Do threats to leave the state work?

[cvc944]

It is interesting to me that back in 2006, then governor Rod Blagojevich said in his State of the State speech that reinstating the expired federal ban on certain kinds of military-style weapons was one of his top priorities in this spring's legislative session. Immediately Springfield Armory, Armalite, Lewis Machine and Tool, and Rock River Arms threatened to leave the state if this legislation was passed. (House Bill 2414). Apparently that was a gamble the black rifle haters were unwilling to take back then.

Well it looks like push has come to shove this year and it will be interesting to see if the new bosses in Illinois jump on the anti-gun bandwagon. I'm sure they are waiting to see if other manufacturers are heading for better states like they said they would or are just making idle threats to leave. It will be interesting to see what they value more, jobs and tax monies, or the safety of their citizens that even more gun laws provide.

[doofus47]

It didn't work in Colorado, but it wasn't an empty threat either.

I suppose that the several hundred soon-to-be unemmployed magpul employees will vote with their wallets in the next election. And I hope they join me in unemploying our local state senator.

[Kevin Rohrer]

The threats apparently work. I saw a commercial about business opportunities in NY state. They are getting worried.

[BigD_in_FL]

That NY ad is a nationwide ad stating how they have low taxes (been refuted on line in by the MSM as having the highest), and how they have been creating thousands of new jobs (ask the Wall Street folks who have been laid off by the thousands)

As someone who was born and raised in NY a long time ago, I would rather open a business in CA before I would NY

[Romeo 33 Delta]

The more companies that do follow through only serve to make the threat more viable. Will the loss of jobs (and the associated taxes) as well as the loss of tax revenue on the corporation have any impact? Hard to say ... except that it DOES have a direct and immediate impact on the now-unemployed workers and their families as well as the communities in which they live.

Does this put pressure on the legislature? I'd like to think that if I found myself unemployed because my company moved to a "gun-friendly" state after my home state just kicked them in their .... I can tell you who I'd be mad at! And they'd hear from me on election day!

[Technosavant]

In IL it wasn't the threat that made them back down, it was resistance from pretty much every legislator who wasn't from Chicago. The gun ban crowd would be plenty happy to put the firearm companies out of business; they're of a mindset that says the things shouldn't be produced anyway.

Unfortunately, most gun companies just aren't near large enough to make such a threat a serious issue for the states in which they reside. The gunmakers that are that large are usually so entrenched that moving is an extremely expensive proposition.

[tet4]

Well, truthfully, the gun industry is pretty tiny, and I'm sure plenty of legislators would rather the companies move anyway. The real beauty of the threats and follow ups of moving are that they bring much needed attention to the issues which is bad press for the states. It also gives the companies a good reason to find a better working environment so it means that they may be around and healthy for a longer time. Last of all, it shows conviction and courage and that's something that gun owners respect which always helps with sales.

[Patriot86]

Here is a sad fact of America. In general the same politicians who are anti gun are of a political ideology that holds state/govt jobs above all and in general has disdain for the private sector. To those anti gun politicians a company, its tax dollars and its workers leaving means little.

The flip side of this is that the ONLY way you have even a hope of a significant backlash is over jobs. The backlash hasn't been such that gun owners alone are enough in said states to prompt these guys being voted out or fear for their political futures, it may not make much of a difference but you might get just enough additional votes to kick someone out of office by adding in a few people who lost their jobs or whos business took a hit because of a gun maker leaving.

[NWPilgrim]

The main point is not so much to "win" by changing policy as it is to operate in a friendly environment. For the company that choses to move it is a win.

If enough companies relocate perhaps policy will change, but as noted above these politicians are at best ignorant of private enterprise and at worst antagonistic to it regardless of the industry. They don't care. As we are seeing, trying to work with them or influence them is futile. Only the fence sitters may be influenced, but in most of these states they are heavily dominated by one party so a few fence sitters are material.

[g.willikers]

Patriot86 is right.
Too many politicians are only concerned with increasing the power of government.
They generally have no clue how wealth is created or even how their own bread gets buttered.
It would take a company the size of a major car maker threatening to leave, to get their full attention.
The gun industry is too small to scare them.
It's up to the voters.

[Double Naught Spy]

LOL, as noted, the gun industry is pretty small. No state is threatened by the loss of such. That NY is running so ads hardly indicates being scared. Some Gulf states did similar things after Katrina et al. as part of the rebuilding process and NY likewise has suffered such damage.

Given the outright disgust for guns, I am sure numerous politicians would happily trade dealing with a few more unemployed people than having the perceived evil gun industry in their state.

Of the threats made so far, how many states have caved in from the pressure of losing the firearms industry? Colorado? No. Maryland? No. CT? No.

[chris in va]

Don't kid yourselves. The states want the gun manufacturers to leave.