Archived Posts » 59,757,950
Remington ups the ante on microstamping
3/26/2012 10:41:58 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/remington-arms-company-threatens-pull-plant-york-response-bloomy-backed-gun-bill-article-1.1050781
And then a quote from Jose Peralta
Remington Arms Company, in a recent letter to Gov. Cuomo, said it may be forced to bail on the Empire State if a law requiring bullet casings to carry unique markings is enacted.
“Worse yet, Remington could be forced to reconsider its commitment to the New York market altogether rather than spend the astronomical sums of money needed to completely reconfigure our manufacturing and assembly processes.”
And then a quote from Jose Peralta
Senate bill sponsor Jose Peralta dismissed Remingtons warning as “just another tactic being used to try and block microstamping, which is supported by many crime-fighters.”
He said gun manufacturers didn’t leave California and Massachusetts when those states enacted ballistic identification rules.
He said gun manufacturers didn’t leave California and Massachusetts when those states enacted ballistic identification rules.
3/26/2012 10:59:42 AM
Senate bill sponsor Jose Peralta dismissed Remingtons warning as "just
another tactic being used to try and block microstamping, which is
supported by many crime-fighters.”
He said gun manufacturers didn’t leave California and Massachusetts when those states enacted ballistic identification rules.
He said gun manufacturers didn’t leave California and Massachusetts when those states enacted ballistic identification rules.
Peralta also stated that Remington was already microstamping firearms for the military which was a misrepresentation of the facts. After 7 years CA hasn't implemented microstamping and it likely never will nor does MA currently require microstamping. So far he's three for three on misrepresenting the facts.
3/26/2012 11:21:26 AM
Originally Posted By rkbar15:
Peralta also stated that Remington was already microstamping firearms for the military which was a misrepresentation of the facts. After 7 years CA hasn't implemented microstamping and it likely never will nor does MA currently require microstamping. So far he's there for three on misrepresenting the facts.
Senate bill sponsor Jose Peralta dismissed Remingtons warning as "just another tactic being used to try and block microstamping, which is supported by many crime-fighters.”
He said gun manufacturers didn’t leave California and Massachusetts when those states enacted ballistic identification rules.
He said gun manufacturers didn’t leave California and Massachusetts when those states enacted ballistic identification rules.
Peralta also stated that Remington was already microstamping firearms for the military which was a misrepresentation of the facts. After 7 years CA hasn't implemented microstamping and it likely never will nor does MA currently require microstamping. So far he's there for three on misrepresenting the facts.
Well said brother!
But why let the facts stand in the way of a liberal cause...
3/26/2012 11:35:24 AM
Originally Posted By rkbar15:
Peralta also stated that Remington was already microstamping firearms for the military which was a misrepresentation of the facts. After 7 years CA hasn't implemented microstamping and it likely never will nor does MA currently require microstamping. So far he's there for three on misrepresenting the facts.
Senate bill sponsor Jose Peralta dismissed Remingtons warning as "just another tactic being used to try and block microstamping, which is supported by many crime-fighters.”
He said gun manufacturers didn’t leave California and Massachusetts when those states enacted ballistic identification rules.
He said gun manufacturers didn’t leave California and Massachusetts when those states enacted ballistic identification rules.
Peralta also stated that Remington was already microstamping firearms for the military which was a misrepresentation of the facts. After 7 years CA hasn't implemented microstamping and it likely never will nor does MA currently require microstamping. So far he's there for three on misrepresenting the facts.
I may have stolen that for a facebook comment on Jose's page...Fake name and account though.
3/26/2012 11:42:06 AM
This is exactly what the politicians want. Rather than spending insane amounts of money to retool their facilities, they will simply not bother shipping any firearms to NYS. A de Facto Ban.
3/26/2012 12:35:06 PM
Originally Posted By guyver0313:
This is exactly what the politicians want. Rather than spending insane amounts of money to retool their facilities, they will simply not bother shipping any firearms to NYS. A de Facto Ban.
This is exactly what the politicians want. Rather than spending insane amounts of money to retool their facilities, they will simply not bother shipping any firearms to NYS. A de Facto Ban.
As right as you are, when the governor declares NY "Open for business", and then the senate/assembly run a manufacturer out of the state, I can't imagine someone somewhere won't take notice.
3/26/2012 12:46:16 PM
Originally Posted By BenC:
As right as you are, when the governor declares NY "Open for business", and then the senate/assembly run a manufacturer out of the state, I can't imagine someone somewhere won't take notice.
As right as you are, when the governor declares NY "Open for business", and then the senate/assembly run a manufacturer out of the state, I can't imagine someone somewhere won't take notice.
This is NY. Won't notice, won't care, won't matter.
Threatening them with exactly what they want. Interesting.
3/26/2012 12:52:03 PM
I cannot believe that someone in Political Office would misrepresent the truth. 
3/26/2012 2:35:11 PM
Wish all manufacturers would leave 
3/26/2012 3:12:58 PM
And then a quote from Jose Peralta
Senate bill sponsor Jose Peralta dismissed Remingtons warning as "just another tactic being used to try and block microstamping, which is supported by many crime-fighters.”
He said gun manufacturers didn’t leave California and Massachusetts when those states enacted ballistic identification rules.
He said gun manufacturers didn’t leave California and Massachusetts when those states enacted ballistic identification rules.
On that he is probably right though not about the microstamping issue. Look at Connecticut; the Colt AR-15 was banned there in the early 1990's yet they still make them there. Why the heck Colt never told the state to go to hell and left is beyond me.
How many manufacturers have left a state when a restrictive law was passed? Not many that I am aware of. I am often amused that Lewis Machine and Tool is based in Illinois with its Chicago inspired gun laws.
3/26/2012 3:33:08 PM
Originally Posted By Aardvark:
On that he is probably right though not about the microstamping issue. Look at Connecticut; the Colt AR-15 was banned there in the early 1990's yet they still make them there. Why the heck Colt never told the state to go to hell and left is beyond me.
On that he is probably right though not about the microstamping issue. Look at Connecticut; the Colt AR-15 was banned there in the early 1990's yet they still make them there. Why the heck Colt never told the state to go to hell and left is beyond me.
I believe this bill requires every handgun manufactured within NYS to be microstamp ready irrespective of where it's eventually shipped to. CT didn't restrict the manufacturing of assault weapons for LE export and military use.
3/26/2012 3:33:43 PM
Originally Posted By rkbar15:
I believe this bill requires every handgun manufactured within NYS to be microstamp ready irrespective of where it's eventually shipped to. CT didn't restrict the manufacturing of assault weapons for LE, export and military use.
Originally Posted By Aardvark:
On that he is probably right though not about the microstamping issue. Look at Connecticut; the Colt AR-15 was banned there in the early 1990's yet they still make them there. Why the heck Colt never told the state to go to hell and left is beyond me.
On that he is probably right though not about the microstamping issue. Look at Connecticut; the Colt AR-15 was banned there in the early 1990's yet they still make them there. Why the heck Colt never told the state to go to hell and left is beyond me.
I believe this bill requires every handgun manufactured within NYS to be microstamp ready irrespective of where it's eventually shipped to. CT didn't restrict the manufacturing of assault weapons for LE, export and military use.
3/26/2012 5:09:10 PM
Originally Posted By Swoosh101:
Wish all manufacturers would leave
Wish all manufacturers would leave
Ask the people in Detroit about factories leaving.
3/26/2012 5:12:50 PM
Originally Posted By Aardvark:
On that he is probably right though not about the microstamping issue. Look at Connecticut; the Colt AR-15 was banned there in the early 1990's yet they still make them there. Why the heck Colt never told the state to go to hell and left is beyond me.
How many manufacturers have left a state when a restrictive law was passed? Not many that I am aware of. I am often amused that Lewis Machine and Tool is based in Illinois with its Chicago inspired gun laws.
And then a quote from Jose Peralta
Senate bill sponsor Jose Peralta dismissed Remingtons warning as "just another tactic being used to try and block microstamping, which is supported by many crime-fighters.”
He said gun manufacturers didn’t leave California and Massachusetts when those states enacted ballistic identification rules.
He said gun manufacturers didn’t leave California and Massachusetts when those states enacted ballistic identification rules.
On that he is probably right though not about the microstamping issue. Look at Connecticut; the Colt AR-15 was banned there in the early 1990's yet they still make them there. Why the heck Colt never told the state to go to hell and left is beyond me.
How many manufacturers have left a state when a restrictive law was passed? Not many that I am aware of. I am often amused that Lewis Machine and Tool is based in Illinois with its Chicago inspired gun laws.
S&W in Mass, is another example, not to mention Kimber in Yonkers...ironic how the best built are in the most restrictive States?
Colt IS building a facility in Florida, and I'll bet the Union is going Ape-shit about that.
3/26/2012 9:11:04 PM
Originally Posted By fp1201:
S&W in Mass, is another example, not to mention Kimber in Yonkers...ironic how the best built are in the most restrictive States?
Colt IS building a facility in Florida, and I'll bet the Union is going Ape-shit about that.
S&W in Mass, is another example, not to mention Kimber in Yonkers...ironic how the best built are in the most restrictive States?
Colt IS building a facility in Florida, and I'll bet the Union is going Ape-shit about that.
I guess for historical reasons they've remained. But it's legislation like this and taxes that will drive these businesses out.
