I find these decisions harder than the simple black and white "move back to America" idea that's so widespread. After watching this video between Cam Edwards of "Cam and Company NRA News" and Joe Bartozzi, VP of O.F. Mossberg and Sons, the other side of the argument started seeping into my consciousness.
Connecticut is his home, and it has been the home of O.F. Mossberg and Sons for almost a hundred years. Their families are there; their family's roots are there. The employees and their families are all tied to the state, too. It's hard to move a factory, but even that pales next to uprooting a hundred or more families. But Mossberg, Stag Arms, magazine maker ASC and others are considering doing just that. Individual gun owners are putting pressure on these companies; some to bring the jobs into their own state, most (I believe) because they intend to boycott anti-gun states.
Hundreds of emails are pouring in from customers, like this one to Stag Arms: "I've narrowed down my purchase of an AR-15 to a few companies and yours was one of them until you decided to stay in that communist state."There are good reasons for these companies to move out of the states hostile to the very industries enriching them: stand by their customers in that state. Take the tax income away from the state. Hit the politicians with the very real economic consequences of what they do. It seems to me that to the true leftist tyrants (I repeat myself) that want to eliminate all civilian ownership of guns, the tax money is undoubtedly "blood money" they'd rather do without. I'd be glad to help them not have that blood money to irritate their consciences. Pragmatically, the economic consequences are the part that hurt the states the most. Why else would every state considering these bills write in exemptions to the manufacturers to keep them from moving? They need the tax income like any other crack ho needs her crack.
But let me tell you where this gets me a little queasy. At what point does every gun company leaving a state that passes crazy anti-gun bills turn into the equivalent of giving up your house if a home invader breaks in to your garage? At what point is the right answer fight, not flight?
By that logic, in the rabidly anti-gun states like Connecticut and New York, the invaders aren't breaking down the gate, they've been there forever. They already had absurd gun laws - they've just gone from absurd to ludicrous. In others, like Colorado, the invaders are winning the territory for the first time. Is leaving Colorado at this point is just giving the state over to Nanny Bloomberg's shock troops? Is that saying Magpul is wrong to leave? I just don't know. Part of me says boycott the state, get your money out, and the part says no; stay and fight. While researching some links for this, I came across this link at Natural News speculating on companies leaving pro-tyranny states as being the sides forming for the new civil war. I can see the logic behind that.
I have a modest proposal. I wouldn't want to say that Remington, Colt or all the other companies shouldn't sell to the government at all. I don't want guys in the sandbox to be denied their M24/Remington 700 or other needed tools. But could we make it so they don't sell to the state or local police forces or other agencies? There are sticky issues to work out if the companies are under contract to those buyers, but let's conveniently ignore those. If citizens of New York, or Colorado or whomever are denied AR-15s, well, police are regular citizens, not military, aren't they? Why should the police be treated differently from the other citizens, just because they've been sprinkled with the magic fairy dust of working for the state.
Would it hurt the gun companies? Not really. Before It's News speculates that of the 11 Million new guns bought last year, police sales add up to less than 1% of sales. Of course, they don't need to give up that whole 1% of sales; they only give up sales to police in the crazy states that abuse their citizens. I can imagine a great deal of customer loyalty being created by that. A good starting place is Sean's New York Boycott List. I'd like to see this grow to a list covering New York, Connecticut, Colorado, Maryland and any others.
Personally, I'm avoiding spending money with any business in those states. I know the effects of one guy are small, but since this all started, the choice of buying something from an occupied state or a free state has come up a few times, and I've gone to the free state every time.