DailyNews daily-politics Remington CEO: SAFE Act impacted decision to expand--in Alabama BY KEN LOVETT NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Monday, November 17, 2014, 5:55 AM   Here is the expanded version of the second item from my "Albany Insider" column from Monday's editions:   Remington Arms has confirmed what many already long suspected — New York’s tough gun control laws played a role in the upstate gun manufacturer’s decision to expand outside the state.   Remington, which has operated in New York State since 1816, shifted 100 jobs down south in August. Another 126 people were laid off last week as a result of a decline in gun sales.   The company says one reason behind its decision to open a new plant in Alabama rather than expand in New York was “state policies affecting use of our products,” Remington Outdoor Company CEO George Kollitides wrote to some upstate officials Oct. 20.   The statement was taken by some as a direct shot at a tough gun control measure enacted by New York in early 2013 in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shootings.   Indeed, one part of the gun control measure, also known as the SAFE Act, banned AR-15 rifles in New York — the very gun Remington made at its plant in upstate Ilion.   Those assault guns will now be made in Alabama.   Kollitides also said workforce quality, business environment, tax and economic incentives, and existing infrastructure impacted the decision to open a plant in Alabama.   “What the letter is really saying to us is we need to take action as a state to solidify and recognize the businesses we already have here and make it hospitable for them to stay,” said Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney, a Republican who represents the upstate district that is home to Remington and who received the letter.   “I don’t think Remington was even given the courtesy of a phone call or a discussion when the whole (gun legislation) discussions were going on,” she added.   A Remington spokesman did not return calls for comment.   A Cuomo administration source denied that it played a role in Remington’s departure, saying the company “is consolidating from states all across the country.”   “The company has repeatedly stated that’s driven by national consumer trends,” the source said. “If anything, local politicians constantly playing politics only hurts."   New Yorker Against Gun Violence Executive Director Leah Gunn Barrett said she believes Remington’s decisions are based more on New York’s business climate than its gun control laws.   But regardless, she said, public safety should trump economic decisions.   Critics “love to use the New York SAFE Act as a whipping boy, but let’s face it, that law is keeping New Yorkers safe and keeping New York communities safe and our kids safe and guns out of the wrong hands, to me that’s more important,” she said.    

Firearms Owners, Industry Not the "Bad Guys," Says NSSF President Steve Sanetti in PBS Frontline Interview NEWTOWN, Conn. -- In an extended interview with the PBS Frontline program, Steve Sanetti, president and CEO of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, emphatically says that the nation's firearms owners and firearms industry are not responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms and, consequently, should not be subjected to the severe restrictions being considered by Congress and many state legislatures. "[Firearms owners] are not the bad guys. The industry isn't the bad guys," said Sanetti in the interview. "Insofar as we can help the situation we want to be able to help. But that doesn't mean piling meaningless restrictions and onerous conditions upon people who want to exercise their rights and just enjoy what they do peacefully." PBS has devoted unprecedented airtime this week across all of its news programming platforms to coverage of violence in American society. NSSF agreed to do the interview in order to provide the firearms industry's perspective on contentious gun and legislative issues. NSSF is the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry and has more than 8,000 members. The following quotes by Sanetti are taken from the wide-ranging interview: On restricting magazine capacity: "Millions and millions of law-abiding Americans use semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines of varying capacities, and millions and millions of them every day don't do a thing wrong. And so we feel that it's not the correct approach and do not support magazine limitation." On selling guns and providing safety literature: ". . . people look at a trade association like ours and assume that the only thing we're interested in is selling guns. Not true. We want our products to be used safely and responsibly. Because let's face it, we're the ones who get blamed if products are used unsafely or irresponsibly." On Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) saying AR-style rifles are designed to kill people: "With all due respect he could not be more wrong . . . . You have millions and millions . . . of Americans who pass a background check, who buy these guns and have millions and millions of magazines . . . . [Yet] the crime rate has been going down. If you tell these people . . . who use these guns for legitimate purposes . . . ‘You're nothing but a murderer, because that's the only reason why anyone would own guns is to kill people.' How are you going to get these people to cooperate [on solutions to violence]?" On violence and guns: "Let's take Connecticut. In Connecticut there are exactly two homicides committed with a rifle of any kind in the last seven years. There were 40 deaths annually from knives, 320 deaths annually from clubs and 20 deaths annually from hands and feet. So it's not just firearms.Yes, firearms can be misused, but other things can be misused too. So the focus I think should be on violence." Who or what is to blame for what happened in Newtown? "I think primarily the firearms owner in this instance was not exercising that degree of personal responsibility . . . she should have done. She knew she had an at-risk individual in her home . . . . She knew he needed help. She knew he was mentally troubled. She had firearms in the house that she purchased legally. She had gone through all the background check required in Connecticut, the guns were registered to her, nothing was done improperly or illegally. But where I think she really caused this incident was by not adequately storing these guns securely away from her son who she knew to have these problems. Had she done that this incident would not have occurred and you wouldn't see this big cry over, let's have more gun control." On hasty lawmaking: ". . . people react emotionally. And I think people make bad decisions when they are angry, when they are fearful and when they act in haste. And I think that this situation had the making of all three." On restrictions on, and increased sales of, firearms: "We want people to own firearms for the right reasons because they understand, respect them, enjoy them, and will use them safely, properly, and responsibly. So the idea of a mad rush for everybody to buy a firearm I don't think is necessarily the best trend in the world but it's a fact of life because, as I say, we're Americans, and if you say we can't have something, people want it." Frontline has posted its complete interview with Steve Sanetti in written Q&A format. The broadcast segments are nowonline as well. To stay abreast of federal and state legislation that could potentially restrict ownership and use of semiautomatic firearms and ammunition and also to write your legislators, visit the NSSF Legislative Action Center here. Bill Brassard Jr.203-426-1320

The bank that absorbed Seattle-based SeaFirst Bank back in 1983 has allegedly taken an action that might resonate in downtown Seattle, but to the American firearms community it’s a declaration of war, and gun owners are evidently poised to strike back.    Bank of America is alleged to have advised McMillan Fiberglass Stocks that, because it now manufactures firearms, its business is no longer welcome. The bank has denied the allegation. It's quickly becoming a case of "he said/he said," with some gun owners expressing skepticism, others accepting the report as true.    The report sizzled across cyberspace over the weekend has spread Mondays morning to Jim Shepherd’s The Outdoor Wire, and HotAir.com. It has ignited a discussion on GunRightsMedia.com, Northwest Firearms and other forums. A story under my byline also appears in TheGunMag.comMany in the Pacific Northwest who have or had personal and business accounts with SeaFirst (a.k.a. Seattle First National Bank among old-timers) are gun owners.    According to a message posted on Facebook by Kelly D. McMillan, director of operations at the Phoenix-based McMillan Fiberglass Stocks and McMillan Firearms Manufacturing company, a meeting with a Bank of America senior vice president occurred the other day that went like this: McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing, McMillan Group International have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12 years. Today Mr. Ray Fox, Senior Vice President, Market Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking came to my office. He scheduled the meeting as an “account analysis” meeting in order to evaluate the two lines of credit we have with them. He spent 5 minutes talking about how McMillan has changed in the last 5 years and have become more of a firearms manufacturer than a supplier of accessories.At this point I interrupted him and asked “Can I possible save you some time so that you don’t waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer what my business.”“That is correct” he says.I replied “That is okay, we will move our accounts as soon as possible. We can find a 2nd Amendment friendly bank that will be glad to have our business. You won’t mind if I tell the NRA, SCI and everyone one I know that BofA is not firearms industry friendly?”“You have to do what you must” he said.“So you are telling me this is a politically motivated decision, is that right?”Mr Fox confirmed that it was. At which point I told him that the meeting was over and there was nothing left for him to say. ___________________________________________ UPDATE: This column reached McMillan Monday morning and he stands by his story. Bank of America has posted this message on its Facebook page: "We want to let you know that we hear your comments and questions regarding one of our customers. While we cannot discuss the details of any individual client we work with, we can assure you the allegations being made here are completely false. Bank of America does not have a policy that prohibits us from banking clients in this industry. In fact, we have numerous, longstanding customers in the industry. "We are also extremely proud of our support of the US military and reject any assertion to the contrary. We count as clients many companies that provide for our nation's defense. We employ thousands of veterans, Guardsmen, and Reservists, and plan to increase our hiring this year."—Bank of America    The Snopes website is also discussing the controversy here. This column's call to Bank of America has not been returned. _________________________________________________________ Shepherd, in Monday morning’s Outdoor Wire, noted that the story has gained plenty of traction. McMillan concluded with this observation, and a warning to customers: I think it is import for all Americans who believe in and support our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms should know when a business does not support these rights. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. When I don’t agree with a business’ political position I can not in good conscience support them. We will soon no longer be accepting Bank of America credit cards as payment for our products.—Kelly D. McMillan    Over at HotAir.com, there is already a rumbling of boycott. And at PJMedia, columnist Bob Owens has literally taken off the gloves, reminding readers that McMillan is “heavily involved” with the U.S. military, producing stocks for the Marine Corps’ designated sniper rifle, and producing equipment for other branches. He also had this assertion: Bank of America was the recipient of well over 100 billion dollars in federal money. They are also one of just two vendors processing payments for Barack Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign, employing a system that disables safeguards against illegal foreign donations. Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina, is the site of the Democratic Nation Convention in September.—Bob Owens, PJ Media    This story may, or nay not, cause a ripple in high finance circles, but it is certainly causing a ripple effect in the firearms community as more gun owners – and especially the gun rights activists – are learning about this.    Q. Do you have a Bank of America account, and will this story cause you to change banks?   PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forum  

Bank of America – The Un-American Bank   By Chris Avena, President of SeeMeHunt.com     Is Bank of America The Un-American Bank? Only a few short months ago Bank of America severed their business relationship with McMillan Firearms because they were a gun manufacturer. As much as Bank of America portrayed their statements as just a misunderstanding, their sincerity was just a little hard to swallow. When a financial institution takes a political position about a particular industry, they walk a very dangerous line.   Should a financial institution be able to decide that they do not want to do business with a legal and federally regulated business because they do not agree with their industry? Should they be able to freeze your account without provocation? Should they be able to act on their own accord while putting their client’s financial interests in jeopardy? That is exactly what Bank of America has done.   According to Joe Sirochman the President of American Spirit Arms, he was told by a Manager at Bank of America     “WE BELIEVE YOU SHOULD NOT BE SELLING GUNS and GUN PARTS ON THE INTERNET “   With the recent surge in recent firearm sales, American Spirit Arms e-commerce sales have increased by 500%. Naturally, they have had much larger than normal bank deposits at Bank of America. You would think that a financial institution would value a client whose business is growing. Instead, Bank of America decided to hold the deposits for “Further Review”. They did not clear those payments or make the money available to American Spirit Arms. Their account was frozen in a state of flux or as Bank of America stated –   “They were keeping the account Under Review”.   While they were holding those payments under review, American Spirit Arms was fulfilling their obligation by shipping product to their customers that they rightfully paid for. When a financial institution’s political beliefs inhibits their customer’s ability to operate their business, that institution has just crossed the line. Where does the legal obligation to their customers end?   As a firearms manufacturer, American Spirit Arms holds a FFL (Federal Firearms License). They are bound to abide by ALL of the State and Federal rules and regulations. They are audited regularly by ATF (Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms) and Homeland Security.   Bank of America Also has State and Federal Rules and Regulations that they Must abide by and they are regulated by the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission).   By acting as Bank of America has, they may have broken several SEC Regulations. A financial Institution has a fiduciary duty to act in their clients best interests. Bank of America’s actions shows a complete disregard for their clients well being and in doing so, put their financial future at risk.   If a gun manufacturer was not working within their legal guidelines, ATF and Homeland Security would shut them down. What will it take for the SEC to do their job as a Federal Regulator to make sure that Bank of America lives up to their Obligation.