Mystery Company Is Rapidly Acquiring U.S. Gun and Ammo Manufacturers

Reports that a mysterious company has been buying up U.S. gun manufacturers have been popping up on the internet for several months. When we first learned of the possibility that a single company was rapidly acquiring companies like Bushmaster, Remington, and Marlin Firearms we immediately suspected that something was amiss. Apparently, we were not alone, because others were thinking the same thing.

One rumor that popped up was that global financier George Soros, historically an anti-gun advocate, was behind the moves, and that he was positioning the gun industry to reduce pro-gun lobbying efforts. This prompted the National Rifle Association to step in to assure American gun owners that this wasn’t a behind the scenes coup. “The owners and investors involved are strong supporters of the Second Amendment and are avid hunters and shooters,” the NRA said in a statement.

While Soros may not be involved, the New York Times identified the company making the acquisitions as an obscure organization known as The Freedom Group, which is managed by multi-billion dollar investment firm Cerberus Capital Management:

In recent years, many top-selling brands – including the 195-year-old Remington Arms, as well as Bushmaster Firearms and DPMS, leading makers of military-style semiautomatics – have quietly passed into the hands of a single private company. It is called the Freedom Group – and it is the most powerful and mysterious force in the U.S. commercial gun industry today.

You’re not alone. Even within gun circles, the Freedom Group is something of an enigma. Its rise has been so swift that it has become the subject of wild speculation and grassy-knoll conspiracy theories. In the realm of consumer rifles and shotguns – long guns, in the trade – it is unrivaled in its size and reach. By its own count, the Freedom Group sold 1.2 million long guns and 2.6 billion rounds of ammunition in the 12 months ended March 2010, the most recent year for which figures are publicly available.

Behind this giant is Cerberus Capital Management, the private investment company that first came to widespread attention when it acquired Chrysler in 2007. (Chrysler later had to be rescued by taxpayers). With far less fanfare, Cerberus, through the Freedom Group, has been buying big names in guns and ammo.

From its headquarters in Manhattan, Cerberus has assembled a remarkable arsenal. It began with Bushmaster…

After Bushmaster, the Freedom Group moved in on Remington, which traces its history to the days of flintlocks and today is supplying M24 sniper rifles to the government of Afghanistan and making handguns for the first time in decades. The group has also acquired Marlin Firearms, which turned out a special model for Annie Oakley, as well as Dakota Arms, a maker of high-end big-game rifles. It has bought DPMS Firearms, another maker of semiautomatic, military-style rifles, as well as manufacturers of ammunition and tactical clothing.

“We believe our scale and product breadth are unmatched within the industry,” the Freedom Group said in a filing last year with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Why Cerberus went after gun companies isn’t clear. Many private investment firms shy away from such industries to avoid scaring off big investors like pension funds.

…Whatever the reason, Cerberus, through the Freedom Group, is now a major player.

While Cerberus may be acting purely from a business perspective in acquiring some of the largest and oldest gun manufacturers in America and they may have the best of intentions, we remain cautious about the New York Times’ interpretation of events (especially when we see the same news report republished in their sister magazine in San Francisco). It is, after all, the New York Times, a left leaning media organization that has long advocated, either directly or indirectly, restrictive gun legislation that runs counter to the Second Amendment.

Anytime a single company acquires most of the major players in an industry – and the most liberal leaning media outlet in the world plays it off as no big deal – it should be cause for contemplation. For all we know, the Freedom Group is intent on centralizing gun lobbying efforts into one organization. We’ve seen this kind of double speak before, and while the Freedom Group leaves a positive feel, so too does the “Patriot Act” until you get past the cover. If it turns out to be the gun industry equivalent of a Trojan Horse, and Freedom Group management is embedded with anti-Second Amendment leadership, then the risk becomes that Congressional lobbying efforts to expand gun freedoms could be muted and restrictive legislation enacted as a result. There would, in essence, be no one left in American industry to fend off an attack on the second amendment.

We are, of course, speculating about the motivations of the Freedom Group’s parent company Cerberus Capital Management, but for conspiracy’s sake we’ll note that Cerberus is a mythical creature employed as Hades’ loyal watchdog to guard the gates to the underworld. This begs the question: Is the Freedom Group guarding and preserving the peoples’ right to bear arms (which seems to be the case), or are they the watchdogs for someone else, simply positioning the chess pieces for when the time is right?

Concho’s post implied that he automatically assumed NRA statements were not true. Yes, they take some dumb positions occasionally, usually when endorsing politicians, that I don’t agree with. In the main on 2A issues, they are correct, not 100% but a good, solid 95%. They also have logical rationale for the positions they take. I know because I have asked and have always gotten an answer. As a result of feedback, they have also modified their approach to the endorsement of politicians like “Dingy Harry” Reid. Scumbags who are strong on the 2A, but otherwise readily violate Constitutional principles no longer get a pass.

AND just which NRA “stances” do do you know to be fallacious of late? Do be specific, with references, or be gone!

Just renewed my NRA membership for 5 years. That said the NRA pushes a view that 2A rights trump property rights, and I don't adhere to that (laws to force businesses to allow carry). They also pushed a law in Florida that would have totally dictated what a doctor can ask a patient, which should be between the patient and the doctor.

In my opinion, there is no separation between 2A rights and other rights, they are all important, with property rights being the most critical (if you have no property rights to defend, the 2A is just a hunting license).

I wish the NRA was more broad based on the principles of liberty.

I agree that ALL rights are important, but I take the view that since the 2A’s basic purpose is to resist government tyranny, then without the 2A, ALL the others will soon be in danger and we will have no effective recourse remaining.

Florida’s problem with doctors grilling patients about guns in the home is basically 1) gun ownership has nothing to do with a patient’s health, and 2) many lib organizations equate gun ownership as the equivalent of active promotion of violence in the home which is a fake strawman intended to further restrict gun ownership.

I continue to think that having claim to a house is more important than having a burglar alarm in it.

Florida’s problem with doctors grilling patients about guns in the home is basically 1) gun ownership has nothing to do with a patient’s health,

Which falls into "its nice you have an opinion, but its none of your damned business". Allow people to conduct voluntary business transactions as they see fit, and stay out of it. Now that is what liberty is about. As long as people have the right to not frequent a particular doctor and doctor's have a right to ask, or not ask, then there isn't a problem. And by the way, there are plenty of instances when/where a person's environment and the things in them have everything to do with health. There is absolutely no harm, in and of itself, in talking about dangers to children with parents and firearms are a danger. And when you get into mental health, asking the family about the patients availability to cars, knives, firearms, etc. is pretty darned smart. How about you let the doctor and patient work it out?

If the doctor is rude, the patient can leave. Its like magic, aka capitalism.

and 2) many lib organizations equate gun ownership as the equivalent of active promotion of violence in the home which is a fake strawman intended to further restrict gun ownership.

Why yes they do, and I disagree with them, but I don't think curtailing their freedom of speech is the answer.

As I said, you either support individual liberty or you don't.

Well, you’re certainly entitled to your own opinion. Everyone has one, but I find it curious that you’ve twice diluted the importance of the 2A in comparison to others, first as a “hunting license” and now as a “burglar alarm”. Good luck with that approach; the anti’s will take advantage of that on their way to marginalizing the remainder.

You failed to mention another recent Florida law that prohibits towns, cities and counties from using local ordinances to set different rules and restrictions on gun regulations peculiar to their own locales that conflict with state law making it legally hazardous for one to exercise a basic 2A right. That too was part of the anti’s agenda.

I haven't done any such thing as you suggest. Reread my post. The fact of the matter is that a discussion of "rights" presumes that we are speaking of rights recognized by others, because if they are not recognized, then it is an assertion of exercise, not a recognized right. Now, based on the premise that a right would be unchallenged, property rights are king. In fact, unquestioned properly rights would de facto cover the possession of firearms. We can have a realistic discussion that the right to keep and bear arms is a special caveat of property rights with specific meaning, but it is superfluous if property rights are secure. And yes, we both know that is an academic point, not a real world expectation.

I failed to mention lots of things. I didn't mention that, because it was not supportive of my statement that the NRA needs to recognize all rights and not attempt to make one persons exercise of rights subservient to another's. As I said, people have a right to do certain things that we don't like or agree with.

Per the cases you mention, these are not issues of individuals having dominion over themselves or their property, but rather governments restricting rights without cause.

You may note that I included my renewed NRA membership in my first post.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.