Remington Arms, a gun manufacturing company, will remain in New York after landing a hefty contract with the US government.
There have been waves in the world of gun industry recently as politicians pass stricter gun control laws. Just recently, Beretta announced that they would move out of Maryland following new gun control legislation. Similarly, rumors abound that HiViz and Magpul will leave Colorado in favor of more gun friendly states.
New York certainly doesn’t top the list for pro-gun states, so there was uncertainty surrounding the fate of Remington Arms. Based in Herkimer County, Remington potentially faced legal complications after Legislature passed a law banning the sale of military-style rifles.
Remington CEOs have decided to stay in New York, however, following a meeting with Sens. James Seward, Hugh Farley and Joseph Griffo, as well as Assemblymen Marc Butler, Claudia Tenney, and Anthony Brindisi. Shortly after the meeting, Congressman Richard Hanna announced that the Pentagon would award Remington an $80 million contract to make 5,000 sniper rifles over the next decade for the US Special Operations Command.
According to reports, Remington announced plans to invest $20 million into their plant, which currently employs 1,200 people.
Reading between the lines leaves Americans with an obvious suspicion: a quid pro quo between Remington and the senators would keep everybody in the green. Remington gets a hefty contract while the senators and assemblymen could take credit for keeping jobs in New York.
Some gun owners, however, aren’t particularly thrilled about the news, arguing that Remington has turned its back on gun owners by supporting a gun control state. One commenter on the WHAM news site wrote, “I will never buy from a company that confuses 2nd amendment with 2nd class citizen. You deserve to stay in New York” and another offered to sell his recently purchased Remington rifle.
Indeed, the hypocrisy is hard to overlook. Why should Remington stay in a state that bans the rifles they’re producing? Why would state legislators want to keep gun manufacturers within state borders while promoting some of the strictest gun control laws in the country?