U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 18, 2013 01:14 PM UTC

Surprised Magpul Hasn't Left Colorado? Don't Be

  • 60 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
Colorado-based gun accessory maker Magpul.
Colorado-based gun accessory maker Magpul.

As the Boulder Daily Camera's John Aguilar reports:

State Rep. Lori Saine, R-Dacono, read from the floor of the Colorado House of Representatives a message from the CEO of Magpul Industries, the Erie-based weapons accessory maker, that his company would leave Colorado if the Legislature passed a measure banning the sale of magazines containing more than 15 rounds.

Saine gave that speech in February, the Legislature passed the magazine-limits bill in March, and Magpul announced in April that it had started making certain weapons accessories out of state. But on Thursday — a full six months after the company made its much-ballyhooed break from the Centennial State — the parking lot at Magpul's headquarters in Erie was filled with cars, and a receptionist greeted visitors in the front lobby.

The company's seeming inability to once and for all pull up stakes and exit Colorado has gone from a point of curiosity among gun enthusiasts, who loudly backed the company's decision half a year ago to move, to a source of annoyance that threatens to hurt Magpul's reputation and business.

Magpul's threats to leave the state of Colorado to protect the company's "principles" during the debate over House Bill 1224 were repeatedly invoked by Republican lawmakers as proof of the economic harm the legislation would do to the state. Since then, we've seen that the GOP-forecast "boycott" of hunters visiting from Colorado did not materialize, and all of the wacky "unintended consequences" of this law, and the new law requiring background checks for most gun sales, have been proven false.

During the time after House Bill 1224 passed, Magpul reaped untold profits from the "emergency" sale of its products in Colorado before the new law took effect. In this way, Magpul followed a formulaic approach of hyping up new, proposed, or even imaginary gun restrictions to provoke panic buying of their products. There's an argument that much of the nutty conspiracy theory stuff about Barack Obama and the United Nations has served its purpose simply by boosting the sale of guns and related products.

Since nothing in House Bill 1224 actually stops them from manufacturing their products in Colorado, and Colorado is, even after House Bill 1224, a hell of a lot nicer place to live than Texas, we expect that at some point Magpul will announce they are "staying to fight" instead of "cutting and running." We would be shocked if Magpul actually left Colorado prior to the innumerable attempts Republicans are guaranteed to make next year to repeal HB-1224–since they can use threats to leave, "for real" this time, as leverage again just as they did this year. Hell, they can probably get away with that for at least a couple of years before nobody buys it anymore. Before then, Republicans could retake the state and repeal the law, Dave Kopel and the sheriffs could win their longshot lawsuit, or U.N. stormtroopers under dictator Hillary Clinton could make the whole damn question irrelevant!

This is the upside to being full of crap, folks. There's always something new you can say.

Tweet
Share

Comments

60 thoughts on “Surprised Magpul Hasn’t Left Colorado? Don’t Be”

  2. I suspect that it will be a similar story next summer 6 months after ACA really kicks in this coming January. I'm sure that's why the desperation to stop both. Once people see the dire consequences failing to materialize, hysteria becomes a harder sell beyond the wacko base which, considering the age demo, must be shrinking  while I'm typing.  Oops, there goes another Rush listener. 

  3. It is offensive that you would disparage a Colorado employer this way. Do you want those jobs gone? Can you just say that if that's true?

    I say the same about the energy industry, after Jared Polis sais they didn't want those jobs in Boulder. It's appalling that Democrats care so little about Colorado jobs.

      1. Oh, sure. "You're welcome to stay, but know that we hate what you do and what you stand for." I don't stay where I'm not wanted. Do you simply not want Magpul?

          2. I've never understood why it is these liars are always so intent on displaying themselves as liars?     It does make it awfully easy though — give 'em enough rope and eventually they'll always choke their chicken . . . 

    2. Surely you must admit that they kind of left themselves open to a fair amount of disparagement?  They said that if X came to pass, they would react with Y.  Clearly, they are not reacting with Y.  If you can't trust a firearms component manufacturer to be a straight shooter, what in the heck is the world coming to?

      1. Did you ever stop to think that the two going on three successful recalls since 1224 passed might motivate Magpul to stay? They are winning, and all you can do is display your sour grapes that they're still here.

        This is not a winning story for Democrats. You should drop it.

        1. Why should they drop it? So it won't embarrass you any further?

          You are not off to a good start, today. Maybe you should go back to bed, get up later, and try again.

        2. The winning story is that Magpul hasn't pulled out of Colorado despite threats to do so.

          They realize the gun laws are sound an reasonable and Republicans needs to use their guns to find a Second Amendment solution for themselves.

           

           

        3. @Moderatus.

          Isn't it true that Magpul could not get the great state of Texas to give them several million dollars to move to that state? And what about Oklahoma?

  4. I wonder how many 30 rounders they sold before the deadline….I saw an article that they sold 20,000 in one day just before the end.

    I question just who makes the gun industry more money, the NRA or the gun control advocates? 

    1. The industry has learned that it makes most of its money from the gullible, and those easily persuaded to fear . . . 

      How many 30-rounders are you holding onto???

      1. I'll hold on to approx. 250… that is 250 with actual purchase receipts – which went into a revocable trust which eliminates any "transfer" in the future. 

        Another 200-250 will go into the kitty for the next big grab, whether it be state or fed – last time $10 mags went for $100 each. The local gun shop cleared $100,000 on thier stagnant oversupply of magazines they could not get rid of…. while I did not see a NRA sticker on the door, they did have a relatively large Obama image next to the "open" sign.

        I hear you can actually sell your receipts, which are modified to reflect a buyers name/address, and they take them with them as they cross the state line and stock up. Apparently its very difficult to tell the difference between individual magazines of the same color.

        My guess is that over 1 million magazines have hit CO due to the legislation intended to prevent them. My guess is its also 10x more than what would have been sold without the ban. 

        I must be one of the gullible ones you speak of.  You know, 1,000% return on investment? What an idiot I must be. How's that Apple stock doing for you?

        Keep up the good work! Thank you. 

         

         

        3. I'll call BS. From having attempted to profit by offering a couple of 30 rounders at only a 20% hike. Unsuccessful. Hunters definitely have no use for them. Everyone gets close to another state border once or twice a year and in every state bordering us the 30 rounders are legal

        4. So, if Negev is to be believed (and why not?), the laws have made the 30-round I can't aim magazines only available from black market profiteers such as himself, who openly brag about the markup, rather than offering them to fellow patriots/paper target slayers at anything close to a fair price.

          I'm okay with this. At least we know what they're all about.  

          1. Well, I think you misunderstood me. 30 round can't aim mags are available everywhere for $10. Next time your over the border somewhere, notice the inventory you see. They sell pmags at the freekin gas station now just over the state line.

            Its only when there are pending bans that bring the profiteers such as myself (I am not one yet, but I am aspiring to be). Which gets me to the real point I am trying to make: If the mag ban was intended to limit the number of "high capacity" magazines available, it is a miserable failure. In fact it did just the opposite. 

            1. Hey, as long as some things are harder to obtain, and you and the NRA can profit off of your fellow patriots' fear, paranoia, and comical fantasies of fending off gubmint troops with AR-15s and 30-round magazines (while an airburst XM25 grenade shatters every tooth in their head), what's to complain about? 

              Everybody wins, right?

              1. Right! And you and the liberal left can feel like they did something. Thats like win, win, and win with no net change – starting to sound like a government ain't it?

                My guess is the dude who shot the airburst voted for Romney. 

                4. Oh, and by the way, being a paper target slayin' wannabe, you probably don't understand this; but when it comes to the actual military, the uniform trumps political affiliation. If you spill the blood of a service member, as far as any other service member is concerned, you're not a "patriot"… you're the enemy. With all that entails.   So I wouldn't count on a Gadsden flag saving your ass. 

                    1. If you silly bastards fire on them with your badass AR-15s in some lame "uprising", you're no longer their countrymen. You won't be dealing with paper targets anymore.

              2. Prices on guns are dropping and more guns are available. Ammo remains costly but is more available. I'm told that Walmart is still imposing a 3 box/day limit

        5. Yet another gun fondler.

          Hope you shoot your foot with your Bushmaster. Repeatedly.

          All of the guns are worthless and should be smelted down to build new houses for the homeless.

           

           

          1. Have u ever noticed how the Liberals can screw up an economy just by passing a bill that no one wants. Limiting a mag does not insure safety. u can carry a lot of 15 round clips. LOL 

            If the libs would just leave shit alone and work on getting the guns out of the hands of mental defectives we would be much better off.

              1. Wrong, nobody is claiming 2nd amendment rights if the libs were trying to limit guns in homes where u have a mental patient. Now they want to limit guns to returning vets that may or may not have PTSD. of course we will object to that. 

                1. Can you point to a link that shows "libs" are limiting guns for veterans? I've heard of no such thing.  It is on all of the right wing repeater echo sites – but as far as actual legislation, I find zilch.

                  In fact, the only group specifically advocating for legislation around veterans and guns is Veterans for Responsible Solutions , which advocates for background checks.

                  Conservatives like to talk about how they're all for limiting guns for mentally ill people – until it starts getting into rights of privacy, HIPPA rules, and actually funding mental health care for the poor. Then it's all a big liberal conspiracy again.

                  As far as Magpul goes, they got a better deal from Wyoming. That's about all there is to it.

                  1. I didn't say they were, I said they want to. It was on the news a couple of weeks ago.

                    No one is gonna make gun owners submitt to a mental check up but mental health facilities may have to report certain diagnosis to nics or the local law enforcement.

                    Magpul will be ok. They make something that most AR owners want,

                    1. I deal with the VA a lot, as my ex-husband is 100% disabled. The VA has a process for determining if someone is "incompetent to handle his/her own affairs". This page, from Vetsfirst, a nonpartisan veteran's group, explains the process. It is a process, not a "get vets guns" program. If someone is determined to be incompetent by virtue of being locked up in a psychiatric hospital, or some other objective medical measure, they still have rights of appeal, and no one confiscates their property. Only after determination of incompetency would the veteran then be prohibited from owning firearms.

                       

                      What Obama did in his proposed executive orders was to make it easier for states to "submit information about the mentally ill to the federal system, without blocking all people who seek mental health treatment from owning guns." This allows more information to go into the background check database, by making privacy laws more flexible.

                      This would affect a very small number of people: those who have been court ordered to seek psychological treatment, those who are involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital, those who are in a coma and non-communicative, etc.

                      It would not have prevented Adam Lanza from committing his atrocity, nor Nidal Hasan from his.

                      It would have likely prevented Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech gunman, from committing his murders. Same with James Holmes, the Aurora theater shooter – psychiatrists judged that these guys were a danger to the public, but were prevented by privacy laws (HIPAA) from taking meaningful action, such as involuntary treatment.

                      So I'm OK with mental health facilities having to report certain diagnoses to local law enforcement.  I don't have a lot of faith in the system where mental illness and criminal justice intersect, having dealt with that in my own family. But I'm optimistic that it can be made better, for public safety.

                      By the way, when I was researching this just now, I found many rightie sites hysterical about this, and really distorting the impact of these proposed executive orders. So if you get your news solely from NewsMax or FreeRepublic or any site whose main audience is paranoid gun owners, you may want to widen your research base a bit.

            2. Did u ever notice there is a word called "you" that means the same thing as the letter you have substituted for a word?

              You're not texting, Mike, and this isn't Twitter. I know that it may seem a trivial thing, but, please do us the courtesy of writing to us.

              As to your point…if you can carry so many 15 rounders…why is it, again, that you need thirty round magazines? In the hands of a law abiding citizen, the difference may be negligible…in the hands of a nutcase…it might save some lives.

              That may or may not be important to you…

               

              1. It is way trivial. This is an important subject. The point I was making is that 30 round clips arent the problem. Its the shooter that needs the restrictions put on them. Like bloomberg in NY trying to limit 32 oz drinks when most eateries offer refills on 16 oz drinks. It just makes no since.

                1. The variability of human nature is the problem.  The more syrupy drinks available the more health problems crop up that we all have to pay for, the more guns people have "handy" the more we have gun deaths that we also pay for in various ways. 

                  How to regulate guns and nudge people toward healthier habits are issues that must be addressed by thoughtful people from all sides of these issues.  The nervous nellies on the left and the insecure bullies on the right backed by the gun industry are not the ones best suited to do this.

                  The right of individuals to have guns can be regulated.  The Supreme Court has upheld such laws.  Using terms like "mentally defective" and "mental patients" is naive.  It really serves little useful purpose except to call for mental health exams for gun owners.  That would create a very interesting senario  given that some owners can become very abusive and angry if they feel their "rights" are being impinged upon. 

                  Cross referencing your information would be a good thing to do.   Listening to personalities paid pockets full of money to promote gun industry interests as your primary source of information is not the best way to form one's views.

                  1. I've got to say the drink size limit was stupid, an invitation to hysteria over the nanny state. We all pretty much know that a tub 'o carbonated sugar water isn't good for us. 

            3. No. I have noticed how, over many, many decades, including as far back as living memory of our oldest citizens goes, the economy as a whole and the middle class especially almost always does much better when Dems are in charge.  You can look up the graphs.

  5. Well, judging from the crowd (or lack of it actually) at the King Soopers at 80th and Wads (about 13:39) and at Ward Road, (about 14:00) either the goonies have thier 19,000 signatures or no one's signing the petition. Seriously, nobody but yellow shirts was there. 

    I'm wondering if the gunzos are getting lumped in with the extremist republicans that shut down the government and voted for default last week. The hayseed craziness and anarchist mood of the recall is akin to goehmert, barton, king, lamborn, and stockman in the "anti-guvbmint" circus.

    I'm kind of thinking a lot of older white entitled conservatives are thinking about how close they came to possibly not receiving Social Security checks due to the teabag crazies, and are having to make that choice………"Do I hate that black guy Obama more than I want my check?" Funny how with republicans, it can come down to "Hate or greed, greed or hate? how should we go?" Then they get reminded of the Homestead provision in Arvada. Again, money or hate? If the recall gets Evie, the Senate flips, and crazy stuff happens in the House, republicans WILL recapture that source of revenue.

    Tough choice, but based on what I'm seeing, canning "Obama's pal Evie" isn't as big a deal as gettin' and keepin' the dough. 

     

    1. "Gunzos". Like it. Stealing it.

      I'm glad that the recallers apparently are still volunteers, although they claim to have collected $7K in contributions so far.  They would have to be averaging 3000 sigs collected per week. My guess is that they'll bottom out at around 10,000 hard core gunzos. 

      If the shutdown madness is making conservatives consider their "Hate or Greed?" priorities, perhaps it wasn't all a waste.

  6. The gunzo's recall will fail, and these two Senators that they replaced will also face ethics charges and will be summarily expulsed from the Colorado State Legislature.

     

     

  7. Magpul doesn't pull up 100% of production and offices within YOUR time frame (~6 months or so), and so they lied, right? Ignore the threats because Magpul reneged, right?

    As for the huge profits they made because of Colorado politicians actions, you, the anti-2nd Amendment crowd on this site, are once again uninformed on another gun issue.  Magpul makes the bulk of their profit from military sales.  Their magazines are so superior to other magazines that soldiers are requesting family members buy them here in the US and mail the magazines to them in Afghanistan/Iraq.  Besides this, Magpul gave away a large number of magazines to Colorado gun owners prior to the ban going into effect.

    Oh, and what's this?  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/02/top-us-gun-magazine-producer-to-leave-colorado-over-gun-laws/  looks like, despite what you guys were crowing about a few months ago, Magpul makes good on their promise, moving their headquarters to North Central Texas in all likelyhood, and moving the rest of their operations to Wyoming.

    You showed them, huh?

  9. As for the recall, we all know the results of that today, don't we? 3 bite the dust, and had more lefties been on the recall list, the success would have been far greater, even though the recallers were far outspent and the legislators were mostly in safe districts.

    1. Soldiers need high capacity magazines. Civilians don't. What is it about this that you all just don't get? Soldiers, police, professionals who need the magazines will still be able to buy them wherever Magpul  HQ is.

      Magpul contributed $150,000 to the recall efforts through "Free Colorado", funding a lying ad campaign against Morse and Giron. Presumably, Magpul's efforts have been well rewarded in a high profit margin.

      Your crystal ball is cracked, if you claim some mystical knowledge that "had more lefties been on the recall list, the success would have been far greater". Since your source for this latest Magpul threat to leave Colorado is Fox,  you don't have to look further for the poor prediction. Fox is wrong much more than it's right. 

      There is nothing on Magpul's website under "Propaganda" or "News" about them leaving the state. MY prediction is that this is just another multi-purpose marketing ploy:1) More people will panic and buy Magpul equipment 2) it will be used as a tool to try to intimidate legislators into repealing the existing gun laws, and not passing any further laws.

      Magpul: You can fool some of the gunzos some of the time, and all of the gunzos most of the time,  but people who actually look shit up are not fooled at all ever.

    2. 3 bite the dust… um, …'scuse me…

      I believe Hudaks' seat is still occupied by a progressive Democrat, so….that should be a 2… not a 3.

      That was a nifty trick, I must admit. But RMGO was outfoxed by the Dems in the Hudak recall. I'm betting there will never be another.

    3. They only went after the ones they thought they could get. Almost nobody thinks the Giron seat is going to stay R after the next election. The Morse seat was taken by a hair with the help of voter suppression tactics. But dance your little dance while you can.  There was a lot to learn from the recall experience and I suspect Dems learned more than you did. Which isn't saying much, the rightie learning curve potential in this state being what it is. Say "hi" to Tanc for us at his next event.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

107 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!