MNGunTalk.com

Hmm, looks like SA and RR are doing a S&W and Ruger deal to suck up to antis........

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/04/john-boch/springfield-armory-rock-river-arms-trade-opposition-to-illinois-ffl-licensing-scheme-for-carve-out/

Here is SA's lame response.....

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/04/daniel-zimmerman/statement-from-springfield-armory-ceo-denny-reese-on-ifma-deal-illinois-anti-gun-legislation/

If the suits at SA and RRA were considering such a deal, and are backing out because they're beginning to realize just how suicidal it well be, I say we let them back out.

Let them have the opportunity to realize they were on the edge of a drastic mistake and correct course.

jdege wrote:If the suits at SA and RRA were considering such a deal, and are backing out because they're beginning to realize just how suicidal it well be, I say we let them back out.

Let them have the opportunity to realize they were on the edge of a drastic mistake and correct course.

They have NOT backed out of the deal. In fact, it only passed the senate because of their position. They've limited all Illinois citizens to only 9 transfers per year. All small dealers will now suffer because of red tape that SA and RRA are now exempted from.

before hanging anyone, I'm going to see how this plays out before getting too worked up.

Dill wrote:before hanging anyone, I'm going to see how this plays out before getting too worked up.

Sounds like if they hadn't have gotten on board it wouldn't have passed the senate. They had no reason to play this card even if it were to go nowhere.

"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin

Dill wrote:before hanging anyone, I'm going to see how this plays out before getting too worked up.

They are pro more regulation for everyone but themselves. That's what they have shown.

To be clear, the original version of SB-1657 did not exempt manufacturers from the licensing regulations. At the time, Jay Keller and IFMA opposed it.
At a March Senate hearing, however, Keller stated that IFMA would drop its opposition to SB-1657 and go neutral if legislators gave the state’s gun makers a pass. State Senator Don Harmon delivered on his end of the deal with an amendment exempting big box stores and manufacturers from this scheme.
With that amendment, IFMA dropped its opposition to the bill

goett047 wrote:

Dill wrote:before hanging anyone, I'm going to see how this plays out before getting too worked up.

They are pro more regulation for everyone but themselves. That's what they have shown.

To be clear, the original version of SB-1657 did not exempt manufacturers from the licensing regulations. At the time, Jay Keller and IFMA opposed it.
At a March Senate hearing, however, Keller stated that IFMA would drop its opposition to SB-1657 and go neutral if legislators gave the state’s gun makers a pass. State Senator Don Harmon delivered on his end of the deal with an amendment exempting big box stores and manufacturers from this scheme.
With that amendment, IFMA dropped its opposition to the bill

And if they change their stance, and oppose the bill in the House, I'll forgive them.

jdege wrote:

goett047 wrote:

Dill wrote:before hanging anyone, I'm going to see how this plays out before getting too worked up.

They are pro more regulation for everyone but themselves. That's what they have shown.

To be clear, the original version of SB-1657 did not exempt manufacturers from the licensing regulations. At the time, Jay Keller and IFMA opposed it.
At a March Senate hearing, however, Keller stated that IFMA would drop its opposition to SB-1657 and go neutral if legislators gave the state’s gun makers a pass. State Senator Don Harmon delivered on his end of the deal with an amendment exempting big box stores and manufacturers from this scheme.
With that amendment, IFMA dropped its opposition to the bill

And if they change their stance, and oppose the bill in the House, I'll forgive them.

They've faced a ton of in person backlash this weekend at the NRA show. If they reverse course, it's only because they were caught. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I have already seen what Springfield is all about. They made those decisions when they thought folks weren't looking. That's who they are. IMO, its unforgivable.

Maybe they should do what Les Baer did.
He moved to Iowa, expanded his operation and hired a few more employees because of the friendly work environment.

cobb wrote:Maybe they should do what Les Baer did.
He moved to Iowa, expanded his operation and hired a few more employees because of the friendly work environment.

Seems a bit late for that now, I don't see them coming off the blacklist without major reorganization.

Ghost wrote:

cobb wrote:Maybe they should do what Les Baer did.
He moved to Iowa, expanded his operation and hired a few more employees because of the friendly work environment.

Seems a bit late for that now, I don't see them coming off the blacklist without major reorganization.

It's one thing, and still bad enough, to get a business advantage over your competitors, but it's another to throw the citizens under the bus. If this legislation passes, the laws restricting 9 firearms per year will never be reversed. And, it will be a victory for Bloomberg who will then take it as a mandate to spread it to as many states as he can. And yes, Springfield armory is responsible for that. They MUST be boycotted into bankruptcy. Apparently, as far as Springfield is concerned, some infringement is acceptable.

Randygmn wrote:

Ghost wrote:

cobb wrote:Maybe they should do what Les Baer did.
He moved to Iowa, expanded his operation and hired a few more employees because of the friendly work environment.

Seems a bit late for that now, I don't see them coming off the blacklist without major reorganization.

It's one thing, and still bad enough, to get a business advantage over your competitors, but it's another to throw the citizens under the bus. If this legislation passes, the laws restricting 9 firearms per year will never be reversed. And, it will be a victory for Bloomberg who will then take it as a mandate to spread it to as many states as he can. And yes, Springfield armory is responsible for that. They MUST be boycotted into bankruptcy. Apparently, as far as Springfield is concerned, some infringement is acceptable.

I would hope a transfer limit would be overturned in court....

If either company cared about their customer base or the 2nd amendment they would have strongly and publicly come out against this rather than backing it privately. I boycott more companies for less, so these two are being added to the list. I will do all I can to convince people not to support them, and hopefully the companies will notice and support us further.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LumberZach wrote:If either company cared about their customer base or the 2nd amendment they would have strongly and publicly come out against this rather than backing it privately. I boycott more companies for less, so these two are being added to the list. I will do all I can to convince people not to support them, and hopefully the companies will notice and support us further.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The TTAG website really pushed this story out there. You'll be glad to hear that in the comment sections, it's around 100 to 1 who feel like we do. Better still, you'd be surprised (I was) to read how many FFL's and dealers publicly (not anonymously, but with their real names) came out to say they'd never carry or promote Springfield and RRA ever again. These 2 companies need to be made an example of and punished into bankruptcy, if for no other reason as a cautionary tale for other would be future sell outs.

They responded, acting like they didn't know what was going on but not breaking ties with their group or lobbyist.