Tuesday, April 9, 2013

More On The Pressure To Move Out Of Connecticut

CNN actually did a rather fair story on Mark Malkowski of Stag Arms and Jonathan Scalise of ACS and the pressure they are feeling to move their companies out of Connecticut. Listen to Malkowski describe the incentives other states are offering to move. It makes you wonder just who is running Connecticut if an industry which provides so many "good" jobs is suddenly treated like an "untermensch".

I would not be surprised to see either or both of the companies relocate out of Connecticut within the next year.

Along these same lines, Jeff Soyer of Alphecca looks at New Hampshire and why it might not be a great place to move. As he notes, the state is rapidly changing due to the influx of former residents of Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Moving a firearms manufacturing facility to another state is an expensive proposition. If a company decides to make such a decision, it’s going to be somewhere where that company can be assured of steady support for their company, products, and workers. The winds of change — slight as they might be at the moment — in northern New England states provide no reassurance of of that.
I think he makes a good point. 

1 comment:

  1. With idiots like this running the show in NH it is no wonder. This is the response I received from my legislature about his vote to repeal the Castle law:
    Thank you for your email. The bill passed the House and is now headed to the Senate. This vote was one of the harder decisions I have had to make as a legislator but when the vote was called I ended up voting in favor of the bill AS AMENDED. Let me first state that I am a gun owner and avid hunter and have always been a supporter of the right to bear arms. This bill though is not an issue about the ability for someone to own or carry a firearm. I capitalized the as amended above because I would have not supported the bill without the amendments.The amendments left the ability for someone to brandish a firearm as well removed the civil liability portion only returning the language that was in the previous law that stood with no issues for nearly 40 years. As stated before, the law still allows for a person to brandish a firearm anywhere if they feel threatened and still allows someone to use deadly force in their home if they feel it is warranted. The bill as passed by the House simply states now that if you are in public and you can safely retreat without using deadly force you should do so. The law also still clearly states that if you are in public and you do feel threatened and feel you do not have the ability to mitigate the situation with non deadly force then you are still justified in using deadly force. In the end my moral compass is what lead me to my vote. I feel strongly as a society that we should have the right to defend yourself but we also owe it to one another to try to solve problems without deadly force if the situation allows that. I know I have been placed in situations throughout my life where I simply walked away from a confrontation in order to mitigate it. In those situations, if I had felt threatened to the point I felt I needed to use deadly force then the law as amended would still allow me to do so. I think this bill balances the right to defend oneself and the issues other members of our district had regarding public safety. I thank you for your email and although I know most people that are passionate about this issue may see my vote as a vote against gun owners but I do hope I explained how difficult it is to balance the view of ALL members of our district especially on something as polarizing as this.

    Please do not hesitate to contact me anytime.

    Ben Lefebvre
    NH State Representative
    Sullivan County, District 1
    Chair, House Fish & Game & Marine Resources