Last Friday, we looked at the trend of several gun-friendly (and business-friendly) states attempting to lure gun manufacturers away from their home states, which are in many cases not only openly hostile to the civilian gun market, but also tend to implement tax and regulatory policies that are stifling for any business. Friday’s column focused on the bizarre statement by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), that right-to-work laws were “anti-labor,” and what that statement in turn says about CSGV’s view of the role of coercion “for our own good.” Today, though, we will look at a Boston Globe editorial that apparently argues that gun manufacturers have a moral obligation to remain in states that are openly hostile to their best interests:
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.
The legislation in question is a bill that would require all new semi-automatic pistols to be equipped to “microstamp” the primer and cartridge case of each round as it’s fired, so that (in theory) the spent and ejected cartridge cases could be recovered by investigators, who could then identify the weapon that fired the rounds. The Globe editorial even spent a paragraph noting some of the very real problems with such a “crime-fighting” scheme. Those problems are so real, in fact, that police chiefs in California (the only state so far to have passed a microstamping law) now question the wisdom of such a law.
The Boston Globe editorial board, though, thinks that even if such a law doesn’t make any sense, if it passes, gun manufacturers should stay put and deal with it. As John Richardson says in his No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money blog:
The Globe’s editors don’t get it. They want to eat their cake and have it, too. They want to have onerous gun control and they want the well-paying jobs provided by the gun industry. Sorry guys but it doesn’t work that way.
Industries have no moral obligation to remain in states (or countries, for that matter) that actively work against them. They have every right to move their tax dollars and good jobs to states that won’t use those resources to implement and enforce laws that work directly against the industries’ interests.
- California police chiefs now question value of ‘microstamping’
- What’s A Few Jobs
- Coalition to Stop Gun Violence: Penchant for coercion goes beyond ‘gun control’
- Boston Globe: Extreme Gun Control And Gun Manufacturing Can Co-Exist