It's TRUE! IFMA was just four (a Lobbyist, a RRA rep and two SA reps) to fight Illinois SB1657 requiring "State Licensing" for ALL Types of Federal FFLs. IFMA opposed the Bill. Funds were paid to politicians/political Orgs and SURPRISE: SA & RRA get Cutouts so the Bill/Law doesn't apply to them. Once the cutout is written in the final draft, IFMA drops its opposition to the Bill.Is the article legit? I can't keep track of what's real anymore. I question everything.
After reading the article, it makes me wonder how much was Springfield and how much was due to hiring a scumbag of a lobbyist who seemingly funneled funds to Anti-Gun politicians because he was likely an Anti-Gun plant himself??This..... no interest in the Springfield Hanoi Jane pistol.
This is a tricky issue. It is common for gu makers in antigun states to contribute to the local state antigun politicians that run the state. The contributions are payoffs to stay in business. Sometimes maybe it is best to move to a more gun friendly state. From the cited linkAfter reading the article, it makes me wonder how much was Springfield and how much was due to hiring a scumbag of a lobbyist who seemingly funneled funds to Anti-Gun politicians because he was likely an Anti-Gun plant himself??
Gotta realize Anti-Gun folks will hide what they are to assist in destroying Gun Companies...from working as basic workers and screwing up part fitment to management being shoddy so they can promote other scumbags into management to destroy a company from within.
It's a shame we no longer allow dueling...it would most certainly resolve many of today's issues.
While it could be argued that these payments gave the gunmakers’ IFMA lobbying group access to their “enemies,” there’s precious little to show for their contributions in terms of defending or extending Illinois residents’ gun rights. Whether or not Springfield and Rock River arms should have even made the attempt is a question both companies will soon face from both the industry and consumers.