Remington Declares Bankruptcy…Again

Remington and its subsidiary companies declared bankruptcy for the second time in little more than two years. The Chapter 11 filing was made in US Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama. There were separate filings for Remington Arms Company LLC, Remington Outdoor Company Inc., and Remington Arms Distribution Company LLC.

In reports prior to its actual filing for bankruptcy, it had been speculated that the Navajo Nation would be the buyer to take it out of Chapter 11. According to the investing site Seeking Alpha those talks broke down.

Remington had been searching for potential buyers and was in talks to sell itself out of bankruptcy to the Navajo Nation before negotiations collapsed in recent weeks, leaving the company without a lead bidder, or stalking horse.

I had speculated along with others that having the Navajo as the owners would put a crimp in the pending lawsuit in Connecticut over liability for the Newtown murders. This would have been due to the sovereign immunity of the Navajo Nation.

The bankruptcy filings indicate assets of between $100 million and $500 million with liabilities in the same range.

The five largest creditors are all governmental entities. They include (in order) the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the State of Arkansas, the City of Huntsville, the State of Alabama, and the State of Missouri.

This is followed by companies that make smokeless powder like St. Marks and Alliant, that provide forgings and barrels like Dasan USA, and those that supply basic materials (lead, copper, brass) like Doe Run and Eco-Bat Indiana. The only tax creditor listed was the Village of Ilion, NY which came in as the 38th largest creditor. This last bit leads me to speculate that Remington had been keeping up with its payroll, income, and excise tax payments.

Now that talks with the Navajo Nation have broken down and there is no lead bidder or stalking horse, it will be interesting to see how Remington comes out of this Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In its prior bankruptcy, I think it was a forgone conclusion that the hedge fund Cerberus would transfer ownership to investors Franklin Templeton and JP Morgan.

Here, we just don’t know. I would love to see the Navajo – or any tribe – emerge as the buyers if only so as to screw the Brady Campaign and the ambulance chasing lawyers in Connecticut. Time will tell and I’ll keep reporting on it.

Remington Plans To Appeal Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling To SCOTUS

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on March 14th that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act did not protect Remington and its fellow defendants in a case brought by families of some of the Newtown murder victims. The split decision allowed the case to go back to the trial court level for adjudication. Given the strong dissent in the case and the way the majority made up a rationale out of whole cloth to support their decision, it was only a matter of time before an appeal was filed with the United States Supreme Court.

Remington filed a motion with the Connecticut Supreme Court yesterday requesting a stay in the decision as they plan to appeal to the SCOTUS.

Remington is filing a Petition for Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court in
accordance with the applicable Rules of the United States Supreme Court. The basis
for jurisdiction in the Supreme Court is this Court’s decision on an important federal
question that conflicts with a decision of a United States court of appeals. U.S. Sup. Ct.
R. 10. Specifically, Remington will ask the United States Supreme Court to consider
and decide whether CUTPA is the type of statute Congress intended to serve as a “predicate statute” under § 7903(5)(A)(iii) of the PLCAA, a violation of which may
deprive firearm manufacturers and sellers threshold immunity against being sued. See
15 U.S.C. § 7902(a) (“A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal
or State court.”). As this Court recognized, “courts that have construed the predicate
exception are divided” on whether Congress intended for violation of statutes, like
CUTPA, to serve as an exception to PLCAA immunity. Soto, 331 Conn. at 136.

The motion goes on to give a legal rationale for the issuance of a stay.

The Court should stay proceedings pending the United States Supreme Court’s
decision to either deny Remington’s Petition for Certiorari or its decision on the merits of
the case. Practice Book § 71-7 provides:

When a case has gone to judgment in the state Supreme Court and
a party to the action wishes to obtain a stay of execution pending a
decision in the case by the United States Supreme Court, that party
shall, within twenty days of the judgment, file a motion for stay with
the appellate clerk directed to the state Supreme Court. The filing of
the motion shall operate as a stay pending the state Supreme
Court’s decision thereon.

If proceedings are not stayed and Remington is required to undergo the costly
and time-consuming burdens of litigation, including further discovery, motion practice
and possibly trial, it will irreparably lose the intended benefit of threshold PLCAA
immunity from suit. The United States Supreme Court has consistently recognized that
“[u]ntil … threshold immunity is resolved, discovery should not be allowed.” Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

According to the Associated Press, Remington has until June to file the actual petition for a writ of certiorari. The same article quotes the attorney for the plaintiffs as saying, “is a matter of law for the state of Connecticut.” Given that the case revolved around the supremacy of Federal law in what is arguably a Federal matter, this is a case that should be heard by the SCOTUS. That is, if they want to preserve the intent of Congress and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.

Remington Files Bankruptcy On Sunday

Remington Outdoor Company filed its long awaited bankruptcy petition with the US Bankruptcy Court for Delaware on Sunday. The agreement to do the pre-packaged Chapter 11 filing was reached with creditors in February. In the time following that agreement, Remington entered into a number of “material definitive agreements” with the various creditors.

According to Reuters, Cerberus will lose all their ownership rights in the bankruptcy. The equity in the company will now go to the creditors.

The creditors inked the debt-cutting deal prior to the Parkland shooting, and it is unclear if any have exited. The restructuring support agreement allows creditors to sell their holdings, but the buyer is bound by the deal.

One investor told IFR, a Thomson Reuters news provider, that his firm had contemplated buying the Remington loans that will be exchanged into equity, which were offered at as low as 25 cents on the dollar.

“We bowed out because we were uncomfortable,” he said.

After a Remington Bushmaster rifle was used in the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in Connecticut in 2012 that killed 20 children and six adults, Cerberus tried unsuccessfully to sell Remington, then known as Freedom Group.

Katie-Mesner Hage, an attorney representing Sandy Hook families in a lawsuit against Remington, said in a prepared statement that she did not expect the gunmaker’s bankruptcy would affect their case.

The lawsuit referred to in the last paragraph is now before the Connecticut Supreme Court on appeal. The case was dismissed in state superior court as the judge decided that Bushmaster was protected by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act as it was not a case of negligent entrustment which is an exception to the PLCAA.

Here is the bankrupt petition listing creditors and the CFO’s statement. Reuters notes that the court action is expected to go quickly and the restructured company could be out of bankruptcy by May.

Reuters: Remington Seeks Financing To File For Bankruptcy

Reuters reported yesterday that Remington Outdoor Company is in search of financing that would allow it to file for bankruptcy. They have reached out to a number of banks and credit investment funds.

The move comes as Remington reached a forbearance agreement with its creditors this week following a missed coupon payment on its debt, the sources said. The company has been working with investment bank Lazard Ltd (LAZ.N) on options to restructure its $950 million debt pile, Reuters reported last month.

Remington is seeking debtor-in-possession financing that will allow it to fund is operations once it files for bankruptcy, the sources said. The size of the financing and timing of Remington’s bankruptcy plans could not be learned.

Some potential financing sources, including credit funds and banks, have balked at coming to Remington’s aid because of the reputation risk associated with such a move, according to the sources.

In addition to sales being reportedly down 27% for the first three quarters of 2017, Remington faces a $550 million term loan that comes due in 2019 along with another $250 million in bonds that mature in 2020.

In other words, Remington is facing a perfect storm.

Remington Outdoor Gets A New CEO

Remington Outdoor Company announced that they had appointed Anthony Acitelli as their new CEO. Mr. Acitelli was formerly the CEO of Taurus Holdings. He replaces James “Marco” Marcotuli who stepped down at the end of August after little more than two years in the position.

From their press release:

Huntsville, AL – Remington Outdoor Company (“ROC”), one of the world’s leading designers and manufacturers of firearms, ammunition, and related products, today announced Remington’s Board of Directors has unanimously elected Anthony Acitelli Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and to the Board of Directors.

Mr. Acitelli is a respected industry veteran with twenty plus years of leadership experience. In addition to successfully leading sales and marketing organizations, Mr. Acitelli most recently served as CEO of Taurus Holdings. Mr. Acitelli holds a Master of Business Administration from Thunderbird Global School of Management and a bachelor’s degree in Finance from the University of South Florida.

“Anthony’s experience as an industry insider with both customers and consumers will strengthen Remington’s presence in the market place.” said Jim Geisler, Executive Chairman of the Board. “As our industry continues to experience changes in demand and in consumers buying preferences, Remington will continue to innovate providing the best products and experiences to our customers. There can be no other way to build a good 2018 and beyond.”

Mr. Acitelli stated, “I am truly humbled and honored to become a part of America’s most iconic brands within the hunting and shooting industry. I look forward to the challenges ahead, while forging a course for the future with innovation and vision. We owe it to those that came before us and to those that will follow.”

I’m going to go out on a limb here. While Taurus may not be the most highly respected firearm company in the United States, it is a firearms company. I think it was past time for Remington to hire a CEO who actually had been in the firearms’ business as opposed to making cars or investment banking.

Now if Remington had really been thinking out of the box they would have mortgaged heaven and earth, got down on their knees, said their prayers, and begged Mike Fifer to come out of retirement. I’m not saying Fifer could have turned Remington around immediately but the man knows how to run a profitable gun company.

Lawsuit In Connecticut Against Remington Et Al Dismissed



A lawsuit brought by some of the families of children killed in Newtown, CT has been dismissed. The lawsuit sought to find Remington, their distributor Camfour, and the dealer Riverview as having been guilty of “negligent entrustment” for selling the Bushmaster AR-15 used by the killer. Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis found that the claims put forth by the plaintiffs did not meet one of the six exceptions found in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. She issued her ruling on this past Friday afternoon.

The basis of the lawsuit was on the legal theory of negligent entrustment. That is, did the defendants give, sell, or “entrust” their product knowing full well that it would be misused or had the high potential to be misused. An example of negligent entrustment would be loaning your car to a friend to pick up some more beer when you knew he had been drinking. In this case the plaintiffs argued that an AR-15 was so dangerous and so “assaultive” that it should never have been sold to “civilians”.

In determining her decision, Judge Bellis examined whether the actions of the defendants constituted negligent entrustment under Connecticut state law and then pursuant to the PLCAA. After first examining the history of negligent entrustment and relevant court cases both in Connecticut and outside of it, she first concluded that the actions of Remington and their fellow defendants did not give rise to negligent entrustment.

In the present case, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ entrustment of the firearm to the respective entrustees was negligent because the defendants could each foresee the firearm ending up in the hands of members of the an incompetent class in a dangerous environment. The validity of the argument rests on labeling as a misuse the sale of a legal product to a population that is lawfully entitled to purchase such a product. Based on the reasoning from McCarthy, and the fact that Congress has deemed the civilian population competent to possess the product that is at issue in this case, this argument is unavailing. To extend the theory of negligent entrustment to the class of nonmilitary, nonpolice civilians – the general public – would imply that the general public lacks the ordinary prudence necessary to handle an object that Congress regards as appropriate for sale to the general public. This the court is unwilling to do.

 Accordingly, because they do no constitute legally sufficient negligent entrustment claims pursuant to state law, the plaintiffs’ negligent entrustment allegations do not satisfy the negligent entrustment exception to PLCAA. Therefore, unless another PLCAA exception applies, the court must grant the defendants’ motion to strike.

McCarthy, which Judge Bellis references, was a case brought by Carolyn McCarthy against Olin for selling Black Talon cartridges. Her husband’s murderer had used these Winchester cartridges in his killing spree on the Long Island Railroad. The McCarthy case was dismissed under the PLCAA.

Though Judge Bellis did not need to consider whether the defendants’ actions constituted negligent entrustment under the narrower definitions set forth by the PLCAA given they failed to meet the broader standard set under Connecticut state law, she did so in the “interest of thoroughness” and to provide further support for her decision.

After examining the plaintiffs’ case in the light of the more limited definition of negligent entrustment, Judge Bellis concluded that the immunity provided by the PLCAA prevailed. She also examined the plaintiffs’ argument that the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act allowed them to bring this action as an exception to PLCAA due to a violation of a state statute. This, too, was dismissed.

Although PLCAA provides a narrow exception under which plaintiffs may maintain an action for negligent entrustment of a firearm, the allegations in the present case do not fit within the common-law tort of negligent entrustment under well-established Connecticut law, nor do they come within PLCAA’s definition of negligent entrustment. Furthermore, the plaintiffs cannot avail themselves of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUPTA) to bring this action within PLCAA’s exception allowing lawsuits for a violation of a state statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms. A plaintiff under CUPTA must allege some kind of consumer, competitor, or other commercial relationship with a defendant, and the plaintiffs here have alleged no such relationship.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the court grants in their entirety the defendants’ motions to strike the amended complaint. 

Judge Bellis’ opinion ran to 54 pages. I surmise that one of the reasons she took so much time to lay out her arguments for approving the motion to strike is so that it will withstand scrutiny by an appeals court. The plaintiffs’ have vowed to appeal this ruling.

As might be expected, this ruling was attacked by both Hillary Clinton and the gun prohibitionist lobby. Clinton quickly released a tweet saying it was “incomprehensible that our laws could protect gun makers over the Sandy Hook families. We need to fix this.” Robyn Thomas of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (sic) attributed the decision to “the gun lobby’s destructive grip on Washington.” Lest anyone forget, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was enacted in 1995 as a response to multiple municipal lawsuits seeking to destroy the firearms industry through litigation. It also provides only limited immunity and not a blanket immunity against negligence.

The R51 Debacle Coming Home To Roost?

Remington Outdoor Company announced big changes in their management yesterday. George Kollitides is out as CEO and Chairman along with the CFO Ron Kolka who is “retiring”. In addition, Walter McLallen and James Pike are retiring from the Board of Directors. Kollitides is being replaced by Jim “Marco” Marcotuli who is a director. Marcotuli will be the President, CEO, and interim Chairman.

If I had to speculate, I’d say that both the board and Cerberus didn’t feel that Kollitides was up to the management challenges facing Remington. They are combining operations of most units in Huntsville, they are facing a threat to one of their iconic products – the Remington 700 rifle – over trigger issues and attendant lawsuits, and their splashy roll out of the R51 pistol turned into a debacle over quality issues.

It was also reported on Monday in the Sacramento Bee that the California State Teachers’ Retirement System had finally cashed out their holdings in Remington aka Freedom Group.

The announcement came three weeks after Remington’s owner, New York private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management, offered to let CalSTRS and other investors cash out of their investments in the gun maker. Cerberus will place its investment in Remington in a separate investment vehicle.


“Consent to monetize our exposure to Remington Outdoor completes our decision to divest from banned firearm manufacturers,” said CalSTRS Chief Executive Jack Ehnes in a prepared statement. “All along we have sought a transaction that balances the best financial interests of the more than 879,000 educators we serve, while holding consistent with the values of our membership.”

CalSTRS had previously sold their investments in publicly traded Ruger and Smith & Wesson. The Remington investment was part of $375 million investment by the teachers’ pension in Cerberus Capital Management.

According to the press release from Remington Outdoor Company, Kollitides stepped down “to pursue other interests but will continue to serve as a paid Senior Advisor to the Company for one year.” That is HR-speak for he was allowed to resign in lieu of being fired and a “Golden Parachute” for keeping his mouth shut about it.

Ron Kolka had only been the CFO of Remington Outdoor Company since 2013. He had previously been the CFO of Daimler Chrysler prior to the Cerberus Capital buyout. He then stayed on with Cerberus after the Chrysler bankruptcy. For the next 30 days, he will be working with Jeff Pritchett who is joining the ROC board. Pritchett started his career with GM and then with Delphi in financial management. He then was the CFO of Vertis Communications before moving to Cerberus in 2013. Given that Remington had an increased net loss for the last quarter when compared to a year ago and also had a substantial decline in sales, I think this is a move to shore up the financial side of the company.

Jim Marcotuli who is stepping up to the CEO position has been the Co-Lead Director, Operations, of ROC since September 2014. Prior to joining Cerberus a few months prior to this, Marcotuli had been the President and CEO of North American Bus Industries which makes transit buses since 2009. He was responsible for moving much of their operations from Hungary to Anniston, Alabama.

Moving up to Vice Chairman of the Board will be Jim Campbell. Prior to joining Cerberus and the ROC board, Campbell spent 30 years with General Electric where his last job was as CEO, Appliances and Lighting. He joined GE as a management trainee in 1981 a year after Jack Welch became CEO of GE. Campbell came up through the “talent pipeline” at GE which was a rigorous performance driven, “up or out”, environment. While there really isn’t much of an age difference between Campbell and Marcotuli, I see Campbell’s role at ROC as being a mentor to Marcotuli. He is quoted in the press release as saying, “I look forward to supporting Marco and the rest of the team as we redouble our efforts to ensure superior quality and customer service are front and center in everything we do.”

Walter McLallen came to the ROC Board from hedge fund Meritage Capital Advisors. He was being paid at least $235,000 annually to serve as Vice Chairman of the Board. In addition, Meritage was being paid a retainer of $400,000 annually for advisory services. McLallen is Managing Director and Co-Founder of Meritage. McLallen is in his late 40s according to his Bloomberg profile.

Also retiring with McLallen is James J. Pike. Pike has been a member of the Remington board since 2007. He is a Managing Director of Cerberus Capital Managment. In his case, age may be a valid reason for his retirement. According to Bloomberg, Pike is 71. He served in management roles within the metalworking and parts industry for much of his career.

I see the combination of Marcotuli and Campbell as an effort to bring in more experienced management for Remington. Both are a good 10 years or more older than Kollitides and both have experience managing manufacturing operations. Kollitides, by contrast, came from the mergers and acquisitions world. His expertise was useful in building the Freedom Group/Remington Outdoor Company stable of companies. However, it isn’t what was needed going forward to help ROC regain its footing in the firearms world.

Remington Makes It Official

Rumors started on Saturday that Remington Outdoor Company was going to fold the Para-USA label into the Remington label.

From the blog of a Raleigh, NC gun store called Carolina Gunrunners which broke the news early:

We have just gotten news that Para will no longer make pistols after the first quarter of 2015. If you currently own a Para 1911 they will continue to honor the warranty. The plan is to focus on one 1911 brand, and that will be the Remington 1911. We will start seeing new Remington 1911’s but they will look more like a Para. The new Remington 1911’s will be available in various sizes from 3 and ½” barreled compacts to full size double stacked frames. The new Remington 1911’s will be announced as they begin to approach manufacturing readiness. Until then, they will not be making any announcements about the change.

Remington had already announced that they were closing the suburban Charlotte facility that housed Para and moving it to their new facility in Huntsville, Alabama.

I think Remington has been telegraphing the end of Para-USA over the last year. You saw a lot of $100 rebates plus amazingly low prices on the Para-USA 1911s. I think this was an effort to clear out inventory before the rebranding. Then at the SHOT Show, I saw Para’s pro-shooter Travis Tomasie wearing Remington colors along with Gabby Franco.

Yesterday, Remington Outdoor Company made it official in an amazingly frank press release. They admitted that they botched the Marlin relocation and the introduction of the Remington R51 pistol. I doubt there is anyone out there that would disagree with them on this. That is why my one and only Marlin lever action was built in 1962 and not 2014.

The press release continued:

In 2012, with a goal of expanding its handgun line, ROC acquired Para USA (“Para”), a company that specialized in the production of competition, high capacity, and double action 1911-style pistols. Following Remington’s acquisition, Para, which had been experiencing quality control issues, saw a steep decline in warranty claims.

In 2014, ROC announced its new, world-class firearms center of excellence in Huntsville, Alabama. Here, Remington is integrating product development, engineering, production, and quality control – a first in Remington’s 200-year history. The integration of modern sporting rifles, suppressors, and Remington pistols commenced immediately, and Para is scheduled to move to Huntsville next month.

I remember speaking with a Para USA engineer at the NRA Annual Meeting in St. Louis in 2012. This was soon after the Freedom Group acquired Para. He made the point that Remington engineers had started working with Para to tighten up quality and tolerances in their products. He told me that before then they just didn’t have access to this level of expertise.

Remington says that they will be keeping their own R1 line of 1911s along with “popular Para products, characteristics, and names such as the ‘Warthog'”. I take this to mean that you will see a rationalization of the two lines with duplicate products dropped and the best selling of the Para products retained. I do wonder if they will continue with the LDA or light double action line of pistols.That is one of the things that made Para-Ordnance and Para USA distinctive.

I do have one Para 1911 in my collection. It is a Officer-sized model called the CCO with a the LDA trigger. It is from the Para-Ordnance days and is roll-marked “Ft. Lauderdale, FL”. It is a fairly accurate pistol but it does have its ammo preferences. I have had no problem feeding it .45 ball but give it any hollow-point ammo and it just stops. I haven’t tried it with stuff like CorBon PowRBall but I really don’t consider it my carry gun so why bother.

Remington says that they will continue to honor Para’s lifetime warranty and continue providing warranty service.

I hope this goes well for both Remington and Para. Remington has a sullied reputation for handguns given the R51 while Para had a reputation for innovation but was plagued by quality issues. Given that the R51 was in actuality made by Para, I guess their quality issues carried forward on that as well. Still, a new plant with new machinery and improved engineering (and proper testing) should put both of these brands back on the road to success. Here’s hoping that “should” becomes “will”.

No One Should Be Surprised By This Remington Move

In the wake of both softening sales for firearms and the move of much of their operations to Huntsville, Alabama, Remington announced another round of layoffs at their Ilion, New York plant. 105 jobs will be cut at the New York plant starting Monday. This is in addition to 80 jobs that had previously been moved to Alabama.

As the later news report below makes clear, these workers will have the opportunity to relocate to Alabama and apply for jobs down there. If I heard it correctly, Remington has agreed to give a preference to the pool of laid-off workers for new jobs in Alabama.

Some Thoughts About Remington, Jobs, And Its Union

I will be the first to admit I don’t know much about the inner workings of unions. I was born and bred in North Carolina which is both a right-to-work state and the least unionized state in the nation. While I have and have had relatives who were union members in the North, I’ve never worked in a job that lent itself to unionization.

Yesterday I received a very perceptive and enlightening email regarding Remington, jobs, and unions. The person who sent it to me is very well versed in the inner workings of unions but prefers no attribution and to remain anonymous.

The first point he made is that Remington Outdoor Company will say nothing about moving jobs from Ilion to Huntsville for a couple of reasons. First, anything that Remington says that could be interpreted as coercion or related to bargaining would likely lead to serious charges brought by the National Labor Relations Board. The second reason is that Remington’s contract with UMW Local 717 could very well contain language or clauses that would lead to automatic unionization of the Huntsville facility. This is referred to as successor language.

The second point he made is that without successor language, it doesn’t look good for union representation in the South especially given the loss at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga. Interestingly enough, Alabama has the highest unionization rate of any Southern state.

Remington has a large operation in Ilion and it won’t be easy to move. But given time, you will start to see operations begin to move South. It is my understanding that R&D is already slated to move to Huntsville. The city, by the way, is also home to the Redstone Arsenal which has as one of its component organizations that Army Material Command as well as a number of Ordnance Corps units. If the Republicans take control of the US Senate, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is the 3rd ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and could easily get the ear of the DoD for Remington.

I was able to look at an earlier collective bargaining agreement between Local 717 and Remington. While I did not find successor language in it, I did see language that mandated certain models produced by Remington must be made in Ilion. Article II- Scope and Coverage, Section g – Job Security says that products such as the Remington Model 7, 700, 7400, and 7600 rifles and the Remington Model 870, 1100, and 1187 shotguns “will continued to be produced only at the Ilion plant”. It did allow for Remington to procure component parts elsewhere. This contract expired in 2007 and I can’t imagine succeeding contracts not containing similar language.

The current contract was ratified in December 2012. The highlights of the contract as publicized by the United Mine Workers of America HQ include:

The new pact includes a provision extending Local 717 jurisdiction to any new plant that Remington builds, as the company is presently considering, within a 100-mile radius of the main plant in Ilion, N.Y. In addition to a $500 signing bonus, the contract features 3 percent wage increases in each of the first four years, and 3.5 percent in the final year. It also maintains the current level of medical benefits, improves the language governing overtime and creates a new position, Utility Specialist, aimed at reducing the reassignment of regular workers.

This contract was ratified two days before the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut. They could not have imagined the NY SAFE Act when the collective bargaining agreement was ratified. If this contract contained the same earlier language as to what models would be produced at the Ilion plant, you have to wonder if it extended to the Bushmaster AR-15s whose production had been shifted from Windham, Maine to Ilion. It is hard to conceive that a company would want to take the chance of producing a firearm in a state where it couldn’t be sold.

To sum it all up, while Remington’s current contract with Local 717 may preclude the rapid transfer of existing production lines from Ilion to Huntsville, production will start shifting South over time.