Illinois Gun Dealer Licensing: What It Might Look Like

As you may have heard, Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms cut a deal with the Illinois Senate to avoid a licensing scheme. SB-1657 has passed the State Senate. If signed into law, the bill will require all Land of Lincoln gun dealers — save big box retailers (who also got a carve-out) — to apply to the state for a license to operate.

The bill is intentionally vague about what requirements an Illinois FFL will have to satisfy to do business in the state. It could be almost anything. One thing we can surmise without fear of contradiction: it will involve a licensing fee.

Given that the Illinois state legislature’s position on firearms freedom (they’re against it), it’s also safe to say that the licensing provisions will not please gun dealers or gun rights-loving residents. What could happen? History is our guide . . .

Back before New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg lost interest in his anti-gun organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns — which may have had something to do with all the MAIG member mayors indicted and/or convicted on various corruption and other criminal charges — Mayor Mike’s minions created the Responsible Firearms Retail Partnership (RFRP).

[Don’t bother following that link. MAIG killed the RFRP, opting to use Mikey’s millions to buy Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (born as the Million Mom March for Gun Control). And create and promote Everytown for Gun Safety].

TTAG highlighted the RFRP back in October 19, 2010 in our post Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Wal-Mart Stonewall TTAG. We included the RFRP’s entire ten-point plan. Here it is:

RESPONSIBLE FIREARMS RETAILER PARTNERSHIP:
A 10-Point Voluntary Code

1. Videotaping the Point of Sale for All Firearms Transactions. Participating retailers will videotape the point-of-sale of all firearms transactions and maintain videos for 6 months to deter illegal purchases and monitor employees.

2. Computerized Crime Gun Trace Log and Alert System. Participating retailers will maintain a computerized log of crime gun traces relating to the retailer. Once the program is in place, if a customer who has a prior trace at that retailer attempts to purchase a firearm, the sale will be electronically flagged. The retailer would have discretion to proceed with the sale or stop the sale.

3. Purchaser Declaration. For sales flagged by the trace alert system, participating retailers will ask purchasers to fill out a declaration indicating that they meet the legal requirement to purchase the firearm.

4. Deterring Fake IDs. Participating retailers will only accept valid federal- or state-issued picture IDs as primary identification. Retailers will utilize additional ID checking mechanisms.

5. Consistent Visible Signage. Participating retailers will post signage created by the Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership to alert customers of their legal responsibilities at the point-of-sale.

6. Employee Background Checks. Participating retailers will conduct criminal background checks for all employees selling or handling firearms.

7. Employee Responsibility Training. Participating retailers will participate in an employee responsibility training program focused on deterring illegal purchasers. The Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership will create an online training system based on Wal-Mart’s training program.

8. Inventory Checking. Participating retailers will conduct daily and quarterly audits. Guidelines will be based on Wal-Mart’s firearms audit check procedures.

9. No Sales Without Background Check Results. Participating retailers would prohibit sales based on “default proceeds,” which are permitted by law when the background check has not returned a result within 3 days.

10. Securing Firearms. Participating retailers will maintain firearms kept in customer accessible areas in locked cases or locked to racks.

Wal-Mart didn’t implement the plan. Would Illinois? I have no doubt that Bloomberg’s Responsible Firearms Retail Partnership is a template for Illinois’ [small] gun dealer licensing scheme.

Did Springfield and Rock River Arms (let alone IFMA lobbyist Jay Keller) do their homework on the anti-gun rights potential of the licensing scheme? Or did they simply think, who cares? Bullet dodged. Given the blowback against the gunmakers for their decision to negotiate a carve-out with State Senator Don Harmon, they dodged a bullet only to face a howitzer.

In any case, SB-1657 is a clear and present danger to Illinois residents’ natural, civil and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Anyone who supports the bill, as Springfield and Rock River Arm did by dropping their opposition, is no friend of gun rights.

comments

  1. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    Anyone get an actual statement from Rock River? An earlier post hinted they were ignorant about the deal and were horrified by it.

    1. avatar Brad says:

      Seems it would be hard to claim ignorance when there are only 2 donors on record having given money to IFMA, SAI and RRA. No ArmaLite, no DSA donations.

    2. avatar Stinkeye says:

      The fact that there hasn’t been an official statement, despite several days having passed since this all blew up, is pretty sketchy. If the CEO of RRA really didn’t know anything about this and actually disagrees with it, seems like it would be pretty easy to pop off a quick statement of disavowal and disapproval (and perhaps a withdrawal from IFMA – I certainly wouldn’t remain a member of a lobbying group that acts against my company’s long-term interests).

      Instead, crickets.

    3. avatar Swilson says:

      I’m not buying the whole feign ignorance thing by RRA. They’re either liars or morons…both are unacceptable when it comes to 2A rights.

      1. avatar Willy says:

        Lying or ignorant, does that not sum up the entirety of anti gun efforts everywhere?

        1. avatar Bob Jones says:

          Lying or ignorant. They learned that from Obama.

  2. avatar former water walker says:

    Springfield has earned my eternal enmity. We in Illinois all know our rights rest on a thread. They cut that thread. I don’t know how this will all play out but Springfield is screwed!

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      We need Governor Rauner to be our chastity belt, preventing the Chicago Democrats from raping us all.

      I keep asking where he stands on this, but I have heard nothing.

      1. avatar Chuck in IL says:

        Everybody call Gov. Rauners office (217) 782-0244 and tell them you oppose Senate bill 1657! Let’s blow up his phone.

    2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      Agreed

  3. avatar Stinkeye says:

    “…an online training system based on Wal-Mart’s training program.”

    Because, as anyone who has shopped there knows, Wal-Mart’s employees are among the best-trained and most efficient in the retail industry, right? Yikes.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      This WAS seven years ago . . .

      1. avatar No one of consequence says:

        …and since then the good ones have quit.

  4. avatar Ironhead says:

    Done with both of them. It’s a shame, I like Springfield but never again.
    What good is a carve out if no one will buy your products?

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      The carve out is only a small fraction of the treachery. The law imposing a limit of 9 firearm transfers per year on the citizens. A bill like this will be exported to other states by Bloomberg, with the pitch, “this is what good gun control looks like and was even supported by firearms manufacturers”. I say, not one more f@cking inch. Boycott them into bankruptcy.

      1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        “The law imposing a limit of 9 firearm transfers per year on the citizens.”

        Nine transfers per year is clearly an arbitrary number. What’s important is that The State has now established its right to determine how many transfers—a right clearly defined by the 2nd amendment’s “keep and bear” language—an individual can make. And, having done this, you can damn well expect gun-controllers to agitate for further “gun sense” reductions. Really now, how many of us actually need to make 9 transfers per year? Surely the greater good will be served if we can further restrict transfers over time. This is how it works.

        Understanding this is not rocket-science so it’s obvious that Springfield’s decision was made with full knowledge of what this law means. I’ll never purchase a product made by Springfield. Never, ever.

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          They will get the number of transfers down to one, on your birthday. Then every other year. Then when they say you can. If you say please and don’t make.them angry.

  5. avatar kap says:

    Gun companies are not our friend, they have a market to sell, the only thing they care about is making money for their bottom line and own back pockets sort of what Rugar did in supporting the import restrictions and screw the little guy, this is not unusual for Springfield as they been carving out for years! Rock river Arm??? More enterprising Individuals will start running arms, dealers will go Kaput and Illinois will have a zillion illegal arms floating the country side, taxes will increase as revenue drops from this scheme!
    Illinois main city Chicago has over 40% of all homicides in the USA! Yet the Demonic Party insist they know best especially now they want too push agenda because we are recovering after their 8 year rule of national ruination and they want to let us deplorable s know who is boss! they who do not like our rights but expound theirs!

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      “Chicago has over 40% of all homicides in the USA!”

      No. No, they don’t. Not even close.

      But I have read that Chicago is responsible for something around 40% of the nation’s increase in violent crime in recent years, which is plausible.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      This nonsense that companies this, that, or the other needs to stop. A company, whether an LLC, partnership, corporation, or whatever, is just a group of people. As such, they have the same motivations, biases, conflicting interests, rights, etc. as any other group of people.

      Closely held companies will operate more like a mom and pop business than a massive publicly traded corporation. Massive publicly traded corporations are more likely to just care about money, but closely held companies will more likely have deeply held beliefs that are more important than their bottom line. Hobby Lobby is an excellent example of this.

  6. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    Thank you TTAG. Keep pounding these traitors into dust. They must be boycotted into bankruptcy, if for no other reason than as a cautionary tale for any future, would be sell outs.

  7. avatar JC WTF says:

    You forgot to mention this leaves the subjects of the People’s Republic limited to 75% of the anti-gunners’ wet dream one-gun-a-month law.

    And that 9 transfer limit applies to sales as well as purchases. Nine transfers total: Sell 6 and buy 4? Jail time and a $10,000 fine! Want to leave a collection of 10 to your heirs … nope!

  8. avatar IL 61571 says:

    So far, I have seen no one openly question the relationship/collusion between Don Harmon and Jay Keller. Why is no one looking for a cross to hang Keller on? I have many questions to ask of him. His actions, whether to protect the manufacturers in the state or simply to declare himself a lobbyist with his hand out needs to be investigated and prosecuted, as do the actions of Sen. Harmon. Springfield and RRA have effectively hung themselves in the court of public opinion. The damage control in the SA offices must be massive this morning. Public pressure now needs to be brought on Jay Keller and the IFMA for their actions.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      Hey, I grew up in Washington! (Sunnyland, to be exact.) It’s not often I run into other 61571’ers on the internet.

      Hang in there, man. Being a gun guy in Illinois ain’t easy.

  9. avatar Ed says:

    Thank you to TTAG for covering this story. All the other gun media is willfully ignoring this situation (im sure for gain). My advice to anyone in that crap state is to apply for a type 07 FFL. That way you become a manufacturer and as I understand exempt.

    1. avatar Elot says:

      I agree 100% with your statement. I know a lot of gun media gets favors to test their stuff… and am assuming this is the reason. It’s crazy that barely anyone else is reporting on this.

  10. avatar Elot says:

    Everyone needs to keep talking. Let nobody in the gun community be unaware of what Springfield Armory and RRA have done.

    On top of this, if you are from Illinois, contact your state representative and the governor’s office and let’s try to stop this on our own.

  11. avatar Elot says:

    I also wanted to ask… did anyone go to the NRA show and see if they got any crap for their decision? I’d hope they were inundated with comments like on FB with how they haven’t made any posts and removed their reviews.

  12. avatar Soylent Green says:

    So which “big box retailers”, who got the carve out, were complicit in the IMFA deal? I’m guessing they aren’t actually part of the IMFA and cut their own deal, somehow? I haven’t seen “boycott” list, which makes me wonder…

    1. avatar Keystone says:

      Cabelas both sells Springfield Armory product and has a “big box” presence in Illinois.

      Do they have lobbyists in Illinois?

      BTW, here’s the current list of known Illinois lobbyists. Keller works for a firm in Naperville. His other customers are also listed:

      http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/index/lobbyist/lobbyistlist.pdf

      Rock River lists all their dealers, including email addresses, if someone feels like collecting them and sending out a polite letter and explanation of RRA’s treachery in a big email blast

      http://www.rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&page_id=23

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        OK, so I looked at Jay’s registered client list.

        WTF is DUPAGE COUNTY RECORDER`S OFFICE doing hiring a lobbyist, and did they do it with taxpayer dollars???

    2. avatar dan543 says:

      illinois retail merchants association. they were neutral, too.
      GUN DEALER LICENSING

      SB 1657 (Sen. Don Harmon, D-Oak Park) would require all sellers of guns and ammunition to apply for a state license to sell. Gun dealers are already licensed and inspected by the federal government. This license would allow the state to separately inspect locations and possibly take licenses away for violations of the Act. IRMA was a part of the negotiations last legislative session to discuss the licensing effort and it was decided at that time that retailers that do less than 20% of their sales in guns and ammunition were not the target of this bill and such retailers would be exempt from licensing requirements. The exemption would certainly be revisited if it is later found that such retailers have not been acting as good stewards of the privilege of selling firearms in Illinois. IRMA was assured that an amendment will be added soon containing this exemption. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill with a vote of 7-5-0.

  13. avatar Bob says:

    Lets just make it such a pain in the butt to sell a gun, that nobody will sell them anymore, thus eliminating guns.

    Perfect!

  14. avatar Oggy says:

    The ISRA put up a notice on their faceplant page, titled – SPECIAL ALERT – GUN DEALER LICENSING BILL PERPETRATORS AND VICTIMS.
    The only Perp listed was Sen Harmon.It appears that ISRA is giving a pass to SA and RRA, hence their following response to a poster “Springfield and Rock River don’t tell us how to run the ISRA, so we won’t tell them how to run their businesses. If there are consequences to be paid, then the gun-buying public will deliver those consequences. In the mean time, readers should get on the phone this week to their state reps and let them know how we feel about 1657. Stay focused on what’s important.”

    1. avatar Keystone says:

      Let ISRA know their BS won’t fly

      http://www.isra.org/AboutUs/ContactUs.aspx

      SA & RRA were not “victims”, the lobbyist they paid $50K engineered the carve-out deal.

      SA & RRA are co-conspirators with Harmon.

      If ISRA can’t see that, they’re crooked too. Look up their donor list.

      I would note that the administrator of a very large AR site has come to RRA’s defense, convenient since they are a paying “industry partner”

      RRA is promising an announcement on their website tonight or tomorrow. We’ll see what they say.

      NRA bigwigs will be back in the office tomorrow. Call them. Phones open @ 0830

      SA is unreachable. Customer service lines have been busy all day. No idea if or when they will address this.

  15. avatar anaxis says:

    I’ve been indecisive about buying my first “match” M1A for the past couple years; do I get one from Springfield and upgrade gradually to ease the financial hit, or cough up the geld for a racehorse from Fulton Armory? I’ve also been looking at them for an M1 Garand.

    Now that I think about it, why was it such a hard choice to begin with?

    It’s always bugged me Springfield capitalising​ on the name, and I’ve met quit a few guys who think they’re the historic company, and have bought their pistols & rifles in large part because of the name. I’ve also been iffy about their not-GLOCKs since the first XD45, and unimpressed by their ARs.

    As for RRA? I wouldn’t doubt if they went along with everything in the hopes that they could ride in Springfield’s wake, and let the bigger boat absorb the inevitable icebergs. They have also simplified future decisions; there is now only one company beginning with “R” which I’ll buy from…. so I got that going for me, which is nice.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      I have a Springfield Match M1A, worth the upfront cost! As far as repro M14’s are concerned, I wouldn’t get anything besides a Springfield.

      1. avatar anaxis says:

        Even if Springfield sold their M1As at CAI prices (or even = to Hi-Points), they wouldn’t be worth it.

        Come to think of it, at least Springfield admitted to things. Rock River doesn’t even have the integrity to do that.

        1. avatar Bob says:

          Yea.

          Maybe its just me getting older, but lately I’ve tried to be a little more lenient to some things.
          Everyone screws up and makes bad decisions once in a while, can’t burn every bridge that shakes a little.

          I mean, even if HillDog built a 1911, if it was superior in quality and well within my budge, I dunno, I may dislike (strongly) her but could give credit to the manufacturers behind the product.

  16. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “Nothing personal; just bidness.”

    Someone at SA and RR made the calculation to protect the major profit stream. That’s it. Some one at SA and RR decided that if they could only sell guns through “big box” retailers, SA and RR would remain successful. Someone at SA and RR decided that Illinois represented “acceptable casualties”, should every non “big box” retailer in the state shut their doors.

    Bidness is about bidness; not rights, principles or any other ephemeral consideration. UA got hurt, but they survive. First order of bidness is to protect the paycheck, even if it dwindles over time. Large bidnesses have management that will not risk their millions for a principle. These management types serve to serve themselves, not prosper shareholders, or die on the sword of “natural, civil and constitutional rights.”

    Nothing to see here; move along.

  17. avatar Mark N. says:

    The lobbyists job is to protect the interests of his client, in this case a couple of manufacturers, not to protect the interests of the gun buying public or gun retailers. Quite frankly, the licensing scheme makes absolutely no sense when applied to manufacturers. The manufacturers do not operate retail locations, and are not responsible for the conduct of the retailers. Thus, a carve-out is perfectly logical.

    so what you guys are saying is that the manufacturers, through their paid lobbyist, owe a duty to the public at large to protect the gun buying public from the machinations of the anti-gun Chicago pols. How does that work, exactly? And isn’t that the NRA’s job anyway? Where is the NRA in all of this?

    By the way, this isn’t exactly a “clean slate” proposal. It is very familiar to us in California. It originated with a San Francisco ordinance that imposed massive storage and the video taping requirements on the last remaining gun store in the city, forcing it to give up and close. Which of course was the intended result. A very similar law was proposed in the Legislature that would have applied similar requirements state-wide. the opposition was massive, as the costs to stores, which included internal and external surveillance systems, point of sale videotaping, with a five year storage requirement that would have cost stores tens of thousands to implement. fortunately it failed.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      “…so what you guys are saying is that the manufacturers, through their paid lobbyist, owe a duty to the public at large to protect the gun buying public from the machinations of the anti-gun Chicago pols.”

      Maybe some folks feel that way, but that’s not what I and others have been saying for the past several days. We have been saying that these manufacturers owe a duty to their shareholders to not tank the company with boneheaded political moves. Forget about the politics of it, it’s just an idiotic move in the current market. The costs of having to comply with this licensing requirement would have been negligible for a big company like Springfield, compared to the loss of sales that this will result in. It’s just a senseless decision. If they really did the calculus you describe, and came up with this answer, they need to hire someone who’s better at math to do this kind of analysis.

      This isn’t the early ’90s, when things were looking bleak in the gun world, realistic threats of bans were hanging over everyone’s heads, and the commercial internet was in its infancy. This is 2017, where guns laws are being relaxed in large swaths of the country, gun sales have been setting records every quarter for the last dozen years or so, and everybody with an opinion, a grievance, and a smartphone can reach millions of people. It’s almost unfathomable that the management at SA and RRA is so out of touch that they thought this was a good business decision. Yet, here we are.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Yes, but…this is Illinois, which is largely controlled from Chicago. Chicago was forced by the Supreme Court to end its twenty year handgun ban, and it has been dragged kicking and screaming through the Seventh Circuit to end its ridiculous restrictions on places to carry and the right of ranges to set up business in city limits. The state–largely Chicago, again– was forced by the Seventh Circuit into ending its carry ban. Anyone suggesting that the city would do anything but its level best to make gun ownership as onerous as possible and running a store as expensive as possible mistakes its ultimate aim, and the power it has to effectuate it, no matter what the rest of the country is doing.

        as others have stated, this bill was destined to pass the Senate, and it was the lobbyist’s job to get the best deal he could under the circumstances. And his clients were manufacturers, not retailers, and not buyers. there were other lobbyists, presumably, scrambling to avoid this legislation. No one has reported their efforts or the realities of the circumstances.

        Finally, the report that this bill passed the Senate by one vote is, according to a post I’ve read by an Illinois resident, wrong. Rather, the Senate counts to thirty, and once it gets there, the bill passes. The actual vote margin was 9. And of course, this bill still has to make it through the assembly and the governor, so there are two further opportunities to kill it or amend it. This battle is far from over.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      An FFL manufacturer can sale retail, so manufacturers being excluded doesn’t make perfect sense.

  18. avatar tdiinva (now in wisconsin) says:

    In their rush to judgement nobody wants ask the relevant question — what does Springfield get out of this other than the ability stay in business? Springfield isn’t Glock who would benefit from constraints on a competitor nor is an international producer like Beretta or SiG who can rapidly shift production to a more gun friendly environments. There is absolutely nothing in this legislation that helps Springfield other than the ability to remain in business.

    If you bother to look into the particulars it is the big box retailers who are the true benificiaries. The nine gun limit isn’t much of a constraint. Few people buy that many guns in a year. What they have done is imposed a significant cost on their independent competitors and at minimum force them to raise prices and drive many of them out of business. Cabela’s, Bass Pro and Gander Mountain throw significantly more weight than Springfield and Rock River. Undoubtedly. Springfield made the assessment that this bill was going to pass and they had better get on the train.

    So you guys get your pound of flesh and drive Springfield into bankruptcy. Bloomberg will that you for reducing the supply of firearms to private citizens. As far as I’m concerned Glock and S&W have done more damage to our Second Amendment rights than Springfield because they are all too wiling to sell guns to the slave state governments. Do you think California, New York and New Jersey would be such gun rights black holes if those two companies refused to supply their law enforcement agencies?

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      It’s also painfully obvious how little many people know about how state legislatures function in terms of “horse trading” on bills like this.

      I don’t pretend to know the specifics of how this bill was wrangled but I can say with confidence, from having seen this, that the bill can change effectively without warning and be up for a vote within hours of those changes. Interns and staffers shuttle between offices making deals (or sometimes legislators actually pick up the phone) and bang you have a new bill that’s much different from the one you saw half an hour ago. These things also are often done in the dark of night when most people go home. You come back the next morning, a bill has been completely re-written and the committee vote is in 45 minutes. You barely have time to read the thing, never mind do a serious comparison to the previous bill before it’s up for a vote and if you’re a lobbyist you have a bunch of pols who want your opinion yesterday.

      As much as I despise lobbyists they do have a hard job when this kind of thing happens. They often have to make decisions on the fly without contacting those whom they represent. Sometimes they produce a big win and sometimes they make the people they work for very angry. It’s part of the job.

      In this case it’s entirely possible that the lobbyists made a quick draw decision that they figured benefited their clients and that since the bill was highly likely to pass no matter how it was written they looked at it and realized it was the best deal they could possibly get for their clients. In that case the “optics” for the clients are not a consideration for the lobbyists. Their only concern is not having onerous restrictions placed on the people who pay them.

      Long story short: It’s not like lobbyists have a 24/7 instantaneous telepathic connection to the people who run the companies that the lobbyist represents. Sometimes they have to use judgement and sometimes they use poor judgement.

    2. avatar Stinkeye says:

      “what does Springfield get out of this other than the ability stay in business?”

      That’s what makes the decision so baffling: the new law wasn’t going to put Springfield out of business, anyway. It would have required them to get a state-level license in addition to their FFL. Being a decent-sized employer in Illinois, there is no way that they would have been denied that license, especially if the right palms were greased (and Dennis Reese has a history of being comfortable with bribery, so that wouldn’t have been a problem). But it wouldn’t have even come to that, because I’m sure whoever represent Geneseo, IL in the state legislature would have made sure that those hundreds of jobs stayed in his district.

      I’ve tried to look at this from every angle I can think of, and I can’t see that Springfield gets much out of it, other than not having to worry about meeting Illinois’ licensing requirements. That seems like a really minor reward in exchange for the beating they’re taking. I feel like there almost has to be something else (possibly shady, since we’re talking about Illinois) going on that we’re not privy to, because otherwise, it’s just unfathomably incompetent all around.

      1. avatar tdiinva (now in wisconsin) says:

        The licensing and regulation that goes with it will increase their costs. In a competitive market that is a death sentence. Now if tbe Illinois State Police start buying XDs I may change my opinion.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          If Springfield Armory were to go out of business, half of Croatia would be unemployed.

        2. avatar tdiinva (now in wisconsin) says:

          They would just find a new distributor.

          (I know you are just being a smart ass)

        3. avatar Stinkeye says:

          There’s no way Springfield’s margins are so tight that hiring a couple people to maintain compliance with this law would bankrupt them. If their numbers really are that close, then they will definitely be out of business by the end of the year from the lost sales this will cause.

          In any case, this is Illinois, and Springfield Armory is a sizable provider of good-paying jobs in the state. Even without the carve-out, I can confidently say that Springfield would have had no trouble passing any requirements (wink, wink) set by the state as part of this licensing scheme. No way the state would risk losing all that tax revenue over some license.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I can confidently say that Springfield would have had no trouble passing any requirements (wink, wink) set by the state as part of this licensing scheme.”

          Licensing was not the problem; the 9 sales per year limit applied, also. Imagine SA being limited to nine sales across the US.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I’ve tried to look at this from every angle I can think of, and I can’t see that Springfield gets much out of it, other than not having to worry about meeting Illinois’ licensing requirements.”

        Dealing with every independent gun retailer is a pain, and really costly. SA essentially shrunk their supply chain, eliminating the “noise”, making the supply to “big box” more efficient and timely. Any future gun manufacturer who wants to locate in Illinois will have a huge hurdle (lobbyists and all) to gain a new named carve for the new gun manufacturer (limiting competition).

        People might be willing to buy underwear from someone other than UA, but guns are an entirely different matter. POTG will not create much of a sag (if any) in guns sold by SA to the distributors.

        1. avatar Stinkeye says:

          “Dealing with every independent gun retailer is a pain, and really costly. SA essentially shrunk their supply chain, eliminating the “noise”, making the supply to “big box” more efficient and timely.”

          That doesn’t make any sense. They sell guns in the whole country (though I’m not sure about CA and MA), so even if they wanted to put all the independent gun shops in Illinois out of business, they’d still have to deal with non-big-box customers in 49 other states.

          But I think most independent gun shops buy from distributors, not direct from the manufacturers, anyway. If that’s the case, it’s a moot point.

          “Any future gun manufacturer who wants to locate in Illinois will have a huge hurdle (lobbyists and all) to gain a new named carve for the new gun manufacturer (limiting competition).”

          That also doesn’t make any sense. Springfield doesn’t just compete with manufacturers that are located in Illinois. They have to compete with the whole marketplace, full of gun makers from all over the country and the world. Even if they got the politicos to outlaw all gun manufacturing in Illinois, but gave SA a carve-out, it wouldn’t limit their competition in the marketplace one bit. Any future gun manufacturer can just set up shop in Missouri, or Arkansas, or Texas, or Idaho, etc, etc, and still compete with Springfield Armory. Given the politics in Illinois, there was already approximately zero chance of anyone new setting up shop there, even before any of this.

          “People might be willing to buy underwear from someone other than UA, but guns are an entirely different matter. POTG will not create much of a sag (if any) in guns sold by SA to the distributors.”

          Are you suggesting that Springfield has such intense brand loyalty that people will just overlook this? In a marketplace that is absolutely flooded with myriad choices for polymer pistols and 1911s? The only product line where Springfield doesn’t have much competition is their M1A line, and that’s a niche market (hence the limited competition).

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You make good points. Other explanations don’t make much sense, either. SA and RR make-up the entire gun manufacturer organization. Why would either company want to be exempted from Illinois law, while other sellers/buyers (that means customers) are made to be subject to state licensing? What would be the point? The only thing that possibly makes sense is SA and RR get a financially measurable benefit, at the expense of everyone else. My input was related to business reasons, as in anti-competition. Yes, SA and RR do business in all the other states, but why is it so important that the companies get special treatment? When business decisions do not make sense, it is better to suspect treachery than incompetence.

    3. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The nine gun limit isn’t much of a constraint.”

      As I read the report and the links, the restraint applied to ALL sellers and buyers…including manufacturers and big box retailers. That is, SA and RR would be limited to 9 sales, Cabelas and Gander would be limited to 9 sales or purchases (9 total), likely with the corporations limited, as well as the individual stores. ANY buyer/seller would be limited to 9 transactions. The effect would be/is to limit the total number of guns that could be sold in a given year. Imagine two manufactures selling, two big box retailers buying/selling, gun stores buying and selling. The math is relatively easy. Do not for a minute thing that the sponsors of the legislation did not intend to almost completely dry-up gun sales. Also, the big boxes are using the carve-out to allow Illinois to eliminate their competition. This in not your run-of-the-mill bonehead move by either the state or the beneficiaries of the carves.

      1. avatar tdiinva (now in wisconsin) says:

        I do not believe that the 9 gun limit applied to licensed dealers and manufacturers only to non dealers. The problem is that it adds a new state level of regulation to FFLs. As reported, the law declares anybody selling in excess of 9 firearms a year a FFL. If that is the actual language then the law is not valid. The State of Illinois has no authority to declare anybody to be a a Federal Firearms licensee. Only BATFE can do that.

        1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          It does indeed say that. Section 15, line 16-18 (I believe) that under 10 is exempted. Over 9 transfers, whether licensed or not, makes the person/entity a dealer. I believe it states or implies that an unlicensed dealer would be subjected to prosecution. I’d advise folks to read the proposed legislation.

      2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        Not quite. It says if you transfer 10 or more, you must be licensed. Meaning, an individual must get licensed to transfer more than 9. It doesn’t prohibit licensed dealers from transferring more, fwiw.

  19. avatar Keystone says:

    Politically, what needs to happen is the rube Rooney needs made an example of in his re-election bid. Don’t know if Illinois has a recall provision, but he’d be perfect to be made an example of.

    I see a lot of damage control posts appearing on several sites, and wonder if some are from SA/RRA management and their lobbyists. Bottom line is it’s a bad bill, and anyone supporting it needs eviscerated. Make an example of SA so manufacturers everywhere keep their lobbyists on a tight leash.

  20. avatar Keystone says:

    SA & RRA released statements within minutes of each other, accepting zero responsibility, absolving each other by name of wrongdoing and promising to look into how this happened and oppose the bill.

    A little late for that. Horse. Barn door.

    No mention of firing the lobbyist.

    http://blog.springfield-armory.com/springfield-armory-statement-regarding-gun-dealer-licensing-act-sb1657

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

  21. avatar Sam I Am says:

    A number of people (and my thanks to them) pointed out that I misread the proposed legislation to mean all gun sellers/buyers would be subject to the nine transaction limit, unless exempted/carved-out. My mistake.

  22. avatar Carl in Alaska says:

    It is my deepest hope that the 2AD community not only gives Springfield and Rock River the S&W treatment and fully bankrupts them out of business.

  23. avatar David says:

    Warning : If Hillary Clinton Mr Clinton will be advisory in back round too! A Voice With out a Face to Identified Him Or Her too! It true!! Gets elected by Year 2020 A.D. on Date 01/20/2020 A.D .President There Will Be Gun Control in every 50 State Too. She Will ban the all Semiautomatics Rifles,Shotguns Long Guns too. & Semi-Pistils With Long Clips holders too. An Large Clips Items too! And All ammo will be banned of the Market too. It true They will have the Votes by the Left Wing Party too! They will Restate Assault Weapons Ban too. It will be parent Gun Ban Bill no expired Date on it too. We will Conventional Firearms is ,Shot Guns ,Rifles & Revolvers too! This is a Warning for All Gun msgs Must leave the U.S..A & Flee to other Counties is Asia, Counties Arabs Counties don”t Have Gun Mfg Co too! This is a Chance to buy one from the U.S.A too! South Africa Counties to buy Gun mfg from the U.S.A too! The U.S A Will Sell it to them too! I agree! They Should Buy it too. Every Country should Buy Gun mfg from the U.S.A, too! If they want to move there too! Reason is: They will be safe there too! To give There People jobs to earn Money too! Do you Agree!! Reason is We have to many Gun msgs in the U.S.A too! We like to get Rid of the Smaller Gun mfg co.corp I.N.C Co do mfg Guns & Ammo too! Do you Agree! If they Want to move out of the U.S.A too! To other Counties Don”t have Gun Mfg Business & Ammo mfg co too! They Should Entitle to this Business agreement too! Do you Agree!!! Mfg of Long Guns & Hand Guns too! Do you a agree!!! They Should be Permitted to do it too! It a Business For Trade with the U.S.A too! Do you Agree!

  24. avatar David says:

    1.On 01/01/2017 A.D. The Total number of Gun Dealers left is 32,163 F.F.L.S Holders Retailers Firearms Store Front Businesses too. They still going down a lot to each month passes too. There is a lot F.F.L.s holders too! There is to many smaller Gun Dealers Stores Fronts Businesses too. They Need to cut down A lot too!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email