Remington takes the money from NY/Pentagon deal

I can't help but think that in every firearms related business in the country today there is somone(s) trying very hard to come up with an accuracte cost/benefit analysis of what is going on.

Move? on principle? for projected economic reasons? Good question. IF they both line up the same, the answer is easy. But if they don't? What then?

Cynically, I'd also keep my mouth shut going into a closed meeting, and take their money. And their contract, provided there was nothing like a gag order in the contract. I see no harm in that, myself. If they think its a carrot for me to follow their path in all things, that better be written into the contract I sign, otherwise....

You know, if its not written down, .....:rolleyes:

Remington isn't getting much money from me for their guns these days, anyway. The one's I buy are long out of production. I am, however a steady consumer of their brass and ammo products, when I can find them now days....

Remington may be in league with the devil, and I can see the pitchforks waving and torches flickering, but shouldn't we learn a bit more, before we start shouting "burn the witch!"? Hmm?
 
It is a sad state of affairs for us that Remington followed the path it did. I was hopeful that the purchase by Cerebus in 2007 would put money in their pockets, and we would gain as a result of the sale. The last new Remington I bought was a 673 Guide Rifle in 2004 and I like it just fine, but I will most likely not be buying a new Remington ever again due to this latest news. I'm in agreement with one of the previous posters who could live with their decision, had it been done honestly and openly and out of necessity.
 
shouldn't we learn a bit more, before we start shouting "burn the witch
Click to expand...

In all conscience, if we're going to boycott Remington for refusing to leave New York/California/Connecticut, then shouldn't we also boycott all gun companies who remain in any anti Constitution state?

And since we are bound to boycott any gun manufacturer located in such a state, as a matter of conscience are we not bound to boycott any gun manufacturer that imports guns into such a state?

And by extension, shouldn't we boycott all manufacturers, guns, outdoor equipment, ammo, ad infinitum, that do any business with anybody in these states?
 
I would give Remington a little time to respond. Remember this is the company that quickly cut Zumbo loose after he criticized the AR as not a sporting rifle.

It is disconcerting though that in the midst of the biggest gun grab in 20 years most of the major firearms companies are mum. It would help to see some big checks written. I like how companies like Midway trumpet their financial support to gun rights with no fear or apology.
 
OK, let's make this easy. You are the CEO of Remington. You like your job and the neat stuff your salary and perks provide for your family and yourself. :D

Way up the food chain at Ceberus Capital Management the company has decided to sell off Freedom Group because a huge investor has threatened to take his money elsewhere after a rifle manufactured by Bushmaster was used to kill 26 kids and teachers in CT.

Cerberus said it will seek to sell Freedom Group Inc. just hours after California Treasurer Bill Lockyer said he’ll propose that the state’s public pension funds, the two largest in the U.S., divest investments in firearm manufacturers that make guns prohibited under state law. The firm’s announcement followed a day in which the White House reiterated President Barack Obama’s support for a new ban on assault weapons and lawmakers called for stricter gun-control laws.
Click to expand...


Cerberus made this statement:

“This decision allows us to meet our obligations to the investors whose interests we are entrusted to protect without being drawn into the national debate” on gun control, Cerberus said in a statement issued just after midnight in New York.
Click to expand...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...lay-reviewed-by-pension-after-school-massacre

Now, you, the CEO of Remington are going to jump on your sword and threaten to move the company out of CT: Yeah, right. Good luck finding another cushy job. :D
 
I like how companies like Midway trumpet their financial support to gun rights with no fear or apology
Click to expand...

Midway is a family owned company and can easily make such stands.

Remington is owned by a large investment group and must follow the directions of the trustees, all of whom must answer to stockholders. And stockholders are about the money, not philosophy.
 
But they walked into a closed meeting, and came out a bit richer
Click to expand...

This isn't entirely fair.

This contract that was awarded to Remington was announced in 2009. Remington has worked 3 or so years to provide their best product for trials in competition against Sako.

Between the performance testing, the offered deal and prices, and the other criteria like simply which company most likely possesses or has demonstrated in the past that it possesses the ability to best satisfy the contract, they were award the prize.

It's just not entirely fair to characterize this as a back room deal :cool:
 
Guns with the Remington name have been coming out of New York for almost 200 years. That alone is not something to throw away lightly.
Click to expand...

True,
however, the 2nd amendment has been around longer.
That shouldn't be taken lightly, either.
As a matter of fact, it should be taken with a lot more respect than a company that lives off of it.
 
Remington is owned by a large investment group and must follow the directions of the trustees, all of whom must answer to stockholders. And stockholders are about the money, not philosophy.
Click to expand...

And by taking the money of the governmental entities that wish to reduce the very rights that help to keep them in business, I choose not to support them with my money. There is nothing that Remington makes that's really unique. Other companies that support my 2A rights make basically the same products. I can get the same thing from another company, and know that part of the money I spend on a product with those companies will likely go towards protecting my rights. Remington is only in business to serve shareholders? That's cool, those shareholders care nothing of my rights, so I care nothing of their gilded pocket books.
 
Between the performance testing, the offered deal and prices, and the other criteria like simply which company most likely possesses or has demonstrated in the past that it possesses the ability to best satisfy the contract, they were award the prize.
Click to expand...

So, what's to stop them from filling the orders while they build elsewhere and when the new plant opens, they move the operation? Unless they signed a no move agreement with the government which would show the collusion we all feel there is. If they earned the contract then they should be able to build them anywhere that they wish (meaning out of NYS). If they were awarded it for political reasons as well then there is that dark cloud....
 
Being professionally involved with the DOD bidding process, my experience tells me that the rifle contract was one that had likely been negotiated and planned for almost a year, if not longer. This was not a quick-fix deal. So tinfoilhattery notwithstanding, Remington is a large DOD contractor and would be foolish not to provide the contracted goods in accordance with the provisions in the agreement. We peons can do what we please to coax them out of NY. One thing really has nothing to do with the other.

Willie

.
 
i guess i see this... although i would rather them make their guns here in america then somewhere over seas. remington hires 1000s of americans. just because they are located in new york doesnt mean they have to agree with the people making these laws... just my opinion
 
Last edited by a moderator:
supporting and protecting our 2A rights is far more important than any number of jobs in any state.

I had a 700 in mind for this fall but will now be looking at some companies that do support my/our 2A rights
 
We are now insisting that all gun and gun related companies leave all states that have imposed restrictive laws otherwise we boycott?
Click to expand...

Or... Why would the state of NY allow an entity of Remington's size build weapons so dangerous that the citizens of its own state cannot own them w/out close parental (read: state) supervision?

It's a bit like allowing a local company to make meth for export only. My moral bs-ometer is red-lined. Sorry, I know that the word "moral" offends some people.

Why would I pay for a Remington that is built in NY and help pay for the operation of a state government to keep its own citizens from using what is built there? I realize that the Remington offices may not be able to make a stand as they are not in charge of their corporate destiny, but I can. I choose to avoid the Remington aisle. I always avoided Mossberg, so...

In local news, I was a lotta bit bummed about Magpul leaving, but if Colorado is going down the "we don't trust you normal peons with big boy rights" route, then Magpul has every right to walk. If the state began putting random limits, levies and penalties on what I and other citizens could do in my field of livelihood, I would probably have to leave as well.
 
...is obligated to spend (probably tens of) millions of dollars and move their operations to a gun friendly state. In addition to the above cost of moving, some posters feel Remington should forgo the $80 million defense contract that they have been negotiating for several years.
Click to expand...

Well, many times, states that court potential businesses offer some sweet packages to lure them. Many times the land to build is "donated" or sold at a substantial discount with infrastructure included. States can easily do this in the name of progress and infrastructure improvements from state and federal grants. Also, who said they would have to give up the contract they just won? Why can't they honor it? Does the government care if it's made in Texas or NY? Either way, Americans will be making them.

At this point of this steamrolling by the government we have few choices. #1 is to vote out the people who are voting for these new laws. #2 is to boycott companies that do not support our rights by staying where they cannot even legally sell the product they make. Think about it, New York residents make a gun they cannot legally buy? This is right?

We have to choke the state's revenue with our pocketbooks. Or, we can write more letters and emails that were ignored, we can make more phone calls that some minimum wage person fields and rolls their eyes at, we can march at more and more rallys where we are clearly the majority and we are clearly ignored because the lawmakers already made up their mind or we can show any future state that is considering these laws that we will not go there on vacation, we will not buy anything made in their state and we will do whatever we can to keep our money out of their packets. We have our votes and we have our cash. They don't listen to anything else. Yes, if they don't want to support us then they are supporting them. It has become that serious. They are not only not backing off, they are going forward at a faster pace. One state at a time.
 
Last edited:
What did they do that was so bad? They had the misfortune of being located in a state that, over the years, turned ever more anti-gun.
Click to expand...


Bingo!!!
i will continue to buy Remington products.


The folks who run Remington have absolutely no say in the matter of moving.

The head of Cerberus Global Investments is former vice president Dan Quayle. i'm sure he would take any complaints about the failure of Remington to move to another state.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/board.asp?privcapId=139449
 
that's to bad. I don't have much need for anything Remington so i suppose This wont affect me much but if i do it'll certainly be used... No new money from me.

Ha. You know how much money the COULD make if they moved? I bet my state/city would LOVE it if a brand new manufacturing company came with a back order of over 12 months and could potentially create upto 1,200 jobs. I bet they'd give them all kinds of tax breaks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top