Stag Arms Leaving Connecticut

The Stag Arms' Board of Directors announced that they plan to relocate the company out of New Britain, CT. The new location has not been finalized yet.

The full text of the announcement was posted on Facebook:

Today, Stag Arms announced that its Board of Directors has decided to relocate the company from its current facility in New Britain, CT, as part of its strategic initiative to significantly improve the overall customer experience. The location of Stag’s new headquarters has not been finalized but the Board has narrowed down the options to a short list of vibrant communities where there is significant support for the firearms industry.

Stag Arms President, Anthony Ash, stated: “Not since the founding of our Company in 2003 have there been so many great things happening at once. We began our journey with a commitment to bring customers innovative products with uncompromising quality through 100% American Made components. We pioneered the left-handed Modern Sporting Rifle and from Day 1 we have backed all of our rifles with Infinite Shot Barrel and Lifetime Transferable Warranties. Our recent release of our newest product line of PXCs, Stag’s innovative multiple pistol caliber AR, continues the tradition.”

Mr. Ash further stated, “Stag is creating a seamless, integrated value chain that will incorporate best practices from design and engineering, to manufacturing, omni-channel customer engagement, fulfillment, and service. The pieces are in place and we are ready to transition production and fulfillment operations immediately from a narrow facility-based approach in New Britain to a distributed eco-system.”

The Board expects to finalize the location of the headquarters in the next few months and the company then will begin the process of relocating sales and remaining back office functions to the new headquarters location.

Back in 2013 Stag almost moved to either Houston or Myrtle Beach, SC. Then company CEO Mark Malkowski made the decision to remain in Connecticut due to expense involved with the move. You may also remember that PTR Industries left the same area of Connecticut about that time for Aynor, SC.

Ownership of Stag Arms changed hands in 2016 due to running afoul of BATFE regulations. Malkowski and Stag pleaded guilty to charges involving unregistered machine guns. As part of the plea deal, Malkowski was forced to sell the company and was banned from the industry. White Wolf Capital bought Stag Arms and added it to their portfolio which also included Ballistic Advantage, VG6 Precision, and Aero-Precision.

New Britain town officials were not surprised by the announcement.

New Britain Mayor Erin Stewart said the announcement “comes as no surprise.”

“We have known for many years that Stag has been courted by other states following the passage of more stringent gun laws here in Connecticut,” she said in an emailed statement. “Quite frankly, I’m surprised it took this long.”

While none of the potential locations have been named, I'm going out on a limb here and saying it won't be Tacoma, Washington which is the home of Aero-Precision given the recent changes in Washington State gun laws. More likely, is a relocation nearer to Ballistic Advantage which is in a suburb of Orlando, FL.

Democrat State Party Platforms - Colorado To Georgia

This is a  continuation of my series of posts pointing out the political platforms of the individual state Democrat parties on firearms, gun control, and the Second Amendment. Remember, this is the official position of the Democratic Party in each state and you can expect Democrats to work to enact laws along these lines.

Colorado

Colorado Democrats have an explicit gun control agenda in their platform. Moreover, firearm restrictions come up in other areas such as schools and National Parks and Forests.

Firearms and Gun Safety
We agree with individual ownership of firearms for hunting and personal safety, but also believe that firearms should be regulated as follows:

1. Ban assault weapons, bump stocks, and high capacity magazines.
2. Enact universal background checks federally.
3. Enact restrictions: Must be 21 and must demonstrate competency with firearms to purchase a firearm.
4. Prohibit the possession and purchase of firearms by people with violent criminal offenses or on terrorist watch list.
5. Except for security personnel, ban firearms on K-12 schools, college campuses and allow cultural institutions to ban firearms on their premises.
6. Enact Extreme Risk Protection Order law, which would allow families and law enforcement to seek a court order to temporarily disarm a person who is dangerous to themselves or others.
7. Enact criminal penalties when adults fail to properly store firearms and minors gain access and harm themselves or others.
8. Restrict firearms use in National Forest to designated areas, except during hunting season.
9. Allow the CDC and other government agencies to conduct gun violence research, and properly fund.

With regard to making schools gun-free zones, the Colorado Democrats say:

We oppose guns in school, more guns would make our schools less safe and but all (sic) students and staff at increased risk of becoming a victim of gun violence.

Finally, with regard to public lands and wildlife, it says, "We support the restriction of shooting in National Forests and Parks."


Connecticut

As you might expect, Connecticut Democrats support gun control and make great claims for it. They don't go into great detail so they must assume all the post-Newtown restrictions have been accepted.

Guns

Connecticut Democrats are proud to stand behind common sense gun violence prevention measures. As a result, Connecticut has one of the lowest gun death rates in the country.

Gun violence in our urban centers needs to be addressed. This can be supported through incentivized proactive measures such as buybacks, and reinforcing “no questions asked” protections where appropriate in order to get guns off the streets.

Connecticut can do more. There is progress to be made in the areas of Domestic Violence and Extreme Risk protections as these scenarios are a source of mass shooting violence and gun suicide.

Delaware

 The Delaware Democrats' platform adopts the usual buzzwords such as "common sense" and "weapons of war" without going into too much detail.

Preventing Gun Violence: Gun violence is taking far too many lives in Delaware. Delaware Democrats support common sense gun safety measures while respecting responsible gun ownership. We will build on successful efforts at the state level and proposed efforts at the federal level to get weapons of war away from criminals and off our streets, while preserving the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Florida

 The Florida Democrats have a list of their "values" on their website instead of a platform. In addition to a statement on guns, they also have a separate "gun violence prevention" fact (sic) sheet.

Preventing Gun Violence

"Proud NRA sellout" Adam Putnam and his Republican party would rather give guns to people who shouldn't have them than enact comprehensive gun control policies. The Republican Party's dependence on the NRA for money is why they refuse to enact policies that a majority of Floridians support. Unlike Republicans, Democrats support banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole, and a 3-day waiting period for gun sales. Democrats realize that this isn't about taking away the rights of responsible, law abiding gun-owners. This is about making our state safer so that there isn't another shooting in Parkland, Pulse, or anywhere else in Florida. Florida has endured 4 mass shootings in 18 months because of Republicans' refusal to implement common sense gun reform. Let's make sure there isn't a 5th.

Georgia

Georgia Democrats don't seem to have adopted a party platform since 2011. It is probably for this reason that their platform makes no reference to firearms or "gun violence" (sic).  The only real item I could find is a 2013 press release supporting then President Obama's efforts at gun control post-Newtown including magazines bans and assault weapon (sic) bans.

I will have to assume that they will support the gun control platform of Stacey Abrams who is their nominee for governor.

As Governor, Stacey will:

1. Fight for common-sense gun reforms including universal background checks, repeal of campus carry, and extreme-risk protection orders
2. Support protections and services for victims of domestic violence
3. Invest in mental health services
4. Support community and hospital programs to stop the cycle of gun violence

Stacey’s Record:

1. Opposed legislation which required that guns confiscated in crimes be returned to the street
2. Opposed campus carry
3. Received only Ds and Fs from the National Rifle Association
4. Endorsed by Moms Demand Action and Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence

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.

Stag Arms May Not Be Leaving Connecticut

I stopped by the Stag Arms booth at the NRA Annual Meeting on Friday. Given that their CEO, Mark Malkowski, had previously said they were leaving Connecticut and that the choice had come down to either the Houston area or Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, I wanted to find out if there had been any movement on that. Of course, I was hoping to hear Myrtle Beach.

If the company representative with whom I spoke is correct, there won't be any movement. As in, they have decided to stay in Connecticut. He said they have four facilities in the New Britain area and they have decided it will be too expensive to move. The irony of this situation is that the firearms they manufacture can't be sold in that state.

I should caution that this didn't come from Mark Malkowski but rather from a representative at their booth. I will be following up with an email to the company to get confirmation.

Shew V. Malloy Will Be Appealed

On Thursday, Senior US District Court Judge Albert V. Covello ruled that despite being "in common use" the State of Connecticut could impose an assault weapons (sic) and magazine ban. This ban had been challenged by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League in the case of Shew et al v. Malloy et al. Today the CCDL announced that a formal notice of an intention to appeal had been filed.

From their release:

HARTFORD - Just one day after receiving an adverse ruling from the lower federal court on their Second Amendment challenge to Connecticut’s new firearms law, the plaintiff-firearms owners and organizations filed a formal notice of their intention to appeal the ruling. In addition to following the U.S. Supreme Court precedents in the renowned cases of Heller and MacDonald, the lower federal court deciding the case was bound to follow recent precedents of the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. To date, the Second Circuit has upheld laws that place greater restrictions on the right to bear arms than have courts in federal circuits in other parts of the country. It is these diverging views of the Second Amendment on issues that were not resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and MacDonald that make it likely that the Supreme Court will decide to hear one or more Second Amendment cases in the next few years.

Although the legal conclusions did not go their way at this initial stage of the litigation, the lower court did make factual findings that gun owners view as favorable. For example, the court found that certain of the newly banned firearms, such as the popular AR-15, are in “ common use ” for lawful purposes throughout the nation. The AR-15 type modern sporting rifle, which is newly classified as an “ assault weapon ” under the legislation, is the leading type of firearm used in national shooting matches and in other competitions sponsored by the congressionally established Civilian Marksmanship Program. The court also found that banning such commonly used firearms places a “substantial burden” on fundamental Second Amendment rights.

 The photo below was posted on their blog announcing that they planned to appeal the decision. I think they have it right.

A Loss In Connecticut

Senior District Court Judge Alfred V. Covello ruled in favor of the State of Connecticut in upholding their assault weapons ban and other restrictions. The case, Shew et al v. Malloy et al, was brought by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and others challenging the law enacted after the Newtown shootings.

Gun control advocates were buoyed Thursday by a federal court decision in Hartford that upholds Connecticut's toughest-in-the-nation assault weapons ban, calling it a constitutionally valid means of balancing gun rights and the government's interest in reducing gun violence.

"The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional," senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello wrote in a decision published late Thursday. "While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."

Just quickly glancing over the opinion that can be found here, it appears that Judge Covello used intermediate scrutiny to decide in favor of Connecticut and relied upon the 2nd Circuit's ruling in Kachalsky v. Cacace.

From the article in the Hartford Courant, it appears that Judge Covello bought into much of the anti-gun nonsense that Connecticut used to defend the law.

Covello, agreeing with the plaintiffs, concluded that the weapons and magazines are commonly owned and legally used in Connecticut and elsewhere. But he parted company with the plaintiffs when he wrote that the state's ownership and sales ban is justified when the government's goal of reducing violence is measured against the ban's impingement on Second Amendment rights.

The Second Amendment rights of gun owners are adequately protected by the large number of alternate weapons that can be used for protection, hunting and sports events, he wrote.

On several occasions, Covello adopted the state's arguments that assault weapons are designed, not for cosmetic purposes, but for "lethality." And he referred to an affidavit by a state expert who asserted that "Connecticut's bans on assault weapons and large capacity magazines, and particularly its ban on (large capacity magazines), have the potential to prevent and limit shootings in the state over the long run."

Covello was appointed to the bench for the District of Connecticut by Pres. George H. W. Bush in 1992.

NSSF's Lawsuit Against Connecticut's SB 1160 Dismissed

Chief District Court Judge Janet Hall dismissed the National Shooting Sports Foundation's lawsuit which sought an injunction against Connecticut's new gun control law on Monday. Hall, a Clinton appointee, dismissed the case under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Procedure which states that a plaintiff must have standing to bring a case. She agreed with the State of Connecticut's claim that the NSSF did not have standing to challenge SB 1160.

The case which was brought in July of this year sought to have Connecticut's draconian gun control law - SB 1160 - invalidated because the state did not follow its own legislative rules when it claimed an "emergency certification" exemption. Normally a bill in Connecticut must be available to be read by state legislators for two legislative days before it can be voted upon. An exemption can be granted in emergency situations if the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tem certify in writing the necessity for the emergency exemption along with the supporting facts. In this case while they did certify the emergency they failed to state any facts to support their certification. (See items 18 through 33 in the plaintiff's complaint.)

Judge Hall states that the NSSF would have standing to challenge the gun control law's impact on its members but not to challenge the defects in the legislative process that led to the bill being passed. She found that the NSSF's complaint was a "generally available grievance against government" which other courts have found not to confer standing.

Here, the claimed pecuniary injury make s NSSF a proper party to challenge gun control legislation. That injury, however, does not make NSSF — or any other member of the public aggrieved only incidentally by procedurally defective legislation — into a proper party to challenge the defects in legislative process.

Judge Hall goes on to say:

Because the pecuniary injury asserted as the basis for NSSF‟s standing is unrelated to the rights of democratic participation in the legislative process that NSSF seeks to vindicate, the court lacks the authority to adjudicate the claims put forward in this case . Accordingly, the case must be dismissed for lack of standing.

She concludes by granting the state's motion to dismiss and by stating that based upon the NSSF's written and oral pleadings that they "would be unable to replead to satisfy the standing requirement."

The NSSF is reportedly studying the decision and weighing its options.

So Freaked Out By Open Carry That He Gets Arrested

I'm neither a proponent nor opponent of open carry. I don't tend to do it because I want to keep the bad guys guessing. That said, if you want to open carry that is your option. If you do, I promise I won't be like Robert Gursky of Glastonbury, Connecticut.

According to this story in the Hartford Courant, Mr. Gursky was so freaked out by a gentleman legally open carrying at his local bank that he slid the teller a note that said "gun". The teller did what he or she was trained to do - they hit the silent bank robbery alarm.

Mr. Gursky was arrested for breach of peace and has to appear in court next week. And the man open carrying? He was interviewed by the cops who determined that he possessed his firearm legally and that was that.

There is something to be said for poetic justice.




H/T BearingArms.com

NSSF Sues Connecticut Officials In Federal Court

The National Shooting Sports Foundation filed suit today in US District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that Connecticut leaders led by Gov. Dannel Malloy (D-CT) misused the emergency certification exception in order to pass gun control. The lawsuit contends the use of the emergency certification exception was invalid as it violated both Connecticut state statutes and the Connecticut Constitution. Moreover, they contend the action violated due process protections under both the Connecticut and the US Constitution. They are seeking to have SB 1160 declared void and unconstitutional and to enjoin the state and its officers from enforcing the provisions of SB 1160.

The NSSF is represented in this case by the Renzulli Law Firm and their own General Counsel Lawrence Keane.

The release from the NSSF regarding the case is below along with links to the complaint.

Firearms Industry Files Suit Alleging Process Used to Pass Gun Regulations Violated Connecticut Statutes and Constitution

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry, today filed suit in federal court for the District of Connecticut alleging that Gov. Dannel Malloy and the leadership of the Connecticut General Assembly misused the so-called "emergency certification" exception to circumvent the safeguards of the normal legislative process and in violation of Connecticut statutory law in order to pass Senate Bill 1160, a package of strict gun-control regulations.

The suit further alleges that enactment of the new law violates fundamental due process rights guaranteed by both the Connecticut and United States Constitutions. NSSF is asking the court to declare the law invalid and issue an injunction prohibiting its enforcement.

"A 139-page bill was assembled behind closed doors, bypassing both the public hearing and committee processes, and quickly sent to floor votes on the same day in both the House and Senate where legislators did not have adequate time to even read the bill. The governor then signed the package into law the next day. All of this is in violation of guarantees citizens are supposed to have under Connecticut State Statutes and protections in our State and U.S. Constitutions for which our forefathers fought," said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel, NSSF. "Our suit focuses on this abuse of process that has resulted in enacted law that does nothing to improve public safety, while resulting in adverse effects on law-abiding citizens, manufacturers, retailers and sportsmen's organizations."

The filing can be accessed at http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/NSSFComplaint-FILED_070813.pdf.

The Connecticut Law Tribune recently editorialized on this topic. That editorial can be accessed at http://ctlawtribune.com/PubArticleCT.jsp?id=1202608974608

CT Gov. Malloy Continues War Against Gun Owners

Peter Kuck is the longest serving - and most pro-gun - member of the Connecticut's Board of Firearms Permit Examiners. This board reviews denials of pistol permits by local police chiefs. It is Mr. Kuck's pro-gun rights stance which has made him a target of Gov. Dannel Malloy (D-CT) who it appears is trying to oust him from the board. Members of the board serve a term coterminous with the governor who appointed them and Mr. Kuck's appointment is now considered terminated.

"This is a continuing attempt to put their thumbs on the balance of justice," Kuck said after learning that Malloy was seeking nominees to succeed him on the board that hears appeals from residents who are denied pistol permits or whose permits are revoked.

Andrew Doba, a spokesman for Malloy, said Kuck's spot on the board is not the only one on the governor's radar. "We are currently reviewing all of the expired terms on the board," Doba said. "The governor has made no secret of his efforts to improve public safety. Clearly, his work on the gun violence prevention bill was a huge step forward. But making sure the spirit of that law is reflected in the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners must be a part of that effort as well."

Kuck's record on the board — he votes to overturn local police chiefs and grant pistol permits more consistently than any other board member — was the subject of a story last week in The Courant. The following day, Malloy sent a letter to the group that nominated Kuck.

The Hartford Courant story about Mr. Kuck from last week can be found here.

There are seven members of the board which is appointed by the governor. However, the law creating the board specifies that certain organizations such as the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, the Connecticut State Rifle and Pistol Association, and Ye Connecticut Gun Guild are given representation on the board. These organizations submit nominations to the governor's office for appointment. Mr. Kuck is the representative of Ye Connecticut Gun Guild and is their treasurer. Representation of different constituencies is meant to provide a variety of perspectives to the board.

Malloy's efforts to oust Kuck have angered gun rights groups in the state.

"This is yet again a brazen attack on the rights of the people of Connecticut," Rich Burgess, president of Connecticut Carry, said in a statement. "Governor Malloy is simply not satisfied with his overreaching and unconstitutional gun ban implemented in April. Now he is using alternative means to try and remove rights from law abiding people by denigrating a good man."

The last time Ye Connecticut Gun Guild was asked to submit names for the board they submitted one name. It was that of Mr. Kuck and they are expected to do the same again.

PTR Industries Moving To The Beach

It is a study in contrasts.

On the one hand you have Horry County, South Carolina and on the other is the state of Connecticut. The former offers a warm welcome, tax incentives, a nice climate, great beaches nearby, and a political community including Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC) who not only are pro-gun but actually want you and your products in their state.

The latter has passed laws that has outlawed the sale of your only product in that state, has cold and dreary winters, a higher cost of living, and has a governor in Daniel Molloy (D-CT) who considers you the devil incarnate.

Given this, it is isn't surprising that PTR Industries has chosen Horry County over Connecticut. It was announced yesterday at a meeting of the Horry County Council that they would be moving to the town of Aynor.

From the Hartford Courant:

The company — which said two months ago that it would be relocating once it found a suitable location "friendly to the industry" — will move to Aynor, S.C., near Myrtle Beach, said John McNamara, vice president of sales at PTR.

The gun manufacturer, with about 45 employees, was the first firm to announce its exit from the state following recent gun control legislation. Many of PTR's employees agreed to the move and even held an informal vote choosing South Carolina over other states.

PTR currently has 45 employees at its plant in Bristol, Connecticut. They estimate that 24 of those employees will make the move to South Carolina. According to the Myrtle Beach Sun News, PTR has committed to increase their workforce to 80 by the end of the first year and to 145 employees by the end of 2016. This means the majority of the company's employees will come from the local Horry County workforce.

According to my conversations with PTR representatives at the NRA Annual Meeting, they have been growing rapidly. Their current workforce is double what is was a year ago.

Some details of the agreement between Horry County and PTR Industries still remain undecided, including the amount of a fee in lieu of taxes the county will agree to and the millage rate at which the company’s equipment and other personal property will be taxed.

Those details will be included in actions Horry County Council must now take to solidify the agreement. The council will have to take three votes on the agreement, one of which will include a public hearing.

The county, state and Horry Electric Cooperative will fund upgrades to the shell building where the company will move, but those costs will be repaid by the company during the first two years of its lease of the building. It will pay the county $300,000 annually for the next nine years to lease the building, after which the county will deed it to PTR.

Lofton said the company wants a building that can be expanded. The shell building now has 58,000 square feet but can be expanded to 100,000 square feet, he said.

The company will invest $3 million in the building and has committed to an additional $5 million investment, including the cost of equipment, according to the agreement in the resolution.

If PTR doesn’t meet the benchmarks in the agreement, it will be responsible for the full amount of taxes, including that from state tax credits for job creation, that it would have paid without the agreement.

And it looks like PTR is not the only Connecticut firearms manufacturer looking at Horry County.  Both the Hartford Courant and the Myrtle Beach Sun News are reporting that Stag Arms is also being courted by the county. Mark Malkowski, CEO of Stag Arms, is scheduled to visit the area next week.

This report by FoxCT details some of the effort by South Carolina officials to persuade Connecticut companies to relocate.

Those Connecticut Politicians Do Like Their Secret Bills

The draconian gun control bill that was shoved through the Connecticut legislature at the beginning of April was a product of secret negotiations between Gov. Daniel Molloy (D-CT) and both Democrat and Republican leaders in the Connecticut legislature. Now comes word that they are at it again but this time it deals with the release of records relating to the school shooting in Newtown last December.

The staffs of the state's top prosecutor and the governor's office have been working in secret with General Assembly leaders on legislation to withhold records related to the police investigation into the Dec. 14 Newtown elementary school massacre — including victims' photos, tapes of 911 calls, and possibly more.

The behind-the-scenes legislative effort came to light Tuesday when The Courant obtained a copy of an email by a top assistant to Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane, Timothy J. Sugrue. Sugrue, an assistant state's attorney, discussed options considered so far, including blocking release of statements "made by a minor."

"There is complete agreement regarding photos etc., and audio tapes, although the act may allow the disclosure of audio transcripts," Sugrue wrote to Kane, two other Kane subordinates and to Danbury State's Attorney Stephen Sedensky, who is directing the investigation of the killings.

The bill that's being crafted has not been handled under routine legislative procedures — it hasn't gone through the committee process, which includes a public hearing, for example. Sugrue's email Tuesday indicated that a draft of the bill was being worked on by leaders in both the House and Senate, and might be ready as soon as the end of the day. Sign Up For Traffic Text Alerts

He wrote: "I just received a call from Natalie Wagner" — a member of the legal counsel's staff in the office of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.

"She believes that draft language will be forthcoming today (the work of both houses) in the form of a special act. ..." Sugrue wrote that Wagner "will send me the draft in confidence when she receives it, and I will immediately forward it."

I have to admit that I'm getting more than a little tired of the Newtown parents being trotted out every time someone wants to pass either a new gun control law or, as it seems now, a restriction of the freedom of information. I feel for those parents and can understand their grief. However, since they have now achieved sainthood in the eyes of some, can't we just give them their golden halos and say enough is enough.

The First Firearms Company Announces Departure From CT

PTR Industries, maker of the HK clone PTR-91, announced today that they will be leaving Bristol, Connecticut by the end of the year due to Bill No. 1160. They are still evaluating offers from other states who, in their good wisdom, want a company like PTR in their state.

In my speculation as to who would be leaving first, I should put them up higher on the list than Stag Arms or ASC. Given that all of PTR's firearms will now be banned in the state, they were one of the strongest candidates.

From their release:

A STATEMENT CONCERNING MANUFACTURING ENCOURAGEMENT, ECONOMIC GROWTH, AND PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.

- This past week an historic and highly controversial bill was passed by the State of Connecticut which will have far reaching consequences to the state, its citizens, and businesses. The bill we refer to is Bill No. 1160, AN ACT CONCERNING GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND CHILDRENS SAFETY. This bill purports to reduce gun violence by banning hardware responsible for less than 3% of homicides in 2011 ; and claims to increase children’s safety by restricting the ability of those most responsible for it – their parents – to defend them.

- As a firearms manufacturing firm, our industrial roots reach deep in the State of CT. Along with other companies in the trade, we were deeply apprehensive at the hurried process to develop new gun laws and fearful that it would generate unintended consequences for our industry. On Thursday April 4th 2013, upon reading the full text of Bill 1160, our worst fears were confirmed. What emerged was a bill fraught with ambiguous definitions, insufficient considerations for the trade, conflicting mandates, and disastrous consequences for the fundamental rights of the people of CT.

- The magnitude of the constitutional and economic importance of this bill is such that the disregard for public input (in the final version), and the haphazard production of the legislation should be insulting to any citizen or business in CT. It should be a shock to us all that such landmark legislation could be written in one week, and seen by no one (including the rank-and-file legislators) prior to its emergency certification. Having been present in the deliberations in both legislative chambers, it was clear that a majority of our legislators had not even read the bill – and those that had read it had only a cursory understanding.

- The process with which this legislation proceeded, along with the language that resulted gives us no confidence that this will be the last violation of our rights in our beloved home state, and we only hope that this does not set a precedent at a national level.

- The rights of the citizens of CT have been trampled upon. The safety of its children is at best questionably improved from the day of the tragedy that triggered the events that lead us here. Finally, due to an improperly drafted bill, manufacturing of modern sporting rifles in the State of CT has been effectively outlawed. With a heavy heart but a clear mind, we have been forced to decide that our business can no longer survive in Connecticut – the former Constitution state.

- Furthermore, we feel that our industry as a whole will continue to be threatened so long as it remains in a state where its elected leaders have no regard for the rights of those who produce and manufacture its wealth. We are making a call to all involved in our industry to leave this state, close your doors and show our politicians the true consequences of their hasty and uninformed actions. We encourage those in our industry to abandon this state as its leaders have abandoned the proud heritage that forged our freedom.

- Although PTR has not decided upon a specific relocation site at this time, over the coming weeks the company will be actively considering offers from states that are friendly to the industry. We hope to have a site identified within the next six weeks, and hope to have our move completed by the end of this year. We plan to keep our business partners informed on the status of our move throughout this process in order to affect a smooth transition.

- We have extended the invitation to join us in the move to all of our employees, as well as all of our vendors. We are pleased to say that we currently have commitments to move from a majority of our employees, which includes ALL of our management personnel, engineering staff and skilled gunsmiths.

- It is our hope and sincere belief that this move will represent a step forward for the company; and that by bringing our expertise and core personnel to combine with the business friendly policies, and a motivated local labor force from a state that respects industry and the second amendment that we can expand our operations and not only maintain – but increase the quality and reputation of our products.

- Please direct any questions or inquiries to John McNamara, Vice President of Sales, at john@ptr91.com or at our main phone number.
__________________________________________________
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

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. 

Who Will Be The First To Leave?

Now that both Maryland and Connecticut have passed their draconian gun control acts, the question becomes who among the gun manufacturers in those two states will be the first to relocate.

On Thursday, there was an article in Opposing Views suggesting that Beretta USA had announced their departure from Maryland. However, if you read the article closely, this is incorrect. What Beretta actually said was that they would have to leave if the gun control legislation was passed. They have not yet made a formal announcement that they were moving their operations out of Maryland. I'm sure that probably will happen but it hasn't happened yet.

So that leaves the question who will be first. Moreover, where will they move.

Both states have a number of well-known firearms manufacturers: Beretta, Colt, Ruger, and Mossberg. However, to get a better feel for the companies involved in firearms manufacturing in both states, I went to the ATF list of Federal Firearms Licensees. I pulled the 07 FFLs - manufacturers of firearms other than destructive devices - and 10 FFLs - manufacturers of destructive devices for each state. It should be noted that some of the firearms "manufacturers" in each state either make components or are actually gunsmiths doing custom work.

Maryland and Connecticut each have five manufacturers of destructive devices including big companies such as Beretta, Colt Defense, Colt's Manufacturing, and  defense contractor Mistral Group. Under the listing for ordinary firearms manufacturers, Connecticut has 121 companies listed while Maryland has 105 companies listed. Below is a list by state of some of the true manufacturers as opposed to either gunsmiths or those providing ancillary services such as CNC milling or specialty coatings.

Maryland

• Beretta USA
• Fulton Armory
• LWRC International
• Thomas Ferney Shotguns (high end double shotguns)
• Adcor Defense
• TommyBuilt Tactical (H&K conversions)

Connecticut

• Colt's Manufacturing
• PTR Industries (HK clone PTR-91)
• Okay Industries (magazines, receivers, components)
• Continental Machine Tool (receivers and components)
• Stag Arms
• ASC (magazines)
• Connecticut Shotgun Manufacturing (high end double shotguns)
• Ruger
• P3LLC (custom pistols)
• US Firearms Zip Factory
• O.F. Mossberg
• Charter Arms
• Wildey

When discussing who will leave and who won't, we need to keep a number of things in mind. First, you don't just relocate a plant of any kind at the drop of a hat. Second, the companies involved have ties to their community and region going back generations. Third, very few, if any, of the manufacturers do everything and must depend upon local subcontractors to perform certain operations. Fourth, the companies would be losing a well trained workforce if they moved and their employees did not also relocate. Finally, with the firearm industry being heavily regulated, there would be immense amounts of red-tape involved in moving to a new state.

Dan Haar of the Hartford Courant looks at the issue in an article published yesterday entitled, "Gun Industry Dilemma: Should I Stay Or Should I Go Now?" He notes the issue for some of these companies is not just having to move family but the consumer backlash on their companies if they don't.

Scalise (of ASC) badly wants to stay in Connecticut, where he and his wife have four children ages 5 to 12. So does Mark Malkowski, owner of Stag Arms a few hundred yards away in New Britain, and the executives at O.F. Mossberg & Sons and Colt's Manufacturing Co. — all of them makers of the now banned military-style rifles at the heart of the law.

The trouble is not the direct effects of the ban — they're allowed to continue manufacturing, and each firm will lose a few percentage points of their sales — but rather, the companies' standing in an industry where customers famously punish certain brands.

The companies have been receiving thousands of emails from both current and future customers urging them to move. Some have indicated they will purchase from other companies if, for example, Stag Arms, stays in Connecticut. Moreover, industrial recruiters from more gun friendly states have been offering incentives to the companies to move. Whether they will move lock, stock, and barrel or move some of the production to plants in other states is the question.

Haar believes that the majority will attempt to grow production at plants outside of the state while still having some operations in Connecticut. He notes that Mossberg has a plant in Texas. It should also be remembered that Colt opened a new factory in Osceola County, Florida in 2011. Likewise, in Maryland, Beretta has some operations in Virginia.

Having established metal fabricating and finishing companies in a state would be a definite plus in attracting any firearm company to relocate. You would tend to find many of these co-located with the automotive and aircraft industries. Thus, you could see companies moving to the Upstate of South Carolina due to BMW, to Alabama due to Mercedes, to Tennessee due to Nissan, or Kentucky due to Toyota. Likewise, you could see a company relocating to the Wichita, KS area with its aircraft industry. All of these locations are in gun friendly states with strong industrial development recruiting departments.

So who would be first to go? In terms of ease of relocating, Ruger would be at the top of the list. Their manufacturing operations are in New Hampshire and Arizona. The only operations they have in Connecticut are their corporate offices.

The next on my list would be either ASC or Stag Arms. ASC is actively considering it.

Scalise, his accountant, lawyer and a few industry colleagues are looking into a move to a friendlier state. And it's not just ASC, a New Britain business with 100 employees, that might pull up stakes. Scalise's other company in New Britain, Marsam Metal Finishing, and at least one other firm in the firearms industry are part of the joint plan.

In all, more than 300 people would lose their jobs or be forced to move to a locale like Arkansas, South Dakota, Kansas or Texas, to name just four states that are wooing Scalise with tax breaks, cheap labor and a government that has open arms for arms-makers.

"We're doing a due diligence analysis state-by-state," Scalise said.

Mark Malkowski of Stag is also considering moving.

Mark Malkowski, the 34-year-old founder of Stag Arms, said he grew up in New Britain, where the company is based, and had never before considered leaving the state. But he said he would consider it now.

“If our product is so bad, so dangerous, why would the state of Connecticut want us to produce it here, create jobs here, manufacture it here and ship it to all the other states?” he said.

You would also have to put Beretta up high on the list given their past statements.

As to the others, I foresee that they will move more and more operations out of state as time goes by.  While they all can "export" their products for now, you have to wonder how long the state will even allow that.

This all leaves one more entity to consider - the National Shooting Sports Foundation. It is hard for me to see just how long they can remain in Connecticut and not be considered to be tacitly endorsing the Connecticut gun control laws by staying.

NSSF On Passage Of Connecticut Legislation

The National Shooting Sports Foundation based in Newtown, Connecticut released the following statement yesterday regarding the passage of that state's new gun control law. I think the most important part of their statement is the last sentence which says they are studying it for possible legal challenges.

I think this will be a given and not a possibility. The only question will be which gun rights organization files first.

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry, issued the following statement today:

Gov. Dannel Malloy today signed into law a package of gun-control legislation that was assembled in secret by a small group of state legislators and that never received a public hearing. Most legislators had little time to even read the actual bill language.

The unfortunate results of this process, which made it appear that all points of view were being heard when in fact true expertise was shut out when it was most needed, means that mistakes in what is now enacted law will have to be corrected.

For example, language in the new law specifies a procedure for licensed firearms retailers to perform mandatory "universal" background checks on private party transactions that is not permissible based on federal law and regulations governing the National Instant Criminal Background Checks (NICS) system. As we read it, this mistake in lawmaking means that all private party transactions in the state now cannot be accomplished legally.

We share the goal of wanting to make Connecticut safer for our citizens following the unspeakable tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. In the end, however, public safety has not been enhanced and the unintended consequences of behind-closed-doors lawmaking will cause considerable confusion until the General Assembly corrects its mistakes.

Here is where we stand today. Law-abiding citizens of this state now have greater restrictions on their Second Amendment and state constitutional rights while Connecticut's firearms manufacturers will be forced to seriously weigh the impact on their businesses and their employees of the state's double-standard of you can build it here, but not sell it here, public policy formulation.

We will be carefully studying all provisions of the law for possible challenge in the courts.

A Special Kind Of Arrogance

I can't say anything more about Connecticut's infamous Bill No. 1160 which was rammed through the General Assembly as emergency legislation than has already been said. 

That said, it takes a special kind of arrogance still to proclaim this on the State of Connecticut's official "About Connecticut" webpage:

Connecticut is often described as the "Arsenal of the Nation." It gained this reputation as early as the American Revolution. Early in the 19th century, Eli Whitney and Simeon North began making Connecticut firearms with interchangeable parts. This is generally recognized as the beginning of modern mass production.

Then there is there that other thing Connecticut likes to call itself - The Constitution State.

Only in their (lost) dreams.

Hartford Courant On The AR-15 And CT's Gun Companies

The cover of today's Hartford Courant featured the following headline - "America's Rifle": Factories Boom. Under the title the subtitle read, "As Debate Goes On, State Gun-Makers Cash In On Popular AR-15."

Reporter Dan Haar of the Courant had two stories regarding the AR-15 and the role that Connecticut gun makers have in producing it. Both stories were well-balanced and fair. While the Violence Policy Center and Josh Sugarmann got quoted, so too did the heads of Colt, Stag Arms, and Mossberg.

The first story concentrated on the investments that Connecticut firearms manufacturers have made in upgrading plant and equipment. Combined the companies have spent well over $50 million in upgrading their plants with most of the investment going towards making the AR-15. Given that investment, the head of Mossberg agreed that it would be hard to up and leave the state even if they couldn't sell rifles there. That said, the crap they are getting from their own legislators doesn't give them a warm and cozy feeling.

Echoing other local owners and executives, Bartozzi said Mossberg would never threaten to pick up and leave if Connecticut were to adopt a strict ban. "That is not our style," he said, and besides, he added, it's not only a history the company has in Connecticut but more to the point, a skilled and loyal workforce.

"It is damn hard to move a factory," he said.

On the other hand, Bartozzi said, "To say that Mossberg is not looking at other options would be wrong. ... I'm not feeling a lot of love from many of our legislators. It's getting tiring. It really is getting tiring. ... It takes a lot out of you."

Mossberg, with a factory of similar size in Texas, has had active talks with officials from Southern states trying to drive a wedge between the firm and its home state. All of the firms have similar stories.

 The second story by Haar looked at the history of the AR-15 and its rise in popularity. He did a good job of examining the versatility of the AR as contrasted to its "military cosmetics". The article did an excellent job in looking at the development of the AR-15 by ArmaLite which was an offshoot from Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corp., the role of Colt in licensing the design, and how other companies entered the field.

I don't normally say good things about the mainstream media but in this case, the Hartford Courant and Dan Haar, did an excellent job. Just as importantly, they played it straight and they got their facts right.

To Paraphrase, It's Jobs, Stupid

The National Shooting Sports Foundation held a series of interviews with managers and workers of a number of Connecticut firearms and firearms accessory manufacturers recently. As the Connecticut legislature looks at a number of draconian gun control laws in the wake of the Newtown shootings, this video puts a human face on the workers of the Connecticut gun industry.

The interviews are with the leaders and employees of O.F. Mossberg, Stag Arms, and magazine maker Ammunition Storage Components.

To paraphrase political strategist James Carville, it's jobs, stupid. While the jobs may not disappear overnight as it is hard to transfer operations to other locations, if these laws pass, I think you will see more and more of their operations being moved to more gun-friendly states. Indeed, industrial recruiters from such states are already hovering.

Hear, Hear, Mr. Ong!

Henson Ong is an immigrant to the United States. Yesterday he testified before the Connecticut legislature's Gun Violence Prevention Public Hearing. Listening to his testimony, it quickly becomes evident that Mr. Ong has a better understanding of and a better appreciation for the Constitution than many sitting on the panel. He certainly has more of an appreciation for it than do those in the gun prohibitionist community who would seek to do away with the Second Amendment and to deny First Amendment rights to their opponents.

As Mr. Ong noted to the panel, if gun control actually worked, then Chicago and Washington, DC would be the safest cities in America - which they aren't.