FB statement from Remington....

[The Average Joe]

http://newyorkcityguns.com/2013/05/remington-arms-releases-sleazy-facebook-statement-boycott-them-now/

 

The statement:

 

"To our Remington fans,

We believe the NY SAFE Act is unconstitutional and was passed in a questionable fashion.

Remington and its employees worked diligently with pro-gun legislators to prevent the Act’s passage. We actively participated in the Albany rallies and drove the letter-writing campaign to stop this anti-gun legislation.

The recently awarded Department of Defense (Special Operations Command) contract, questioned by some as a “pay-off,” has been in development for years — it has nothing to do with NY State.

While we are unhappy with the misguided acts of our elected politicians, Remington will not run or abandon its loyal and hard working 1,300 employees without considerable thought and deliberation. Laws can be overturned and politicians voted out of office, but the decisions we make today will affect our people, their families and entire communities for generations.

Please bear with us as we determine the most appropriate way to satisfy our customers and protect our employees."

[quietmike]

Hmm. What about their loyal customers, especially in N.Y.? Those 1300 employees are the smaller group by far. At the very least Remington should refuse sales to government entities in N.Y.

 

From the replies on their Facebook post, most people still believe it was a payoff.

[JGunner]

I'd like to think they are a good corporation that really values their employees ... We need more companies like that.

[DaveTN]

Good for Remington! As I posted in the other thread; I support Remington 100%. We are allies in this fight.

To think a manufacturing facility that big can just up and move is ridiculous. However, they are building in other states.

They may be in NY, but at least they are in the U.S.

Once the U.S. companies are gone; imports can be banned with the stoke of a pen.

[TMF]

From the replies on their Facebook post, most people still believe it was a payoff.

Most people would be wrong then. That isn't how contracts work. It takes a lot of time. I don't see how that would be a "pay off" any how. For what? What favorable action did Remington take towards a State government other than not moving? The contract wasn't even with the STATE government, it was with SOCOM. You think there are many people there that are sympathetic to NY and their oppressive gun laws? The correct answer is no, by the way.

[quietmike]

Most people would be wrong then. That isn't how contracts work. It takes a lot of time. I don't see how that would be a "pay off" any how. For what? What favorable action did Remington take towards a State government other than not moving? The contract wasn't even with the STATE government, it was with SOCOM. You think there are many people there that are sympathetic to NY and their oppressive gun laws? The correct answer is no, by the way.

The federal powers that be are not only sympathetic, they are the ones behind it all.

[nightrunner]

Federal government is NOT SOCOM...

[quietmike]

Federal government is NOT SOCOM...

 

Who is the commander in  chief of SOCOM? SOCOM is not an autonomous body.

I'm not saying it was a direct payoff, but, it wouldn't be the first time the military was used to push legislation.

[TMF]

The federal powers that be are not only sympathetic, they are the ones behind it all.

Umm, the contract was with SOCOM. The folks of that community overwhelmingly support private gun ownership of military style weaponry. You might find some that aren't, but we call those folks outcasts.

[TMF]

Who is the commander in chief of SOCOM? SOCOM is not an autonomous body.
I'm not saying it was a direct payoff, but, it wouldn't be the first time the military was used to push legislation.

And Obama authorizes or directs small potato contracts like the one Remington got? Do you have any idea how many folks in that community would be tripping over themselves to blow the whistle on that?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's a very reasonable statement from Remington. If we, or a company, moved every time a law got passed to our

dislike, we would be moving so much we would never be able to hold a job or manufacture anything. Sometimes, it's

better to stay put and fight it. It's also hard to blame a company for something completely outside of its control.

 

Now if only their Golden Saber bullets would come down in price. Things damn near doubled the last couple years.

I may have to start loading cheaper bullets, nah!

[Spook]

Smart business decision. They don't want the considerable cost of relocating. For now, they think the political tide may turn and the business atmosphere will improve. They can always move..... if and when the situation in NY becomes untenable.

If their .22LR would only cycle cleanly in my S&W M&P.

[hipower]

....
If their .22LR would only cycle cleanly in my S&W M&P.

 

That would be a fantastic thing to happen. Especially if the M&P 15-22 would take them as well as the CCI.

 

But I'm not holding my breath waiting on it.

[JayC]

While the line men and women of SOCOM command may very well support individual rights to keep and bear arms...  The sad truth is they aren't the one's making these types of decisions.

 

Where do the political leanings fall of the Generals and staff officers of that command?  I seriously doubt they are in line with the line officers and enlisted men and women of their command.

 

I'm not suggesting that there was any payback in this contract...  But your logic that because the men and women of SOCOM support the 2nd amendment, doesn't mean they have any real say of whom SOCOM awards a contract to, that is largely controlled by staff officers and Generals.

 

Umm, the contract was with SOCOM. The folks of that community overwhelmingly support private gun ownership of military style weaponry. You might find some that aren't, but we call those folks outcasts.