Month: April 2013

Uncategorized

Who Will Be The First To Leave?

April 7, 2013 by 14 Comments

Now that both Maryland and Connecticut have passed their draconian gun control acts, the question becomes who among the gun manufacturers in those two states will be the first to relocate.

On Thursday, there was an article in Opposing Views suggesting that Beretta USA had announced their departure from Maryland. However, if you read the article closely, this is incorrect. What Beretta actually said was that they would have to leave if the gun control legislation was passed. They have not yet made a formal announcement that they were moving their operations out of Maryland. I’m sure that probably will happen but it hasn’t happened yet.

So that leaves the question who will be first. Moreover, where will they move.

Both states have a number of well-known firearms manufacturers: Beretta, Colt, Ruger, and Mossberg. However, to get a better feel for the companies involved in firearms manufacturing in both states, I went to the ATF list of Federal Firearms Licensees. I pulled the 07 FFLs – manufacturers of firearms other than destructive devices – and 10 FFLs – manufacturers of destructive devices for each state. It should be noted that some of the firearms “manufacturers” in each state either make components or are actually gunsmiths doing custom work.

Maryland and Connecticut each have five manufacturers of destructive devices including big companies such as Beretta, Colt Defense, Colt’s Manufacturing, and  defense contractor Mistral Group. Under the listing for ordinary firearms manufacturers, Connecticut has 121 companies listed while Maryland has 105 companies listed. Below is a list by state of some of the true manufacturers as opposed to either gunsmiths or those providing ancillary services such as CNC milling or specialty coatings.

Maryland

Connecticut

When discussing who will leave and who won’t, we need to keep a number of things in mind. First, you don’t just relocate a plant of any kind at the drop of a hat. Second, the companies involved have ties to their community and region going back generations. Third, very few, if any, of the manufacturers do everything and must depend upon local subcontractors to perform certain operations. Fourth, the companies would be losing a well trained workforce if they moved and their employees did not also relocate. Finally, with the firearm industry being heavily regulated, there would be immense amounts of red-tape involved in moving to a new state.

Dan Haar of the Hartford Courant looks at the issue in an article published yesterday entitled, “Gun Industry Dilemma: Should I Stay Or Should I Go Now?” He notes the issue for some of these companies is not just having to move family but the consumer backlash on their companies if they don’t.

Scalise (of ASC) badly wants to stay in Connecticut, where he and his wife have four children ages 5 to 12. So does Mark Malkowski, owner of Stag Arms a few hundred yards away in New Britain, and the executives at O.F. Mossberg & Sons and Colt’s Manufacturing Co. — all of them makers of the now banned military-style rifles at the heart of the law.

The trouble is not the direct effects of the ban — they’re allowed to continue manufacturing, and each firm will lose a few percentage points of their sales — but rather, the companies’ standing in an industry where customers famously punish certain brands.

The companies have been receiving thousands of emails from both current and future customers urging them to move. Some have indicated they will purchase from other companies if, for example, Stag Arms, stays in Connecticut. Moreover, industrial recruiters from more gun friendly states have been offering incentives to the companies to move. Whether they will move lock, stock, and barrel or move some of the production to plants in other states is the question.

Haar believes that the majority will attempt to grow production at plants outside of the state while still having some operations in Connecticut. He notes that Mossberg has a plant in Texas. It should also be remembered that Colt opened a new factory in Osceola County, Florida in 2011. Likewise, in Maryland, Beretta has some operations in Virginia.

Having established metal fabricating and finishing companies in a state would be a definite plus in attracting any firearm company to relocate. You would tend to find many of these co-located with the automotive and aircraft industries. Thus, you could see companies moving to the Upstate of South Carolina due to BMW, to Alabama due to Mercedes, to Tennessee due to Nissan, or Kentucky due to Toyota. Likewise, you could see a company relocating to the Wichita, KS area with its aircraft industry. All of these locations are in gun friendly states with strong industrial development recruiting departments.

So who would be first to go? In terms of ease of relocating, Ruger would be at the top of the list. Their manufacturing operations are in New Hampshire and Arizona. The only operations they have in Connecticut are their corporate offices.

The next on my list would be either ASC or Stag Arms. ASC is actively considering it.

Scalise, his accountant, lawyer and a few industry colleagues are looking into a move to a friendlier state. And it’s not just ASC, a New Britain business with 100 employees, that might pull up stakes. Scalise’s other company in New Britain, Marsam Metal Finishing, and at least one other firm in the firearms industry are part of the joint plan.

In all, more than 300 people would lose their jobs or be forced to move to a locale like Arkansas, South Dakota, Kansas or Texas, to name just four states that are wooing Scalise with tax breaks, cheap labor and a government that has open arms for arms-makers.

“We’re doing a due diligence analysis state-by-state,” Scalise said.

Mark Malkowski of Stag is also considering moving.

Mark Malkowski, the 34-year-old founder of Stag Arms, said he grew up in New Britain, where the company is based, and had never before considered leaving the state. But he said he would consider it now.

“If our product is so bad, so dangerous, why would the state of Connecticut want us to produce it here, create jobs here, manufacture it here and ship it to all the other states?” he said.

You would also have to put Beretta up high on the list given their past statements.

As to the others, I foresee that they will move more and more operations out of state as time goes by.  While they all can “export” their products for now, you have to wonder how long the state will even allow that.

This all leaves one more entity to consider – the National Shooting Sports Foundation. It is hard for me to see just how long they can remain in Connecticut and not be considered to be tacitly endorsing the Connecticut gun control laws by staying.

Uncategorized

A Wicked Good Sense Of Humor

April 5, 2013 by 1 Comment

I don’t know who writes the Rocky Mountain Right blog but they have a wicked good sense of humor. Their latest post is ostensibly written by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and contains her guide to gun safety.

It contains this warning about those dastardly “assault weapons” and how to recognize them.

WARNING: A RIFLE THAT HAS BEEN PAINTED BLACK IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON, ONLY
HANDLE AN ASSAULT WEAPON IF YOU HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED BY AN ELECTED
OFFICIAL OR CELEBRITY.

The post even has drawings to illustrate the dangers of certain kinds of ammunition. I didn’t know ammo had dragons in it!

Go to the link above and read the whole thing.

Uncategorized

NSSF On Passage Of Connecticut Legislation

April 5, 2013 by



The National Shooting Sports Foundation based in Newtown, Connecticut released the following statement yesterday regarding the passage of that state’s new gun control law. I think the most important part of their statement is the last sentence which says they are studying it for possible legal challenges.

I think this will be a given and not a possibility. The only question will be which gun rights organization files first.

NEWTOWN, Conn. — The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry, issued the following statement today:

Gov. Dannel Malloy today signed into law a package of gun-control legislation that was assembled in secret by a small group of state legislators and that never received a public hearing. Most legislators had little time to even read the actual bill language.

The unfortunate results of this process, which made it appear that all points of view were being heard when in fact true expertise was shut out when it was most needed, means that mistakes in what is now enacted law will have to be corrected.

For example, language in the new law specifies a procedure for licensed firearms retailers to perform mandatory “universal” background checks on private party transactions that is not permissible based on federal law and regulations governing the National Instant Criminal Background Checks (NICS) system. As we read it, this mistake in lawmaking means that all private party transactions in the state now cannot be accomplished legally.

We share the goal of wanting to make Connecticut safer for our citizens following the unspeakable tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. In the end, however, public safety has not been enhanced and the unintended consequences of behind-closed-doors lawmaking will cause considerable confusion until the General Assembly corrects its mistakes.

Here is where we stand today. Law-abiding citizens of this state now have greater restrictions on their Second Amendment and state constitutional rights while Connecticut’s firearms manufacturers will be forced to seriously weigh the impact on their businesses and their employees of the state’s double-standard of you can build it here, but not sell it here, public policy formulation.

We will be carefully studying all provisions of the law for possible challenge in the courts.

Uncategorized

A Special Kind Of Arrogance

April 5, 2013 by

I can’t say anything more about Connecticut’s infamous Bill No. 1160 which was rammed through the General Assembly as emergency legislation than has already been said. 

That said, it takes a special kind of arrogance still to proclaim this on the State of Connecticut’s official “About Connecticut” webpage:

Connecticut is often described as the “Arsenal of the Nation.” It gained this reputation as early as the American Revolution. Early in the 19th century, Eli Whitney and Simeon North began making Connecticut firearms with interchangeable parts. This is generally recognized as the beginning of modern mass production.

Then there is there that other thing Connecticut likes to call itself – The Constitution State.

Only in their (lost) dreams.

Uncategorized

So Much For Being “The Free State”

April 4, 2013 by 4 Comments

One of the state nicknames for Maryland is the Free State. With the passage of draconian gun control by the Maryland House of Delegates yesterday, that nickname should be called into question. The bill in question, SB 281, now returns to the State Senate for concurrence.

The bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic rifles with cosmetics the proponents don’t like; would require training, a license, and fingerprinting to purchase a handgun; and would ban the sale and transfer of  all magazines with greater than 10 round capacity. The bill would also require the registration of all currently possessed “assault pistols” and “assault weapons”.  Failure to do so would result in fines and an up to one year prison term. Maryland Shall Issue has an excellent summary of the provisions of the bill here.

The NRA-ILA issued an alert last night urging Marylanders to contact their state senator and Senate President Mike Miller. As they noted, this will be the last chance to stop this legislation. Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-MD) has been a major proponent of gun control legislation and will sign this bill if passed by the Senate.

UPDATE: The Maryland Senate gave final approval to the bill yesterday and it has been sent to Gov. Martin O’Malley for his signature. At this point, the only thing that could delay its implementation is if opponents gather enough signatures to get it put on the ballot in November 2014 as a referendum item.

Uncategorized

It’s A Contest And The American People Lose

April 4, 2013 by

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) seems to be in a contest with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) to see who can make the most ignorant, most inane comment regarding firearms.

Rep. McCarthy is famous for response that a barrel shroud on a semi-automatic rifle or carbine is “a shoulder thing that goes up.” Yesterday at a public forum held by the Denver Post on gun control, Rep. DeGette launched into a disquisition on standard capacity magazine that illustrated merely one thing – she doesn’t have a clue about what she is talking about nor what legislation on which she is the lead co-sponsor would ban.

Asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, DeGette said:

“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”

It is a shame that Larimer County Sheriff Justin Justin Smith who was sitting next to her at the forum didn’t just take out a spare magazine, start unloading the cartridges, and then reload them. That would have said just about everything. As it was, the crowd just chuckled after her remarks.

David Codrea reports in the National Gun Rights Examiner that DeGette’s spokesperson doubled down on her boss’ ignorance.

A spokeswoman trying to deflect well-deserved ridicule and criticism made things worse in an issued statement, calling it “political gamesmanship” by “opponents of common-sense gun violence prevention trying to manipulate the facts to distract from the critical issue of keeping our children safe and keeping killing machines out of the hands of disturbed individuals.

“The Congresswoman has been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years, and has been deeply involved in the issue,” Juliet Johnson said. “She simply misspoke in referring to ‘magazines’ when she should have referred to ‘clips,’ which cannot be reused because they don’t have a feeding mechanism.”

Of course, clips can be reloaded just like magazines.

Uncategorized

SAF Wins Preliminary Injunction In New Mexico Case

April 3, 2013 by 1 Comment

The Second Amendment Foundation was granted a preliminary injunction in their case challenging the state of New Mexico’s requirement requiring US citizenship for the granting of a concealed carry permit. Chief Judge for the District of New Mexico M. Christina Armijo granted the preliminary injunction in Jackson et al v. King et al on Friday.

The decision published on Monday concluded:

The Court, applying the heightened standard applicable to disfavored injunctions,
finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied each of the requirements for obtaining preliminary
injunctive relief.

Defendant Hubbard has failed to establish that a legal permanent resident alien
such as Mr. Jackson poses a greater risk of danger by virtue of his or her status alone,
than do citizens, with respect to the carrying of concealed weapons.

The Court further concludes that the citizenship provision in Section 29-19-
14(A)(1) is severable from the remainder of the Concealed Handgun Carry Act.

IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED and Defendant Hubbard is preliminarily enjoined
from enforcing the citizenship provision in Section 29-19-14(A)(1) of the Concealed
Handgun Carry Act pending resolution of this action.

In a separate order, Chief Judge Armijo dismissed the case against NM Attorney General Gary King for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for lack of standing. She did allow the case to continue against Bill Hubbard in his official capacity as Director of the Special Investigations Section of the New Mexico Department of Public Safety. It was Mr. Hubbard that was enjoined in the above decision.

The Second Amendment Foundation released the following statement yesterday on the preliminary injunction:

BELLEVUE, WA — The Second Amendment Foundation has won a preliminary injunction against a part of the State of New Mexico’s concealed carry statute on the grounds that it violates the right of equal protection under the law.

The ruling, handed down by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, was signed by M. Christina Armijo, the chief district judge.

SAF filed the legal action on behalf of John Jackson, a permanent legal resident alien who could not obtain a concealed carry permit under existing New Mexico statute because he is not a U.S. citizen. SAF has challenged similar bans in other jurisdictions.

“We’re delighted with the outcome of this challenge,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “The right of self-protection should not be denied to people who are active and productive members of the community simply because they do not meet the citizenship requirement of a state statute.”

In reaching its ruling, the court applied a heightened standard of scrutiny and concluded that the citizenship provision of New Mexico’s law is severable from the remainder of the state Concealed Handgun Carry Act.

“While the law allowed Mr. Jackson to openly carry a firearm,” Gottlieb noted, “there are certain areas and circumstances when doing so would be imprudent or potentially in violation of other legal restrictions. This ruling will make it possible for Mr. Jackson and other legal resident aliens to exercise their right to bear arms.”

Uncategorized

There Is A Reason Congress Doesn’t Vote In Secret

April 2, 2013 by 5 Comments

Yesterday the Washington Post ran an article about how the push for gun control measures is running out of steam in Congress. It seems that those of us who believe in Constitutional rights and the Second Amendment have been pushing back.

Among the people interviewed for this article was Matt Bennett of Third Way. This “think tank” tries to portray itself as centrist which might be true in DC but not elsewhere. It says it seeks “principled solutions and pragmatic compromise.” Among the items on their agenda is more gun control or, as they call it, “gun safety laws.”

Speaking of the progress on gun control since Senators went home to their states for the Easter break where they have been hearing from their constituents, Mr. Bennett had this to say:

“If there was a secret-ballot vote it would pass overwhelmingly, because
from a substantive point of view most of these senators understand that
this is the right thing to do,” said Matt Bennett, a gun-control
advocate and senior vice president at Third Way, a centrist think tank.
“What’s holding them back is pure politics.”

Yes, and if we had star chambers then all those who opposed so-called progressive laws would be in prison or worse.

Mr. Bennett is the Senior VP for Public Affairs for Third Way. Previously, he worked as an assistant to Al Gore and then Bill Clinton. He was the Director of Public Affairs fro 2001-2004 for the gun control group Americans for Gun Safety among other jobs post-Clinton.

It is rather appalling to read of the anti-democratic principles espoused by gun control proponents. It is all too easy for them to denigrate the voice of those of us in the hinterlands as “pure politics” if we disagree with their “prescriptions”. They should remember that America is not some sort of technocratic autocracy where “our betters” rule. We still retain for now the vote and by God we will vote out those who think so little of our Second Amendment rights.