PDA

View Full Version : Freedom group



starmac
01-18-2013, 02:24 PM
On another forum, there is a thread about taurus buying freedom group. I am not a member there and there was not a working link, so I couldn't ask anything.

Has anyone else heard this? Is it just a rumor or is something possibly in the works?

jmort
01-18-2013, 02:34 PM
Makes sense - Brazil has a better economy than we do.

**oneshot**
01-18-2013, 04:00 PM
Thats because Brazil has a something like a 40% tax on products not made in brazil. What a concept.

runfiverun
01-18-2013, 04:14 PM
wow remingtons and marlins being made by taurus.
i can't see a single negative here.
i could get me a remington-92 levergun in 44 mag with a genuine 44 caliber barell,with only 4 different safety's,,,,,and a twist rate slow enough to finally shoot those 160 gr boolit molds i have had my eye on...

MtGun44
01-18-2013, 09:15 PM
WOW! Hope this isn't true, IME Taurus are pretty iffy to bad quality and poor or
worse customer service.

Bill

Wolfer
01-18-2013, 09:26 PM
I come nearer thinking that freedom group was buying Taurus.

jmort
01-18-2013, 09:42 PM
Wrongo Bongo
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-17/gun-ban-no-obstacle-to-taurus-bid-for-freedom-corporate-brazil.html

mpmarty
01-18-2013, 10:32 PM
Hope it turns out that way. I am impressed with Taurus decent guns at decent prices and great customer service for the life of the gun no matter who owns it. bought a used Mil Pro 45 acp that was suffering light strikes. Sent it to Taurus in Florida and it came back in less than ten days right to my door and I still carry that little baby today, five years after buying it. It still functions flawlessly and Taurus even sent an extra magazine "for my troubles".
Thanks Taurus.

jmort
01-18-2013, 10:37 PM
I think it would be best if S&W got them. Perfect fit, the would have a complete line-up. How those dumb a$$es at "Remington" can lose $$$ in this market is beyond me. The way the private equity company killed Marlin, I don't care who get them as long as they do it right.

crawfobj
01-18-2013, 10:38 PM
Group buy?

runfiverun
01-18-2013, 10:56 PM
last i heard they wanted 600 million.
divide that by 25,000 carryover the 2 and add the 0
two zeroes here,and subtract..
hmmm someone wanna loan me about 2 million i'm a bit short..

Doc65
01-18-2013, 10:58 PM
Heck Yes!!! Citizen Owned, I'm IN!!! First action? Get the heck out of NY, why pay taxes to THAT state?!?


Group buy?

drklynoon
01-18-2013, 11:09 PM
I'm not a big fan of this. There are many reasons for my skepticism but it is primarily focused on Taurus' lack of experience with a company of this magnitude. Freedom is huge and cannot be run the same way as a smaller company. That and I suppose there is some form of protectionism still coursing through my veins.

starmac
01-18-2013, 11:53 PM
One thing I am afraid of is when all gun companies are moved offshore, what is there to stop the govt from somehow stopping any arms from being imported?
I would much rather see it broken back down to the smaller companies that were successful for years.

10x
01-19-2013, 12:27 AM
One thing I am afraid of is when all gun companies are moved offshore, what is there to stop the govt from somehow stopping any arms from being imported?
I would much rather see it broken back down to the smaller companies that were successful for years.
'

Can be done by executive order. Mr. Clinton did it in a trade agreement between the U.S. and China. Guys like me in Canada benefit with $400.00 M14 clones that are incredible value. Also the chinese SKS is good value here too.

crawfobj
01-19-2013, 02:53 AM
Move it to Texas. Pass Montana style law - made in Tx for use in TX = not subject to federal firearms laws.

I've always been a little skeptical of the freedom group concept. Too many of our eggs in one basket makes too easy a target one way or another.

On the plus side, see what happened with the former Bushmaster folks when they sold out. A little know how + a little capital = windham weaponry. Where there's a will there's a way.

uscra112
01-19-2013, 05:16 AM
Cerberus is the outfit that bought the husk of Chrysler after Daimler-Benz had squeezed them dry, then turned around and collected a huge chunk of bailout money so they could make a profit selling to Fiat. That wa stheir plan all along. Crony capitalism at its' worst. I've seen this pattern before, when I was in the machine tool industry in the '70s and '80s. Companies got bought up wholesale, asset-stripped and run into the ground. Bullard, deVlieg, Lucas, Sundstrand, just to name a few. Cerberus has done its' thing. There won't be any chance of reviving these old plants, old management, and old (and in the case of Remington, unionized) workforces. Not enough vitality left. It sure will grieve me to see Marlin die, but having been there before, all I can say is "let it go", :-( and start patronizing the new blood. :smile:

pressonregardless
01-19-2013, 06:55 AM
One thing I am afraid of is when all gun companies are moved offshore, what is there to stop the govt from somehow stopping any arms from being imported?
I would much rather see it broken back down to the smaller companies that were successful for years.

read this the other day.....

Jack Lew MUST NOT Be Treasury Secretary


Bet you didn't know what's hidden in The Gun Control Act of 1968.

The Treasury Secretary is vested with the right to ban importation of any firearm he finds "does not have a sporting purpose."

While this authority is "currently" delegated to the BATFE, it doesn't have to remain delegated. In fact, there is nothing legislative about that delegation to the best of my knowledge, which means it can be revoked by pure fiat.

Jack Lew, the person most-likely to be nominated to replace Geithner, is Obama's current Chief of Staff. As such it must be presumed that he will do whatever Obama wants, within the limit of his statutory authority.

And that authority includes the ability to ban the import of any gun.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 should be repealed. But so long as it stands, no person who comes from inside the Obama administration can be considered for confirmation to the Treasury Secretary's post, and any such person must be made subject to strict scrutiny on their 2nd Amendment views.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3105582

Bad Water Bill
01-19-2013, 07:47 AM
As long as we have a spineless or bought congress the emperor will do just what he wants to.

If congress did not approve him B H O will just name him the CZAR of the treasury.

How many CZARS have been appointed so far to positions that were SUPPOSED to have been approved by congress? Has even one CZAR position been challenged?

Why hasn't the supreme court stepped in and found him in violation of the constitution.

I thought that was one reason we had 3 bodies of government.

10x
01-19-2013, 09:09 AM
Folks, I am from Canada, on the outside looking at the firearms situation unfolding in the U.S.

For those who make the argument that the 2nd amendment applies to the powers of each State to have a well regulated militia, their argument supports that the state can make laws that define the possession of firearms with in that state. That would include state legislation that suspends federal law that infringes the ability of any state who decides to maintain a future militia. The AR-15 (and it's clones) is an obvious choice for citizens to arm themselves to become part of the militia as apparently some parts of it are the same as the M-16 ( the gun of the U.S. Armed forces).

Having citizens who choose to arm themselves with firearms that are similar to the U.S. armed forces is protected in the 2nd amendment. If a State passes legislation supporting that end, the 2nd amendment trumps any Presidential order that does not follow the terms of the Constitution. In fact any Presidential order that is contrary to the terms of the U.S. Constitution may be be grounds for an investigation to ensure that there is not a) treason or b) grounds for impeachment.

Couple that with the alleged illegal activities of Mr. Holden - a public servant who swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Laws of the United States (and allegedly engaged in firearms sales and export (smuggling?) contrary to the laws of the United States - and possibly the part of the U.S. Constitution that does not allow the U.S. government (read U.S. public servants) to interfere with or break the laws (or government process) of another nation there is a lot of explaining to do there as well. Explaining that one may well go right up to the president.


As for the gun control act of 1968 allowing a bureaucrat to limit the import of any gun that is deemed "not a sporting gun" - that goes against the terms of the 2nd amendment as well. That one should have been challenged in 1968 . It is too bad that the details of legislation get missed by other portions of the legislation designed to garner attention.
This is evident in the Canadian gun laws. In 1995 legislation was passed in Canada (C68(1995) that amended section 91 of the Canadian Criminal Code to make the possession of any firearm in Canada illegal. The balance of that legislation created a gun registration scheme and a gun owners licensing scheme. The gun owners license in Canada suspends the ability of the courts in Canada to convict when an individual is found in possession of a gun. The gun license does not stop police from seizing both guns and the license, then laying criminal section 91 charges that are used to plea bargain ( justice in Canada is negotiable ) a verdict. In Canada the burden of proof is on the gun owner to prove they have a firearms license.

All of this came into being by using the registration of all guns as a diversion. There are several Canadian gun lobby groups that have bought into licensing, They ignore the fact that in Canada, one individual can determine that a license no longer covers a certain class of firearm - no checks by the courts or the Canadian parliament.

You guys are lucky, you have a constitution that affirms the pre existing Common law right to keep and bear arms. Canadians have that right but it is a much more difficult fight.

Mike in TX
01-19-2013, 03:27 PM
I am happy with the Taurus products. They have never failed me. Now some of those made years ago had problems but IMHO the newer ones are as good as anybody's

10x
01-19-2013, 06:50 PM
I am happy with the Taurus products. They have never failed me. Now some of those made years ago had problems but IMHO the newer ones are as good as anybody's

I am in Canada and I am unhappy with Taurus U.S.A. and their service policy. Ihave an early Taurus .22 double action revolver that I can not get a firing pin for.
Been trying to get one for ten years. Because of the laws here - and in the U.S. it is somewhat complex to ship it to the U.S. for repair.