Springfield and RRA's actions in Illinois, final verdict?

Discussion in 'Gun-Control Issues' started by bigj480, Jun 15, 2020.

  1. bigj480

    bigj480 CLM

    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    710
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    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?
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2020
  2. bigj480

    bigj480 CLM

    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    710
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    The IFMU is hardly even an organization. I'll just quote what MAC said about it:

    "The IFMA, the lobby group in question, consisted of Dennis Reese, his brother, Chuck Larson of Rock River Arms and Keller. It had no physical address, just a PO box. Their lobby group's meetings probably took place in SA or RRA's offices and all checks written to anti-gun politicians in Illinois originated from SA, according to TTAG's investigative reporting. Again, if this is false and the documents that were posted are faked, why isn't SA suing TTAG or Keller?"

    I'm sorry, but the actions of the IFMA are the actions of RRA and Springfield, they were very much in the loop. This is a simple deflection on their part, IMHO. Pretty smart of them to create a 3 man "organization" where they could lobby however they saw fit but claim innocence. These two companies originally opposed the bill but dropped their opposition when they got preferential treatment out of the deal. I know you think they had no part in it, but I think that is the position least supported by the facts.

    Here is another quote of MAC's.

    "TTAG trusted me with the information at NRAAM. I was told by them that they contacted Springfield Armory and told them they had all the evidence of what they were planning to do and WARNED THEM not to go forward with their plot. The plot was to carve out an exception for the pending anti-gun law and change their position from "opposed" to "neutral" to save their own skins at the expense of Illinois gun owners. They KNEW TTAG had the story and they were waiting for the final vote results to be public before they ran the story."

    The facts about the creation of IFMA and who it consisted of are not really deniable. That, in addition to good ol' common sense and the information, put out there by TTAG really makes Springfield and RRA's position unbelievable IMHO. If you think it was all made up by TTAG then you have to wonder why there were not taken to court for lying and causing REAL HARM to the two companies in question. Harm that is still ongoing. You can choose what to believe, of course, I'm only presenting it as I see it.

    Anyway, lets please let this topic get back on track