New Maryland Gun Laws Cause Beretta to Look Elsewhere for Future Expansions

May 29, 2013

By Ben Romans

Earlier this month, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed a law that bans over 40 different firearms considered assault weapons (like the popular AR-15), prohibits the sale of magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds, and requires handgun buyers to undergo fingerprint licensing.

Of all the voices opposing the law, the Beretta USA factory in Accokeek, Maryland, has been one of the most vocal. The company recently released a statement stating, “The resulting law that passed is not acceptable, even with the improvements we were able to obtain. In short, the law that finally passed went from being atrocious to simply being bad.”

While the company hasn’t announced any definite plans for the future, in a recent story by the Baltimore Sun, representatives of the company said the current Beretta facility will not be relocated. However, the Sun also reported the company is considering alternate locations for three planed expansion operations.

Maryland’s decision is another in a growing list of gun-control measures proposed at the state level, much to the ire of many gun owners and manufacturers. While there are some states in the South and West attempting to distance themselves from stricter gun-ownership policies, some East and Northeast states seem to be moving in the opposite direction, and gun makers like Beretta are taking note and considering options.

Laws like those in New York that prevent gun owners from purchasing magazines that hold more than seven rounds, or in Connecticut, where any owner of a high-capacity magazine must register with the state are some of the most notable.

In fact, Beretta’s threat to move operations isn’t the first. In April, several arms makers including PTR and Colt, longtime residents of Connecticut, announced intentions to relocate within the year after the state enacted what they considered aggressive gun-control measures.

Other gun makers could follow suit. According to the Sunlight Foundation—a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization tasked with creating government openness and transparency—states have introduced over 1,500 gun-related bills since January, 2013. Though that number includes a mix of concepts that can strengthen or weaken current laws, the agency says approximately 50 have become law this year, and it created a page on its website where visitors can track gun legislation in every state and look up fast facts and other data.

Beretta is a 500-year-old company employing over 300 people, averaging $220 million in U.S. sales annually, and another $150 million a year from a military contract to supply its M9 pistol, making it a fairly attractive acquisition for any state’s economy—West Virginia and Virginia are reportedly two early suitors.

As for Maryland, Beretta and the National Rifle Association are already planning to file a lawsuit against the new gun law. In the meantime, state representatives that opposed the bill are leading petition drives to put reverse legislation on the ballot for voters to overturn in a referendum.

That still leaves Beretta COO Jeff Cooper pondering the company’s future. He went on record with guns.com to express his displeasure with the state and what it means to evaluate relocating.

“It is a delicate decision. What’s clear at this point is that the state of Maryland is not friendly to this industry,” he said. “This [legislation] comes at a time when Beretta has plans for growth. Our footprint, manufacturing, people and equipment—we have large growth initiatives in place for the next two- to three-year horizon. . . In light of the way the legislation is heading, rewarding Maryland with that type of growth is difficult to digest.”

What do you think—should Beretta stay or should it go?

Comments (9)

Top Rated

All Comments

from SMC1986 wrote 2 weeks 3 days ago

Beretta played chicken with the MD legislature and lost. They made statements indicating they would leave the state if SB281 passed. And it did and now they are staying. I understand that it is a big job to pack up and move a manufacturing facility but they should stick MD where it hurts and move like MAGPUL did to CO. I won't be buying any Beretta's unless they move out of this stupid state.

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from buckhunter wrote 2 weeks 3 days ago

If Beretta moves the additional cost would be funded by the consumer, or in this case, the gun owner. Sounds better to stand and fight this one out.