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**

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.

**djones520**

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.

**Zad Fnark**

Jihadin

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.

ZF-

**Jihadin**

Zad....I do believe I would like to see your collection.

**azazel the cat**

easysauce wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
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,

yet:
nunchuks= prohibited
throwing stars= prohibited
flails= prohibited

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).

**Zad Fnark**

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"

ZF-

**CptJake**

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.

**Melissia**

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.

**Grey Templar**

The point was that maybe we should enforce existing laws instead of passing more useless ones.

Enforcing the existing laws would solve many issues without further intruding on the second amendment.

**CptJake**

Melissia wrote:
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).

**Melissia**

CptJake wrote:
Learn to read.

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 gun rights lobby is biting its own ass.

**CptJake**

Melissia wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Learn to read.
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.

**Melissia**

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.

**azazel the cat**

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).

**Jihadin**

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

Read more: Colorado ammo magazine maker Magpul threatens to leave state over gun bill - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22593693/colorado-ammo-magazine-maker-threatens-leave-state-over#ixzz2SHs0CQR9
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

edit

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.

Read more: Magpul's departure could crack plastics industry, manufacturer says - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22601993/magpuls-departure-could-crack-plastics-industry-manufacturer-says#ixzz2SHyU3Db6
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

**azazel the cat**

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?

**Grey Templar**

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.

**Bromsy**

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.

**Grey Templar**

If Canada is doubling your market you probably want to expand your market

**Jihadin**

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

**KalashnikovMarine**

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.