[quote]BRECKENRIDGE (CBS 11 NEWS) – A firearms company that makes AR-15 style rifles for the iconic brand Colt, will open a plant in Breckenridge in Stephens County. Oregon company Bold Ideas confirmed the development Friday.
The move by Colt Competition into Breckenridge comes as the CEO of Colt Manufacturing in Connecticut has said there will soon be few good answers to keep his company in the state. Connecticut passed some of the nation’s most restrictive gun laws this week.
It also comes weeks after Governor Rick Perry reportedly sent letters to gun companies, encouraging them to move to Texas. Perry sent a message on Twitter to Colorado company Magpul as recently as March 21, saying “Come on Down to Texas.” The Governor’s office did not confirm Friday if it had sent a recruitment letter to Colt Competition.[/quote]
[url]http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/04/05/firearms-company-relocating-to-north-texas/?hpt=us_bn8[/url]
Cool
I'll miss you being so close Colt, Have a gun part factory near me. Wonder if they are debating on moving
Isn't it sort of a dick move on Colt's part to lay off a bunch of workers just for having a political tantrum? I'm assuming a gun factory isn't selling its product to neighbors like a bakery.
This is a huge deal, Colt's been in Hartford since 1848, they're moving from their historical site to halfway across the country. This is a colossal deal.
That's awesome, now I can get EVEN MORE GUNS.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;40213394]Isn't it sort of a dick move on Colt's part to lay off a bunch of workers just for having a political tantrum? I'm assuming a gun factory isn't selling its product to neighbors like a bakery.[/QUOTE]
how's it a political tantrum when the company now incurs larger costs and flat out can't make some of its products anymore? It's a no brainer to pick up and move
[QUOTE=Kommodore;40213394]Isn't it sort of a dick move on Colt's part to lay off a bunch of workers just for having a political tantrum? I'm assuming a gun factory isn't selling its product to neighbors like a bakery.[/QUOTE]
If the state bans the manufacturing of these kinds of guns for civilian sale, why should Colt stay there? Even if they ban selling them, why should a gun company support the economy of a state that hates it? Some of the things Connecticut's governor has been saying about gun manufacturers can be considered slanderous, why would Colt want to stay somewhere it's hated?
I welcome Colt with open arms.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40213408]This is a huge deal, Colt's been in Hartford since 1848, they're moving from their historical site to halfway across the country. This is a colossal deal.[/QUOTE]
not really lol
it might be a big deal for people who think the history of a firearms manufacturer matters but in reality a gun company moving to texas doesn't really change anything
[QUOTE=Kopimi;40213459]not really lol
it might be a big deal for people who think the history of a firearms manufacturer matters but in reality a gun company moving to texas doesn't really change anything[/QUOTE]
A manufacturing company is moving its headquarters from the place it's been for over 150 years, that's a huge deal no matter the industry.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40213434]If the state bans the manufacturing of these kinds of guns for civilian sale, why should Colt stay there? Even if they ban selling them, why should a gun company support the economy of a state that hates it? Some of the things Connecticut's governor has been saying about gun manufacturers can be considered slanderous, why would Colt want to stay somewhere it's hated?[/QUOTE]
Well, because people from Connecticut still won't be able to buy weapons regardless of whether they move or not. The manufactures from a Colt factory themselves are unaffected so I would imagine that it comes down to a question of whether or not moving your factory completely would amortize the cost of shipping. Again, it's not like this factory is only selling to its neighbors.
So with that in mind, I would say that whatever the attitude of the governor, it's a bit callous to fire an entire factory of workers who actually supported you.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;40213394]Isn't it sort of a dick move on Colt's part to lay off a bunch of workers just for having a political tantrum? I'm assuming a gun factory isn't selling its product to neighbors like a bakery.[/QUOTE]
It's not a dick move at all. Why stay in a state where you can't sell half your products and will incur more costs selling them? If a TV manufacturer can't sell TV's over 28 inches that can't be turned on for more than 2 hours at a time in Connecticut, why should that company stay there?
Colt isn't moving out of country to avoid taxes, they're moving out to avoid being gimped.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;40213549]Well, because people from Connecticut still won't be able to buy weapons regardless of whether they move or not. The manufactures from a Colt factory themselves are unaffected so I would imagine that it comes down to a question of whether or not moving your factory completely would amortize the cost of shipping. Again, it's not like this factory is only selling to its neighbors.
So with that in mind, I would say that whatever the attitude of the governor, it's a bit callous to fire an entire factory of workers who actually supported you.[/QUOTE]
And if they can't even manufacture the guns anymore, what's the point in staying?
And again, why support through taxes a state government who doesn't support your industry?
[QUOTE=Kommodore;40213394]Isn't it sort of a dick move on Colt's part to lay off a bunch of workers just for having a political tantrum? I'm assuming a gun factory isn't selling its product to neighbors like a bakery.[/QUOTE]
How do you know that they're not paying to relocate their employees? Gunsmithing is a bit more of a craft job than most industries.
Yeah, that's true. Also for all we know the taxes in Texas are more permissive and will earn them money in the short term.
I never even realized Texas was an anagram of taxes.
Another thing is that people who work in gun factories are often advocates of guns. I don't think the staff would enjoy living in a place where their work and hobbies are impeded by the law, so a paid staff relocation seems like a no brainer if its possible.
Maybe I could apply for a job at their new plant.
only doing this to save on shipping, since 99.9% of their sales go to texas and cowboy lookalikes
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40213601]And again, why support through taxes a state government who doesn't support your industry?[/QUOTE]
Why should the state support your industry?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40214325]Why should the state support your industry?
Let the Chinese make them more cheaply.[/QUOTE]
I don't know. Maybe having several hundred or thousands of tax payers working in your state and having them suddenly leave is a good thing. The state doesn't have to support it, it just is fucking logical for them to leave the state if they couldn't even get the weapons out of the factories legally.
Nice edit.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40214325]Why should the state support your industry?
Let the Chinese make them more cheaply. [/QUOTE]
Not letting that second part get edited out so easily, the Chinese can't due to import bans, but they do for Canada, and it's great.
And the state doesn't have to support the industry, and the industry then therefore doesn't have to support the state, and they can move to another state that does support their industry, and support that state with their tax dollars, as Magpul has done to Colorado. Now Colt's doing it to Connecticut, and there's speculation that Remington will do it to their historical home of Ilion, NY, and that Beretta USA will move out of Maryland, but that's not really as significant since the company hasn't been there since the 1800s.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40214325]Why should the state support your industry?[/QUOTE]
Why should it try and gimp the industry?
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40214384]The state doesn't have to support the industry, and the industry then therefore doesn't have to support the state, and they can move to another state that does support their industry[/QUOTE]
This just reduces wealth in the long run. No subsidies or protective tariffs should be given to firearms industries.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40214414]This just reduces wealth in the long run. No subsidies or protective tariffs should be given to firearms industries.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't advocating such tariffs or subsidies, I was talking both in terms of ideology, if the state government is hostile towards your industry, why stay there and financially support a government that hates you, and in terms of restrictions upon your ability to make certain products. If CT says "No making AR-15s or other 'assault weapons' or 'high-capacity magazines'," which are a major part of Colt's manufacturing and sales, then why are they going to stay there as their business slowly dwindles due to a major part of their company being forced to shut down?
And also, why not? If they're given to other manufacturing industries, why not firearms industries as well? Why subsidize one kind of manufacturing but not another. I don't know if such subsidies exist or not, but if they do why shouldn't they be applied equally across all types of manufacturing business? Is it simply because [I]you[/I] don't like what they build, or how they sell it? I can't think of any other reason to exempt firearms manufacturers from any theoretical manufacturing subsidies applied to any other manufacturers except ideological ones.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40214325]Why should the state support your industry?[/QUOTE]
States have already been supporting industries. A lot of industries gets checks or tax breaks from the state?
Also, who wants China to make guns? Guns are supposed to be functional quality pieces of craftsmanship.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40214479]I wasn't advocating such tariffs or subsidies, I was talking both in terms of ideology, if the state government is hostile towards your industry, why stay there and financially support a government that hates you, and in terms of restrictions upon your ability to make certain products. If CT says "No making AR-15s or other 'assault weapons' or 'high-capacity magazines'," which are a major part of Colt's manufacturing and sales, then why are they going to stay there as their business slowly dwindles due to a major part of their company being forced to shut down?
And also, why not? If they're given to other manufacturing industries, why not firearms industries as well? Why subsidize one kind of manufacturing but not another. I don't know if such subsidies exist or not, but if they do why shouldn't they be applied equally across all types of manufacturing business? Is it simply because [I]you[/I] don't like what they build, or how they sell it? I can't think of any other reason to exempt firearms manufacturers from any theoretical manufacturing subsidies applied to any other manufacturers except ideological ones.[/QUOTE]
Because subsidizing industries makes it difficult for foreign countries to compete.
[editline]9th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=cqbcat;40214486]States have already been supporting industries. A lot of industries gets checks or tax breaks from the state?
Also, who wants China to make guns? Guns are supposed to be functional quality pieces of craftsmanship.[/QUOTE]
Chinese goods are actually better than you think. Hence why everybody is importing from China these days.
Unfortunately, stupid "buy American/British/etc" policies do nothing but retard economic development.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40214544]Because subsidizing industries makes it difficult for foreign countries to compete.[/QUOTE]
So then America shouldn't subsidize anything?
Besides, American import laws make it hard enough for foreign companies to compete in the firearms industry, nearly all the foreign companies have an American subsidiary to get around that, but those who don't have a hard time getting their guns into the US.
[quote]Chinese goods are actually better than you think. Hence why everybody is importing from China these days.
Unfortunately, stupid "buy American/British/etc" policies do nothing but retard economic development.[/QUOTE]
Other than create local jobs to try and lower unemployment, and trying to speed up national economic development by becoming more self-reliant; rather than global economic development by becoming more dependant on a global market's existence, and speeding up the economic development of another nation while potentially stagnating your own by forcing out some of the lower-end jobs, leaving uneducated low-skill workers unemployed.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;40213394]Isn't it sort of a dick move on Colt's part to lay off a bunch of workers just for having a political tantrum? I'm assuming a gun factory isn't selling its product to neighbors like a bakery.[/QUOTE]
Not really, it's a practical move, and Colt really doesn't have much of a choice. This "political tantrum" has made it so Colt can't sustain its business in the state of Connecticut, so it makes sense for them to move somewhere they can, honestly I'd say good on them for keeping it stateside and not just bailing out of the current US gun law turmoil completely.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40214568]So then America shouldn't subsidize anything?
Besides, American import laws make it hard enough for foreign companies to compete in the firearms industry, nearly all the foreign companies have an American subsidiary to get around that, but those who don't have a hard time getting their guns into the US.[/QUOTE]
Then get rid of them. Import them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.