There is not way you can rationalize or justify supporting that bill. None!

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
There is not way you can rationalize or justify supporting that bill. None!

This is probably why RRA is saying they'll release an "official statement" tomorrow.



The silence from SA is pretty damning.

They both should have done what Lewis Machine & Tool did and left Illinois for good.

-Tom

FYI In Illinois, at least 30 votes are required in the Senate to pass legislation. 29 “yes” votes wouldn’t have passed this bill no matter how many “no” votes or “present” votes or non-voters there were. 30 is the “simple majority” for passing something like this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Senate

When SB1657 went to the floor for a vote - the deciding vote was cast by Republican Senator Tom Rooney from Palatine, IL. The bill passed with the 30 minimum votes needed to pass in the Senate. Remember when you call, the person who answers the phone DID NOT cast that vote - they are only answering the phone and taking messages. If you live in Sen. Rooney's district - go to his home office and voice your displeasure in person.

Link to Rooney


The more I read it appears the bill is a veiled attempt at closing down the gun show loophole as it's known, private people selling guns at shows without background checks.

Part of me the 2A guy says it's BS infringement, wave the Don't tread on me Flag, however there are people buying guns privately, for the sole purpose of flipping them at shows under the guise of a "private sale" to avoid the costs associated with being a legal dealer. It's clear they are selling guns for income not as a hobbyist with too many guns or one who loves to trade, they are in fact hiding behind 2A to avoid being classed as dealers.

Basically they are using 2A to get around paying the fees, registering as FFL's insurance costs, etc that legal registered dealers pay.

By abusing private sales laws they encourage the legislative uproar over gun show sales to transact gun store business without licenses or back ground checks that lawful in business dealers
have to do in order to transact a sale. In fact I'd bet that every gun store owner, in secret would love that loop hole closed, what better way to even a playing field, using legislation to kill off competition that operates at a lower cost.

The under 10 rule is there to weed out the people who operate as individual collectors are probably what is driving this push in IL and I'd bet it gets traction elsewhere (CA, NY, CT, NJ, HI, etc) in order to force non registered "dealers" into registering.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
It's clear they are selling guns for income not as a hobbyist with too many guns or one who loves to trade, they are in fact hiding behind 2A to avoid being classed as dealers.

BATFE already prosecutes for being an unlicensed dealer, why does the state of IL need to get involved?

Also, they're casting a very wide net for a very narrow offense.

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:
BATFE already prosecutes for being an unlicensed dealer, why does the state of IL need to get involved?

Also, they're casting a very wide net for a very narrow offense.

I agree about the narrow offense, but that looks to be perhaps one part of the focus, perhaps IL being the leading murder state in the USA is the focal point for this kind of legislative fiddiling, perhaps IL doesn't think the BATFE is doing enough.

I"m sure there are many other things they wish to accomplish, including as you stated, camels nose under the tent bill. I'm not for the bill just wanted to be clear before someone misinterprets my previous post, just trying to make sense of the legislation and why IFMA and it's sponsors would choose a position that had potential for major repercussion.

I'd hate to think that the two largest gun manufacturing companies in the state just ignored the effect of social media on the past few presidential elections, united airlines, and that this would never get traction in their decision making process..

Springfield responds:

http://blog.springfield-armory...licensing-act-sb1657

Doesn't pass the smell test, but especially if this deal was in the works since early March as indicators seem to point to.

EDIT - Looks like they coordinated with RRA and didn't fire their lobbyists. This thing smells all kinds of stink.

http://www.rockriverarms.com/i.../pdfs/RRA_Stmt17.pdf

I read the RRA press release.
It seems clear to me they know they made a huge mistake.

If true RRA, put up a shit ton of money and fight the IL senate bill.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
I agree about the narrow offense, but that looks to be perhaps one part of the focus, perhaps IL being the leading murder state in the USA is the focal point for this kind of legislative fiddiling, perhaps IL doesn't think the BATFE is doing enough.

I"m sure there are many other things they wish to accomplish, including as you stated, camels nose under the tent bill. I'm not for the bill just wanted to be clear before someone misinterprets my previous post, just trying to make sense of the legislation and why IFMA and it's sponsors would choose a position that had potential for major repercussion.

I'd hate to think that the two largest gun manufacturing companies in the state just ignored the effect of social media on the past few presidential elections, united airlines, and that this would never get traction in their decision making process..

No doubt the politicians have their excuses and alleged purposes.

But if IL pols wanted to go after private party transfers, why not pass a universal background check bill? That would be easier to get support for and much less far reaching.

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
Springfield responds:

http://blog.springfield-armory...licensing-act-sb1657

Doesn't pass the smell test, but especially if this deal was in the works since early March as indicators seem to point to.

EDIT - Looks like they coordinated with RRA and didn't fire their lobbyists. This thing smells all kinds of stink.

http://www.rockriverarms.com/i.../pdfs/RRA_Stmt17.pdf

Even if we take them at their word, it means they each contributed $50,000 to an organization that almost managed (and might still manage) to flush IL gun-owners' rights down the toilet.

The IL Senate has already voted--damage done.

Here is RRA's statement.

For immediate release: May 1, 2017

Rock River Arms, Inc.® (RRA) wants to assure the Illinois (and national) firearms community that we are still 100 percent opposed to the Gun Dealer Licensing Act - SB1657, the house version of the same bill, and any potential final legislation that may come from those bills along with any other infringements on the gun rights of law-abiding citizens everywhere.
For more than twenty years, Rock River Arms and Springfield Armory have actively opposed gun control legislation at the local, state, and federal levels. In 2009, we partnered with other manufacturers to form an organization geared towards representing our interests - The Illinois Firearms Manufacturers Association (IFMA). Historically, that organization has done well in representing us in Springfield, Illinois. We had no reason to believe that it was doing anything beyond representing the firearms community’s (Illinois firearms manufacturers, dealers and gun owners) best interests, keeping us well-informed on relevant legislation and issues, acting on our behalf. In the case of SB1657, there was a disconnect and that representation was misguided.
While we do believe that IFMA acted in what it felt was the best interests of its members, we were as shocked as everyone else to find ourselves exempted from provisions of SB1657 and that IFMA was no longer opposing that bill, even though RRA still opposed it.
Again, Rock River Arms wants to emphasize (regardless of anything that may have been said or done, mistakenly or otherwise, by any other party on our behalf) its continued total opposition to SB1657, the Illinois House version of the bill and any final legislation that may emerge. This includes any provisions found in Gun Dealer Licensing Act SB1657, along with any other threats that may infringe upon our gun rights.


If you have any further questions or require more information about our position, please contact:
Sarah Larson, General Manager or Steve Mayer, LE, Government, and International Sales Manager at 309-792-5780.
Thank you.
Chuck Larson President/Owner Rock River Arms, Inc.

So both of them issued non statements.
Just word salads to confuse us.

quote:

Originally posted by stickman428:
we were as shocked as everyone else to find ourselves exempted from provisions of SB1657 and that IFMA was no longer opposing that bill

Sort of like a certain president that only heard of stuff from the news.

Complete and utter nonsense!!!!
They stepped in it huge and they know it. No freaking way IFMA dropped their opposition and RRA or SA did not know. One would have certainly told the other.
Complete and utter nonsense!!!!

Even if so they did a piss poor job keeping up with what their thousands upon thousands of dollars to the IFMA and they dropped the ball big time.
Still see no reason to spend money with them if the aren't even keeping up with an association their money funds.
I give me money to a company with their act together.

Huh. Plausible enough words from RRA and SA - if, as has been mentioned above, the companies follow up with some very visible and aggressive action. I have to admit, though, I too find it hard to believe that IFMA took an action like that without RRA's and SA's knowledge. I guess we should be looking for something like a malpractice lawsuit against the lobbyist as well?

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:
But if IL pols wanted to go after private party transfers, why not pass a universal background check bill? That would be easier to get support for and much less far reaching.

Gun banners don't necessarily understand the gun buying community very well. They may have been dumb enough to think that putting restrictions on the few rather than the many would generate less publicity and opposition. If anyone in the gun industry signs on or doesn't oppose it, of course, then the banners can try to neutralize public opinion by claiming it's just an ordinary buisness regulation rather than a restriction on access to firearms.

"The more I read it appears the bill is a veiled attempt at closing down the gun show loophole as it's known, private people selling guns at shows without background checks."

Just an FYI on the above thought.... There is already a law on the books in Illinois for private gun show sales. All guns sold in the gun show or on the grounds of the show (I.e.; parking lot) are required to be transferred through an FFL dealer, 4473 filled out by the buyer, and waiting period followed. I sometimes do a local show with a dealer friend of mine. He handles the background check, 4473, and waiting period. I also keep a copy (as required by state law) of the buyer and seller's info as a private sale. By the way, private sales not from a gun show require the keeping of the above mentioned documentation as well as following waiting period requirements.

This bill is more about putting dealers out of business. I also fear how this would effect estates. If I died, my wife would only be able to sell 9 guns per year.

Can't wait to get out of this state!

quote:

Originally posted by beltfed21:
I also fear how this would effect estates. If I died, my wife would only be able to sell 9 guns per year.

Can't wait to get out of this state!

I hadn't thought of the estates angle.

The bill is also vaguely worded. Would 1 transfer = 1 gun (probably what the politicians wanted) or would you be able to do multiple guns in a single transfer as long as the same guns transferred to/from the same parties at the same time (i.e. you could buy two rifles and a handgun on the same 4473 from the same dealer and have it count as a single transfer)?

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:

...But if IL pols wanted to go after private party transfers, why not pass a universal background check bill? That would be easier to get support for and much less far reaching.

Things are confusing here in IL, but I believe they did this some years back, now requiring that all sales, including private party sales, get reported to the State.

If I'm wrong on this, and FTF is still permissible without reporting, could somebody confirm this for me?

Sounds like bullshit back pedaling like united airlines did after their shit show.

Too late for me, I've already crossed SA and RRA off my list of manufacturers to purchase from. Neither offer anything unique enough to make me go back.

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:
So both of them issued non statements.
Just word salads to confuse us.

Not so much a non statement from RRA. That was a pretty strong denial. The question is whether anyone will believe them. It seems incredible to me that they wouldn't know that their lobbyist was positioning an exception for them from this bill. How could they not know that?