quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
Statement from SA CEO

https://www.thetruthaboutguns....nti-gun-legislation/

Seems bullshitty. I'm on my phone if someone else wants to copy paste.

quote:

“The legislative process is a fluid process. The bill has only moved through one chamber, and it is still in the process. We fully support the Second Amendment and stand by it. The Illinois Manufacturers Association will continue to fight and protect not only manufacturers, but dealers and the gun owner as well.”

It's a shitty statement either way.

Let me dissect it for anyone who cares:

quote:

The legislative process is a fluid process. The bill has only moved through one chamber, and it is still in the process.

1) We are supposed to be OK with what Springfield Armory has done because it's still "in process" and the bill itself might not pass.

Gun owners are supposed to suspend judgement because anti-gun legislation that SA backed hasn't passed yet. Yeah, like there's no reason to be upset yet.

This demonstrates to me that CEO Dennis Reese fundamentally does not understand what his company has done wrong.

Dennis, gun owners are not upset that you haven't yet compromised our rights, it's that you tried to compromise our rights.

2) On the off chance that someone wants to argue that Springfield Armory was waiting for the bill to pass the Senate before asking for additional exemptions for FFL "dealers" and individuals to be exempted from the bill: That's not how legislation works. What would be the point of that bill if everyone was exempted? If that was SA's intention, why not start with a solid exemption for all FFLs and individual transfers? Why carve out an exemption for yourself, then wait and see if you still have the political capital to ask for more, if you weren't putting yourself first in the first place?

quote:

We fully support the Second Amendment and stand by it. The Illinois Manufacturers Association will continue to fight and protect not only manufacturers, but dealers and the gun owner as well.”

Only if by "fight" you mean in a three-way pillow tussle with VPC and Bloomberg.

The last statement is inexplicable considering the language that's actually in the bill. How is this organization helping firearms manufacturers when it punishes the very dealers and customers those manufacturers rely on to survive? Someone did not think this one through.

I'm not letting RRA off the hook for this either.

Their management has not said anything yet, that I'm aware of. They might have figured to let SA take the first step, but I'd be looking for a statement from them on Monday.

Springfield Armory and RRA - two shit companies anyway, but they are truly dead to me.

quote:

We fully support the Second Amendment and stand by it. The Illinois Manufacturers Association will continue to fight and protect not only manufacturers, but dealers and the gun owner as well.”

Speaking just like a scumbag politician.

Can't say I was looking to buy anything either company makes, but they've lost any future business with me. The statement from SA's owner is disgusting. That guy can go suck some dicks.

quote:

Originally posted by mrapteam666:
From what I read, this is pretty pathetic by SA and RRA.

I am going to read up on what transpired so I can have an informed opinion.

I was going to buy a SA in .357sig but that is not going to happen, along with Chief just okayed the purchase of 7 or 8 Rock River Arms R4's for our patrol cars.

I was pushing for Colt 6920 or just stick with our SG Sig 551's.

***HOPEFULLY*** Your boss is a 2nd Amendment fan and follows what's going on. If not, show him the articles on Monday.
Go spend your departments money on Colts, Windhams,DD, LMT, Sigs...

If you can go with another route outside of RRA; please go that way! Then call up RRA and let them know that they lost the sale.

quote:

Originally posted by Dresden:
After selling out gun owners and dealers in IL, I'll never buy another firearm from Springfield. I have a 2011 Range Officer and a 1989 M1A that will be going on the market on Monday. Perhaps Springfield Armory would like to by them back. They could resell them for 30 pieces of silver.

Think about it Dresden, Springfield already MADE the money off of your purchase.

If you're all pissed off and want to get rid of them for $500 a crack, hell, Ill buy them! SELLING YOURS will do nothing to hurt Springfield. Springfield has their money from the sale. But parts? go somewhere else. Future purchases? go somewhere else.

Like I said, I like my Springfield 1911's, and my M1A is a solid shooter. I'm not going to get rid of them because it does nothing but detract from the guns I want/like and does nothing to hurt Springfield as a Company.

Latest update with news about RRA:

Springfield and Rock River Illinois Sell-Out: Picking up the Pieces

Strange commentary from the RRA owner in the link from Paten. He had no idea?

quote:

Originally posted by Expat:
Strange commentary from the RRA owner in the link from Paten. He had no idea?

Bullshit. Plausible deniability. He didn't think the word would leak out that quickly and he was unprepared. "Give them the surprised look". That bought him enough time until he will be able to get a press release together.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

We fully support the Second Amendment and stand by it. The Illinois Manufacturers Association will continue to fight and protect not only manufacturers, but dealers and the gun owner as well.”

Speaking just like a scumbag politician.

These are meaningless words that are a LIE, especially considering what they just did. They got caught in a compromising situation, it's blowing up in their face, and instead of coming clean and repenting, they are trying to lie their way out of it.

Just like that 're-accommodating' line backfired spectacularly on the United CEO, this one will probably go the same way. It's like they have NO IDEA who their customer base is. . .

I really feel sorry for the distributors and gun shops who have Springfield and RRA on their shelves.They might be lucky just get their money back.

I wonder what the prevailing attitude among shooters toward these two manufacturers will be if this bill doesn't make it to the governor's desk? After all, whether it results in a new law or not, the manufacturers still found doing this "deal" acceptable. Would a failure square them with their customers?

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
I really feel sorry for the distributors and gun shops who have Springfield and RRA on their shelves.They might be lucky just get their money back.

Not all gun buyers are as well informed as most people here.

FRANKT, Good question! I was wondering that today. I imagine quite a few people like myself would not let it go. I own 6 RRA rifles and will never buy another. The owners statement seems dishonest to me. I am sure if the bill dies some people will forgive and forget but a lot of people wont. They sided with the enemy. That is unforgivable.

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
I really feel sorry for the distributors and gun shops who have Springfield and RRA on their shelves.They might be lucky just get their money back.

Not all gun buyers are as well informed as most people here.

Yes, but the ones who buy multiple firearms a year usually are.

quote:

Originally posted by 2012BOSS302:

quote:

‘Guns & Ammo’ Fires Editor, Apologizes for Gun-Control Column
Metcalf’s back-page column was headlined “Let’s Talk About Limits,” (PDF) and cautiously argued that gun enthusiasts should not oppose basic limits on firearm ownership.

If "basic limits" consists of whatever you want and can afford, I'm okay with that. Otherwise, pound sand.

quote:

Originally posted by FRANKT:
Would a failure square them with their customers?

A good question. If the examples of Zumbo and Metcalf are any guide, though, it’s quite possible that a failure of the bill won’t protect them. I believe that the days when gun owners were oblivious to anything but direct impacts on their rights have long since passed. Just like lusting in one’s heart, the intent is sufficient sin enough for most of us.

Added: Ignoring, of course, all those gun owners who didn’t vote to help defeat the Obamanation and Bill Clinton’s wife.

More and more, though, I’m reaching the conclusion that one of the major divides among gun owners are those who buy a variety of guns for a variety of purposes and those who get one or two for very limited purposes and which aren’t very controversial to begin with (e.g., hunting rifles and shotguns). The former group is made up of the people who feel threatened by attacks on our gun rights and also who make up most of the customers of companies like SA and RRA. They will know about this, won’t like it, and will demonstrate their displeasure.

Has anyone but "click-bait" truthaboutguns.com reported this?

quote:

Originally posted by FRANKT:
I wonder what the prevailing attitude among shooters toward these two manufacturers will be if this bill doesn't make it to the governor's desk? After all, whether it results in a new law or not, the manufacturers still found doing this "deal" acceptable. Would a failure square them with their customers?

Unchanged. They're still turncoats. They showed their color.

quote:

Originally posted by ukhayes:
Has anyone but "click-bait" truthaboutguns.com reported this?

You think TTAG made this up?
Did you read the link in the OP?