Too bad they are protesting because they are afraid it will affect their bottom line and not in support of the 2nd Amendment.

 

 

http://www.outdoorhu...%29&utm_content=

 

 

Colt Temporarily Closes Down Factory to Protest Gun Control Laws at Connecticut Capitol

 

by Outdoor Hub Reporters on March 18, 2013

submitted by: Daniel Xu

 

Colt Manufacturing Co. has operated in Connecticut for 175 years, and remains one of the nation’s most venerable gun makers. However, a package of gun control bills may threaten the company’s future in the state, along with the livelihoods of its employees. According to the Associated Press, Colt president Dennis Veilleux made the decision last Thursday to shut down the Colt factory for a day so roughly 600 workers can make their voices heard at a public hearing in the state Capitol. There, they waved signs with messages such as “save our jobs.”

 

“These are the faces of the jobs at Colt,” Veilleux told the Associated Press. “Each of these people represents other people in the state. They represent the community and, in a lot of cases, they’re the breadwinners of their families. And more and more, manufacturing jobs are hard to come by.”

Along with Colt employees, representatives of the National Rifle Association and other gun owners groups also testified at the hearing. The Capitol building was crowded by both supporters and opponents of the gun control bills, which many feel could have a negative effect on state industry.

“You have an industry that’s going to be pretty much shut down, not only the gun manufacturers but all of our vendors and suppliers also. It would be quite a trickle down affect,” a protestor told WTNH.

 

While the bills would not necessarily prohibit companies like Colt from producing firearms, it would ban state residents from purchasing many of the products the company produces. Vielleux says he is aware of customer opinion towards states with heavy gun control laws, like New York, and believes that Connecticut could be worse off for it. As for Colt, he predicts that the company could take a hit to its coffers.

 

“If we ban this product in the state where we make it, our customers will take their business to another brand,” Vielleux stated. “When we start to get erosion of our customers, we lose our market share.”

you're complaining that they are protesting now?

No. Did you read what I wrote and highlighted? They aren't protesting the proposed bills because they feel it's an attack on the 2nd Amendment, they are protesting because they are afraid the new laws would hurt their business.

 

Big difference.

More than what Sig or Glock are doing.

More than what Sig or Glock are doing.

 

+1

More than what Sig or Glock are doing.

 

Yeah, true.

good for Colt, may have to rethink my disdain for them

No disdain for Colt here. I'm a fan.

Good for em

They have to speak in terms politicians understand. Lost business means less taxes, politicians don't give a crap about rights.

Prices on used colt guns going up by the minute. =)

More than what Sig or Glock are doing.

 

True Sig an Glock would have made a major impact.

Dammit people, a business is a business. MAKING MONEY IS ALPHA AND OMEGA. If you ran a business you'd have a lot of explaining to do when you couldn't cut the paychecks because you had to make a political statement.

 

Colt is doing the right thing for their bottom line and it just so happens to help our cause as well. For that I can't complain.

 

You may not realize it, but all of the other manufacturers doing the same are also protecting their bottom line in a similar way. If it didn't protect their profits, they wouldn't do it.

Stag did same thing.. But also told CT they might move out

Prices on used colt guns going up by the minute. =)

 

I may have to call my cousin in FL and tell him to sell my old SP1 I sent him to hold for me back in '90. At the rate I'm going I'm never gonna make it down there anyway.

They have to speak in terms politicians understand. Lost business means less taxes, politicians don't give a crap about rights.

 

This.

I was told they're moving to Florida.

Moving a manufacturing facility costs big bucks. Closing a profitable one costs big as well. If a company is going to move they would normally expand an existing facility to cover the production of the one they will close. They don't enter into something like that lightly, especially if the major stakeholders do not agree with the reasoning, or if they think the risk of staying can be easily mitigated. The best case for moving Remington would be if the move were covered by an accomidating state, or if the savings realized by moving actually improved the bottom line so significantly that it became a no brainer. I wouldn't be horribly disappointed if they stayed right where they are...

Who cares why they're doing it? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

No. Did you read what I wrote and highlighted? They aren't protesting the proposed bills because they feel it's an attack on the 2nd Amendment, they are protesting because they are afraid the new laws would hurt their business.

 

Big difference.

 

Why do you really think magpul is moving? Because if they didn't, people would loser redirect for them and buy elsewhere. Its always about money.

Why do you really think magpul is moving? Because if they didn't, people would loser redirect for them and buy elsewhere. Its always about money.

 

Being among the first major players to speak up is a tough position to be in. If no one else follows, your protest looks kind of childish, and can cost a lot of money. Magpul for their part leveled their threat(course of action) and seems to be prepared to see it through. I think it's as much about passion for the industry, as it is about money. Although I'm hopeful, I still have serious doubts that any of the big names will conduct any major moves. It's a lot easier to move when you're a privately held corporation. Public companies have different priorities, and can withstand, and mitigate the reprucussions of caving. To them, it's a balance between the customer and the shareholder...Historically botcotts don't work, at least not in the long term. However, it will probably only take one big name, like Remington, or Colt, to bail out, in order to convince others to follow suit. I just think it's a damn shame that the people who helped build the company, will be the ones to suffer the most. My understanding is that the workforce at Remington is several generations in some families, who may soon be forced to uproot or loose their livelyhood. All because of a few scumbags, and some nut cases who couldn't control themselves, I'll let you decide which label goes to whom...

Dammit people, a business is a business. MAKING MONEY IS ALPHA AND OMEGA. If you ran a business you'd have a lot of explaining to do when you couldn't cut the paychecks because you had to make a political statement.

 

Colt is doing the right thing for their bottom line and it just so happens to help our cause as well. For that I can't complain.

 

You may not realize it, but all of the other manufacturers doing the same are also protecting their bottom line in a similar way. If it didn't protect their profits, they wouldn't do it.

 

100% true but as a buyer, I make my statement with my wallet. In the end, the consumer wins and he/she directs their purchasing power. We can dictate alot more than people realize. Colt is unique as they are fed by mil contracts however, they CANNOT grow without retail

Moving a manufacturing facility costs big bucks. Closing a profitable one costs big as well. If a company is going to move they would normally expand an existing facility to cover the production of the one they will close. They don't enter into something like that lightly, especially if the major stakeholders do not agree with the reasoning, or if they think the risk of staying can be easily mitigated. The best case for moving Remington would be if the move were covered by an accomidating state, or if the savings realized by moving actually improved the bottom line so significantly that it became a no brainer. I wouldn't be horribly disappointed if they stayed right where they are...

 

Except states will subsidize their move as well as offer incredible tax breaks to incentivise such a move.

 

Colt said they are already considering moving out.

Why do you really think magpul is moving? Because if they didn't, people would loser redirect for them and buy elsewhere. Its always about money.

 

Uh, maybe principals. Maybe the support of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. Freedom.

Except states will subsidize their move as well as offer incredible tax breaks to incentivise such a move.

 

Colt said they are already considering moving out.

 

Yea, I addressed that with my accomidating state line. It's the intangibles that are difficult to create an incentive for. Like How much of the already trained workforce is ready to up and move? How much will training a new, or partially new workforce cost? What about local suppliers? shipping costs can add up quickly until new suppliers are found or other accomidations are made. Contrary to popular belief, execs aren't heartless douchebags, they are concerned about what will happen to their community and it's people, and that can have a major effect on what they ultimately decide to do. Some of these questions can only be answered after the committment to move has been made, which makes the process that much more difficult. Personally as an investor in a few firearms manufacturers I would like to see them move to an incentivized location. As a 2nd amendment enthusiast, and as someone who loves his country, I would like to see them move to knock back the anti-constitutional movement being pressed forward by feckless political hacks.

I'm still mad at Colt for screwing me over on my delta elite