The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 29, 2017, 01:46 PM   #1
junglebob
Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Southern Illinois
Posts: 85
Illinois gun mfg. Support bad legislation

Two Illinois gun manufacturers have supported a gun dealer licensing bill that
would be harmful to small FFLs.
small FFLs. Both manufacturer, Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms,
  • ,
are supporting it thereby gaining exemptions from it. Also exempt from the bill are big box stores.

This bill will hurt both small FFLs and their customers by driving many out of business
This is a slap in the face to Illinois gun owners who Illinois AWB legislation in the past aimed at driving them out of business.

Some of you may have read about this on NRA-ILA website. The legilsation SB1657 has passed the senate and will go to the Illinois house.

Please voice your disaprovle to Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms tell them to remove support for the bill or you will not buy their products in the furture.
junglebob is offline  
Old April 29, 2017, 07:47 PM   #2
Mike38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 2,112
I just looked at the NRA-ILA site. Lots of Hyperbole, as usual for the NRA, but no hows, whys, or what fors.

Anyone know more about this?

Just telling me it's bad for gun owners and small gun shops doesn't help me. I need to know how.
Mike38 is offline  
Old April 29, 2017, 08:03 PM   #3
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 4,951
Is there a link or article for any of this? Or is this just internet hyperbole?
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old April 29, 2017, 09:26 PM   #4
Skolnick
Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2016
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by junglebob
This bill will hurt both small FFLs and their customers by driving many out of business
That's the point!

I incorporated in the 70s before it was fashionable, and because my FFL was in the name of a corporation, they didn't recognize me as a one-man operation.

Constantly, from my fellow firearm dealers, I received requests to back modifications of firearm laws that were deliberately concocted to put me out of the firearms business.

In one instance, their spiel outright said that we want to raise the license fee to $250 a year to put the "hobbyist" dealers out of business.

When businesses want higher costs, or more regulations from the government, you can bet the reason is protection from competitors.
Skolnick is offline  
Old April 30, 2017, 08:38 AM   #5
Kemikos
Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2017
Posts: 46
Quote:
I just looked at the NRA-ILA site. Lots of Hyperbole, as usual for the NRA, but no hows, whys, or what fors.

Anyone know more about this?

Just telling me it's bad for gun owners and small gun shops doesn't help me. I need to know how.
From an email sent out by the IL State Rifle Association:

Quote:
As many of you know, the Illinois Senate recently passed a gun dealer licensing bill (SB1657) that has caused quite a stir in the gun-owning community. The ISRA believes that it is very important that you, the law-abiding gun owner, understand just who the perpetrator behind this bill is, and who the bill's victims are:

Victim #1 – The Law Abiding Gun Owner. If SB1657 is eventually signed into law, the biggest loser will be the law-abiding gun owner. The bill would place an enormous regulatory burden on any entity determined to be a "gun dealer." Under the bill, a "gun dealer" is any entity that sells 9 or more guns per year. The cost of compliance with the bill's requirements would add anywhere from $150 to $300 to the retail price of any new firearm. Many current gun dealers would find it pointless to remain in business. As a result, Illinois gun owners may find themselves having to drive hundreds of miles to find a dealer still in business. It's important to note that the 9-gun limit also applies to private parties who sell 9 or more guns per year. Therefore, someone trying to sell off their gun collection would have to be licensed by the state and suffer all the regulatory requirements that full-fledged gun shops encounter. In short, most Illinois gun owners would find that their right to keep and bear arms had been effectively nullified.
Victim #2 – The Independent Gun Retailer. If passed, SB1657 would require firearm retailers to drastically alter their business processes. Such would include upgraded training for employees, updated security systems, and increased expenditure of staff-hours dedicated to government inspections of their stores. The net result would be a significant increase in fixed overhead costs for independent retailers. Increased overhead costs would be passed along to customers in the form of higher retailer prices to the tune of $150 to $300 per gun. Increased gun prices would artificially drive down demand for firearms by the law-abiding public. In effect, SB1657 would establish a tax on a Constitutional right. It should be noted that "big box" retailers are exempted from the bill's requirements because their gun sales do not exceed 20% of gross yearly sales for all lines. The exemption puts independent dealers at a serious competitive disadvantage – further driving the demise of independent gun shops. Having very little skin in the game could prompt the big box retailers to withdraw entirely from the firearms market – thus leaving Illinois citizens with no accessibility to firearms.
Victim #3 – Illinois Firearm Manufacturers. Under the original version of the Senate bill, firearm manufacturers would have to comply with the licensing bill as well. The costs to manufacturers would be prohibitive and they would have to move out of state or shut down.
That last point is what all the uproar is about. Antis will be antis; they're going to push for this crap regardless. What has us upset is that Springfield and Rock River dropped their objection to the bill in return for an exemption for themselves from point #3 above. Prior to this, the objections of the two major IL manufacturers/employers had caused hesitation among several senators who were "on the fence" regarding the bill; within hours of removing their opposition, the bill passed by one vote. So it certainly appears that SA and RRA's action had a real effect.
Kemikos is offline  
Old April 30, 2017, 11:07 AM   #6
Mike38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 2,112
To add anywhere from $150 to $300 to the retail price of any new firearm, the new licensing fee would be what, $10,000 per year? I don't see that happening, even in the money grubbing state of Illinois. Hyperbole.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against any and all increases in the cost of doing business in Illinois and nation wide. But I'm growing weary of the knee jerk lies coming from the ISRA and the NRA. I'm not falling for it until presented with cold hard facts.
Mike38 is offline  
Old April 30, 2017, 11:29 AM   #7
osbornk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2012
Location: Marion, Va
Posts: 1,385
Quote:
To add anywhere from $150 to $300 to the retail price of any new firearm, the new licensing fee would be what, $10,000 per year? I don't see that happening, even in the money grubbing state of Illinois. Hyperbole.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against any and all increases in the cost of doing business in Illinois and nation wide. But I'm growing weary of the knee jerk lies coming from the ISRA and the NRA. I'm not falling for it until presented with cold hard facts.
One day, you and others who think like you will look back and say "What happened? My rights have gone away and nobody I trusted warned me."
osbornk is offline  
Old April 30, 2017, 02:45 PM   #8
gmoney
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 27, 2004
Location: Toulon, IL
Posts: 323
Illinois is one very messed up state from top to bottom.........don't they have more important issues to worry about......like a budget being passed, now about two years without one, schools and everything else in the state running out of money.....roads , bridges falling apart.....!!!!
They are worried about closing down gunshops........Cmon...!!
gmoney is offline  
Old April 30, 2017, 02:48 PM   #9
Mike38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 2,112
Well here it is....

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/bill...4&SessionID=91

I'm no Lawyer, but it looks to me like they may be trying to stop illegal gun sales. Here's an example that I just saw again today. Stopped at my local Walmart to get my "daily allowance" of three 50 round boxes of CCI Std Vel. Just in front of me at the check out was a guy I recognize as a "dealer" at the same town's quarterly gun show. He buys bulk boxes of .22LR, today was Federal Auto Match, and resells at said gun show for double what he pays. No big deal, you say? Well this same guy sells firearms, and has told me numerous times he DOES NOT HAVE AN FFL. He supplements his Social Security checks by buying and reselling ammo and firearms right here in Illinois. Clearly against the law. I've seen him sell dozens of firearms at a weekend show, to make a profit, no waiting period, no background checks, which is against the law. Without guys like that, laws like the proposed would not be created.

Climb on the law breakers like him, not me, thank you very much.
Mike38 is offline  
Old April 30, 2017, 05:02 PM   #10
fastlane
Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2004
Location: ohio
Posts: 66
So let's pass more laws that will only be obeyed by law abiding gun owners. That works for Chicago, right? If gun owners and manufactures don't stand up for the 2nd A then they can all become liberals and support Clinton and people like them . At least they "Clintons" are honest about their opinion on guns. If SA and RRA did remove their opposition to SB 1657 then they will not be supported by my future purchases.
__________________
If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop diggin. Wisdom of Will Rogers.
fastlane is offline  
Old April 30, 2017, 10:17 PM   #11
shep854
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2004
Location: Birmingham AL
Posts: 623
The Firearm Blog had an article on the sell-out, but it has disappeared. Given Springfield Armory is a regular advertiser, I have to wonder...not a peep from Guns.com, either.
__________________
Powder smoke- The Smell of FREEDOM!
I don't shoot to kill; I shoot to live.
Registration? NEVER!!
shep854 is offline  
Old April 30, 2017, 11:01 PM   #12
Prof Young
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2007
Posts: 1,621
Mike - Gun shows with no background checks?

Mike:
I've only been to Illinois gunshows in down state area near St. Louis. Specifically in Highland and Bellville IL. They all have made ALL sales that take place that day go through an FFL including a background check.

Where are you going to gun shows that have no background check. I'm sure they exist, just never been to one.

Life is good.
Prof Young
Prof Young is offline  
Old May 1, 2017, 06:36 AM   #13
Mike38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 2,112
Quote:
So let's pass more laws that will only be obeyed by law abiding gun owners. That works for Chicago, right? If gun owners and manufactures don't stand up for the 2nd A then they can all become liberals and support Clinton and people like them . At least they "Clintons" are honest about their opinion on guns. If SA and RRA did remove their opposition to SB 1657 then they will not be supported by my future purchases.
Condoning illegal gun sales is now called standing up for the 2nd Amendment? It's been a long time since I was in school, has the English language changed that much?

Springfield and Rock River are doing CYA. They want to stay in business. If they side with you here that are condoning illegal gun sales, they will not stay in business long.

I never should have involved myself in this thread. Have fun condoning your illegal activities guys......
Mike38 is offline  
Old May 1, 2017, 07:13 AM   #14
DT Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2001
Posts: 846
Who's condoning illegal sales? We're fighting crap like 9 transfer/year limits, and regulations on gun dealers that could add HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS to each gun purchase.

This will accomplish nothing, will prevent no crime and will only hurt honest gun owners. How you came to view it as a legitimate means to fight 'illegal activities' is beyond me.


Any other gun regulations you think we should get working on? Registration, fingerprinting, mandatory training?


Larry
__________________
He who fights and runs away had better run pretty damn fast.

Government, Anarchy and Chaos
DT Guy is offline  
Old May 1, 2017, 11:48 AM   #15
bryco32
Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 47
Well said . DT Guy.
bryco32 is offline  
Old May 1, 2017, 12:03 PM   #16
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,918
Mike38, can you explain how this bill would deter violent crime or curb illegal sales?
Your previous example is already illegal, and the guy doing so knows it...do you think he will get the additional IL license for the FFL he never bothered getting?
raimius is offline  
Old May 1, 2017, 12:34 PM   #17
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,083
I would want to see their math to figure out how they come up with an extra $150.00 to $300.00 per gun in regulatory fees. Sincerely, before I believe the sensationalism and start screaming "they're coming for the guns." I just want to see specifics in the bill, and the math used by the opponents, that will increase the cost of business this much. I don't believe it exists.
5whiskey is offline  
Old May 1, 2017, 01:32 PM   #18
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5whiskey
I would want to see their math to figure out how they come up with an extra $150.00 to $300.00 per gun in regulatory fees. Sincerely, before I believe the sensationalism and start screaming "they're coming for the guns." I just want to see specifics in the bill, and the math used by the opponents, that will increase the cost of business this much.
After casually reading the bill, I speculate that the $150-$300 figure is based on the costs that a very small-volume dealer (<100 sales annually) would incur to install the required video-surveillance system and "appropriate security measures, as provided by rule, to deter and prevent the theft of firearms and unauthorized entrance into areas containing firearms..." The rule hasn't been written yet, but let's presume the requirement is something like high-quality safes bolted to the floor, which could be quite costly.

Some of what's written in the ILSA email strikes me as shrill hyperbole, but don't dismiss it completely—this bill DOES seem to be deliberately written to make things VERY difficult for anyone wishing to open a low-volume transfer-oriented FFL business, and particularly a home-based one.

The bill requires a video-surveillance system "sufficient to monitor the critical areas of the business premises, including, but not limited to, all places where firearms are stored, handled, sold, transferred, or carried," in addition to the vague (and therefore potentially onerous) storage requirement I quote above; would YOU want motion-sensing video cameras that record 24/7 installed throughout your house?

In order to be licensed, a person must have "a minimum of one year of experience, with a minimum of 100 hours per year, during the 5 years immediately preceding the application: (i) as a dealership agent under this Act; or (ii) as a federal firearms dealer... or an employee of the business who had access to firearms." IOW you wouldn't be able to obtain a license unless you had previously worked professionally in a firearms business for at least a year, regardless of how skilled you are in other trades and/or how clean your criminal record is. Furthermore, the licensee will be required to undergo continuing education.

The bill also contains fairly complex record-keeping and vague "To Be Determined" training requirements with regards to so-called "dealership agents"; hence, I presume that you couldn't ask your buddy to watch your table at the gun show, unless you first permanently record a bunch of his personal information AND put him through the detailed IL training regimen.

Did I mention the non-discrimination clause?

In short, I'm seeing a bunch of stuff that wouldn't be a major problem for a full-blown gun-dealing business with a permanent and public 10,000+ SF location and 20± employees, as many such businesses are doing most of this stuff anyway (and the owner likely has an experienced firearms attorney on speed-dial). The main issue, as I see it, is that it's going to SERIOUSLY discourage enthusiasts from opening small-volume "kitchen table" operations.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old May 1, 2017, 03:09 PM   #19
JN01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 792
Quote:
Condoning illegal gun sales is now called standing up for the 2nd Amendment? It's been a long time since I was in school, has the English language changed that much?

Springfield and Rock River are doing CYA. They want to stay in business. If they side with you here that are condoning illegal gun sales, they will not stay in business long.

I never should have involved myself in this thread. Have fun condoning your illegal activities guys......
As you pointed out, if a guy is repeatedly buying and selling guns as a means of income, he is engaged in the business. If he doesn't have a FFL, he is already committing a federal crime. Why is some new law necessary?

If you haven't reported this violation of which you are aware, are you condoning his illegal activities?
JN01 is offline  
Old May 1, 2017, 07:48 PM   #20
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5whiskey
I would want to see their math to figure out how they come up with an extra $150.00 to $300.00 per gun in regulatory fees. Sincerely, before I believe the sensationalism and start screaming "they're coming for the guns." I just want to see specifics in the bill, and the math used by the opponents, that will increase the cost of business this much. I don't believe it exists.
For starters it would kill the kitchen table FFL, the guy who will do your transfer for $25 in his garage or basement in his home FFL business. Because no way would the state allow that, they'd have to open a physical store with all the security and record keeping bells and whistles the most anti-gun pols can think of. Forget about that police trade-in Glock for $300 online, now you have to go down to the big box store and pay $50 less than new for a used gun.

I'm somewhat confident this bill will fail to pass the House vote, we'll see. I really, really hope it doesn't come down to whether the governor vetoes it or not.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old May 1, 2017, 07:50 PM   #21
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike38
Condoning illegal gun sales is now called standing up for the 2nd Amendment? It's been a long time since I was in school, has the English language changed that much?

Springfield and Rock River are doing CYA. They want to stay in business. If they side with you here that are condoning illegal gun sales, they will not stay in business long.

I never should have involved myself in this thread. Have fun condoning your illegal activities guys......
You appear to be the only person in this thread who is condoning illegal activities, since you claim to have personal knowledge of it and yet you have done nothing to report it.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old May 2, 2017, 12:05 AM   #22
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,918
Now, both RRA and SA have released statements saying they completely oppose this bill.

...looks like the loss of revenue made their PR departments scramble.
(Color me skeptical of the main backers of the lobbying group both denying support for the lobbyist's actions...)
raimius is offline  
Old May 2, 2017, 02:27 PM   #23
DT Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2001
Posts: 846
Agreed. They'll have to renounce/return their carve-out and go all-out on opposing this bill in the house to make me start believing they're sincere about this.

Either way, it's been a PR debacle that never needed to happen.



Larry
__________________
He who fights and runs away had better run pretty damn fast.

Government, Anarchy and Chaos
DT Guy is offline  
Old May 2, 2017, 03:22 PM   #24
JoeSixpack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,048
Quote:
~
Constantly, from my fellow firearm dealers, I received requests to back modifications of firearm laws that were deliberately concocted to put me out of the firearms business.

In one instance, their spiel outright said that we want to raise the license fee to $250 a year to put the "hobbyist" dealers out of business.

When businesses want higher costs, or more regulations from the government, you can bet the reason is protection from competitors.
Man did you nail this, It reminds me of NY Taxi laws.. and indeed I think most of the country.

From what I understand in NY license to run a taxi is like 1 million dollars and they have rules on how old the car can be etc.

Way back in the day before the laws the avg little guy could get him self a car and run his own taxi.. now that's impossible.
It's why they all hate Uber.

Quote:
You appear to be the only person in this thread who is condoning illegal activities, since you claim to have personal knowledge of it and yet you have done nothing to report it.
So what? My sister lives in an apartment building and her neighbor likes to smoke weed on his terrace, should I call the law?
Im staunchly anti-drug, but im also pro "if it ain't hurting anyone do what ever the hell you want!".
JoeSixpack is offline  
Old May 2, 2017, 10:35 PM   #25
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeSixpack
So what? My sister lives in an apartment building and her neighbor likes to smoke weed on his terrace, should I call the law?
Im staunchly anti-drug, but im also pro "if it ain't hurting anyone do what ever the hell you want!".
Except Mike is supporting legislation to put 90% of FFLs out of business while the guy he's worried about will continue to break the laws.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12190 seconds with 8 queries