Springfield and RRA surrender to anti-gun legislation

[NerdAlert]

Voodoo_man posted this in the XDe thread (https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/04/john-boch/springfield-armory-rock-river-arms-trade-opposition-to-illinois-ffl-licensing-scheme-for-carve-out/) and it seemed to warrant further discussion. I'll kick it off. Should we be holding these American manufacturers accountable for these kind of shenanigans? If so, how? Smith and Wesson did it. (http://www.businessinsider.com/smith-and-wesson-almost-went-out-of-business-trying-to-do-the-right-thing-2013-1) Ruger did it. (http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/641466) Colt did it. (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/colt-manufacturing-led-charge-for-gun-control-in-1990s-now-bankrupt/) Who is left? What American company should we support? Are the European companies any better, or are they just silent in American politics? I honestly do not know the answers but it seems like most if not all of what are considered "reputable" gun makers have either supported gun control in the past or have been silent on the topic when they should be speaking out. Thoughts?

Edited for clarity.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hufnagel]

first: TTAG... never link to them. they have a poor reputation of spewing "propaganda" and just being flat out wrong on a periodic basis.
second: if a business chooses to engage in morally ambiguous activities with regards to laws, then the market will indeed take care of them.
third: something about H&K getting taken out to the woodshed for SUPPORTING us back in the Dark Times. I'm too hungry at the moment to put that into a coherent thought right now though. :)

before we light the torches and rattle the pitchforks, let's see where this all really shakes out, and what each of the players really did, from fact checked and verifiable sources.

[rcbusmc24]

Quickly looking at it, it appears that all of those companies listed above are publicly traded, publicly traded corporations tend to do what they perceive is best for shareholder value, and counter intuitively, sometimes that is not always the same as what their customer base might prefer. Privately held companies don't seem to have that problem nearly as often. I don't like that it happens, but I still own stuff from every single one of the above listed companies, I also still own a Team Wendy Exfil Ballistic Helmet, Didn't like what they did during the last election either, but my money was already spent buying what I thought was the best product on the market at the time for my use's, not going to get rid of it over a political disagreement as it still provides awesome protection to my head. I did however voice my disappointment to them. As we should collectively do to Springfield and RRA in this case if the allegations prove to be true.

[Soggy]

Smith and Wesson did it.[/URL] Ruger did it. (http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/641466) Colt did it. (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/colt-manufacturing-led-charge-for-gun-control-in-1990s-now-bankrupt/) Who is left? What American company should we support? Are the European companies any better, or are they just silent in American politics? I honestly do not know the answers but it seems like most if not all of what are considered "reputable" gun makers have either supported gun control in the past or have been silent on the topic when they should be speaking out. Thoughts?

Edited for clarity.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When those companies where doing it I didn't support them. After they got new management/changed their tune I did. Writing off a company for ever, even after they 'repent', seems unwise.

Pro 2a companies absolutely deserve support. Barrett, Berretta and Magpul seem to put their money where their mouth is, and that makes me more likely to want to buy their products.

[NH Shooter]

I can only imagine how difficult it is to be a firearms-related manufacturer in an anti-gun state. Most of these states, including IL, have become progressively more anti-gun over the last few decades. Sometimes a manufacturer can flip 'em off, pull up roots and move to another state, other times not. Sometimes you simply do what needs to be done to advance longer term planning.

Not saying there isn't a price to be paid, but I'll hold off on the pitch forks as well. It won't surprise me in the least if all firearms manufacturers eventually move to free states.

[NerdAlert]

first: TTAG... never link to them. they have a poor reputation of spewing "propaganda" and just being flat out wrong on a periodic basis.
second: if a business chooses to engage in morally ambiguous activities with regards to laws, then the market will indeed take care of them.
third: something about H&K getting taken out to the woodshed for SUPPORTING us back in the Dark Times. I'm too hungry at the moment to put that into a coherent thought right now though. :)

before we light the torches and rattle the pitchforks, let's see where this all really shakes out, and what each of the players really did, from fact checked and verifiable sources.

1) I stopped reading TTAG when they posted an article awhile back about assassinating government officials. Don't remember the details or even care enough to look it up. I was linking the article that voodoo_man dropped in the other thread.

2) Who should we be supporting manufacturer-wise? So many gun companies, especially American ones, have made enemies at one time or another with the gun buying public. It eventually seems like a buyer could dig up "dirt" to disqualify any company from being "worthy".

3) haven't heard about the HK thing.

I wholly agree on keeping the pitchforks in the barn until it shakes out. Even after it shakes out, the quality or lack thereof would likely keep me from purchasing an SA or RRA product. They have taken themselves off of my radar by their QA and marketing practices before political actions even made the radar. I'm honestly curious whether the boycott/activist attitude is really productive, or if these companies are doomed anyway due to poor management and quality control.

Also I agree with VDM that we seem to have short memories with regard to this stuff, but I also wonder how long our collective memory should be? After management has changed over and corporate policy has changed, should they still be in the black list?

Honestly not trolling, I'm just wondering what you guys thoughts are about this stuff since we are spammed with it all the time from the NRA, most of the YouTube gun guys, etc. I personally ignore almost all of that and make purchases based on what I like and works for my intended use, past politics don't really factor in for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BehindBlueI's]

Did they surrender or did they salvage as much as they could from a shit situation?

[txdpd]

So it look like IMFA is a lobbying group for Springfield and RRA and they've paid $100K over the last four years. $25K went to a lobbyist that lobbied for his employer's best interest. Who'd of thunk it. If it cost Springfield and RRA $25k to look out for themselves, an amount that amounts to a couple cents per gun owner in the state, it looks like the people really didn't a damn about what happened to them. That's not that much money at state level politics. If all these small manufacturers, gun show dealers, and small shops can't get together and come up with some money to protect their livelihood, it's not Springfield and RRA's fault.

[rcbusmc24]

I work off of the philosophy that if I only buy stuff from companies and people that are 100 percent in lockstep with what I believe in or hold my world view that I would end up being able to buy........... pretty much nothing. However, I do believe that we have an obligation to let manufacturers know when they have displeased their primary market. Where on the spectrum each person falls when it comes to who they will and will not buy from is for each individual to work out for themselves. Luckily for me the only thing Springfield has on the market that I've being eyeing up is the new EMP4 9mm and I don't really need it and there is not a thing in RRA's line that I would want to own. Lord help me if Glock ,Beretta, HK or Sig get struck by a sudden case of the stupid though........

[voodoo_man]

Correct me if I am wrong, memory tells me s&w nearly went under and the original ownership sold after they supported anti gun causes. The current company has no association with the previous owners/managers actions.

Also, there are companies who actively support 2A and the industry at every chance. This should mean, by default, their products should get first consideration.

The fact places like springfield and team Wendy still exist as businesses show a direct contradiction in the 2a world.

[NerdAlert]

Also, there are companies who actively support 2A and the industry at every chance. This should mean, by default, their products should get first consideration.

Which ones? I know Glock, HK, Sig, and Beretta are heavily favored on this forum by serious shooters. I would be interested to know which of these companies is on record as financially supporting pro-gun/2A legislative efforts. I have seen posts and articles by manufacturers and other industry companies giving vocal support to the 2A but I'm not sure that there are corresponding records of financial or other forms of activism by any gun related company. Are there examples of this I haven't heard of? I'm attempting to take responsibility for my own ignorance by asking the question of those better informed than myself ;)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[voodoo_man]

Which ones? I know Glock, HK, Sig, and Beretta are heavily favored on this forum by serious shooters. I would be interested to know which of these companies is on record as financially supporting pro-gun/2A legislative efforts. I have seen posts and articles by manufacturers and other industry companies giving vocal support to the 2A but I'm not sure that there are corresponding records of financial or other forms of activism by any gun related company. Are there examples of this I haven't heard of? I'm attempting to take responsibility for my own ignorance by asking the question of those better informed than myself ;)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I cannot speak for HK as I don't generally see anything they do, or really care about what they do.

I know Beretta threatened to leave MD over antigun legislation.

Glock has their own shooting foundation.

FNH actively supports the NRA, recently with their "front lines" program.

I've got to do some more research but just off the top of my head that's what I remember quickly.

[Duelist]

I cannot speak for HK as I don't generally see anything they do, or really care about what they do.

I know Beretta threatened to leave MD over antigun legislation.

Glock has their own shooting foundation.

FNH actively supports the NRA, recently with their "front lines" program.

I've got to do some more research but just off the top of my head that's what I remember quickly.

Beretta didn't just threaten- they built a plant in Tenessee and moved most of their operations.

Magpul moved from Colorado over their magazine limit law, even though Colorado legislature said, "Oh, Magpul, this doesn't apply to you - just to all the people who live here! Please stay!"

[rcbusmc24]

Voodoo man -you are right about S&W, and I think perhaps a similar market correction will also occur to Springfield Armory , In the case of Team Wendy, Gov't sales are their bread and butter, not individual sales so I honestly I don't think they even considered how the "2A market" would perceive their actions last year.
But as I said above, It's for each person to determine what they are willing to bear. I've bought more Pmags from Magpul and other such products from ardent 2A gun companies but I don't think the publically traded companies will change from their focus on share price. Bill still owned Ruger when he pulled his shenanigans and When Smith agreed to the Clinton stuff it was owned by a British holding company who expected (and was told) that more Gov't contracts would come out of supporting the agreement which they expected would more than make up for a few lost individual sales, what they did not expect is that the NRA would launch a campaign against them for taking this action which almost killed them and Saf-T-Hammer bought them out for a paltry sum compared to their pre agreement valuation. Colt also spent a loooong time chasing primarily Gov't contracts while neglecting individual sales.

[voodoo_man]

I remember Magpul moving, classy move.

I don't keep up with Beretta stuff, so I didn't know they actually moved their whole base, or maybe I did and forgot.

Either way, there are obvious examples of what progun companies are capable of and what they shouldn't ever do.

In my opinion, gov sales is one thing that shouldn't prompt a company to disregard morals and ethics.

There are other stories of companies refusing business to large department's or even entire states due to their stances...

[LittleLebowski]

Still waiting for the whole story but not happy.

[idahojess]

Is this the legislation that is at issue? I'm sort of surprised that Illinois didn't have a state dealer licensing requirement for dealers. Washington state has had a dealers' license for years, which I think exempts manufacturers. I believe the Washington license expires every year, which is a pain. Just curious if those who have run shops know whether they have state level dealer's licenses in addition to the federal ones.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1657&GAID=14&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=104404&SessionID=91

Here is the bill text:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=10000SB1657sam001&GA=100&LegID=104404&SessionId=91&SpecSess=0&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=1657&GAID=14&Session=

(Section 15 contains the exemptions)

Edit to add: I'm not arguing that everything in this proposed statute is great, but I do guess that most state dealer licensing statutes exempt manufacturers).

[Drang]

Did they surrender or did they salvage as much as they could from a shit situation?

This. Pragmatic business decisions may be necessary to ensure the maximum amount of bread and condiments, and the minimum amount of shit, in the shit sandwich.

Part of the reason it is so noteworthy when a gun company moves to a free state is that it is so fucking expensive to move production, especially if you're not going to tell your current (experienced) employees "You can keep your job, but you're on your own when it comes to uprooting your family."

The NRA still gets crap for "selling us out" on "Instant Background Checks", but he alternative was going to be far, far worse.

[45dotACP]

I can only imagine how difficult it is to be a firearms-related manufacturer in an anti-gun state. Most of these states, including IL, have become progressively more anti-gun over the last few decades. Sometimes a manufacturer can flip 'em off, pull up roots and move to another state, other times not. Sometimes you simply do what needs to be done to advance longer term planning.

Not saying there isn't a price to be paid, but I'll hold off on the pitch forks as well. It won't surprise me in the least if all firearms manufacturers eventually move to free states.

What is this business about IL being super progressively anti-gun?

If anything gun rights have been progressing towards the right for the Land of Lincoln. Within the last decade, we've clawed out a may issue CCW permit system from the ONLY no issue state in the Union. We've fought off attempts to ban AR-15s and semi automatic firearms...sure no SBRs or Suppressor rights but the rest of the state has held off the gaggle of liberals in Cook county by fighting tooth and nail against gun control.

We've done a hell of a lot better than New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut or California ever did...

Springfield needs to get their shit straight. I wouldn't be surprised to see them move because Illinois is not a very good state to be in business though. Shit's expensive here.

[Jared]

Not super thrilled with either company right now, pending the rest of the story. OTOH, I don't own any stuff from either right now anyway so it's not like they're gonna miss me.

What's more concerning me on the legislation is that I'd heard that individuals would be restricted to 9 transfers per year, which is even less than the one gun a month schemes previously proposed in other places. I may be misinformed and that may not be in the legislation at all, I'm waiting to hear more.

Even without that part though, it's a shitty sign and I'm not counting on our governor to veto it if it makes it through the house.

[NH Shooter]

What is this business about IL being super progressively anti-gun?

http://gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/illinois-gun-laws

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-09/illinois-state-senator-pushes-bill-allowing-government-confiscate-guns-without-due-p

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/24/news/chicago-gun-control/

http://www.guns.com/2017/02/27/illinois-state-rifle-association-condemns-proposed-gun-control-bills/

I feel your pain and frustration and you're fighting the good fight, but I wouldn't consider IL a gun-friendly state.

[45dotACP]

http://gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/illinois-gun-laws

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-09/illinois-state-senator-pushes-bill-allowing-government-confiscate-guns-without-due-p

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/24/news/chicago-gun-control/

http://www.guns.com/2017/02/27/illinois-state-rifle-association-condemns-proposed-gun-control-bills/

I feel your pain and frustration and you're fighting the good fight, but I wouldn't consider IL a gun-friendly state.
Gun friendly is definitely a stretch, but anti gun is only a descriptor of some of our corrupt government...not the majority our people. Unlike some other states. I believe the ISRA has done a huge amount of heavy lifting for IL gun owners and their organization and tenacity is why I'm carrying right now.

People in other states are denied that. So yeah, maybe not gun friendly, but I view a "May Issue" permit as the single biggest indicator of a State "gun friendly" indicator. Even to the exclusion of assault weapons bans. If the state trusts you to carry because you want to, it means they trust you more than a state that makes you go through some onerous process of vetting and saying you need to show "justifiable need" to carry that excludes self protection.

Fuck that shit. That state is trying to control you. It doesn't matter if they let you own an AR15 because let's face it, you won't carry a rifle every day, and it's still probably illegal. Also the only civilians carrying rifles in public are probably fucktards.

Here's to hoping the ISRAs example extends to other states...NY and California would be a major coup.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[NH Shooter]

Here's to hoping the ISRAs example extends to other states...NY and California would be a major coup.

It would indeed! I'm from NY, moved to NH in 2008 (I'm very happy not to be there any more).

The Nov. election has already paid dividends here in NH: we became a constitutional carry state in February (before it took a single page application and about one week to get a concealed carry license from the local PD). NY has only become worse since we left.

Good luck with your IL efforts and keep the faith!

[hufnagel]

NH: thanks for the retardedly simple to get out of state permit too, btw. I'm legit again when in PA :D

[NH Shooter]

NH: thanks for the retardedly simple to get out of state permit too, btw. I'm legit again when in PA :D

YAW!

We always had a pro-2A Republican legislature but were stuck with Dem governors for a long time and not enough legislative majority to overturn their veto. We finally fixed that in November. ;-)

We gave Trump his first primary victory, but lost pro-2A Sen. Kelly Ayotte to Maggie Hassan in Nov. (who was the current Democratic NH governor). At least we got her out of NH. :-)

[HCM]

Is this the legislation that is at issue? I'm sort of surprised that Illinois didn't have a state dealer licensing requirement for dealers. Washington state has had a dealers' license for years, which I think exempts manufacturers. I believe the Washington license expires every year, which is a pain. Just curious if those who have run shops know whether they have state level dealer's licenses in addition to the federal ones.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1657&GAID=14&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=104404&SessionID=91

Here is the bill text:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=10000SB1657sam001&GA=100&LegID=104404&SessionId=91&SpecSess=0&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=1657&GAID=14&Session=

(Section 15 contains the exemptions)

Edit to add: I'm not arguing that everything in this proposed statute is great, but I do guess that most state dealer licensing statutes exempt manufacturers).

State licensing of actual FFL holders is not the issue with this bill. Secation 15 defines a dealer as any one who makes 10 or more " transfers"per year. So if you buy and/or sell more than 9 guns per year you will be considered a "dealer" and required to get a state dealer license.

So you pay off your car note and can now afford a new gun very month - sorry you are now a "dealer" - sell 5 guns to buy 5 different guns " - sorry you are now a Dealer and need a state dealer license. It is absolute bullshit.

[hufnagel]

watch for NJ to pull something like that eventually.
no wait, we already have it... we just don't DEFINE what a "dealer" is so they can decide one day to nail anyone/everyone if they so choose.

sorry... drifted there.

[idahojess]

HCM, I do see and understand what you're saying. The legislation is certainly not a model of clarity.


It is an overcomplicated piece of legislation, and I don't blame people for being concerned about what the heck it all means, and being concerned about how it will be enforced and interpreted in Rahm's world. The 5 member board thing is particularly byzantine.

Edited to take out references to the bill, which is a convoluted mess....

[GardoneVT]

State licensing of actual FFL holders is not the issue with this bill. Secation 15 defines a dealer as any one who makes 10 or more " transfers"per year. So if you buy and/or sell more than 9 guns per year you will be considered a "dealer" and required to get a state dealer license.

So you pay off your car note and can now afford a new gun very month - sorry you are now a "dealer" - sell 5 guns to buy 5 different guns " - sorry you are now a Dealer and need a state dealer license. It is absolute bullshit.

It's another example of the "limited purchase" trope. CA has a reg where private citizens are basically limited to one gun purchase every 10 days or more,while NJ has their purchase permit system where you're limited to however many purchase permits the issuing authority feels like issuing .IL far as I know has no such law as yet, a fact the antis doubtlessly felt like fixing.

Since the NJ system uses purchase permits and CA has a handgun roster which both restrict the point of sale process,IL set up something similar but without all the back end systems of those states.

[HCM]

HCM, I do see and understand what you're saying. The legislation is certainly not a model of clarity.


It is an overcomplicated piece of legislation, and I don't blame people for being concerned about what the heck it all means, and being concerned about how it will be enforced and interpreted in Rahm's world. The 5 member board thing is particularly byzantine.

Edited to take out references to the bill, which is a convoluted mess....

I beleive the convolution is by design.

[Jared]

State licensing of actual FFL holders is not the issue with this bill. Secation 15 defines a dealer as any one who makes 10 or more " transfers"per year. So if you buy and/or sell more than 9 guns per year you will be considered a "dealer" and required to get a state dealer license.

So you pay off your car note and can now afford a new gun very month - sorry you are now a "dealer" - sell 5 guns to buy 5 different guns " - sorry you are now a Dealer and need a state dealer license. It is absolute bullshit.

That's the part that's bugging me. Does it matter if the transfers are done at a gun store? In other words, is it aimed only at face to face transfers, or if you do ten transfers at an FFL store do you still have to get the license?

[idahojess]

Researching this some more; here's another exemption that is interesting:

The legislation creates exemptions for big box stores, whose gun sales are 20 percent or less of their overall sales, and small dealers who sell under ten guns a year. The exemption of big box stores caused controversy from those on the right, who say that exemption will cause small businesses throughout the state to shut their doors.

https://capitolfax.com/2017/04/28/gun-dealer-licensing-bill-moves-to-house/

Is there a Cabela's or Bass Pro in Illinois?

[GardoneVT]

Researching this some more; here's another exemption that is interesting:

The legislation creates exemptions for big box stores, whose gun sales are 20 percent or less of their overall sales, and small dealers who sell under ten guns a year. The exemption of big box stores caused controversy from those on the right, who say that exemption will cause small businesses throughout the state to shut their doors.

https://capitolfax.com/2017/04/28/gun-dealer-licensing-bill-moves-to-house/

Is there a Cabela's or Bass Pro in Illinois?

There's both,a Bass Pro north of the city and a Cabelas in Hoffman Estates.

[fixer]

SA and RRA will learn. I wouldn't be surprised to know that Beretta probably had a similar agreement with Maryland because...jobs.

But even that in the end didn't stop them from leaving.

I guess that's the point...you give an inch and they take miles.

If I was Mr. Reese I would be sending letters to state reps indicating that any other similar pursuits, real or imagined, will result in Illinois getting 'Beretta'd"

[HCM]

SA and RRA will learn. I wouldn't be surprised to know that Beretta probably had a similar agreement with Maryland because...jobs.

But even that in the end didn't stop them from leaving.

I guess that's the point...you give an inch and they take miles.

If I was Mr. Reese I would be sending letters to state reps indicating that any other similar pursuits, real or imagined, will result in Illinois getting 'Beretta'd"

Beretta had no such agreement. This type of legislation is exactly the reason Beretta moved the majority of their jobs out of MD to TN i.e. specifically because of anti gun legislation. Beretta made it clear they would move if the last round of MD anti gun legislation passed and they made good on it.

[spinmove_]

So, just to play Devil's Advocate for a second, did we ever figure out what the alternative outcome would have been had SA and RRA not gone along with it?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[HCM]

So, just to play Devil's Advocate for a second, did we ever figure out what the alternative outcome would have been had SA and RRA not gone along with it?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

It's irrelevant. 2A rights are a "we all hang together or we all hang separately" proposition.

This being IL maybe SA and RRA simply could not afford the bribes necessary to kill the bill.

[TAZ]

Definitely need to do more reading on this, but I'm not liking the smell. Maybe after more research we will find out that the alternative was a far more ominous bill and this was the compromise that saved Il gun owners some serious heart burn. Anything is possible in politics. Let's find out what really happened. I'd venture someone at the ISRA knows the real political maneuvering that went on and can report back.

If they did screw IL gun owners then the market will deal with them as it dealt with SW and Ruger. Once they realize the error of their ways and take corrective action the market will take care of that as well. Just like SW and Ruger.

Factory moves suck big balls, so I can understand why entrenched business have a hard time picking up and going. Eventually though you need to see the writing in the wall and execute a plan of action that is under your control rather than an emergency move under someone else's control.

[fixer]

Beretta had no such agreement. This type of legislation is exactly the reason Beretta moved the majority of their jobs out of MD to TN i.e. specifically because of anti gun legislation. Beretta made it clear they would move if the last round of MD anti gun legislation passed and they made good on it.

Interesting. Good to know.

I guess being a private company also makes it easier to pull up and move.

[BJXDS]

I am not sure at this point this info is accurate, there always seems to be complicated issues. The bottom line is most corporations do what they think is best for the bottom line. ie. ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! Only in Merica, but that in its self is what make it Great.

What we can never forget is some of the CEO's of firearms related companies don't really care about the 2A, it is simply a business they manage to make money.

I am sure there are other examples, but in my mind, BCM set the standard in saying FUCK OFF, I am doing what I believe in.

The fight to protect the 2A will continue long after I am gone. They will Never stop.

[ragnar_d]

So the con at Springfield Armory finally told the engine room "Full reverse" (http://blog.springfield-armory.com/springfield-armory-statement-regarding-gun-dealer-licensing-act-sb1657)


At the time of my initial statement to the media, I was ill-informed of the ramifications of this bill and its detrimental effects to the Second Amendment, which I have personally fought to protect my entire life. I can tell you now, we at Springfield Armory are unequivocally 100 percent against this bill and will continue to work with the NRA and others to ensure that it is defeated,” said Dennis Reese, Chief Executive Officer, Springfield Armory.

Springfield Armory, like Rock River Arms, was not aware of the actions taken by our trade association, IFMA, until after the fact. We take this situation very seriously and are looking into how this very unfortunate lapse in communication occurred.

They're claiming ignorance to the actions of IFMA . . . which I find highly suspect. How can you be giving someone $50k to be your Wesley Mouch/Man-in-Springfield and then have no damn clue what they're actually doing!?!. It makes my inner Ace Rothstein come out, "Listen, if you didn't know you were being scammed you're too fuckin' dumb to keep this job, if you did know, you were in on it. Either way, YOU'RE OUT!"

[hufnagel]

RE: ragnar_d's post, this image immediately came to mind, in response to SA's response...

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder248/68759248.jpg

[ragnar_d]

RE: ragnar_d's post, this image immediately came to mind, in response to SA's response...

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder248/68759248.jpg

Running late somewhere?
https://youtu.be/npJt_8nmadA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Soggy]

I am not sure at this point this info is accurate, there always seems to be complicated issues. The bottom line is most corporations do what they think is best for the bottom line. ie. ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! Only in Merica, but that in its self is what make it Great.

What we can never forget is some of the CEO's of firearms related companies don't really care about the 2A, it is simply a business they manage to make money.



This is exactly why the gun buying public needs to punish companies that sell out. If the CEO's don't understand the concept of gun rights they will act right to protect their bottom line.

Note: Not taking a position on the SA situation (yet).

[Wondering Beard]

Just came across this: Put Away The Pitchforks: Springfield Armory & Rock River Arms Did NOT Sell Out Gun Owners (https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/05/01/springfield-armory-rock-river-arms-oppose-gun-dealer-licensing-act/)

[45dotACP]

Just came across this: Put Away The Pitchforks: Springfield Armory & Rock River Arms Did NOT Sell Out Gun Owners (https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/05/01/springfield-armory-rock-river-arms-oppose-gun-dealer-licensing-act/)

Good luck convincing anybody that they're not backpedaling now. The whole entire gunternet is feeling the anti SA/RRA hate so badly in their nether regions.


Sometimes the gunternet is paranoid...nay...all the times the gunternet is paranoid that everybody, even the people who make guns, is out to screw them.

[Drang]

Good luck convincing anybody that they're not backpedaling now. The whole entire gunternet is feeling the anti SA/RRA hate so badly in their nether regions.


Sometimes the gunternet is paranoid...nay...all the times the gunternet is paranoid that everybody, even the people who make guns, is out to screw them.

Oh, come on, it's not like people still hold a grudge against Smith & Wesson...

[45dotACP]

Oh, come on, it's not like people still hold a grudge against Smith & Wesson...
Lol I'm not sure if you're serious...but I know some people who ABSOLUTELY WON'T buy Smith or Ruger guns...

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[fatdog]

Oh, come on, it's not like people still hold a grudge against Smith & Wesson...

I am stunned that any company in the gun industry cannot look at the S&W backlash, hell even the personal backlash that cost the careers of Dick Metcalf and Jim Zumbo as gun writers, to understand this is an absolute zero tolerance situation on the part of the passionate minority of their consumers, no matter how minor the infraction.

The very predictable emotional, and probably over the top response is always severe, it will never be completely forgiven, and it will cost them more than they ever could have calculated.

They stepped into it, by purpose, or blunder, or misadventure, it does not matter at all. Their bullet has left the barrel, no taking it back.

[hufnagel]

there's some chatter going on that the IFMA *IS* just RRA/SA.

If I see confirmation from a legit source about this, then at that point I'd vote for pitchforks and torches.

[Tamara]

there's some chatter going on that the IFMA *IS* just RRA/SA.

Even if they were the sole members paying the lobbyist, they aren't the lobbyist.


Lol I'm not sure if you're serious...but I know some people who ABSOLUTELY WON'T buy Smith or Ruger guns...

Me, too. They're pretty irrelevant at this point, though.

[critter]

Lol I'm not sure if you're serious...but I know some people who ABSOLUTELY WON'T buy Smith or Ruger guns...

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Well, this situation is just a weeeeee bit different from a company running out and preemptively playing 'cigar' with an anti-gun president.

I didn't run out and sell off my wheelguns but I haven't paid much attention to anything S&W has put out since then.

[ragnar_d]

Damage control continues on the SS Geneseo:

The Executive Director of the Illinois Firearm Manufacturers Association (IFMA) acted without our prior knowledge and against our principles and those of the industry as a whole with respect to the Gun Dealer Licensing Act. We no longer have confidence in IFMA and after speaking to other directors we have made the decision to sever all ties with the organization, effective immediately.
http://blog.springfield-armory.com/springfield-armory-statement-regarding-gun-dealer-licensing-act-sb1657-0

[hufnagel]

yea, it's a total shit show.
how the hell can you sort out the truth from all of it, at least at this point.

[pangloss]

They're claiming ignorance to the actions of IFMA . . . which I find highly suspect. How can you be giving someone $50k to be your Wesley Mouch/Man-in-Springfield and then have no damn clue what they're actually doing!?!. It makes my inner Ace Rothstein come out, "Listen, if you didn't know you were being scammed you're too fuckin' dumb to keep this job, if you did know, you were in on it. Either way, YOU'RE OUT!"

I didn't see this thread when I posted to the XDe thread around lunch time, but I 100% agree with Ragnar. Even if people think The Truth About Guns is a trash site, they deserve a credit for their coverage of this story. Today they posted copies of tax returns for IFMA as well as information from other sources that appear to be credible. Unless all of what they are reporting is simply fabricated, I can't possibly see how SA was not complicit or incompetent. The 2013 tax return for IFMA lists Dennis Reese as the President and Tom Reese as secretary. Dennis Reese is the CEO of SA and Tom Reese is the co-chairman of the board of SA. For Reese to claim that SA has severed ties with IFMA appears laughable at this point. The tax return lists contributions to politicians who are openly anti-2A. If you poke around a little more, it looks like IFMA is 50% funded by SA and 50% funded by RRA. My view is that the tax return suggests a pattern of behavior that most of us would find quite disagreeable.

Here is the address for the TTAG article: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/05/john-boch/springfield-armory-rock-river-arms-made-campaign-contributions-to-anti-gun-rights-politicians/

As I stated in the other thread, I think they do a good job of crediting their sources and tracing the story back to the primary data. As with everything, each of us should critically evaluate for ourselves.

[45dotACP]

Looks like they're trying to do the right thing...

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Trukinjp13]

Okay, I still have not seen anything that is relevant to now. This stuff is all years ago. Where is the proof of there involvement in this. Are there more people attached to the ifma then there was? Is someone else running it? Has Springfield/rra given money in the past couple months? Have they gave money to antis in the past couple months? Am I retarded about this? Seriously, I am trying to follow the bs breadcrumb trail. And it is old and stale as shit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pangloss]

Okay, I still have not seen anything that is relevant to now. This stuff is all years ago. Where is the proof of there involvement in this. Are there more people attached to the ifma then there was? Is someone else running it? Has Springfield/rra given money in the past couple months? Have they gave money to antis in the past couple months? Am I retarded about this? Seriously, I am trying to follow the bs breadcrumb trail. And it is old and stale as shit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think patterns are relevant to now. I assume that IFMA really was giving money to anti-2A politicians in 2013 and was still in sell out mode last week. IFMA appears to be one or two lobbyists that are paid only by SA/RRA. To me, the back story is more significant than this latest legislative news. I can understand the financial benefit of guaranteeing their carve out in this latest bill, but why would they ever want to support a politician who made it a point of pride that IL was the only state without some form of legal CCW? I guess this is where the lines get blurry between campaign contributions, bribes, and extortion.

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

[RevolverRob]

Okay, I still have not seen anything that is relevant to now. This stuff is all years ago. Where is the proof of there involvement in this. Are there more people attached to the ifma then there was? Is someone else running it? Has Springfield/rra given money in the past couple months? Have they gave money to antis in the past couple months? Am I retarded about this? Seriously, I am trying to follow the bs breadcrumb trail. And it is old and stale as shit


IFMA - has received two - two contributions to its funding program - each was $50,000 and one came from Rock River Arms, the other Springfield Armory. IFMA has made only one expenditure for campaign contributions - $25000. - The representative of IFMA, one Jay Keller, listed IFMA as "opposed" to SB-1657. Later, apparently at a Senate hearing, he stated that IFMA would no longer oppose the bill, if it exempted firearms manufacturers. Thereby looking out for the interests of his two (and only) donors, firearms manufacturers. - The Senate amended the proposal and IFMA dropped their opposition to the bill.

The bill subsequently passed the senate by 1-vote.

It's important to remember that donations from 3-years ago (2014) are still relevant today. Illinois has not had a full legislative session for awhile now, it's not a day-in-day out situation here like it is in D.C. The only state budget passed is an interim "stopgap" budget for basic operations, passed last summer. It hasn't been widely reported, but we've largely been at a stand-still regarding legislative movement and budgetary negotiations. Which, by-the-by given that Illinois hasn't sunk into Lake Michigan or been over run by bands of ravenous reavers - tells you about all that's needed regarding the "importance" of government.

Anyways, my point is, that SA and RRA gave the money to a lobbyist. The lobbyist did a job, protecting his donors' interests. If SA and RRA wanted them protected in a different way, that message should have been delivered properly to the lobbyist. I'm willing to bet there was a break in this communication chain somewhere, but overall the lobbyist was doing his job. I'm sure this was communicated to SA and RRA, but perhaps it wasn't moved up the chain to the top for those who needed to make these decisions.

Still, I hate the way Springfield Armory does business and I've always been so-so on RRA arms. So...I'll just (continue to) take my business elsewhere.