Goodbye Colorado

[KeithKSR]

Magpul makes good on promise to leave Colorado: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/21/gunmaker-packs-up-after-colo-control-bill-signed/

[dan_bgblue]

Based on the stance taken by many hunting groups, the high mountain hunting will fall off to almost nothing in Colorado. I feel sorry for the guides and the trip packaging companies but I do not feel sorry for the voters that put these legislators in office.

[CitizenBBN]

Based on the stance taken by many hunting groups, the high mountain hunting will fall off to almost nothing in Colorado. I feel sorry for the guides and the trip packaging companies but I do not feel sorry for the voters that put these legislators in office.

It's the displaced Cali skiers and Denverites that have done it, along with millions from Bloomberg. I have a feeling some of these legislators are going to pay for their vote on this one, certainly any whose constituency isn't in one of those groups. I remember true Colorado folk complaining about the coastal Cali influx going back to the 80s. There's a great story from the 90s about a local who shot paint at canvases from shotguns and sold it for thousands each, laughing at them all the way to the bank.

I feel bad for that industry though, b/c I agree they'll take a huge hit. People will go anywhere else first. As everyone knows, gun owners are a very "close ranks" group, never more so than now. Magpul set the tone for Colorado, everyone will follow suit.

[CatinIL]

Colorado is pretty much become a drive-thru state for me when I go on vacation out west. I've gone to CO for vacation every few years for the past 30 years but that's pretty much ending. Utah & Wyomying are the areas that we focus on now. The CA exodus to CO is killing towns like Durango and already killed Aspen/Denver/Boulder.

I'm afraid Texas may be the next area that CA residents start assimilating.

[suncat05]

Different breed of people down in Texas though. Very independent and they are not big on outsiders telling them what to do.
Everybody I have met that hails from Texas have been good folks.

[CatinIL]

I hope TX stayes that way suncat!

[Catonahottinroof]

Different breed of people down in Texas though. Very independent and they are not big on outsiders telling them what to do.
Everybody I have met that hails from Texas have been good folks.

Except for Austin where a real leftist element exists.

[CitizenBBN]

Next shoe falling. NSSF just let me know Hiviz Shooting systems, they make sights, is leaving.

HiViz Shooting Systems Announces Relocation Plans

April 1, 2013, Fort Collins, CO—HiViz Shooting Systems (a division of North Pass Ltd.), announces plans to relocate operations out of the state of Colorado due to recent changes in Colorado state gun control legislation. HiViz President and CEO Phillip Howe, states that talks are currently under way with officials of a neighboring state regarding the move.

Mr. Howe comments, “I make this announcement with mixed emotions. Colorado is a beautiful state with great people, but we cannot in clear conscience support with our taxes a state that has proven through recent legislation a willingness to infringe upon the constitutional rights of our customer base.” Mr. Howe notes that prior to the changes in law in Colorado, he made several attempts to persuade state officials via emails and telephone calls to proceed slowly with gun control legislation that would impact individual shooters and the shooting industry as a whole.

Although the relocation will be expensive and time consuming, he adds, “It is in the best interest of our company and our customers.” Starting with corporate headquarters, the operations will be moved over an extended period of time ensuring no interruption of services to its customer base, and HiViz states that the majority of its employees will make the move with the corporate operations. More details regarding the location and timing of the relocation will be announced as details are finalized.

HiViz Shooting Systems manufactures light-gathering sights, recoil pads and accessories for the shooting industry.



IDPA also canceling a 3 day regional championship even there, with over 300 shooters from the western states. This release also says a producer with the Outdoor channel will cease production of four shows in Colorado. I'm sure they'll just produce them elsewhere, but they're leaving Colorado.

http://www.idpa.com/blog/post/2013/04/01/Colorado-Shooting-Competition-Canceled-In-Wake-Of-New-Gun-Control-Laws.aspx

[suncat05]

I heard on Fox News radio yesterday that Connecticut is also probably signing into law basically the same laws that Colorado has just enacted.
Got to believe that Colt and other related businesses may be actively looking for more business friendly & 2nd Amendment supporting places to do business as well.

It certainly appears that the battle lines are becoming much more clearly defined in this fight. I am all for the firearms/ammunition manufacturers refusing to do business with ANY federal, state, county or municipal agencies that reside in States that refuse to respect our 2nd Amendment rights. Boycott ALL of these places and make them pay for their crimes against their citizens, because in essence that's what these laws are, crimes against their law abiding citizens and in direct violation of the Constitution.

[CitizenBBN]

Suncat, that's correct re Connecticut. I'm a NSSF member and they've been very active there on this issue. The NRA really isn't the industry rep organization at all, it's NSSF, and with Colt and Mossberg and others there they've been very involved. They've run ads there, lobbied, etc.

Colt has already announced through an editorial they won't feel very welcome if this passes, and they've all definitely alluded to the option of Connecticut losing the gun industry despite being the birthplace of the American firearms industry. Given the standard being set by the industry in Colorado I'm not sure they would have much choice. Many gun buyers will start to see staying in these states as a breaking of ranks, and will see leaving as a huge positive.

It's going to be like Ford when they didn't take bailout money. I went car shopping not too long thereafter and the sales guy at Ford said 90% of people who walked on the lot mentioned it. If Colt or Mossberg leave they get the same goodwill. Magpul will no doubt benefit by leaving even with the moving costs, as their owner has said. Stay and they get hurt, leave and they benefit. Not exactly brain surgery.

it's very interesting to me as well how clear the lines are being drawn. So far companies like Bushmaster have lived in states that are generally anti-gun, we've never seen this kind of state by state stand by the industry. Now everyone is picking sides and digging in. The differences are more clear than ever.

I'm also very interested in your support of a boycott of governments that pass these laws given your profession. The companies like Magpul that have started down that road have all had very mixed feelings b/c they dont' want to hurt the individual LEOs who are gun rights supporters and in any way risk their lives, but they want to do what they can as a company to stand against these laws. I can see their dilemma. Do you think most LEOs who are pro 2nd Amendment are supportive of such boycotts?

[suncat05]

Citizen, in the many conversations that I have had with fellow officers either within my agency or outside of it, I have not had one say anything negative about any of the for-profit companies. And yes, to a man(or woman, as the case may be)everyone I have spoken to agree that any fiscally driven boycott should be used against the governments that are determined to participate in violating the Constitution and rights of others.
To me, this is a clear case of a smaller government entity breaking ranks from Constitutional law and violating the 2nd Amendment rights of the citizens they're supposed to be protecting. So, in turn, if they violate the rights of their citizens they must expect some sort of punitive response, which would be to deprive them of any financial gain that we possibly can.

Now, let's divvy up the goodies: Kentucky can have Mossberg, & Florida will gladly take Colt.

[jazyd]

Back when I was a sales rep in the hunting industry we had a trade show in Denver every year in Nov for all the gun distributors, where the mfgs would set up booths and show new products and programs to the distributors all over the country. Not sure they still have it there but if they do I am sure they will pull out.

[CitizenBBN]

Thanks suncat. I'm glad they see that we're all trying to stand together in this, and like Magpul I really am torn about how to handle it. Every responsible gun owner (i.e. those who legitimately own guns and not the criminals who may have one) want LEOs as well armed as humanly possible, we're all on the side of stopping criminals, but they also believe the 2nd Amendment is there to keep the government's ability to use force in check which requires private citizens to at least be reasonably well armed compared to the state. Two things that can push against each other b/c the theoretically armed "state" is in fact the nation's LEOs, who are not running around oppressing people. So by not arming the "state" we are potentially not arming guys who are on our side.

Magpul was very honest about the catch-22, which I respect a great deal. one thing about that guy, he's not a BS marketing dude. He's a straight shooting vet who says what he thinks. He admitted he had no great answer.


Now, re the spoils of this anti-gun zealot war. As I explained very nicely before, COLT IS MINE!!!! :sign0141: I'd be fine with Mossberg moving to Lexington. Boy would I be fine with it. :) On a slightly more serious note, one of Remington's two plants, which bought out Marlin and is part of Freedom Group, is in Mayfield Ky. Their customer support is in E-town I think. Their other plant is in New York. Would be a big get for Kentucky to have them move that 2nd facility's operations to Kentucky and that doesn't seem out of reach.

the one I really want the most? Ruger. I have huge admiration for their company and products. Not sure they've ever released a bad gun. the others have sometimes rushed one out that needed redoing. Ruger makes solid, reliable, reasonably priced guns. They aren't necessarily big innovators in market segments but they do have excellent designs for guns and make very well thought out ones when they introduce a product. I don't know where all their facilities are but the corp headquarters is Connecticut.

It really is a chance for Kentucky to become known for an industry. The state is gun friendly, and the state is small enough that an industry like this would be a huge feather in our hat. Florida is so big the relative change to the economy wouldn't be much, but in kentucky it would be a big boost. It's worth more to the state for them to go get it and offer the tax incentives to get it. We should be willing to outbid people, if we are smart enough to do it. Not holding my breath but were I Governor I'd be in Boulder or Hartford constantly, and I'd be sure to stop in Illinois and New York a lot too. Bushmaster could use a new home, they're in New York state.

[suncat05]

I agree wholeheartedly that it is an issue with tough lines to try to deliniate from. And while it is a difficult issue to solve, I think companies like Magpul & Colt can make their official stance known publically and still be supportive of law enforcement, although in places and at times it will painful for both. But that's a price that must be paid.
What is it we've been told by our forefathers? FREEDOM ISN'T FREE! There is a price for it and this is but one example of it.

[suncat05]

An additional thought on this: although this stance places law enforcement in places like Colorado in a bad place as far as procuring such equipment goes, this is what needs to happen to get those same agencies more forcefully involved in the legislative process.
I feel for them, but at the same time their voices need to be heard too. They need to be a big voice at the table.
Two other points not discussed that much: 1)I expect that there will be some recall efforts against some of these liberals who did this. I hope these efforts are successful and gets everyone's attention. 2)The Sheriffs of Colorado are not a bunch that you want to tangle with, nor take lightly. I expect that they'll collectively appeal these laws and until then will not enforce any laws that they believe to be unconstitutional. When the Sheriff of a county says "No, I will not do that!" you'd best pay attention and take note of where you went wrong.

[CitizenBBN]

I agree on the recalls and the general impact this may have on Colorado elections. Saw at least one activist say magpul was bluffing. Now that it's happened I wonder if that will impact any voter opinions. I don't follow it close enough to say, but I imagine any reps who went against their constituents on this one will pay for it. Bloombergs money won't save them.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[suncat05]

I just received an update from USA Today saying that Connecticut has passed the legislation and will send it to the governor to be signed sometime this morning. I saw it on my local news this morning too.
Shame on them. They're going to lose millions of dollars in state tax revenues when Colt & Mossberg bolt for better, greener pastures.
Of course, that famous old saying applies here: you just can't fix stupid!

[CitizenBBN]

They already had some of the toughest "assault weapons" legislation in the country and it clearly did no good. They think having even more is the solution?

Time for my "come to kentucky" email campaign.

[CitizenBBN]

NSSF statement on the Conn legislation follows. Note it requires universal checks using NICS through dealers, which NSSF notes is a violation of Federal law. NICS can only be used for background checks of guns being transferred by the dealer himself, and specifically prohibits being used for things like checking for some other guy in a private transfer. So as of now you can transfer a gun privately in Conn only if the dealer is willing to commit a felony for you.



NSSF Statement on Passage of ConnecticutLegislationNEWTOWN,Conn. -- The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade associationfor the firearms and ammunition industry, issued the following statement today:
Gov. DannelMalloy today signed into law a package of gun-control legislation that was assembledin secret by a small group of state legislators and that never received apublic hearing. Most legislators had little time to even read the actual billlanguage.
Theunfortunate results of this process, which made it appear that all points ofview were being heard when in fact true expertise was shut out when it was mostneeded, means that mistakes in what is now enacted law will have to becorrected.
For example,language in the new law specifies a procedure for licensed firearms retailersto perform mandatory "universal" background checks on private partytransactions that is not permissible based on federal law and regulationsgoverning the National Instant Criminal Background Checks (NICS) system. As weread it, this mistake in lawmaking means that all private party transactions inthe state now cannot be accomplished legally.
We share thegoal of wanting to make Connecticut safer for our citizens following theunspeakable tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. In the end, however,public safety has not been enhanced and the unintended consequences ofbehind-closed-doors lawmaking will cause considerable confusion until theGeneral Assembly corrects its mistakes.
Here iswhere we stand today. Law-abiding citizens of this state now have greaterrestrictions on their Second Amendment and state constitutional rights whileConnecticut's firearms manufacturers will be forced to seriously weigh theimpact on their businesses and their employees of the state's double-standardof you can build it here, but not sell it here, public policy formulation.
We will becarefully studying all provisions of the law for possible challenge in thecourts.

[suncat05]

I wonder how many moving trucks are being rented right now?

[CitizenBBN]

Governor Malloy of Connecticut went on CNN and ripped on the gun makers, saying:

“What this is about is the ability of the gun industry to sell as many guns to as many people as possible – even if they are deranged, even if they are mentally ill, even if they have a criminal background,” Malloy said. “They don’t care. They want to sell guns.”

There were other comments apparently. I didn't feel a need to look further. This after his commitment to bi-partisanship and working with the industry. It was all just a lie.

Can't help but encourage the industry to leave.

[KeithKSR]

The pat answer the manufacturers need to give critics who complain about refusal to sell to government organizations in pro gun control states is that their products are not needed since citizens no longer can own high capacity magazines and black guns.

[dan_bgblue]

Colorado sheriffs going to court (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/10/colorado-sheriffs-plan-lawsuit-challenging-state-gun-control-laws/)

[dan_bgblue]

Looks like we need a Goodbye Connecticut Thread (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/29/gun-manufacturers-start-leaving-states-that-passed-new-gun-control-laws/)

[CitizenBBN]

Looks like we need a Goodbye Connecticut Thread (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/29/gun-manufacturers-start-leaving-states-that-passed-new-gun-control-laws/)

They'll all leave. Just a matter of time now.

Texas is going after them hard. We're sitting around with our typical "can't do" attitude.

[KeithKSR]

They'll all leave. Just a matter of time now.

Texas is going after them hard. We're sitting around with our typical "can't do" attitude.

Kentucky would do well to pursue these companies. Our governor must be planning a run for a federal office and wants to pad his liberal resume.

[bigsky]

Illinois companies fleeing due to taxes, economy, regulations. Closer than CO.

[Catonahottinroof]

Illinois companies fleeing due to taxes, economy, regulations. Closer than CO.

My employer is headquartered in Illinois. I have to wonder if a move is being pondered.

[dan_bgblue]

Colorado Dems Face Recall Efforts (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/08/colorado-democratic-lawmakers-face-recall-efforts-for-votes-on-gun-control/)

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/18/colorado-sheriffs-sue-over-new-state-gun-restrictions/

[badrose]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/18/colorado-sheriffs-sue-over-new-state-gun-restrictions/

I saw that this morning, Dan. Hopefully their efforts don't fall on deaf ears.

[CitizenBBN]

THe lawsuit has been joined by NSSF and others. Their reason is the background checks.

The states that have required expanded background checks for private transactions have a huge problem: it's a felony for a dealer to use the background check system for anything other than their own gun sales. The only way to follow Colorado law (and other states like Conn) is for the dealer to "buy" the gun from the seller then "sell" it to the buyer. That means entering the gun into his records and assuming legal responsibility for it and maintaining all the paperwork.

Say he does this, despite the state capping the fee for this pain in the butt process at $10 or $20 (I forget which). He has to "buy" the gun before he can then initiate the "sale", right? So he buys it, then when selling it the guy is denied. Now does the dealer own the gun? Does he "have" to sell it back to the buyer? Did he buy it for $1 and risk the legal uncertainty of so obviously creating a false construct in order to use NICS for a private transfer? If he "bought" it he has to sell it back, does the fee cap apply? Does it apply to the "purchase"? What if the seller then is also denied (trust me, it happens)?

What the NSSF is arguing in that part of the suit is that the dealers will simply refuse to participate, and several dealers are joined as plaintiffs as well. They risk legal exposure with ATF on more than one level, risk of violating the terms of use of the NICS system, and get paid next to nothing for the trouble. If the dealers won't do it in sufficient numbers, you've created a de facto limit on private transactions well beyond keeping guns from those who can't legally own one.

That's one aspect of the case. They're passing laws about "background checks" but the only "background check" system is federal, created and governed by federal law and federal agencies, and they are really picky about who uses it and why.

In simple terms, to comply with their state law you have to violate federal law. They've got the cart way before the horse.

[bigsky]

Time to move to Montana. Sell any firearm legal in the US, made in Montana, in Montana, without any federal regulation whatsoever (not automatic etc).

From Wiki:

The law declares that firearms manufactured in the state of Montana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana) after October 1, 2009, and which remain in the state, are exempt from United States federal firearms regulations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States), provided that these items are clearly stamped "Made in Montana" on a central metallic part. It applies to all firearms other than fully automatic weapons, firearms that cannot be carried and used by one person, and firearms with a bore diameter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliber) greater than 1½ inch which use smokeless powder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeless_powder). It also applies to ammunition (except exploding projectiles), and accessories such as suppressors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act#cite_note-republicmagazine-2)
The law has no requirements for registration, background checks or dealer licensing.

[bigsky]

and no sales tax

[dan_bgblue]

Add New Yawk to the list of Litigating Sheriffs (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/24/new-york-sheriffs-fault-new-gun-law-seek-to-join-lawsuit/)

[dan_bgblue]

Wisconsin may want to join the party (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/12/wis-bill-would-bar-police-from-enforcing-gun-bans/)

[suncat05]

Anybody want to bet on how Chief Justice Roberts weighs in on this one? A dollar to a doughnut says he betrays the American people again.............j/s.

[CitizenBBN]

PTR Industries, smallish maker (140 employees) who started making clone HK 91s, leaving Connecticut for South Carolina. Myrtle Beach to be exact. I'm not a huge Myrtle Beach guy but it's still nicer weather than Connecticut, I'd have left without the law changes.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/19/connecticut-gun-maker-moving-to-south-carolina-in-wake-tighter-state-gun-laws/?test=latestnews

Won't really make much difference until one of the big boys leave. I expect it to happen, but expect such a big shift to take time.

[suncat05]

I was disappointed in Remington not making a move. But thinking back on it now, I am not sure that Remington was all that serious to begin with.
Why would a company want to stay and try to conduct business in a place where they know they are not valued and their product appreciated? But Remington appears to have made exactly that choice. Doesn't make much sense.

[dan_bgblue]

Another business leaves Colorado over gun laws (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/02/top-us-gun-magazine-producer-to-leave-colorado-over-gun-laws/?intcmp=latestnews)

[CitizenBBN]

Yep, Magpul continues their exodus. They moved part of it pretty quickly, this is the rest of their facilities.

Hate that Kentucky hasn't gone out and gotten any of these companies. We're so pro gun it's crazy, would be a great location for them on many levels, but we aren't proactive about getting the business.

[dan_bgblue]

Smith and Wesson and Ruger say bye bye to Cali. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/24/smith-wesson-to-stop-selling-some-pistols-in-california-due-to-gun-law/)

[CitizenBBN]

It's the ramp up to the lawsuit. NRA/NSSF and others are suing to stop the microstamping law, a real piece of lunacy if there ever was one. part of the argument will no doubt be that it is backdoor gun control of the type shot down in Chicago by both federal courts and SCOTUS. Having the gun supply dry up supports that view, beyond the fact that the manufacturing process is also just not worth it for them.

[suncat05]

I heard somewhere last night while I was channel surfing(NRA News with Cam Edwards, I think)that both Ruger and S&W will also probably not sell to any law enforcement agencies in California either. Not sure if what he said is correct, but if so it might help put some pressure on the California legislature to rethink this position.

[CitizenBBN]

Suncat that's the $64 question, if they will refuse to sell to government as well. That and if other makers will join the ranks.

[KeithKSR]

Requiring a technology that doesn't work as a practical manufacturing process is a de facto gun ban.

[suncat05]

Requiring a technology that doesn't work as a practical manufacturing process is a de facto gun ban.

Then the resulting reply should be very simple..........American manufacturers shouldn't sell to them. Anything. And since there are lots of taxes and other financial obstacles involved in buying foreign weapons, force them to go that route.
The hell with Commiefornia! Let them suffer their own foolishness! And let California law enforcement suffer as well! When they stop supporting this nonsense maybe something will begain to change. Until then, they can suffer too!

[CitizenBBN]

suncat I've heard rumors that at least one of them will refuse to sell to Cali government as well, as it should be in this narrow case IMO.

Here's why IMO: "microstamping" is justified in the Cali law as a part of determining if a gun is "safe" or not. Well if the gun isn't "safe" enough to sell to a civilian what makes it suddenly safe to sell to LEOs? Sure LEOs in general are trustworthy folks, but as we saw in the Florida theater thing it's not 100%, but moreover those guns get stolen too.

Since their argument is that it doesnt' change gun functionality why wouldn't they require it for LEO purchases if they think it's really improving public safety in Cali? is it b/c those guns will cost more, or is it b/c they know those guns do not and will not exist? IMO the very fact that they exempt LEOs from the requirement screams that the requirement itself is a farce designed to be a defacto gun ban.

FWIW I learned something I didn't knwo about this law: it requires the stamping to happen in TWO places on the casing. From what I can tell it means the firing pin microstamp would be just one of those, and for any existing approved gun in Cali if they change a single part or any new gun they have to devise some crazy way to get it to stamp that casing a second time.

I can't see how ANY revolver could meet such a standard (if having two stamps on the firing pin didn't meet the law) as there is no impact on the casing other than the pin, and no SA slide that I know of hits the round hard enough to do such a thing and I think it would be quite dangerous to have it hit a casing so hard on the rim that it could stamp the brass.

Not to mention that then the slides and firing pins would be non-transferrable. Now only the receiver is the "gun" per the law, this would mean if you needed to change a slide or pin you'd have to send it back and have them make you one with the right microstamp.

it's absurdly unworkable, beyond the fact that it would take a nail file and a few minutes work to make it utterly useless in tracing anything.

If it's such a good idea require it for LEOs,otherwise scrap it IMO. I hate to put Cali LEOs in that spot, it's absurd, but it's on the Cali legislators and anti-gunners, not that they care who dies b/c of their witch hunt.

[CitizenBBN]

FWIW I hope all the makers follow S&W and Ruger, and I bet some if not most do. Once a few more do it will hurt their sales if they don't b/c it will be like crossing a picket line. Any major foreign maker will be just as sensitive to it, and most have as much presence here as they do back in their home country. Glock, HK, Beretta, Sig have all either all but moved here or have heavy ties here, and they all face the same impossible task of meeting the law and seeing this crap passed in other states.

Far better to forgo the sales there for now, civilian and LEO, and press this lawsuit to try to end it in Cali and prevent it from passing elsewhere.

Were I making the case I'd also use the Maryland bullet database as an example. they store all the riflings on all the new guns sold there, and so far they have not solved ONE crime b/c of it based on the data Iv'e seen. What good does it do you to know the guy who it was stolen from? may help you narrow down the neighborhood in some areas, that's about it.

[Catonahottinroof]

Tennessee's gain... I wish Kentucky had pursued them harder.

http://blog.beretta.com/beretta-usa-to-locate-new-manufacturing-facility-in-tennessee

[CitizenBBN]

Kentucky has been pitiful at going after this industry despite being one of the most pro gun states in the country. I'd only put Montana and a couple of others in our group and Kentucky has great location for this sort of industry. We needed to be in all the media selling it, I'd have been meeting with every one of these companies as much as they'd let me. Offer the tax breaks, whatever it takes to get them, long term it's a huge winner for us.

[suncat05]

Your current Governor isn't exactly known for being a super business friendly chief executive as it is, plus he's a Democrat, so it's a possibility that he's not a big 2nd Amendment advocate anyway. But yeah, you're right, Kentucky would be a good business climate for any of the firearm industry members.
That's what you get when you elect a weak Governor, or any other chief executive type. Need another example? Look no further than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. and the current occupant.

[CitizenBBN]

No argument from me. We elect a lot of complete fools in this state, it's very "party politics" here, and none of them have any real vision. Martha Lane Collins was probably the best Governor we've had in my lifetime just for getting Toyota here, and she was blistered at the time for giving Toyota so much. She knew in the long run it was a pittance for what the state would get, and she was right. Ask anyone now who was against her then if they want Toyota to leave.

Were I Governor I'd have been living in Maryland, Connecticut and New York, camping out at Beretta, S&W, Ruger, even the NSSF, offering VERY generous terms to get them to Kentucky. It's good basically clean manufacturing work and good paying long term jobs.

[dan_bgblue]

http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/20/news/companies/remington-jobs/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

[Darrell KSR]

http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/20/news/companies/remington-jobs/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

I'd like to think it is additional jobs, but I think it is just carrying out the plan they announced in February.

http://www.kysportsreport.com/forums/showthread.php?15440-Alabama-welcomes-new-Remington-plant

[dan_bgblue]

After the mid term Colorado election, the incumbent governor may be saying good bye to Colorado (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/23/rocky-mountain-upset-polling-shows-once-popular-colorado-dem-governor-in/)

[CitizenBBN]

Would be sweet for us pro gun folks for him to go down. I don't think that's the only or even main reason, it's b/c he's an Obama kiss-ass who doesn't get he's kissing the most unpopular President since Carter, but I'll take it. He definitely doesn't seem to have much sense for how the political winds are blowing. The anti-gun thing cost him, His Obama man crush may take him down.