Page 3 of 6
Re: Think twice about Springfield and RRA
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:28 pm
by 1911 10MM
Abraham wrote:1911 10MM,
Perfect summarization.
Politicians, supposedly on our side, aren't and they should pay the penalty - voted out of office.
Rotten, no good, lying, wait a minute, they're politicians who think those who put them in office can't eject them, wrong narcissist...
Those of us who have endured and contributed to a superior track record of LTC holders somehow ended up with the short end of the stick. Saying I am disappointed falls short but there is that ten year old daughter rule.
Re: Think twice about Springfield and RRA
Posted: Mon May 01, 2017 9:19 am
by MechAg94
crazy2medic wrote:If more manufacturers would do what Ronnie Barrett did I believe more gun laws would come off the books!
When California passed a law prohibiting the average citizen from owning a .50 caliber rifle, Mr. Barrett advised the State he would no longer sell his rifles or their parts to any LE agency in California! When States pass stupid laws they should face the same penalty, alot of States would be very cautious in laws they pass if Gun and ammunition maker refuse to sell to any LE agency in that state!
No offense to Barrett, but he wasn't building firearms in California and he had plenty of business elsewhere. I don't think it is all that great a comparison.
Re: Think twice about Springfield and RRA
Posted: Mon May 01, 2017 9:24 am
by MechAg94
Jusme wrote:I have never understood why so many manufacturers continue to keep their manufacturing, sales, and distribution in States that continually restrict rights. Magpul moved out of Colorado, and only after they got a huge government contract, did Colorado realize their stupidity.
If these manufacturers really cared about the 2A, they would all move to places like Texas, where they could make anything they wanted, and refuse to make State compliant firearms for States that restrict rights.
We are the voice that can send a message, and refuse to purchase guns from companies who cave to States who want to wrest control, but still allow manufacturers to sell whatever they want to places who respect our rights. Their profits are directly reliant upon us.
JMHO
Because it costs a boatload of money to move and sometimes they have to make decisions based on what is best for their company and stockholders. If they were considering a move, I wouldn't expect if to happen anytime soon. That sort of move takes a lot of planning and time. Besides, it wouldn't affect XD manufacturing as that doesn't happen in the US anyway.
Has Magpul moved out of Colorado completely? I thought they were still in the process of moving and were still making mags there.
Re: Think twice about Springfield and RRA
Posted: Mon May 01, 2017 9:39 am
by The Annoyed Man
In perusing the comments in the TTAG follow up story which contained Springfield's CEO's statement responding to the dust up, I ran across this gem from 1989:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/3843 ... SALES.html
Col. Juan Lopez de la Cruz, who stationed at the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador between 1982 and 1984, was named in a seven-count indictment charging conspiracy, bribery, making false statements and aiding and abetting the filing of false claims.The indictment, returned Thursday by a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Va., accused Lopez of conspiring with Dennis J. Reese, president of Springfield Armory, Inc., to defraud the foreign military sales program operated by the Pentagon.
Lopez is accused of soliciting and taking bribes totaling $70,000 from Reese in return for helping Springfield Armory complete the sale of $3.7 million worth of firearms to the Salvadoran government.
Efforts to reach Lopez for comment on the charges were unsuccessful.
As an advisor to the Salvadoran Military Group, Lopez recommended to the Salvadoran government what types of weapons and supplies to purchase from U.S. manufacturers under the program.
After they were introduced in 1983, Lopez told Reese that he was in a position to influence the type of weapons the Salvadorans would purchase and could help get U.S. certification to complete the transactions, the indictment said.
Reese, who pleaded guilty last month to conspiracy and filing false statements, also bought Lopez a $4,722 Rolex watch at the colonel's request.
That would be the same Reese who issued the following comment to TTAG:
“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.”
Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.
Re: Think twice about Springfield and RRA
Posted: Mon May 01, 2017 12:21 pm
by RossA
I just sent the following email to Springfield:
I have read with quite a bit of dismay about your agreement to an Illinois gun control bill, but only after your company was exempted. The firearms industry must stand together in opposition to laws which limit the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. Instead of joining together to oppose such unfair laws, you have agreed to remain silent as long as those laws do not affect you. This shameful conduct is being noticed and reported in the firearms community, as it should be.
The new XD-E pistol was looking so nice...until I read the rest of the story. You may be assured that all of my firearms students will hear the story as well.
Re: Think twice about Springfield and RRA
Posted: Mon May 01, 2017 12:53 pm
by Soccerdad1995
I'm not following how this bill would have even harmed SA, RRA, or anyone else. The link just says that anyone doing 9 or more transfers would need to have an Illinois equivalent of an FFL. I would imagine that if anyone could get such a license it would be a firearms manufacturer.
I do agree that this absolutely sucks for the average Illinois resident. Especially if an "Illinois FFL" proves to be difficult to get. I would have expected that this would be the part that had the biggest negative impact on the manufacturers, but that seems to be still be there, so I'm not sure.
I'm sure that the local law enforcement agencies will have no issues at all obtaining a state license.
Re: Think twice about Springfield and RRA
Posted: Mon May 01, 2017 6:52 pm
by OlBill
Re: Think twice about Springfield and RRA
Posted: Mon May 01, 2017 8:01 pm
by warnmar10
Too late, my mind is made up.
Re: Think twice about Springfield and RRA
Posted: Mon May 01, 2017 8:16 pm
by Lambda Force
OlBill wrote:
"Ill-informed"
About the risk of getting caught, no doubt.
Re: Think twice about Springfield and RRA
Posted: Mon May 01, 2017 8:50 pm
by Mxrdad
Lambda Force wrote:OlBill wrote:
"Ill-informed"
About the risk of getting caught, no doubt.
And the Crawfishing begins. Me thinks it'll be hard to convince folks they were not in the know.
Re: Think twice about Springfield and RRA
Posted: Tue May 02, 2017 8:33 am
by MechAg94
Considering the timing with the NRA meeting, I could believe it in part. Not everyone tracks bills through state legislatures. However, I am sure companies like Springfield had people or lobbyists following the issue even if the CEO was not. I have no idea how big a staff RRA has.
Re: Think twice about Springfield and RRA
Posted: Tue May 02, 2017 9:56 am
by treadlightly
One of the big four rules is always be sure of your target and what's behind it.
Shouldn't a gun manufacturer recognize the same rule applies to politics?
Unless I hear evidence to the contrary, SA won't find room in my gun safe.
