs use. Because if an off-duty police officer owns an AR-15, he does so as a private citizen. It's the same with all of my firearms as a soldier.
The immediate economic effect is not the most important part of this.
I think the important point is free people are showing state and local governments they have choices and will exercise them. It shows other people and businesses that they too have choices. What if Coke and PepsiCo decided to remove their facilities from NY and not to ship product there any more?
Local (county and municipality) and state governments need to learn that there are consequences to their actions. This furthers that lesson.
CptJake wrote: The immediate economic effect is not the most important part of this.
I think the important point is free people are showing state and local governments they have choices and will exercise them. It shows other people and businesses that they too have choices. What if Coke and PepsiCo decided to remove their facilities from NY and not to ship product there any more?
Local (county and municipality) and state governments need to learn that there are consequences to their actions. This furthers that lesson.
They would be laughed at for dropping such a huge money maker.
Grey Templar wrote: Businesses don't generally kid around when they say they'll be moving. The businesses WILL move.
Like all those companies that said they'd take all these ridiculous measures if Obamacare passed, and then didn't?
Talk is cheap. I'm not trying to turn this into a healthcare thread, just saying that the bluster of some CEO doesn't automatically have more weight than anyone else.
Well... South Carolina chose not to play ball with Obamacare. But, this is OT, for OT...
Indeed much of the Obamacare threats are now occurring. Movie theater chains are reducing worker hours etc. Premiums are going up 25% to 50% for everyone. Suck it young people, paying for grandpa HAHAHAHAHAHA!
I think the important point is free people are showing state and local governments they have choices and will exercise them. It shows other people and businesses that they too have choices. What if Coke and PepsiCo decided to remove their facilities from NY and not to ship product there any more?
Heath problems in the state would plummet in a few years?
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps it would be a good idea if Connecticut passed a law allowing people to carry grenades and flamethrowers. The new, business friendly environment would lead to the creation of much employment and tax revenues from companies setting up to manufacture the weapons.
I don't think you quite understand what's going on here...
30 round mags and semi auto rifles are not quite the same as flamethrowers and grenades....
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps it would be a good idea if Connecticut passed a law allowing people to carry grenades and flamethrowers. The new, business friendly environment would lead to the creation of much employment and tax revenues from companies setting up to manufacture the weapons.
I don't think you quite understand what's going on here...
30 round mags and semi auto rifles are not quite the same as flamethrowers and grenades....
I get the feeling that many non-Americans think we go out in public in this:
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps it would be a good idea if Connecticut passed a law allowing people to carry grenades and flamethrowers. The new, business friendly environment would lead to the creation of much employment and tax revenues from companies setting up to manufacture the weapons.
I don't think you quite understand what's going on here...
30 round mags and semi auto rifles are not quite the same as flamethrowers and grenades....
I get the feeling that many non-Americans think we go out in public in this:
Spoiler:
And that all of our family pictures are this:
And that we arm our trucks with this:
And that we all have this in our backyard:
Cuz... you know... 'Murrica!
Some people do. Honestly, some people do. Not many, but some. (see: open carry + semi-auto rifles)
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps it would be a good idea if Connecticut passed a law allowing people to carry grenades and flamethrowers. The new, business friendly environment would lead to the creation of much employment and tax revenues from companies setting up to manufacture the weapons.
I don't think you quite understand what's going on here...
30 round mags and semi auto rifles are not quite the same as flamethrowers and grenades....
I get the feeling that many non-Americans think we go out in public in this:
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps it would be a good idea if Connecticut passed a law allowing people to carry grenades and flamethrowers. The new, business friendly environment would lead to the creation of much employment and tax revenues from companies setting up to manufacture the weapons.
I don't think you quite understand what's going on here...
30 round mags and semi auto rifles are not quite the same as flamethrowers and grenades....
I get the feeling that many non-Americans think we go out in public in this:
Spoiler:
And that all of our family pictures are this:
And that we arm our trucks with this:
And that we all have this in our backyard:
Cuz... you know... 'Murrica!
Some people do. Honestly, some people do. Not many, but some. (see: open carry + semi-auto rifles)
Really? And what do you base this on again? Its not like you live here or anything and could base that on personal experience. Take me for an example. I don't have a B-52 in my backyard. I'm old school. I have a Zeppelin.
I think the important point is free people are showing state and local governments they have choices and will exercise them. It shows other people and businesses that they too have choices. What if Coke and PepsiCo decided to remove their facilities from NY and not to ship product there any more?
Heath problems in the state would plummet in a few years?
I think the important point is free people are showing state and local governments they have choices and will exercise them. It shows other people and businesses that they too have choices. What if Coke and PepsiCo decided to remove their facilities from NY and not to ship product there any more?
Heath problems in the state would plummet in a few years?
LOL Easy E did that to me on a thread I was staying out of awhile back. He mixed up his soldiers.
That crewchief carrying the air 60's. paid 200 hundred bucks to have that done to his face shield. Article in US Army times did an interview on him. So began ths slow crackdown on unauthorize "warpaint"
I think the important point is free people are showing state and local governments they have choices and will exercise them. It shows other people and businesses that they too have choices. What if Coke and PepsiCo decided to remove their facilities from NY and not to ship product there any more?
Heath problems in the state would plummet in a few years?
Erm, I didn't say that...
my bad, when i quote someone who quoted a quote and then try to trim it down to be less a-holish to have a few lines to reply to a screen that people have already read, things get dicey.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps it would be a good idea if Connecticut passed a law allowing people to carry grenades and flamethrowers. The new, business friendly environment would lead to the creation of much employment and tax revenues from companies setting up to manufacture the weapons.
I don't think you quite understand what's going on here...
30 round mags and semi auto rifles are not quite the same as flamethrowers and grenades....
oddly enough, flame throwers are completly unrestricted in canada, yet we have no burgeoning flame thower making industry, nor has anyone been killed with one here (in ever, or at least I cannot find a citable example)
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps it would be a good idea if Connecticut passed a law allowing people to carry grenades and flamethrowers. The new, business friendly environment would lead to the creation of much employment and tax revenues from companies setting up to manufacture the weapons.
I don't think you quite understand what's going on here...
30 round mags and semi auto rifles are not quite the same as flamethrowers and grenades....
oddly enough, flame throwers are completly unrestricted in canada, yet we have no burgeoning flame thower making industry, nor has anyone been killed with one here (in ever, or at least I cannot find a citable example)
They're unrestricted in many US states as well, as there is no federal ban against them. Somehow it's not a problem.
I think the important point is free people are showing state and local governments they have choices and will exercise them. It shows other people and businesses that they too have choices. What if Coke and PepsiCo decided to remove their facilities from NY and not to ship product there any more?
Heath problems in the state would plummet in a few years?
Erm, I didn't say that...
my bad, when i quote someone who quoted a quote and then try to trim it down to be less a-holish to have a few lines to reply to a screen that people have already read, things get dicey.
That's what I figured.
Also, I now expect more flamethrower related issues.
SImiliar contraption use by Forestery service to burn undergrowth out...but those are hand carried.....if you thiknking combat type flame thrower....you really want something like that on your back?.....some people smoke to....and might for the moment forget whats on their back and light up? Not sure how flame throwers got involved. We do have a couple manufactors for grendaes though....typical frag grenade cost vs making a pipe bomb?
Jihadin wrote: SImiliar contraption use by Forestery service to burn undergrowth out...but those are hand carried.....if you thiknking combat type flame thrower....you really want something like that on your back?
There's some pretty serious "flame throwers" that corps use to burn down new tar on their office building roofs as well.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps it would be a good idea if Connecticut passed a law allowing people to carry grenades and flamethrowers. The new, business friendly environment would lead to the creation of much employment and tax revenues from companies setting up to manufacture the weapons.
I don't think you quite understand what's going on here...
30 round mags and semi auto rifles are not quite the same as flamethrowers and grenades....
oddly enough, flame throwers are completly unrestricted in canada, yet we have no burgeoning flame thower making industry, nor has anyone been killed with one here (in ever, or at least I cannot find a citable example)
Wait....... I can buy a flamethrower but not a snub nosed revolver? Sweet!
Hordini wrote: They're unrestricted in many US states as well, as there is no federal ban against them. Somehow it's not a problem.
It's not a problem because the type of person who think it's a good idea to make a flamethrower in their home usually, you know, fixes the problem themselves.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps it would be a good idea if Connecticut passed a law allowing people to carry grenades and flamethrowers. The new, business friendly environment would lead to the creation of much employment and tax revenues from companies setting up to manufacture the weapons.
I don't think you quite understand what's going on here...
30 round mags and semi auto rifles are not quite the same as flamethrowers and grenades....
oddly enough, flame throwers are completly unrestricted in canada, yet we have no burgeoning flame thower making industry, nor has anyone been killed with one here (in ever, or at least I cannot find a citable example)
Wait....... I can buy a flamethrower but not a snub nosed revolver? Sweet!
ridiculous part is, yes you can buy a snub nosed revolver, so long as its an antique...
all the old webly mark 2 era revolvers and the like from before a certain are "antiques" here, so no license, no registration needed, carrying one isnt illegal (technically, you might still get charged with something bogus, you wont do jail time, but you will spend all your $ in court)
under our law they are no different from paper weights.
40mm grenade launchers are also non restricted, same with 28mm ones,
Wait... how the hell can you lot buy a 40mm grenade launcher? That's a Class IV destructive device here in the states. 28mm launchers are usually just flare guns of one function or another and are unrestricted.
easysauce wrote:ridiculous part is, yes you can buy a snub nosed revolver, so long as its an antique...
all the old webly mark 2 era revolvers and the like from before a certain are "antiques" here, so no license, no registration needed, carrying one isnt illegal (technically, you might still get charged with something bogus, you wont do jail time, but you will spend all your $ in court) under our law they are no different from paper weights.
40mm grenade launchers are also non restricted, same with 28mm ones,
I'll admit that I'm quite rusty when it comes to antique firearms laws in Canada as it doesn't apply to me, but this doesn't quite sound right... I'm very certain that you can only transport them while unloaded and in locked, opaque containers.
Also, I believe spiked bracelets are also considered prohibited.
Spoiler:
EDIT: and in a weird and arbitrary turn, I believe that 3-piece nunchuks, whatever they're called, are perfectly fine. But not the traditional two-piece
easysauce wrote:ridiculous part is, yes you can buy a snub nosed revolver, so long as its an antique...
all the old webly mark 2 era revolvers and the like from before a certain are "antiques" here, so no license, no registration needed, carrying one isnt illegal (technically, you might still get charged with something bogus, you wont do jail time, but you will spend all your $ in court)
under our law they are no different from paper weights.
40mm grenade launchers are also non restricted, same with 28mm ones,
I'll admit that I'm quite rusty when it comes to antique firearms laws in Canada as it doesn't apply to me, but this doesn't quite sound right... I'm very certain that you can only transport them while unloaded and in locked, opaque containers.
no it doesnt sound right, but its true, for antiques they are just that "antiques" under the law, not fire arms. Our firearms laws have been a complete mess of feel good do nothing laws that cost absurd amounts of $ for no real benefit since the 90's, unless you count discouraging private gun owner ship as a benefit of course.
normal pistols(not antiques, antiques are paper weights under the law) you have to be transporting them unloaded, trigger locked, and in locked opaque container. you also cannot take them anywhere except on a direct route to the approved range, and then, only if you have obtained prior authorization to transport from your provinces pertanent CFO.
so if you stop at mcdonalds en route to the range, you are breaking federal law. if you dont call and get authorization (in writing... thank god they started e-mailing these now) you are breaking federal law. If you forget either your license, or registration certificate at home, again, breaking federal law.
not that any of that stops crooks at all, they still do whatever they want with guns.
To those who been to Afghanistan and brought those british rifles at the bazaar....correct me if I am wrong.....but they were consider antiques due to the nature of that particular caliber of round was no longer in production?....which doesn't seem right...if they stop making 30 cal rounds would that make the M1's antiques? Someone made me an offer of 1200 for my M1 carbine 2 weekends ago.
The .30 Carbine round for the M-1 is still in production. There may be multiple .30 cal rounds though. The .270 caliber has several differant types. The Winchester, and Ruger .270's will not fit in the same chamber no matter how hard you push.
In the US, an antique firearm is basically anything made before 1898. These you can freely mail order without hassle. Many sellers will still usually ask for a copy of your driver's license.
I collect old trapdoor Springfields, so I can pretty much buy at will, provided I have the money.
Any newly made replica of an old firearm won't qualify as an antique.
easysauce wrote:ridiculous part is, yes you can buy a snub nosed revolver, so long as its an antique...
all the old webly mark 2 era revolvers and the like from before a certain are "antiques" here, so no license, no registration needed, carrying one isnt illegal (technically, you might still get charged with something bogus, you wont do jail time, but you will spend all your $ in court)
under our law they are no different from paper weights.
40mm grenade launchers are also non restricted, same with 28mm ones,
I'll admit that I'm quite rusty when it comes to antique firearms laws in Canada as it doesn't apply to me, but this doesn't quite sound right... I'm very certain that you can only transport them while unloaded and in locked, opaque containers.
no it doesnt sound right, but its true, for antiques they are just that "antiques" under the law, not fire arms. Our firearms laws have been a complete mess of feel good do nothing laws that cost absurd amounts of $ for no real benefit since the 90's, unless you count discouraging private gun owner ship as a benefit of course.
normal pistols(not antiques, antiques are paper weights under the law) you have to be transporting them unloaded, trigger locked, and in locked opaque container. you also cannot take them anywhere except on a direct route to the approved range, and then, only if you have obtained prior authorization to transport from your provinces pertanent CFO.
so if you stop at mcdonalds en route to the range, you are breaking federal law. if you dont call and get authorization (in writing... thank god they started e-mailing these now) you are breaking federal law. If you forget either your license, or registration certificate at home, again, breaking federal law.
not that any of that stops crooks at all, they still do whatever they want with guns.
Nah, I was right. s.14 of the Firearms Act specifices that antique firearms such as the Webley must be stored, displayed or transported unloaded, in a locked opaque container.
However, I will agree with you that a lot of our firearms laws are a complete mess. I support the intent behind them, because they are necessary in order to prevent Canada's firearms situation from deteriorating into the massive clusterfeth that the US has, but I lament the execution and how poorly-written some of our laws are.
As an example, it's actually easier to import a functoning, non-restricted firearm into Canada than it is to import a non-working replica of the same model.
However, I would appreciate refraining from taking the "laws don't stop crooks" line. That exact line of thought implies you shouldn't have laws against theft, because those laws don't stop crooks from stealing. I understand that you feel the laws are overly restrictive, but they're there to ensure that you are unable to provide a valid excuse for having a firearm in your car at all times (although there is actually a loophole around this if you *really* know how to game the system).
Jihadin wrote: Zad....I do believe I would like to see your collection.
My model 1866 and 1866 both shoot .50/70 government, which means I'm reloading my own ammo. I have a nice smokeless charge with which I was able to manage a three inch group at 60 yds with the '68.
There are powders out there designed for the old black powder cartridges which won't hurt the rifle.
My brother knows someone who served in the UK army and was in Afghanistan. He went back as a contractor, defusing bombs. He brought my brother back a nice Martini-Henry. I was hoping for an Enfield-Sneider myself...
despite owning an AR and a Tantal (Polish AK-74), I tend to consider my Krag as "new fangled"
Why would I agree to be 'unable have a firearm in my car'?
Should my right to defend myself be limited to when I am not in a vehicle?
Sorry, that line of thinking is not one I am going to go with.
Your analogy with theft laws is silly and completely misses the point. A more accurate analogy would be even with current laws against theft, thefts occur. In particular laws against theft of pens from the work place are not enforced. If you are not going to enforce the current law, passing a NEW law forcing people with pens in the workplace to register each time they give a pen to another person would be silly, and not deter theft of pens.
Yes, it is a silly example. I get that. What you need to get is that current gun laws are already extensive, burdensome, and not enforced. Adding new laws that further burden legal gun holders and infringe on their rights and freedoms is silly if the ones on the books are not enforced. Further, if the new law does nothing to further a legitimate goal/fix a problem, then it is more useless. For example, nothing being proposed would have stopped Sandy Hook from taking place if the proposals had been enacted. So to restrict my rights using NO MOAR SANDY HOOKS as your rallying cry when your proposal would not have prevented it, is frankly asinine.
No one has yet showed where guns LEGALLY purchased without a back ground check are being used in violent crimes by the legal owners of those guns in any quantity to justify adding more laws. Straw purchases are already illegal. Yet that law is rarely enforced.
CptJake wrote: Your analogy with theft laws is silly and completely misses the point.
No, it's entirely serious and entirely true.
Just because a law will be broken does not mean that the law shouldn't exist.
Learn to read. If a law does not address the issue (and none of the proposed laws do) it is not a law worth passing. If existing laws are not enforced, adding new laws is not worth doing. If there is NOT an issue, making up a law to address a non issue is asinine (again, show me where guns LEGALLY purchased without a back ground check are being used by the legal owners in violent crimes in quantities anywhere near justifying a new law).
The irony here is thick enough that you'd need a power sword to cut it.
Grey Templar wrote: Enforcing the existing laws would solve many issues without further intruding on the second amendment.
Considering that Republicans and the NRA are the very reason that they aren't being enforced, and thus the very reason why the second amendment is being "intruded upon", it seems unlikely that tighter enforcement of laws is going to happen.
What then?
The current laws aren't working because they've been sabotaged by gun rights activists, therefor, gun control activists want harsher and more restrictive laws, which are much easier to obtain support for and thus pass without the approval of the gun rights activists than increasing the enforcement of existing laws (which doesn't sound as exciting or new).
The irony here is thick enough that you'd need a power sword to cut it.
Grey Templar wrote: Enforcing the existing laws would solve many issues without further intruding on the second amendment.
Considering that Republicans and the NRA are the very reason that they aren't being enforced, and thus the very reason why the second amendment is being "intruded upon", it seems unlikely that tighter enforcement of laws is going to happen.
What then?
So, can you address a single issue I brought up?
How does the NRA prevent current laws from being enforced? How do they stop the ATF or another federal agency from prosecuting straw buyers?
You may want to actually learn about the topic vice just blathering talking points because you feel they are true.
CptJake wrote: You may want to actually learn about the topic
Unlike you I have.
For example, look up the Tiahrt Amendment, pushed for by the National Rifle Association, and which contains a huge amount of rules preventing the use of information obtained by various federal agencies, as well as blocking evidence from being used in lawsuits against gun sellers. Other similar laws prevent the ATF and other federal organizations from shutting down sucpicious or illegal gun dealers, prevents inspectors from asking for an inventory of gun retailers that they inspect, and so on and so forth.
CptJake wrote:Why would I agree to be 'unable have a firearm in my car'?
Should my right to defend myself be limited to when I am not in a vehicle?
Did you miss the part where the two Canadians were discussing the Canadian law?
Did you also miss the part where the more handsome of the two said that he thinks those laws are necessary to prevent Canada's firearms situation from becoming the clusterfeth that is the current US situation (eg, massive increases in gun crime)?
I guess you did. Now I will point out the irony of the "learn to read" comment you directed towards whoever (too lazy to go back and check).
Back on the topic....I don't need Red or Alpharius or....Da "Hammer" to be eyeing my thread and me for getting out of hand...then I would have to make a mockery but nice looking mini of them in the Dalla Chaos Warband....anyway back to topic
Established in Colorado in 1999, Magpul says it employs more than 200 people at its manufacturing and shipping headquarters, while there are another 400 employees of subcontractors that work with the company throughout the state
$85 million at stake
In addition to a wide array of gun-magazine products, the privately-held Magpul makes many other products, including cases for mobile phones and tactical sights for firearms. This year, the company says it expects to spend upward of $85 million in Colorado alone on employee payroll, manufacturing subcontractors, suppliers and service providers.
Smith said much of Magpul's business comes from out-of-state sales, contracts with the U.S. military, and with local and national law enforcement.
In committee testimony earlier in the week, several opponents to the measure said Democrats are being hypocritical.
"On one end they're saying we want the jobs and revenue from producing these magazines, but on the other end, they're saying, if you live in Colorado, then you can't possess one," said Lee Reedy a resident of Brighton.
Andy Molchan, director of the National Association of Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers, said Magpul is right to leave Colorado.
"It's almost like a symbolic move," Molchan said. "Why would they stay and do business in a state that doesn't allow people to have their products?"
85 million....OUCH. They are so moving with states offering to pay for the relocation. Wyoming and Texas so far
Another kick in Colorado industry few people really knows about...what the magazines are made of.
If Magpul Industries follows through on its threat to leave Colorado, it could harm more than a dozen Front Range firms specializing in plastic injection molding and reduce the region's capacity in that manufacturing process.
The Erie company, which makes weapons components and high-capacity ammunition magazines, has threatened to leave if the state bans individuals from owning magazines with more than 15 rounds.
"It is an if/then statement at this point. We don't have a choice," said Duane Liptak, the company's director of product management and marketing.
Magpul employs 200 people directly, ranging from basic assembly workers to product designers and other professionals specializing in weapons-related components, Liptak said.
As much as possible, the company tries to contract with Colorado vendors, who represent about 90 percent of its supply chain, he said. Those suppliers received about $46 million last year from Magpul, with the company projecting that number to reach $85 million for 2013, Liptak said.
A large share of those dollars goes to manufacturers that mold the company's mostly plastic components, including the controversial cases that can hold more than 15 rounds.
North Denver's Alfred Manufacturing Co. has grown from 40 employees in 2008 to 150 largely because of the work provided by Magpul, said the company's third-generation chief executive, Greg Alfred.
"If House Bill 1224 passes, we will relocate part or all of our operations out of state," Alfred warned Gov. John Hickenlooper and members of the state legislature in a letter Friday.
Alfred said plans for a $1 million expansion to add another 15,000-square-foot building to the 60,000 square feet the company has at West 44th Avenue and Elati Street are on hold.
The companies say they are actively scouting locations in other states, including Wyoming and Montana.
"We are in this together," he said.
Neither Alfred Manufacturing nor Magpul, both privately owned, would disclose the wage range for the jobs they provide or the size of their overall payroll.
The 65-year-old Alfred Manufacturing has seen its ups and downs over the years but has survived the U.S. manufacturing exodus in part because it added plastic injection molding, which creates parts by pushing melted plastics into metal molds.
Longmont and metro Denver became a hub for that process, thanks to such companies as Case Logic and Otter Box, which make cases for computers and other technology devices.
Case makers last decade took much of their manufacturing work to cheaper overseas providers, leaving local plastics firms struggling.
Liptak said Magpul's timing was good, in that it found spare capacity available as its products were catching on.
Blaine Dacus, molding-division manager at Alfred, said Magpul contracts support more than a dozen plastic-injection- molding firms.
"They have kept molders in business," Dacus said.
Alfred Manufacturing's legacy metal stamping and machining business runs on four 10-hour shifts a week, while Magpul contracts have kept the plastics side going 24/7, Alfred said.
Although House Bill 1224 has been amended to accommodate manufacturers, Liptak said the company couldn't in principle stay in a state where a core product is illegal to purchase.
Depending on what contracts it has, 20 percent to half of its sales are to law enforcement, military and other government buyers exempt from the proposed state ban.
The company's retail buyers are likely to reject products made in states they perceive as anti-gun, Liptak said.
"We are going to end up losing jobs in Colorado either way (if the bill passes)," Liptak said.
Jihadin wrote:Back on the topic....I don't need Red or Alpharius or....Da "Hammer" to be eyeing my thread and me for getting out of hand...then I would have to make a mockery but nice looking mini of them in the Dalla Chaos Warband....anyway back to topic
So here's a question: if the public in the state supported the gun bill, and the manufacturer leaves as a result of the gun bill, then isn't that simply an instance of the will of the people trumping a coporate interest? Let's think about its foil: if the bill was abandoned because Magpul threatened to leave, and the public supported the bill, then wouldn't that simply be an example of private corporate interests overtly dominating the public legislative process, and effectively deciding the laws?
I realize it's easy for me to say, but that doesn't mean it should never be said: shouldn't legislators make decisions based on factors that are not exclusively economic?
The issue is that we the people don't have a direct line to what bills do and don't get passed.
I don't believe there was an election in CO between now and when the events that caused this reactionary legislation passed. So none of the politicians ran on this legislation or anything similar to it, thus it cannot definitively have been the will of the people. Its politicians listening to the loudest voices between elections, and the loudest voice rarely belongs to the majority.
Unless a politician gets elected on a particular issue he cannot say he is enacting the will of the people on that specific issue. He can only do what he thinks is the will of the people and wait to either be affirmed or rebuked when election day rolls around.
I've had the idea of seeking funds to start retailing a competitively priced, user friendly flame thrower for clearing snow off your driveway for a while. Glad to know they are legal in Canada too, that probably doubles my consumer base.
Erie is a Statutory Town in Boulder and Weld counties in the U.S. state of Colorado. The population according to the 2010 census is 18,135 and was recorded as 6,291 at the 2000 census. The Town of Erie is located just west of I-25 for easy access to I-70, Denver International Airport and Colorado's entire Front Range. Erie's Planning Area spans 48 square miles, extending from the north side of State Highway 52 south to State Highway 7, and between US 287 on the west and Interstate 25 to the east. Erie is approximately 35 minutes from Denver International Airport, 25 minutes to Denver and 20 minutes from Boulder.
Erie, Colorado is where Magpul is located. I've a feeling Erie going to take a big hit on its economy if Magpul do leave. People are mostly going to remember the effect of the laws that were pass. Even though Colorado state officials tried to work with Magpul. People going to remember the bad longer then the good. WHoever going to run against the current officials are going to make sure to pound that in how quick the current officials were to "act" before they thought
MagPul is out the door, HOWEVER 50+ of the 60 odd CO state sheriffs are suing the state over these laws. So it might wait... or the damage is already done.
