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?

I think they'll need two more things - they'll need to publicly throw everything that they've got into blocking passage in the House, and then they're going to have to successfully pin the whole thing on the lobbyist. Even then, though, the stink may stick to them for a while.

The thing about SA Inc is that it was (follow me here) a "blue collar brand". They made a decent factory 1911 that was affordable back when you had few choices for a good 1911 and none were affordable. They offered a decent deal on rifles that were hard to get - M14's (M1A), FAL, and an HK G3 clone. They offered an alternative to the Glock in the XD. They marketed to many their value by offering more mags and holsters and all with their guns. Constant promos. They marketed their brand to the everyday Joe.
What they don't have is military, government, or police business. Their custom shop offerings are limited and low volume. Their bread and butter gun is an import.
So long story short, it's the everyday Joe customer they alienate with this move. They don't have government contracts to offset this. They don't have a line they are exporting to my knowledge. This has the potential to burn them bad. Their lack of communication in the internet age is a mistake even a PR intern would not make.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Speaking just like a scumbag politician.

Hard to get out once you have made a deal with the devil!

This is a damned shame, a just plain awful management decision.

I love my M1A.

But I no longer love Springfield Arms.

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?

If it's what it looks like it's going to sour a lot of people on them for a long time, as it should. It took a long time for both S&W and Ruger to get back where they are now and that basically required a complete change in ownership in both cases. I know people that to this day won't buy a Ruger or S&W, and that was over something 20 years ago, and the management of both companies is completely different today. A change in ownership may very well be what it takes for SA to crawl out from under this.

The lack of response from SA on this is disturbing. This isn't the 90s, social media and the internet can do great harm to a company in an incredibly short period. In the span of 24-48 hours there are thousands of people saying they'll never buy another SA or RR, that isn't something S&W or Ruger really had to contend with in the 90s. The one response SA has made so far (the brief statement from Reese) has done more harm than good. Instead of stating opposition to this shit bill he says "The legislative process is a fluid process." WTF?

While I'm not in IL I'm a SA dealer. If this is what it looks like they effectively told me (and every other dealer, other than big box stores) and my customers (and every other dealers customers) to go fuck ourselves.

How does this bill affect FFLs?

Isn't this bill for private person to person sales?

quote:

Originally posted by 10x Sniper:
How does this bill affect FFLs?

Isn't this bill for private person to person sales?

From the bill:
"Dealer" means any person engaged in the business of
13 selling, leasing, or otherwise transferring firearms or any
14 person within the meanings provided by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(11) and
15 27 CFR 478.11 to include any person engaged in the business of
16 selling firearms at wholesale or retail, or repairing firearms
17 or making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger
18 mechanisms to firearms. "Dealer" includes the following
19 Federal Firearms Licenses: Type 01-dealer in firearms other
20 than destructive devices; Type 02-pawnbroker in firearms other
21 than destructive devices; Type 09-dealer of destructive
22 devices.

http://ilga.gov/legislation/fu...657&GAID=14&Session=

quote:

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

Srsly?

Well, it looks like the other two makers of M14 parts better get staffed and ready! At least these are 100% made in the USA. Their receivers are forged as are most of their other parts.

For those that don't know who the other M14 clone makers are, they are Bula Defense and LRB of Long Island.

http://buladefense.com

http://www.lrbarms.com

Tony.

quote:

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

Srsly? [/QUOTE

Yes, seriously. This is a lot more credible source. https://bearingarms.com/david-...l-out-illinois-ffls/

quote:

Originally posted by ukhayes:

quote:

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

Srsly? [/QUOTE

Yes, seriously. This is a lot more credible source. https://bearingarms.com/david-...l-out-illinois-ffls/

In the first post of this thread, I posted a link to Illinois Carry, it's VERY credible.

This is from yesterday from the moderator of the Illinoiscarry forum.

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum....php?showtopic=65577

ukhayes, honest question, did you really think the viscous attacks RRA & SA have sustained was caused by a fake news article? Seriously? You under estimate our intelligence.

quote:

Originally posted by ukhayes:

quote:

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

Srsly? [/QUOTE

Yes, seriously. This is a lot more credible source. https://bearingarms.com/david-...l-out-illinois-ffls/

Your implication was not that there were other sources, but that this was a made up controversy that we all fell for. It was a ridiculous intimation frankly.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Your implication was not that there were other sources, but that this was a made up controversy that we all fell for.

That was my interpretation of the comment.

So after reading this, what's the basic gist of the bill, what does it accomplish, other than limiting private sales to under 10 a year for individuals. (not that I agree, I don't).

I am trying to understand what the bill does and doesn't do other than smack gun rights in the face, what does it actually accomplish for the anti's and what do gun owners in IL now have to do to comply.

What exactly would this bill have done to any IFM that encouraged a company like SA or RRA to support it if they are removed.

Was the original bill so egregious that it made it impossible to manufacture and distribute guns in IL or ship them to out of state dealers?

What would SA have had to do differently as a manufacturer, what did they bargain for with their support.

Is it just that the SA CEO and United's CEO went to the same school of dumb decisions or was there a substantive gain for SA...

Is it possible the IFMA and it's lobbyist felt the bill was going through regardless of it's position (including SA and RRA as the biggest funding partners) so they best get on board or be subject to the law and problems that would go with it. Just a question, not approval on my part for their actions.

Surely they had to think this could go viral or are the executives all still using flip phones and fax machines and felt being an IL only deal it wouldn't do anything nationwide, being that IL was already a screwed up place for gun owners.

Oddly enough I got an email from ar15.com advertising their Saint giveaway today. Wonder how that promo is going...

quote:

Originally posted by ukhayes:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

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

Srsly?

Yes, seriously. This is a lot more credible source. https://bearingarms.com/david-...l-out-illinois-ffls/

The source aside: Management here takes an exceedingly dim view of posting unsubstantiated rumour and other assorted horsepucky. I see your post count is low, but, you've been a member here nearly as long as I, so surely you must know that by now?

If something like this survives scrutiny by the membership, never mind the boss, odds are very, very good it's legitimate. In fact you can probably pretty damn near take it as gospel.

Never mind the public statements elsewhere and the multiple threads on arfcom.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
So after reading this, what's the basic gist of the bill, what does it accomplish, other than limiting private sales to under 10 a year for individuals. (not that I agree, I don't).

I am trying to understand what the bill does and doesn't do other than smack gun rights in the face, what does it actually accomplish for the anti's and what do gun owners in IL now have to do to comply.

What exactly would this bill have done to any IFM that encouraged a company like SA or RRA to support it if they are removed.

The bill also creates a state-level licensing for 01, 02, and 09 dealers. 01s are your typical gun stores. 02s are pawnbrokers (I can see them just dropping their FFLs and leaving the gun business entirely if SB 1657 passes: it's a lot of trouble and possibly money, and guns are not their primary source of income). 09s are dealers in destructive devices--can't see there be that many of this classification of FFL in IL.

Along with whatever requirements the state comes up with, there is also a licensing fee. SB 1657 does not state how much the licensing fee is. If they don't want you in business, they can up the requirements or the fee till you can no longer comply.

The agency in charge of enforcing this licensing scheme would have an advisory board. This can be found in section 25 of the SB 1657. The secretary (gov't) would appoint 5 people to the board. This board would then recommend policy. It's pretty scary who would be in charge of this thing: One member has to have been a city chief or sheriff w/5 years experience (in IL, that pretty much means an anti), one member has to be a lawyer licensed in IL (doesn't say if license has to be current), one member has to be state police w/ 5 years investigatory experience (i.e. a member of the state executive branch, not exactly fair and impartial considering who the governors of IL are), one member has to be a "representative of an advocacy group for public safety" (affirmative action for anti-gun groups) and then one FFL in good standing. Guess which one is not like the others and is going to be consistently outvoted 4-1?

The new license itself looks like it's shall-issue (Section 35, (a)), once requirements are met, but what is the benefit of this licensing scheme? Are there too many gun dealers in IL? Is BATFE too lax in issuing licenses, so now the state has to step in? Nope, this is another way to let them change the rules later on and run the little guy out of business.

07s Manufacturers like Springfield Armory and RRA aren't really addressed by SB 1657 except to distinguish them from 01, 02, and 09 dealers.

An 01 can apply to become an 07, but I'm not sure BATFE will let a 01 do that if they know the only reason for the move is to dodge state-level licensing schemes. IIRC, back in the 90s, BATFE cracked down hard on "kitchen table" FFLs, some of whom were running legit businesses out of their homes, but others simply applied for 01s so they could get FFL-level discounts and buy direct. The point was that the second category of 01 wasn't using the license for what it was meant for (thus afterwards, BATF wanted you to have a separate place of business). BATFE might have the same objections to an 07 that only sells guns and never manufactures anything.

07 is an additional $150 per year--not that much, but 07s are also required to register for ITAR which can be $2000+. That is a big deal for smaller FFLs and even if BATFE would allow them to become 07s, smaller 01s that try to make the leap to 07 might not be able to afford it economically speaking.

SB 1657 invites the fox into the hen house and tells him to come back anytime.

quote:

Originally posted by ukhayes:

quote:

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

Srsly? [/QUOTE

Yes, seriously. This is a lot more credible source. https://bearingarms.com/david-...l-out-illinois-ffls/

There is nothing about that link that tells me it's more credible than TTAG.

We have the link to the actual bill here:

http://ilga.gov/legislation/fu...657&GAID=14&Session=

And what I've read in it is does not contradict what was reported on TTAG. Nor does the article in your link materially differ from what TTAG reported.

If you want to post your own favorite link, fine, if you can do it respectfully. But we're not going to have a pissing match about whose link is more credible when both say the same thing.

LDD, thanks, I read through the bill on the link using my Holiday Inn Express legal document review training.

It seems that the most egregious parts are

1) limits on private sales before you are considered a dealer under IL law, and

2) Development of a non legislative body that can make adjustments to the existing laws with wide latitude/discretion that is stacked with anti gun members. Thus getting gun dealer regulation out from the legislature and into the bureaucracy similar to DC's modus operandi.

The rest is simply speculation until we see some kind of massive fee for obtaining a license and that would come under the purview of the #2 problem, the committee of 5.

Wonder if SA and RRA have intel that says it won't get past the IL house or that the gov won't sign it, still not a good reason to offer support for the bill, and FWIW folks should be majorly upset with the Two R senators, one voted for it, the other abstained, both appointed senators BTW.

These two dickweeds caused this, and should pay by being removed from office with future votes.

What IL folks and gun owners as a whole should be doing is unloading on these two assholes.