I'm basically making this thread to keep from derailing another thread even more than it already is. However, it may be worthy of it's own thread anyway. It seems that now that Springfield and RRA have claimed ignorance regarding lobbying done on their behalf, many gun owners find them more credible than the people who claim to know otherwise. The question is, on what basis do we decide what to believe and what do most of y'all here believe? A quick rundown of the facts as I see them, before I reply directly to a post form that other thread. 1. Springfield and RRA created a 4-man lobbying group (IFMA) that consisted of senior management in both Springfield and RRA, along with one person to actually speak on their behalf. 2. The Illinois Senate was trying to pass SB 1657, a bill that "includes onerous licensing for FFL’s and a nine transfer limit for [Illinois] gun owners." 3. Springfield and RRA initially opposed this bill, which could create a burden for them. 4. Their lobbyist went to work trying to get them an exemption and ultimately secured one as long as they drop opposition to the bill, which they did. 5. TTAG claims to have known about this action before voting took place. 6. TTAG claims that their reporter (John Boch) contacted Springfield, told them they knew what they were up to and warned them not to go through with it. 7. Illinois Senate bill SB 1657, with the help of this Springfield/RRA lobbying group, did ultimately pass the senate, WITH exceptions for them in place AFAIK. 8. In addition to these issues, past political contributions came to light. Tens of thousands of dollars for anti-gun democrats over the course of five years. 9. Springfield's response is that they simply did not know what their lobbyist was doing. 10. The lobbyist was ultimately fired and claimed responsibility. 11. Springfield never responded to the claim by TTAG that they were contacted before the bill was voted on. 12. No party involved commented on their past political contributions to anti-gun democrats 13. No party involved has sent TTAG a "cease and desist" letter or sued them, which they almost certainly WOULD do it TTAG was lying about the events and doing real harm to the companies' bottom line and reputation. 14. The companies involved are now apparently publicly fighting against the bill. The dust has settled and it seems no other action is going to occur. Given this, what is the logical position to hold regarding Springfield and RRA? Where do you stand on this issue? Did I get some of the facts wrong? Does anyone have more details?