NEW LETTERS FROM STATE OF CT. TO GUN OWNERS.

[three5seven]

I keep wondering how much more Sturm, Ruger, & Co. will take from Connecticut until their hand is forced to leave and move to the heartland where folks who have common sense and a desire to exercise constitutional rights reside. Remington and Beretta have already seen the writing on the wall and have begun to jump ship from New York and Maryland. It's time for Ruger to do the same and leave Connecticut.

 

I'm a diehard Ruger revolver fanboy. We gun owners need to be putting pressure on Ruger to move their corporate office (the bulk of their production operation is already out of state). I don't want my gun money supporting a state economy that is anti-Second Amendment. If Ruger sits idly and doesn't move, I'll stop supporting Ruger altogether and urge others to do the same. 

 

Ruger rants and raves about bunk California laws violating the Second Amendment on their website. Nothing is mentioned at all about the atrocities going on in their home state.  

 

http://www.ruger.com/index.html

 

http://www.ruger.com/corporate/index.html 

Edited March 24, 2014 by three5seven

[DaveTN]

If Ruger sits idly and doesn't move, I'll stop supporting Ruger altogether and urge others to do the same.

That’s what the anti-gun folks want you to do. Why in the world would we turn on our own?

[Moped]

Not the first time Ruger has turned.  They supported Clinton with his assault weapons ban and magazine restriction.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="Moped" post="1129466" timestamp="1395710131"]Not the first time Ruger has turned. They supported Clinton with his assault weapons ban and magazine restriction.[/quote] Which is why the best thing to happen to Ruger is the death of Bill Ruger.

[Oh Shoot]

Not the first time Ruger has turned.  They supported Clinton with his assault weapons ban and magazine restriction.

 

"They" was the old man only. The company has come a long way since then.

 

Still, it's pretty ironic if a gun company stays forever in a state where some of it's products can't even be sold.

 

Matter of fact, if an individual can't now build an assault weapon there, or have new hicap mags, what's the loophole for a business to do the same?

 

- OS

Edited March 25, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[sigmtnman]

"

...

Matter of fact, if an individual can't now build an assault weapon there, or have new hicap mags, what's the loophole for a business to do the same?

 

- OS

 

phbt. That's easy.  Tax base.

 

It's like freebase, only for the .gov and pols.

Edited March 25, 2014 by sigmtnman

[three5seven]

That’s what the anti-gun folks want you to do. Why in the world would we turn on our own?

Don't get me wrong, I'm keeping and shooting my Rugers. By not supporting Ruger, I mean taking a few of Ruger's products off of my wish list (i.e., LCRx and SP101 .22LR Kit Gun) and instead I may spend my hard earned cash on firearms made by a certain Czech Republic Firearms Manufacturer that had the common sense to move from California to Kansas, a certain Italian Firearms Manufacturer that had the common sense to move from Maryland to Tennessee, and a certain Big Green Ammunition/Long Gun Manufacturer that fled the tyrant Republic of New York for Alabama. I might even spend my money on a brand new FDE semi-auto made by a certain Austrian Company in Georgia, USA. 

 

What I'm getting at is that Ruger's stock has skyrocketed from the past two years of firearms scare and the State of Connecticut's economy and the State itself have benefited through corporate taxes on these purchases. It's hypocritical.The Ruger executives can't legally own the firearms they make money off of in the state they reside. 

[Oh Shoot]

Don't get me wrong, I'm keeping and shooting my Rugers. By not supporting Ruger, I mean taking a few of Ruger's products off of my wish list ..

 

Give them some time for c'sakes. You can't move a long standing large manufacturing facility with a snap of your fingers, they are a publicly traded company.

 

Besides, a lot of their guns are made in Prescott already, so it's not like everything is in CT. Hopefully they'll get out of there when they can without devaluing the company by a production slump.

 

- OS

[DaveTN]

Don't get me wrong, I'm keeping and shooting my Rugers. By not supporting Ruger, I mean taking a few of Ruger's products off of my wish list (i.e., LCRx and SP101 .22LR Kit Gun) and instead I may spend my hard earned cash on firearms made by a certain Czech Republic Firearms Manufacturer that had the common sense to move from California to Kansas, a certain Italian Firearms Manufacturer that had the common sense to move from Maryland to Tennessee, and a certain Big Green Ammunition/Long Gun Manufacturer that fled the tyrant Republic of New York for Alabama. I might even spend my money on a brand new FDE semi-auto made by a certain Austrian Company in Georgia, USA. 
 
What I'm getting at is that Ruger's stock has skyrocketed from the past two years of firearms scare and the State of Connecticut's economy and the State itself have benefited through corporate taxes on these purchases. It's hypocritical.The Ruger executives can't legally own the firearms they make money off of in the state they reside.

What’s hypocritical is suggesting that we would boycott an American gun company because a state government is putting the screws to them. Ruger still makes a quality product at a decent price. Recently when I wanted a lower cost 1911 I bought a quality Ruger SR1911 instead of that junk out of the Philippines with the Ruger not costing much more.

On one side of my SR1911 it says MADE IN USA, on the other side it’s says PRESCOTT, AZ. So I don’t know that much of the money goes to CT. I haven’t bought a foreign made gun in over 30 years, haven’t needed to, and hopefully I will never need to. Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Remington, I hope American companies like that keep up the good work.

EDIT: I’ll add this. Remington and Beretta didn’t run; they expanded. There are many valuable and loyal employees that have worked for those companies for many years. The employees and the company is entrenched in the community; their community. I would think less of the company if they turned their backs on their employees over a political battle. They aren’t giving to the state; they are giving to the people that helped put them were they are today. If someone was trying to run you out of your home would you turn and run or stay and fight?

Sorry, but these companies need our help; not us turning our backs on them and judging them. They are our companies. Edited March 25, 2014 by DaveTN

[tnguy]

"They" was the old man only. The company has come a long way since then.
 
Still, it's pretty ironic if a gun company stays forever in a state where some of it's products can't even be sold.
 
Matter of fact, if an individual can't now build an assault weapon there, or have new hicap mags, what's the loophole for a business to do the same?
 
- OS

Time to start a campaign?

[RichardR]

What’s hypocritical is suggesting that we would boycott an American gun company because a state government is putting the screws to them. Ruger still makes a quality product at a decent price. Recently when I wanted a lower cost 1911 I bought a quality Ruger SR1911 instead of that junk out of the Philippines with the Ruger not costing much more.

On one side of my SR1911 it says MADE IN USA, on the other side it’s says PRESCOTT, AZ. So I don’t know that much of the money goes to CT. I haven’t bought a foreign made gun in over 30 years, haven’t needed to, and hopefully I will never need to. Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Remington, I hope American companies like that keep up the good work.

EDIT: I’ll add this. Remington and Beretta didn’t run; they expanded. There are many valuable and loyal employees that have worked for those companies for many years. The employees and the company is entrenched in the community; their community. I would think less of the company if they turned their backs on their employees over a political battle. They aren’t giving to the state; they are giving to the people that helped put them were they are today. If someone was trying to run you out of your home would you turn and run or stay and fight?

Sorry, but these companies need our help; not us turning our backs on them and judging them. They are our companies.

Well said Dave, I agree wholeheartedly.

[Guest semiautots]

What’s hypocritical is suggesting that we would boycott an American gun company because a state government is putting the screws to them. Ruger still makes a quality product at a decent price. Recently when I wanted a lower cost 1911 I bought a quality Ruger SR1911 instead of that junk out of the Philippines with the Ruger not costing much more.

On one side of my SR1911 it says MADE IN USA, on the other side it’s says PRESCOTT, AZ. So I don’t know that much of the money goes to CT. I haven’t bought a foreign made gun in over 30 years, haven’t needed to, and hopefully I will never need to. Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Remington, I hope American companies like that keep up the good work.

EDIT: I’ll add this. Remington and Beretta didn’t run; they expanded. There are many valuable and loyal employees that have worked for those companies for many years. The employees and the company is entrenched in the community; their community. I would think less of the company if they turned their backs on their employees over a political battle. They aren’t giving to the state; they are giving to the people that helped put them were they are today. If someone was trying to run you out of your home would you turn and run or stay and fight?

Sorry, but these companies need our help; not us turning our backs on them and judging them. They are our companies.

 

I boycott Ruger because the only Ruger I ever bought was a piece of crap. 

[DaveTN]

I boycott Ruger because the only Ruger I ever bought was a piece of crap.

Then you have a valid (to you) reason don’t you?

[Guest semiautots]

Then you have a valid (to you) reason don’t you?

 

Why thank you!  Yes, I do!