The author of that Bearing Arms post clearly has an ax to grind with his competition (The Truth About Guns since he didn't name it), and while I am willing to accept that the political donations are unfortunately the kind of greasing of palms that is required to pay to play in modern politics, I don't buy the explanation that SA and RRA didn't know what their lobbying organization was doing. It's already been proven by disclosure documents that the organization is only made up of four individuals, three representatives from SA and RRA and the lobbyist himself. I'm not buying there was any "communication breakdown." What the companies' motives were is up to them to explain in much greater detail than they have done so far if they want to extricate themselves from this mess.

Springfield and RRA have quit the IFMA.

http://blog.springfield-armory...censing-act-sb1657-0

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...voluted-deal-making/

Personally, I'm willing to accept that they didn't know what their lobbyist was up to when he pulled back opposition to the bill. I'm not sure how these things are really run but it's not like the lobbyist works in their buildings and interacts with them on a daily basis. I'm willing to accept their word at this point that they didn't know what this guy was doing and were trusting him to keep their best interests at heart. If the lobbyist wasn't a gun guy, then he may have done what he did thinking that was in their best interest. I think the biggest error that both companies made was not firing this guy as soon as this came out last week. They were probably focusing on the NRA show and didn't anticipate the backlash, figuring they had a good history and nothing serious would come of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Paten:
Springfield and RRA have quit the IFMA.

So they were against the bill, before they were for it?

These guys have created a mess for themselves. I find it hard to believe they took their eyes off this, it's pretty big ball to drop. Sad as the only people enjoying this are the ones that would just a soon these companies not exist.

quote:

I don't buy the explanation that SA and RRA didn't know what their lobbying organization was doing. It's already been proven by disclosure documents that the organization is only made up of four individuals, three representatives from SA and RRA and the lobbyist himself. I'm not buying there was any "communication breakdown." What the companies' motives were is up to them to explain in much greater detail than they have done so far if they want to extricate themselves from this mess.

Yeah I agree. The lobbyists are paid top dollar and everything must be checked and cross checked. These companies need to hire a high profile attorney who spins things for a living to get the people to believe that. Gun Owners are not stupid. This action shows how willing Springfield Armory is to sell out. Lobbyists make top dollar, particularly in corrupt Illinois. This is Illinois land of corrupt politicians. I think they win for the number of former Governors who have done Federal time. You pay the right people you get results, simple as that.

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:
I am willing to accept that the political donations are unfortunately the kind of greasing of palms that is required to pay to play in modern politics, I don't buy the explanation that SA and RRA didn't know what their lobbying organization was doing.

Yep. They make up 2/3 of IFMA, donate about 90% of the money to keep it running, but don't know about a major change of position of a bill that directly impacts their customers? I'm not buying it.

RRA's statement today.

For immediate release: May 2, 2017
After further review, Rock River Arms, Inc.® (RRA) is immediately severing all ties with the Illinois Firearms Manufacturers Association (IFMA). We feel that IFMA’s integrity is compromised and we will not be a part of the organization. We trusted that contributions and resources provided to IFMA by RRA were being used to promote and uphold our 2nd Amendment values. IFMA’s actions have destroyed that trust.
For more than twenty years, RRA has actively opposed gun control legislation at the local, state, and federal levels. We have supported and provided monetary and product donations to multiple pro-gun organizations including NRA, NSSF, ISRA and countless others. We have attended rallies and spoken at educational events on behalf of gun owners’ rights. Our employees have collected signatures, written letters and e-mails, called legislators’ offices, as well as attended events, meetings and hearings in Springfield, Illinois.
What we learned, however, was that we are better at manufacturing firearms and accessories than playing political games at the state capitol. So, we began to utilize the services of lobbyists, first through other organizations and then in 2009, we partnered with several other manufacturers to form IFMA.
Prior to our further review, we believed that the organization had accurately represented us. We feel that IFMA’s actions have compromised its integrity. While their actions may be standard practices at the capitol, backdoor politics and convoluted deal-making are counter to the way we do business and lead our lives.
I sincerely apologize for my lack of direct engagement in IFMA’s governance and subsequent actions, as well as the abandonment gun owners are feeling.


If you have any questions regarding, or need more information about, this statement or RRA’s position, please contact: Sarah Larson, RRA General Manager at 309-792-5780.
Thank you,
Chuck Larson President/Owner Rock River Arms, Inc.

My first AR was a Rock River Arms mid length. I've always been fond of their rifles and own quite a few of them. I asked myself when this first happened what would it take for RRA to earn my trust again. This is a step in the right direction.

My first AR was an RRA. It was OK, but I sold it during the Obama scare, mainly because the upper/lower fit was way too tight, even after 1000 rounds. Still had to use a punch to undo the takedown pin.

Fuck 'em. They can't explain this if it was a wet paper bag. And the only Springfield I have is an old M1 Garand from the CMP.

A M1 Garand from the CMP is most likely unrelated to Springfield Armory in Illinois.

Springfield Armory in Massachusetts was a government armory and arms development center that closed in 1968. This facility developed the Garand rifle. Springfield Armory Inc. licensed the name in 1974 and makes semi-auto M14 pattern rifles and M1911 pattern pistols, along with various other clones and rebranded imports.

Springfield Armory, the government facility

Springfield Armory Inc, the commercial entity

In other words, don't take the band saw to your Garand. The company in Illinois had nothing to do with them, other than selling Garand clones at various times in their past product lineup.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
What's all this "carve out" stuff? Suddenly, everyone is talking like a corporate lawyer. I understand the term. Tell me specifically what SA and RRA gained from their support of antis, please.

The ONLY angle I can see is them playing a little "Chicago Style" politics.

Giving them that check(s) buys the IFMA a favor somewhere down the line. A little "Hey, you OWE me a favor." The Democratic Machine here operates in that fashion.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
What's all this "carve out" stuff? Suddenly, everyone is talking like a corporate lawyer. I understand the term. Tell me specifically what SA and RRA gained from their support of antis, please.

The ONLY angle I can see is them playing a little "Chicago Style" politics.

Giving them that check(s) buys the IFMA a favor somewhere down the line. A little "Hey, you OWE me a favor." The Democratic Machine here operates in that fashion.

The problem for them is that it appears the only "favor" it bought them was an exemption to the state licensing bill that also limits private transfers. A real favor would have been to kill the bill in the first place.

I would wager that most people who are up in arms about this matter could not adequately explain the issue if pressed to do so. I see a lot of "they sold us out" but that does not explain the matter.

If we don't fully understand what's happening, how can we take a solid position on the matter? I see a lot of hysteria. I've long despised SA, Inc so there is no love lost there, but at least I know the reasons why I feel this way, and not the result of a mob mentality.

The people condemning SA, Inc and RRA may very well be correct in their accusations, but I don't know enough about the matter to form an opinion, and neither do most people getting torqued about it.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I would wager that most people who are up in arms about this matter could not adequately explain the issue if pressed to do so. I see a lot of "they sold us out" but that does not explain the matter.

If we don't fully understand what's happening, how can we take a solid position on the matter? I see a lot of hysteria. I've long despised SA, Inc so there is no love lost there, but at least I know the reasons why I feel this way, and not the result of a mob mentality.

The people condemning SA, Inc and RRA may very well be correct in their accusations, but I don't know enough about the matter to form an opinion, and neither do most people getting torqued about it.

Very well put.
I don't hate SA, that's putting to fine of a point on things. Owned many a Springfield pistol and never had to deal with their CS.
Is it all politics? Very possible and I'll wait to see how things shake out before making up my mind as to what happened.

quote:

Originally posted by Storm:
https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/...sing-point-illinois/

I have one problem with the Bearing Arms article:

quote:

< snip >
Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms pointed out the fact that while they provide the bulk of the funding for the Illinois Firearms Manufacturing Association (IMFA), neither company runs the lobbying organization. They trust the IFMA to do good work, as they have shared common goals. As both SA and RRA have made clear in their press releases, they were not aware of the carve outs in the Gun Dealer Licensing Act.

Here is the problem. The 2015 IRA Form 990 for IFMA lists just four people as the principals of the IFMA:

- Dennis Reese, SA, Director
- Tom Reese, SA, Director
- Jay Keller, the lobbyist, Executive Director;
- Chuck Larson, RRA, Director

Link to Form 990, Page 2

Three of the four principals are from SA (2) and RRA (1) and "neither company runs the lobbying organization"? I'm sorry, but if they don't have a directorship role, why are they listed as "Directors"?

I go back to what I said yesterday - both RRA and SA had better be in damage control mode and preparing to make a very public, unequivocal mea culpa complete with atonement for their actions or they are going to see just how badly being on the wrong side of this issue is to the bottom line. And this is possibly the worst time in the last nine years to be in that position.

The gun market is saturated with products, particularly the modern sporting rifle market (RRA's niche), and there are plenty of companies with similar product lines (type and quality) who, if they undercut SA and RRA just a bit, will likely shift buyers away from RRA and SA.

ETA:

I was taking out the trash (well recycling) when another point occurred to me. No kidding I was.

The Bearing Arms article, and others, are making a case that the donations to a lobbyist who made donations to anti-gun politicians is "just Chicago politics." For example, Bearing Arms stated:

quote:

Another simple to understand concept is that because Chicago’s corrupt political machine dominates Illinois politics, the sad reality is that large companies in every industry “pay to play” to gain access to politicians to get things done, even more than they do in many other places.

So suddenly, supporting utterly and openly corrupt political machines is okay? This after eight years of unrestricted and totally justified fury over the progeny of that machine sitting in the White House doing nigh on irreparable harm to the country?

If corruption is required to do business in Illinois, how corrupt is too corrupt? When has corruption so eroded the values of a person or organization that it ceases to be what it claims?

If that is the price of doing business in Illinois, I want to observe that Iowa is a mere seven miles (as the cow flies) from Colona, IL, where RRA is located and 17 from Geneseo, where SA is located. Magpul moved a hell of a sight further, as did a host of other firearms manufacturers after they and the pro-gun population of their states got screwed by the most corrupt form of political power - laying the blame for the actions of a madman on law abiding, tax paying citizens.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I would wager that most people who are up in arms about this matter could not adequately explain the issue if pressed to do so. I see a lot of "they sold us out" but that does not explain the matter.

If we don't fully understand what's happening, how can we take a solid position on the matter? I see a lot of hysteria. I've long despised SA, Inc so there is no love lost there, but at least I know the reasons why I feel this way, and not the result of a mob mentality.

The people condemning SA, Inc and RRA may very well be correct in their accusations, but I don't know enough about the matter to form an opinion, and neither do most people getting torqued about it.

Cliff notes version:

RRA/SA (thru their entity, the IFMA) opposed legislation that would require state licensing of gun shops and limit firearms transfers to 9 or less per year. Anything over 9 would be construed as a dealer and subject to state licensing requirements. In April, the IFMA removed their opposition after an exemption was made for RRA, SA, and any big box retailer that made less than 20% revenue from gun sales.

It has been further discovered that the IFMA is basically the leadership of RRA, SA, and their paid lobbyist. Additionally, it was discovered that these manufacturers were donating money to blatantly anti-gun reps in the state of IL.


There is a long, detailed, thread about this over in AR15.com's general discussion section. It started with the carve out/exemption, then the discovery of who is the IFMA, and finally, the money donations to anti-gun reps in the State legislature.

quote:

Originally posted by mo4040:
Cliff notes version:

That's the problem, right there.

Tell me you think I'm incorrect when I say that most people who are getting up in arms about this matter have only- at best- the Cliff Notes version of this. People are coming into forums, seeing the uproar and are then simply taking their outrage cues from other people in these forums.

I'm not saying that the accusations are false. I'm saying that I see a whole lot of poorly informed people getting upset over something they really don't understand.

We might want to douse the torches and put away the pitchforks until we know more.

Para,

I'll agree to a point. However, if one does read the lengthy thread over at AR15.com and sees the physical evidenced that was unearthed (documents related to the IFMA and political donations), it is really, really hard to not be convinced of what the consensus opinion is. Add the spin control being mustered by RRA and SA and it all reeks.

No responsible lobbyist would do something like this without the express approval of their client. I suspect that a lot of this is reaction to being caught rather than some sudden show of solidarity with everyone else. Magpul could have gotten an exemption in Colorado, but voted with its feet.

Yes, the data is available. How many people have read through all that stuff and can explain it? Most people seem to be just plain old outraged, right on cue, because they see people they trust who are outraged.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Yes, the data is available. How many people have read through all that stuff and can explain it? Most people seem to be just plain old outraged, right on cue, because they see people they trust who are outraged.

I have, because of the calls I got yesterday. I haven't decided what I will to do regarding my business relationship with RRA, but they have to be feeling the heat getting unbearable.

I can add that based on reading all 25 or so pages at ARFCOM, its pretty damning stuff that is hard to explain away, even if there was truly no knowledge of what Keller (the lobbyist) was doing or intention to participate in it. After all, they'd be in the impossible position of trying to prove the negative to a lynch mob.

I also agree with you that probably 75% of the people who are outraged (including a few who are really outraged) haven't even read the Cliff Notes version; nonetheless, the common sentiments is "Sodomize them and don't give'em a reacharound." Of the 25% who have read through the material and grasped at least part of its meaning (particularly the donations to anti-gun politicians, which Bearing Arms article did not help with their "its corruption, but okay corruption because its Illinois" line), I'd say about 70% are in the "Sodomize them and don't give'em a reacharound, 15% advocate giving the reacharound, 5% haven't made up their mind and 5% are supporting them. Even the AFRCOM staff, who have made arrangements to speak with Larson from RRA later today and are trying to be impartial and evenhanded, seem a tad upset.