Ruger Investors Force Gun Safety Report

[HiBC]

What say you Ruger?

There is a story in the news.This might be worth its own thread.
Anti-gun activists have been buying up firearms stock to vote in shareholder meetings.
Apparently a group of nuns has acquired enough Ruger to have an influence.

I would not blame Ruger,all this stuff has rules.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sturm-...eal-more-about-gun-violence-issues-1525901684

 

[Hal]

Apparently a group of nuns has acquired enough Ruger to have an influence.

The story linked requires a subscription to read.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/ruger-investors-gun-safety-report/

 

[Hal]

Thanks!

Interesting story - - in a morbid kind of way.

Ruger is finding out what the cost of dancing with the devil is. Old Bill tried to "get along" with the other side & now it's come back to bite Ruger on the hand.

I wonder if the legitimate (not a good choice of words I admit) shareholders have any recourse against a group or groups trying to drive a company deliberately into bankruptcy?

Surely that has to break some kind of SEC rules, right?

 

[Spats McGee]

I'm on Ruger's email list, and here's what they sent me.

Please understand that Ruger was obligated by applicable law to include the resolution with its proxy materials for a shareholder vote. With its passage, the resolution requires Ruger to prepare a report. That's it. A report. What it does not do . . . . cannot do . . . . is force us to change our business, which is lawful and constitutionally protected. What it does not do . . . . cannot do . . . . is force us to adopt misguided principles created by people who do not own guns, know nothing about the business, and frankly would rather see us out of business.

As our CEO explained, "we are Americans who work together to produce rugged, reliable, innovative and affordable firearms for responsible citizens. We are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment not because we make firearms, but because we cherish the rights conferred by it. We understand the importance of those rights and, more importantly, recognize that allowing our constitutionally protected freedoms to be eroded for the sake of political expediency is the wrong approach for our Company, for our industry, for our customers and for our country. We are arms makers for responsible citizens and I want to assure our long-term shareholders that we have no intention of changing that."

(I had to type it up, as it was in picture format, and I couldn't copy and paste. Thus, if there are spelling errors, they may well be mine and not Ruger's.)

 

[Lohman446]

Why are we afraid of a report? The problem with gun violence in America today is not integral to the tool used. It is the people using them. Ruger's report should reflect this and reflect that they are taking appropriate measures, as outlined by various federal and state laws, to do their part. It should also reflect that Ruger has no ability to ascertain the end users mental report and no obligation to do so. It should also ascertain that such an attempt would likely result in several violations of federal law in regards to discrimination and any meaningful attempt would require blatant violation of federal privacy laws.

 

[xandi]

Let’s remove the “gun” from “gun violence”

 

[zukiphile]

I wonder if the legitimate (not a good choice of words I admit) shareholders have any recourse against a group or groups trying to drive a company deliberately into bankruptcy?

Surely that has to break some kind of SEC rules, right?

Shareholders have right that you might very roughly analogize to citizen rights, only a shareholder heeds to hold a share. When the government of the corporation doesn't adhere to its own governing rules, it will be open to suit from the shareholders.

Ruger's inclusion of the shareholder resolution is what keeps it from being sued by this group. Buying stock in a company the stockholder detests for the purpose of protesting at shareholder meetings or being a general pita is a very old tradition.

The direct answer to your question is that small shareholders don't have a duty of wisdom or even good sense, so bringing an action against them for their lack of it wouldn't go far.

 

[Hal]

Let’s remove the “gun” from “gun violence”

Exactly...
There is no such thing as "gun violence".
It's a term that was made up years ago to do nothing but attack the pro gun side.

The direct answer to your question is that small shareholders don't have a duty of wisdom or even good sense, so bringing an action against them for their lack of it wouldn't go far.

Even if it has the potential to hurt the company?
The value of the shares?

Why are we afraid of a report? The problem with gun violence in America today is not integral to the tool used. It is the people using them

Because my friend, you are aiding your own destruction by using the made up term -"gun violence" to perpetuate the idea that it's the gun, not the person.
Anything that perpetuates that myth is 180* out of phase with - - well - - finding a solution to the current outbreak of violent activity.

Saying "gun violence" just shifts the point from the real problem - violent actions by a person or group of people.
To first fix a problem, the problem and it's root have to be defined.

The root problem of school shootings for instance, it's the fat that a gun is present on school property. The root problem is that something is causing a person or persons - to act in a violent manner. They just happen to choose a gun to commit that violent act.

The report mentioned, repeats the theme "gun violence" in order to answer and comply with the demand it be written.

@ least that's what I get from it...

 

[Evan Thomas]

I wonder if the legitimate (not a good choice of words I admit) shareholders have any recourse against a group or groups trying to drive a company deliberately into bankruptcy?

Surely that has to break some kind of SEC rules, right?

Since the Supreme Court has ruled that money = speech, people can use their money for any political purpose they like; influencing the policies of companies in which they hold stock would, I think, be included in that. Other shareholders have the same "recourse" -- buy more stock in the company.

As to deliberately driving a company into bankruptcy, acquiring a controlling interest in a company with the intent of selling off its assets and shutting it down is a fairly common investment strategy, and most of the time it's entirely legal -- see "asset stripping."

 

[zukiphile]

Even if it has the potential to hurt the company?
The value of the shares?

Shareholders and companies do things bad for the company and share price every day of the week that ends in "-y". Some poor slobs were sitting on GE stock at over $30 a share when GE decided to cut its dividend in half, and now GE stock is worth less than half its former price. GE will you its all part of a longer-term strategy, but the dividend still stinks.

Oil and defense companies get this sort of shareholder harassment too.


I'd like to see someone at Ruger take this challenge as an opportunity to report on the history of Ruger's efforts, including the trigger ruining magazine disconnect introduced in the MKIII pistol and the magazine disconnect in the P345 that was so fragile it could render a pistol ineffective even with a magazine in it.

 

[5whiskey]

Wow... will be buying RGR and SWHC stock at some point, if for no other reason to than to dilute protest shareholders. Not that I could help much, but if every gun owner recognized the need to...


Further, the Anti-gun crowd is growing full court press folks.

 

[DaleA]

Thank you for the link Aguila Blanca.

Let’s remove the “gun” from “gun violence”

Amen. A VERY good idea.

This idea of joining and then changing an organization has been floated several times by both sides...pro-gun forces have suggested we all join the ACLU to get them to defend the 2nd Amendment and anti-gun folk have suggested they all join the NRA to turn the organization into a daisy planting/folk singing organization.

It seems these guys are actually DOING IT though.

 

[mehavey]

This idea of joining and then changing an organization...

Nothing new. Think big.

Think massive counter-cultural immigration now sweeping across the West -- aided and abetted by those who find the originally-founded America of the 2nd Amendment "Fundamentally Flawed," and in dire need of "Fundamental Transformation."

You're looking at the results of such a join-and-redirect strategy on a Total Culture Base level.
The 2A issue is merely one symptom of a systematic disease taken root.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
na·tion
ˈnāSH(ə)n
noun
a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.


.

 

[Mike38]

Nuns? As in Catholic Nuns? If so, I think Nuns are supposed to believe in the Bible? Also, Nuns wear wedding rings because they consider themselves to be married to Christ. This man they are married to once said “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.” The 'Arms' of the times were swords, therefore Christ intended man to have the right to bear arms. I guess some Nuns don't believe in the Bible?

 

[mete]

What has been happening more and more is the investment companies are buying up companies .A good example is the control of Remington. So they are then not an independent company but only a division of the investment company.
The investment company gets it's orders from the investors who typically only want more returns --GREED Some will intentionally destroy a company , take the money and run.
A sad but true problem affecting many parts of our lives !!

 

[Lohman446]

I’m not going to engage in a semantic argument. It makes us look petty and desperate. Violence occurs. Guns are used (sometimes). Hence gun violence. No hiding from it. We can address it head on and point out the issue is not the guns but the violent tendencies of the perpetrators. A semantic argument makes us look afraid of actually having the argument

 

[5whiskey]

I’m not going to engage in a semantic argument. It makes us look petty and desperate. Violence occurs. Guns are used (sometimes). Hence gun violence. No hiding from it. We can address it head on and point out the issue is not the guns but the violent tendencies of the perpetrators. A semantic argument makes us look afraid of actually having the argument

Agreed. The term gun-violence doesn't upset me. We participated in violence in high school growing up when we got into fights, but 12 people weren't killed from it. There is a distinction between violence and gun violence, and we may as well be honest about it. To do so does not mean doesn't mean you don't support the 2nd Amendment.

 

[44 AMP]

"gun violence" is ....recoil

Every time I hear that phrase, or something like it, I am reminded of a scene from the old TV show "ALL IN THE FAMILY"
(if you're too young to remember it, look it up. It was made back in the days when people still understood that there is a difference between a bigot and a racist)

any way, the point is there was one scene, where the (liberal) daughter was bemoaning "xx thousand people are killed with guns every year..." (I no longer remember if the topic was suicide or something else)

Archie's response was, essentially "would you be happier if they had jumped out of a window???"

As far as stock in a company is concerned, when you buy stock, you are buying a SHARE of the company. You OWN a share of the company, equivalent to the amount of stock you buy. Your stock, your share, you get a voice in what the company does. The bigger the share, the larger the voice.

its the joy of a publicly traded company. A nutcase, with enough money, can buy a controlling share, then they get to make the decisions. Not a new thing at all.

AND, something which if you think about it, shows the hypocrisy of the billionaires who fund gun control.

If they actually MEANT to do something to counter "gun violence", they could simply BUY the gun companies (they have enough money) and then shut them down, if they choose.

They don't do that. They don't even try to do that. Ever wonder why???

 

[armoredman]

I’m not going to engage in a semantic argument. It makes us look petty and desperate. Violence occurs. Guns are used (sometimes). Hence gun violence. No hiding from it. We can address it head on and point out the issue is not the guns but the violent tendencies of the perpetrators. A semantic argument makes us look afraid of actually having the argument

Highly disagree - ceding control over the language is the first step to losing the debate. If you allow the Left to determine the terms, then we are stuck defending "assault weapons", "sniper rifles", "Saturday Night Specials", "Pocket Rockets", and other made up terms specifically designed to cause negative feelings in the uneducated listener. Therefore, no, it is not petty at all - it is very important and I refuse to yield in that that battle of terminology. Violence is violence, whether the weapon used is a firearm, vehicle, rock or fist. The object is merely a tool being misused, and is incapable of committing any acts of its on volition, therefore, a "gun" cannot be "violent".
44AMP has the right answer - when a company goes public, they are putting the fate of the company's future in the hands of those who have no direct involvement with the company beyond dividends.