Beretta USA Announces Decision to Move Its Entire Maryland Manufacturing Capabilities

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    13,109
    So you're mad they got only part of the bill changed?

    Where did I say I was mad? I was stating that Beretta and it's lobbyists did not lobby on the entire bill, but the parts that affected them. That was in response to the comment that "If Beretta and its lobbyists could not crush SB281."

    The reason they couldn't or didn't crush SB281 is because the didn't lobby on the entire bill, just parts. I'm not mad about that just clearing up any misconceptions the above quote might have had.
     

    JoeRinMD

    Rifleman
    Jul 18, 2008
    2,014
    AA County
    Where did I say I was mad? I was stating that Beretta and it's lobbyists did not lobby on the entire bill, but the parts that affected them. That was in response to the comment that "If Beretta and its lobbyists could not crush SB281."

    The reason they couldn't or didn't crush SB281 is because the didn't lobby on the entire bill, just parts. I'm not mad about that just clearing up any misconceptions the above quote might have had.

    Further, I believe they concluded at that outset that there was no way to completely stop the train wreck that was SB281. Knowing that, they took the rational step of lobbying for changes that had a chance of being implemented, i.e. gutting as much as they could from it, starting with the provisions that would affect them most directly.

    To have taken the other path by focusing solely on opposing the bill in its entirety wouldn't have gained them (or us) anything.

    JoeR
     

    dblas

    Past President, MSI
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 6, 2011
    13,109
    Further, I believe they concluded at that outset that there was no way to completely stop the train wreck that was SB281. Knowing that, they took the rational step of lobbying for changes that had a chance of being implemented, i.e. gutting as much as they could from it, starting with the provisions that would affect them most directly.

    To have taken the other path by focusing solely on opposing the bill in its entirety wouldn't have gained them (or us) anything.

    JoeR

    Yep, you are repeating what I have said twice now.
     

    GUNSnROTORS

    nude member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 7, 2013
    3,620
    hic sunt dracones
    Article - Beretta Flees Anti-Gun Maryland:

    http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/?p=...=20140726-chronicle0726-berettafleesantigunmd

    “While we had originally planned to use the Tennessee facility for new equipment and for production of new product lines only, we have decided that it is more prudent from the point of view of our future welfare to move the Maryland production lines in their entirety to the new Tennessee facility.”

    Had our new Maryland State Song playing in my head while I read it. :sad20:
     

    Abulg1972

    Ultimate Member
    Beretta USA Announces Decision to Move Its Entire Maryland Manufacturing Capa...



    That does not mean it's moving there. A company can only have one office?!

    I promise you - UA is not leaving Baltimore anytime soon. If you know anything about Kevin Plank, his ties to the area, the campus they've built at Tide Point and the gajillions of tax and other incentives that you know the City is providing, there's a better chance that the Shiner Brewery will move here than that UA will move.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,902
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    That does not mean it's moving there. A company can only have one office?!

    I promise you - UA is not leaving Baltimore anytime soon.

    That is all fine and good, and yes a company can have an office in more than one state. However, I don't think the Portland "office" is merely an office. From what I read in that article, design will be occurring in that "office". Maybe there are other reasons to have a design office for footwear in Portland, Oregon instead of Maryland, other than the business climate in Maryland.
     

    Abulg1972

    Ultimate Member
    That is all fine and good, and yes a company can have an office in more than one state. However, I don't think the Portland "office" is merely an office. From what I read in that article, design will be occurring in that "office". Maybe there are other reasons to have a design office for footwear in Portland, Oregon instead of Maryland, other than the business climate in Maryland.


    Yeah - like competing with Nike for design, etc talent. Maryland does not regulate shoes and spandex - the climate is just fine for a huge company that is getting lots of benefits from the City.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,902
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    Yeah - like competing with Nike for design, etc talent. Maryland does not regulate shoes and spandex - the climate is just fine for a huge company that is getting lots of benefits from the City.

    Gotcha. All the shoes designers, etc. are located in Portland, Oregon and it is easier to locate an office there so they do not need to leave the area once UA steals them from Nike.
     

    traveller

    The one with two L
    Nov 26, 2010
    18,416
    variable
    In MD the county charges the manufacturer property tax on the value of his production equipment. Also, TN is a lower wage environment than the area of MD they are located in. While SB281 may be one reason for them to move, there are plenty of others.
     

    Armadillofz1

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 25, 2012
    4,874
    DM-42
    In MD the county charges the manufacturer property tax on the value of his production equipment. Also, TN is a lower wage environment than the area of MD they are located in. While SB281 may be one reason for them to move, there are plenty of others.

    I think you are saying that in addition to SB281, another reason for them to move was financial. Implying, that they were having financial problems as well. I'd argue that their reason to move was purely on SB281 (the straw that broke the camels back as it were), and if you ARE going to move anyway, why not move to the most hospitable place for this business.

    Maybe it's only semantics, I'm still groggy as it's 9am and i haven't been adequately caffeinated yet.
     

    traveller

    The one with two L
    Nov 26, 2010
    18,416
    variable
    I think you are saying that in addition to SB281, another reason for them to move was financial. Implying, that they were having financial problems as well.

    How did I imply THAT ?

    The primary goal of a company is to make a profit. Beretta is I believe a closely held family corporation, if there is an opportunity for being more profitable in a lower wage and lower tax environment, it can make sense for them to move (I haven't heard anything whether TN threw in some relocation assistance, they are known to do that).
     

    parttimer

    Ultimate Member
    Oct 10, 2013
    1,324
    Calvert
    I hope the week they leave maryland Beretta has a huge moving sale! It would be great to see them flood the market with their guns as they roll out.
    I don't believe they sell to the general public at their plant but, maybe they could bring in a few local ffl's and have a massive sidewalk sale of guns at cost. I doubt this would ever happen. It would be an extra kick in the nuts to all that voted for sb281.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,518
    Messages
    7,284,872
    Members
    33,473
    Latest member
    Sarca

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom