View Full Version : Investors issues demands to Ruger ..
Investors and activists plan to raise several issues at Ruger's annual shareholder meeting Wednesday, including demands that the company loosen its relationship with the NRA and put more emphasis on gun safety technology.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/05/09/investors-attempt-to-pressure-gun-manufacturer-over-nra-ties-guns-safety
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
You know, for all the "NRA Blood Money" going around, you'd think only people who actually had an idea about firearms would be investing in it.
But, wait... If they are making money off a firearms company, in excess profits off interest/dividends, but they don't "support" what the company is doing... What keeps that from being more like "Blood Money" than anything?
Hint: It doesn't. If anything, it just shows that no matter what "Feels" they have, they want the money. That's all that matters.
I used to own a decent amount of Ruger stock for years. It paid my property taxes, which was nice. About 8 years ago it hit a record low, and I got out. Took the money and put it into a home generator system, which I’m glad I did.
I suspect that the company has a low tolerance for stupid theater like this after a long series of court cases back in the 70s and 80s.
What maroons.
In my eyes, Ruger is climbing out of the hole they dug themselves in the early/mid-1990s when Bill Ruger ran his mouth and essentially endorsed gun control laws, reinforcing the Fudd complex.
I guess they haven’t learned.
Doc Safari
05-09-18, 17:30
In my eyes, Ruger is climbing out of the hole they dug themselves in the early/mid-1990s when Bill Ruger ran his mouth and essentially endorsed gun control laws, reinforcing the Fudd complex.
I guess they haven’t learned.
Nailed it. Once an appeaser, always an appeaser.
Well we will have to see what they do.
Firearm manufacturers need to buy back their stock, and go private again.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
titsonritz
05-09-18, 19:30
In my eyes, Ruger is climbing out of the hole they dug themselves in the early/mid-1990s when Bill Ruger ran his mouth and essentially endorsed gun control laws, reinforcing the Fudd complex.
I guess they haven’t learned.
BAM!! Just like that. And some of us haven't forgotten.
This is an old ploy with stocks of publicly traded companies that people can buy shares of. We've seen it in the past with military arms makers and oil companies.
Some social advocacy group or person buys a few shares of stock, which that enables them to propose something to be voted on during the company's national shareholder meeting.
They never get anywhere, but serve as a means to allow the person or entity who bought the shares to voice their political opinion.
vicious_cb
05-10-18, 01:34
This is an old ploy with stocks of publicly traded companies that people can buy shares of. We've seen it in the past with military arms makers and oil companies.
Some social advocacy group or person buys a few shares of stock, which that enables them to propose something to be voted on during the company's national shareholder meeting.
They never get anywhere, but serve as a means to allow the person or entity who bought the shares to voice their political opinion.
Gun companies being anti-gun? Impossible!
"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining 'assault rifle' and 'semi-automatic rifles' is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives.
-William B. Ruger"
Call me spiteful but Ive never bought ruger anything since then. I never forget betrayal.
Ed is right.
This is Ruger's response:
Ruger's official response (posted 5/9/2018 to their Facebook page): Please understand that Ruger was obligated by applicable law to include a shreholder's activist resolution with its proxy materials for a shareholder vote. With its passage, the proposal requires Ruger to prepare a report. That's it. A report. What the proposal does not do . . . and cannot do . . . is force us to change our business, which is lawful and constitutionally protected. What it does not do . . . and cannot do . . . is force us to adopt misguided principles created by groups who do not own guns, know nothing about our 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, as 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 and loyal customers that we have no intention of changing that."
The_War_Wagon
05-10-18, 08:52
I haven't owned a Ruger, since the P-91 I bought NEW in '91, but it sounds like they POLITELY told the dunderninnies, to go pound sand. :big_boss:
I haven't owned a Ruger, since the P-91 I bought NEW in '91, but it sounds like they POLITELY told the dunderninnies, to go pound sand. :big_boss:
I never bought one in spite of bills comments even after all these years ( I was 11 when the AWB was enacted.) People have been saying with Bill gone the company doesn't believe that anymore. Looks like that holds true. I'll see how this shakes out and finally pick one of the few up I've had my eye on.
MA2_Navy_Veteran
05-10-18, 09:28
You know, I think I might just have to buy a Ruger 10/22 after that statement... just because... :p
Glad I bought that little EC9s a couple of weeks ago...old Bill’s day had come and gone, and after him there was some doubt that the company could get its act together again. Now they’re almost TOO innovative!
I refuse to buy ugly guns, which they have in abundance—but they sure are busy out there in the Ruger Archepelago. Anyway, they told those folks to go pound sand in the nicest possible way. Good.
Ed is right.
This is Ruger's response:
Ruger's official response (posted 5/9/2018 to their Facebook page): Please understand that Ruger was obligated by applicable law to include a shreholder's activist resolution with its proxy materials for a shareholder vote. With its passage, the proposal requires Ruger to prepare a report. That's it. A report. What the proposal does not do . . . and cannot do . . . is force us to change our business, which is lawful and constitutionally protected. What it does not do . . . and cannot do . . . is force us to adopt misguided principles created by groups who do not own guns, know nothing about our 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, as 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 and loyal customers that we have no intention of changing that."
Anyone can buy shares of a company's publicly traded stock, which makes them a shareholder, and use that as a means to insert things on their annual ballot that shareholders get to vote on. As a shareholder, you have the right to do that. I am not sure of the exact step by step mechanics of it, but it is done all the time. I am surprised that it isn't done more.
I might just buy a share of McDonalds and insert a proposal on their ballot that they replace that stupid clown Ronald McDonald as the corporate icon with Sid Vicious of the punk rock group The Sex Pistols.
Many corporations you have to have a certain % of shares to be able to raise issues/proposals. Some allow investor questions via open mic, but are often vetted/screened ahead of time.
Ironic given how Bill Ruger almost ran the company into the ground with the same views. Sounds like Ruger needs different investors.
Nailed it. Once an appeaser, always an appeaser.
Huh?
They have been telling these anti-gunners to pound sand for decades now. Just look at their products, Silencers, Assault Weapons, HiCap magazines, etc.
Anyone can buy shares of a company's publicly traded stock, which makes them a shareholder, and use that as a means to insert things on their annual ballot that shareholders get to vote on. As a shareholder, you have the right to do that. I am not sure of the exact step by step mechanics of it, but it is done all the time. I am surprised that it isn't done more.
Exactly. Long time investors all know of the antics Evelyn Davis did as an GE/ATT shareholder.
The Evelyn Y. Davis Stockholder Activist Model involved buying 5-10 shares of stock in a corporation and dominating annual stockholder meetings by hurling insults at CEOs, wearing outrageous costumes, making sexually suggestive comments and proposals ranging from requiring CEOs seek psychiatric treatment to placing actress Koo Stark on a corporate Board.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.