While firearms manufacturers have a right to lobby against this legislation and explain their objections to it, it is inappropriate to wield the jobs of hundreds of workers as a weapon. Micro-stamping does not place any significant burden on the sale or manufacture of guns. It is not a ban or an arduous tax. It merely requires the engraving of a serial number in one more place on the weapon. If a state legislature decides micro-stamping is appropriate, it should not be forced to choose between citizens’ lives and citizens’ livelihood.
Is this person unaware that we live in a free country? The fact is, the free market decides things everyday (for the editor that fell asleep in ECON, it’s called the invisible hand). Colt’s actions seem both rational and self-interested. This is the free market at work.
Public opinion regarding gun control legislation can be a significant influence. And many gun control issues (like microstamping) are very polarizing. If Colt thinks it is in their best interest to take a stand against New England legislators, then it probably is. Would the editor that wrote this piece be happier if Colt did nothing, gun rights activists organized a nationwide boycott of Colt (for not standing up for the interests of their consumers), and Colt went out of business? Or is the editor simply saying that he knows how to run a corporation better than Colt does?
I also find it interesting that in the same editorial, the author admits that,
It’s questionable how effective micro-stamping would be.
Hey editor, pull your car over on the path to self-righteousness and take a gander at the beauty of capitalism. It’s not a perfect system, but it is better than anything else we have ever come up with. Let me know how your system goes.