Gunmakers aim for greener pastures as states pass new firearms laws

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jihadin**

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."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/29/gun-manufacturers-start-leaving-states-that-passed-new-gun-control-laws/#ixzz2S0jOsZ6r

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

**Grey Templar**

Its going to punish the economy of the states that drove them out.

They shall reap what they have sown, and it will be a bitter cup indeed.

**Jihadin**

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

**Grey Templar**

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.

**Frazzled**

Ruger is in Arizona. Why are they mentioning Ruger?

Colt isn't closing its plants. Its expanding in the South.

I'd love if they came here. They could set up next to STI in Round Rock. I could live just a few miles from the new holy mecca of firearmdom.

**Inquisitor Lord Bane**

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.

**Alfndrate**

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."

Source: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/04/04/176210592/historic-gun-bill-to-become-law-in-connecticut

**Inquisitor Lord Bane**

You're thinking of Pottsville, over an hour away from me. I make Black and Milds

**Alfndrate**

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
You're thinking of Pottsville, over an hour away from me. I make Black and Milds

Oh god... I'm so sorry... you should move an hour away from your current position

**Ensis Ferrae**

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.

**djones520**

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.

**Grey Templar**

Never underestimate 250 Jobs.

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.

**djones520**

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.

**Grey Templar**

Ok, just wanted to be clear.

Naturally it won't effect the national economy because its just a location shift, but it will have an adverse effect on the local economies.

**Frazzled**

Come to Texas! We'll put your bumper sticker on our trucks!

besides we need you for Manifest Destiny II, this time its vertical!

**MrMoustaffa**

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.

**Slaanesh-Devotee**

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

**Ensis Ferrae**

MrMoustaffa wrote:

Also, do we really need this many gun control related threads? It's starting to get a bit out of hand...

Honestly man, I wouldn't call THIS one a "Gun control" thread, rather an economics thread.

I wonder if Obama could come up with a "gun manufacturers bailout" if/when cities start to disappear??

**Grundz**

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.

**Hordini**

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.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Grundz wrote:
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.

**Ouze**

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.

**CptJake**

Hordini wrote:
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.

**Grundz**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Grundz wrote:
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/.

**djones520**

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.

**Jihadin**

Keep to the economy aspect of this pls

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

**Grundz**

djones520 wrote:

They've said they'll move if the governor signs a new bill that's been passed in Maryland.

and how many people said they'd move to canada or somolia or taiwan or whatever if obamacare passed?

talk is cheap.

**Soladrin**

Curiosity speaking here.

Does it matter in anyway where manufacturers are located from the publics point of view?

**whembly**

Soladrin wrote:
Curiosity speaking here.

Does it matter in anyway where manufacturers are located from the publics point of view?

Not really, unless they're in your town/state. That's the point of this discussion.

When a state starts passing laws that makes it a "hostile environment" for some businesses... then THAT business is free to move elsewhere.

There are economic costs to this.

**Soladrin**

Yeah, but are these costs going to effect anyone outside of said companies?