S&W - Let me get this straight...

[Big Dog Dad]

Let me see if I have this straight in my mind. I'm supposed to continue with the boycott of S&W because of the deal it made under previous ownership with the devil (Klinton). The ultimate result of this is to drive one of the oldest American gun makers out of business. This will really make the anti-gun crowd sad. Correct? This will narrow my search for any new revolver to the man who brought you the 10 round magazine limit, Bill Ruger and his marvelous collection of "They're really built strong" revolvers. Let's see, if I take a cinder block and fasten a chunk of gas pipe to it, it too will be very strong. The only problem is that if I conducted a poll, I bet the cinder block would probably break even in terms of beauty and workmanship. Or, I could look to Brazil for their collection of grip exerciser, recycled beer cans and rusty Ford fenders melted metal revolvers. Let's see, I could always pick from the two pieces that Colt produces each year. Oh, I forgot, there's always Freedom Arms that make marvelous revolvers. The only trouble is that I'm in a dilemma. Do I buy that new house or spend the same on a revolver? Not quite the same, but rapidly approaching each other. Just some inane ramblings on what to do with S&W. Feel free to flame away!!

[AC's & 45's]

All you are supposed to do is follow your conscience.

I personally do not like s&w autos at all. Their revolvers are ok.

I however will not buy a new one. All of the gun makers have had to make some concessions in order to survive. Smith and wesson however went way too far and sold us out. They have had the chance to make ammends since slick's reign. The problem is they didn't. That is why I will never own a s&w.

I agree it is a shame to see them going down the tubes. Especially so when they should have the power to get us back.

A US company owned by foreigners is a recipe for diaster for OUR freedoms. But that is my opinion and my conscience speaking!

:barf:

[SamAdams]

AC
I personally do not like s&w autos at all.

If you ever get a chance, shoot a Performance Center 5906. :D

[bastiat]

This seems to be popping up alot, but it's always the same old arguments. So therefore, here's the same old counter arguments:

1. The agreement, by which the new ownership is abiding, accomplishes many things the anti's want. They also manage to do it without even going through the legislative process. Backdoor lawmaking at it's worst. As Mike Irwin said, at least ruger had the decency to go through the legislative process.

PS- I don't buy rugers, either. Until they work towards making sure the 94 ban sunsets. Then maybe I'll consider it.

2. S&W goes out of business. Good. Guess what happens to the patents and the equipment? Think they just sit around collecting dust? Nope. They get sold to satisfy the creditors. But I don't think they'll be selling the HUD agreement at an auction.

Result: Their guns will still be made. Maybe by a different manufacturer. If you think that's bad, well, if you think S&W is operating under the same ownership as 50 years ago, or even 10 years ago, you're wrong. There's nothing wrong with ownership changing hands. It could actually result in something good.

3. There's also dan wesson.

4. Two of the biggest S&W fans on board (or at least the with the best knowledge of their firearms) are Tamara and Mike Irwin. Do a search and see their comments on current stock S&W quality. It isn't good from their perspective. Others have said that stock taurus now matches or beats S&W in out-the-door quality for new revolvers.

5. I'll answer one of your future arguments in advance: "S&W employs american workers that had nothing to do with the agreement - we can't punish them for the what the previous owners did."

Judge smales replies: "Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too."
In all brutal honesty, there are other jobs out there, and the RKBA is more important than a few hundred jobs or any one gun maker.

_________________________

And while you're formulating your next response, please take a look at the summary of what the agreement, when it is enforced, will accomplish. Tell me which of these aren't that bad. Heck, if your'e feeling adventurous, go line by line and defend every one of them.


All guns must have internal locking devices
All guns must have Authorized User Technology ('smart' guns)
All guns must have a DA trigger pull of 10 lbs or more
All guns must have a barrel length of 3", unless it meets some set performance specs
All pistols cannot have a combined length and height of less than 10"
All pistols must have a manual safety
All new guns cannot accept pre-ban high cap magazines.
All guns will be ballistically fingerprinted

All dealers can no longer sell government defined 'assault weapons'.
All dealers can no longer sell pre-ban high capacity magazines.
All dealers can no longer sell at gun shows that allow private sales
All dealers can only show a customer one gun at a time. Comparing two similar guns side by side not allowed.
All dealers must store their guns in fireproof vaults after hours

All buyers must complete a certified training course
All buyers must wait 14 days between buying handguns
All buyers will contribute via their purchase to a fund to educate the public about the dangers of guns.

[Mike Irwin]

Few facts for you to gnaw on:

1. When Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W, they knew they were buying the deal, too. They're now responsible for it, even if they didn't negotiate it.

2. When purchasing S&W, Saf-T-Hammer execs apparently publically stated that they would abide by existing agreements.

3. Saf-T-Hammer, since it purchased S&W, has done/said nothing that would lead anyone who follows the situation closely to think that they are attempting to nullify the agreement.

4. Just because the agreement is dormant now, with a semi-pro-gun administration is in office, doesn't mean that it always will be dormant. If Saf-T-Hammer doesn't work to extricate itself from the agreement, an anti-gun administration could shove it down their, our our, throats.

5. The S&W agreement is FAR more dangerous than Ruger's contribution to firearms laws. The word "law" is an important distinction -- Ruger worked inside of the Constitutional process for passing laws to craft something, while not very palatable, that was one hell of a lot better than what was being proposed in Congress at the same time.

In contrast, the Clinton administration, not having been able to get any interest from Congress in passing even more draconian anti-gun laws (while ignoring its pledge to enforce laws already on the books), did an end-run around Congress to get, extra-legally, what it couldn't get legally.

6. Ruger's "contribution" is actually fairly narrow in scope, but again, not very palatable. S&W's "contribution," on the other hand reaches out to attempt to regulate independent businesses by making S&W a defacto enforcement arm of the government.

7. If S&W did go out of business, just what would really be lost? There are a dozen firearms manufacturers, which have REFUSED to sign this, or a similar, agreement that would simply move up to fill S&W's place.

8. If the above-mentioned void is immediately filled by companies that want no part of this agreement, how do the anti-gunners actually win?
Answer, they don't. They don't get anything of what they wanted, other than a phyrric "victory" that they can crow about.

9. The number of S&W firearms that are currently on the used/secondary market is probably more than S&W's total output for the past 5 years combined. The used market for S&Ws is flooded, and likely will remain flooded for quite a few years.

[C.R.Sam]

And, they have been under five owners so far. No big deal if they change hands again except maby for the better.

Sam

[Doug 29]

Big Dog Dad,

I'm in agreement with you. All of the current Smith & Wesson revolvers that I've examined have been of SUPERB quality! I wouldn't hesitate to buy one.

[Selfdfenz]

BDD, would you buy a car from a company that wanted to do business with the government so badly that they advocated YOU not be allowed to drive the car you bought from them?
If the answer is yes, go get yourself a Smith.

JMHO

Selfdfenz

[Will Beararms]

Please see the "Petition" post in the Suggestions thread. If you don't mind a little work, and I know you don't please give us some input and we can work together to make this thing a reality.

I bought a CZ 83 .380 today. The owner of the gun shop, second owner I've talked to in one week saying the same thing, stated that Smith is under new ownership and the agreement is considered null and void. If we can back this up with something in writing to that effect, I believe your troubles and Smith's will be over.

This may come at no surprise bit the shop owner told me he has not trouble selling the SW revolver and naming his price but the autos just don't move at all. Thus, he is one of the official out lets for SW Close-Outs on Auto. He has a TSW4566 for $439.00 w/o the light rail BTW.

I love the 3913/3953 series and I don't know many that don't but back to the subject at hand, we can make a difference for ourselves and future generations--------------let's roll.

[Master Blaster]

The whole situation sucks all the way around.

Safety Hammer could repudiate the deal by saying it aint constitutional to require their customers (a third party) to abide by a deal they did not sign. The current justice dept might let them out of it but they have made no effort.

How about if I signed an agreement with the govt that said you would have to pay me $100 every time you use the word gun?
:mad:

The used ones in blue made in the 50s 60s and 70s are much better than the new ones, and they are less expensive. Go to the gun shop and compare them side by side.
BUY USED.

[blades67]

I'll help Smith & Wesson out of their economic slump just as soon as they help themselves out of the hud agreement, both in writing and public statement.:mad: :barf:

[Scarborough]

I also like S&W but my personal boycot continues. Mike is right about the availability of the used models. If a guy wants a Smith just buy a pre owned gun. Cheaper that way and cheap is good!

[krept]

Yes, as mentioned look at DAN WESSON!

[blades67]

Most of the new Taurus models are just as well made as the current S&W models and a number of them are better.

[BigG]

Big Dog Dad,

I think you summed it up quite well. :)

There is a strong puritanical element who will try to indoctrinate you but let your conscience be your guide.

[Mike Irwin]

If conscience were truly the guide, we wouldn't be having opposing discussions like this.

[9x19]

The new Saf-T-Hammer S&W does not deserve my support... they have done absolutely nothing to earn it.

The agreement is in effect, if not being enforced, and until it is null and void... or the S&W name is no longer associated with s&w revolvers (ie patent and tooling sold to someone else, like Glock :D), I'll abstain from purchasing any new ones.

As an aside, at Dallas gun shows, it is possible to examine products from a wide range of manufacturers, both new and used. IMNSHO, the latest production S&Ws suck hind tit when next to the latest production Ruger and Taurus offerings. The "heritage" line is way overpriced and really of lesser quality than an original example of the guns they mimic, while immediately depreciating upon purchase as opposed to the used guns steadily increasing in value.

Yep, lots of reasons, be they political, aesthetic, or financial, to stay far away from new S&Ws...

[BigG]

Ruger and Taurus. Ha ha.

[Mikul]

The boycott of S&W products has kept other manufacturers from agreeing to the same deal. Every time you avoid S&W, you help keep that ridiculous agreement from spreading.

Read the agreement, it is not about safety features.

If we drive S&W out of business, we've lost a valued firearm manufactuer. It will be a sad day. If we let them thrive, we drive a spike into ourselves and the rest of the gun industry. S&W dealers cannot sell "assault weapons," or standard capacity magazines, there would be waiting periods, and there's more. Imagine the widespread damage that will have to all firearm manufacturers, not just S&W.

Ruger is a separate issue. He sold us out. Some say he helped write a deal that would have been far worse if the politicians had written it. And there's Ruger's $1,000,000 donation to the NRA. Personally, I would buy a Ruger, but only as a last resort.

[George Hill]

S&W autos are not that bad. They are smooth and reliable with very good triggers and sights.
They have only two issues:
1. Slide Mounted Safety/Decocker.
2. Screwed up grip angle (for me).

Now, BOTH of these issues are resolved in the S&W 945 series. I consider these to be very fine automatic handguns. My question is... if S&W wanted to build a upper scale 1911 - then what didn't they use the same parts that they mill for some other companys that produce 1911s? Why does the 945 have that round plug in the slide where they normally put a safety? Why is the frame non standard in pattern so that normal 1911 aftermarket parts don't easily fit? I don't call that a 1911... Yeah - it is a great single action auto - but JMB wouldn't want to take credit for it.

[Bobshouse]

Boycotters are not going to drive S&W out of business. The boycott is considered over by almost everyone, except for a few dedicated to the cause. S&W reported record earnings last quarter. Gunshops in my area that would not stock S&W before are stocking and selling now, others have mentioned the same.

Read the agreement, the comments here and in other messages in the group, search the web for more info. If you base your decision on what they say here without checking other sites you are limiting yourself. I am sure you would get totally opposite remarks from smith-wessonforum.com.

Look around, gather facts, and make your own informed decision.

Bob

[bastiat]

Yes, look around, gather facts, and would some S&W supporter please respond to the articles of the agreement and defend them? I'm waiting....

[Tamara]

Let's see what revolvers by *&* are in the house right now:

25-2 6.5", 625-6 4" Mountain Gun, 629-1 3", 625-4 5", 57-1 4", 28-2 6", 296 2" AirLite Ti, 586 8 3/8", 686 6", 686 2.5", PC-13, 19-5 4", 12-2 2", 640 3", 36-1 3"

Nope, guess I don't have a leg to stand on when I say that "recent Taurus revolvers are plenty worthy of being included in my collection". I'm sure I'll wind up getting lectured on the true nature of revolver quality by someone whose total exposure to *&* wheelguns is a 686 they bought four months ago... :rolleyes:

[Mike Irwin]

"The boycott is considered over by almost everyone, except for a few dedicated to the cause. S&W reported record earnings last quarter."

God, what part of September 11 don't people understand?

That's not an indication that the boycott is over, it's an indication that a lot of new people are buying guns, who never would have considered purchasing guns before.

If that's the kind of "fact gathering" that's going on, it's not surprising that people are willing to believe what their local gunshop employees are telling them about the agreement.

If people can't grasp the concept of "dormant" vs "dead," I doubt if they'll be able to grasp much of what they read elsewhere.

[Don Gwinn]

I don't get why we're arguing about quality. If quality were the issue I wouldn't be boycotting--I'd be buying Smiths so I could check out the quality. The boycott has nothing to do with how well-made the guns are. I stipulate that they make good revolvers, OK?

Now, as requested above (and as I requested on another thread, without effect) someone please go through that list above and tell me why those things are acceptable. Don't tell me they aren't, because you want me to accept them.

[coati]

All buyers can must wait 14 days between buying handguns

I like this one. It cuts Virginia's wait in half.

[contender4040]

do a poll on this board---continue the boycott or ignore the boycott. You would probably see that it is not just a few die-hards left doing the boycotting.
Better yet, as previously stated, start a petition to smith to drop the provisions. Smith must change and live or do nothing and fade away. Either one is good for the industry. Smith still being in business under the "agreement" is not good for the industry or gun owners.

[Don Gwinn]

Coati, I know you're probably kidding about that one, but just in case, I should point out that it doesn't cut anything in half. 14 days becomes the minimum. Thus I suddenly have to wait 14 days, so I lose big. You still have to wait longer, so you gain nothing. Sounds like we got screwed on that one.

Any others?

[BIGSLOWHEAVY]

Go ahead and ignore the ban. Then are you going to buy one of the new politically correct smiths when they meet all of the requirements of this idiotic agreement? If so, have fun with your new POS series smiths.

[Silver Bullet]

I am sure you would get totally opposite remarks from smith-wessonforum.com.

I'll bet ! :rolleyes:

[Bobshouse]

Hey, I'm not going to sit here and argue with anyone about "The Agreement". Read into it what you will, god knows people have done it enough with the bible.

What I will argue is my right to make my own decisions, and your right to make yours. I don't care to "hang" with the in-crowd. I don't feel threatened by anyone's remarks or point of views, nobody can stone me for having a difference of opinion. I owe nothing to the people here and don't expect anything in return.

I do enjoy the commentary, the help, and the knowledge of the people who participate in the forum.

Differences of opinion is what makes the world sweet. Go ahead and hold to your beliefs, but don't criticize others for doing the same. Offer advice or guidance, but if not taken, don't sour and taunt just because they are not accepted.

I'm backing out of this thread as it is a "no win" situation and dividing the group. However I do look forward to participating in other areas of discussion.

Until then, have a happy and safe holiday season!

Bob

[coati]

I was. Maybe I was just trying to make a point about contradictory laws.

I'm kind of new this. Is there a history that explains why Smith entered into this agreement?

If this agreement is enacted, would the agreed upon points be new federal laws? Or business practice agreements? How would the agreements be enforced on a state level, say, in a state that has passed preemption laws?

Why aren't more dealers boycotting? Of the 7 or 8 dealers around me, only one refuses to sell Smith and is clear about why the boycott matters to them. They have a lot to lose, it seems, along with other dealers.

My opinion: if Smith enters into the agreement, they will be driven out of business by dealers who refuse to stock their products. Too much trouble.

[Bud Helms]

Smith & Wesson Settlement Agreement (NRA Fact Sheet) (http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=31&1=View)

"If this agreement is enacted, ..."

This agreement is, I believe, 21 months old, but I've never seen a list of dealers who have "signed up." I am under the impression that if a dealer didn't sign the agreement with Smith by a certain date (after a certain time period), they would lose their "stocking dealer" status with the company. Someone else can (should) verify this. (Tamara?)

"... if Smith enters into the agreement, ..."

Smith was party to the original agreement.

[Don Gwinn]

Bobshouse, I certainly respect that point of view, but as long as people keep asking I'm going to keep answering.

Smith is already part of the agreement and it is already in effect. It isn't currently being enforced by the Bush administration, but it's a legally binding contract between Smith and Wesson and the Federal Government, and anytime a new government decides to enforce it, they can. It's sort of like a cop enforcing a law--he has discretion as to whether he enforces the law in every case, but that doesn't nullify the law. It's still there, and if the next cop uses his discretion differently, that's too bad.

The agreement was essentially forced on Smith--the idea was to force it onto all the manufacturers, but in the end, only Smith signed. The antis have been initiating lawsuits on behalf of city, county, state and federal governments against gun makers for years. Most have now been thrown out of court for the trash they are, but it costs money to defend against them. HUD offered manufacturers a chance to settle the lawsuits, and Smith took it. As part of the settlement, they negotiated this agreement and signed it.

The provisions of the settlement are not technically new federal laws; they're the next best thing. The terms are part of a contract between Smith and the Government, and the contract is enforced by the government. Smith has to follow the terms or they're in deep trouble, the kind they might not get out of with the company intact. The Government has to follow them too, but there's not one term in that contract that benefits Smith or doesn't benefit the government, so that's not hard. The part that really burns people is that Smith didn't just agree to what their actions would be--they agreed to what the dealers and distributors would do as well, without consulting any of them. The dealers and distributors don't have to abide by the agreement--as long as they never sell another Smith and Wesson. If they sell one new Smith while not following the agreement to the letter, they're screwed. This is even worse when you consider that the idea was to have all the manufacturers forced into the same pact. I believe it was the threat of a boycott that kept Glock and some others out of it, but of course that's my opinion. Had all the manufacturers or even most signed, we'd have had a de facto ban on pre-ban full-capacity magazines, minors entering gunstores, sale of "assault weapons" that are perfectly legal. All those things would still be perfectly legal, so there wouldn't even be a law to repeal--but it WOULD be illegal for the manufacturers to sell any dealer who did them a single gun, because they'd have signed a legal contract not to do so. Do we all begin to see how insidious all this is?


Preemption laws would have no effect on the agreement. It's not legislation, but an agreement between a manufacturer and the government. If the idea is to make it illegal, well, it's already illegal under anti-trust and restraint-of-trade laws, except, as I understand it, that the government can do no wrong in those areas so the law won't be enforced. Nice, huh?


The reason more dealers aren't boycotting is that way too many dealers think the agreement is gone since it's not currently being enforced. Of course, a lot could happen between now and 2004. The looks on their faces will be interesting if, say, Al Gore comes roaring back (he's a loser and Bush is popular--right now--but he has history on his side.) Some, like Will's dealer, even think the agreement has been rescinded officially--but don't you think that would be public knowledge? A lot of others just plain don't care. They don't really believe anyone wants to put them out of business, or they think they have the money and manpower to live by the agreement while others go out of business and their market share increases, or they don't expect to be in the gun business five years from now.

[Kevinch]

...that the original post author that began this thread hasn't chimed in once since then?

Looks like the troller has his hook in a lot of keyboards...

[PKAY]

I will NEVER buy a new Smith until and unless this onerous "agreement" is forthrightly and publicly repudiated by Smith & Wesson, period. In fact, they need to hire Mike Irwin to do the deed and then become Public Relations Manager for the company to regain its base.

[C.R.Sam]

I have the feeling that most if not all of the Smith supporters have not CAREFULLY read the first agreement.

Couple of onerous parts that I do not often see mentioned are:

VII. Most favored entity.

If the manufacturer parties to this Agreement enter into an agreement with any other entity wherein they commit to institute design or distribution reforms that are more expansive than any of the above-enumerated items, such reforms will become a part of this Agreement as well.

In addition, if firearms manufacturers that are not party to this Agreement agree to design or distribution reforms that are more expansive than any of the above enumerated items, and if the manufacturers who are party to the other agreement(s) with more expansive terms, in combination with the manufacturer parties to this Agreement, account for fifty percent or more of United States handgun sales, manufacturer parties to this Agreement will agree to abide by the same design and distribution measures.

And:

VIII. Enforcement

The Agreement will be entered and is enforceable as a Court order and as a contract.

Sam....ex Smith dealer

[Mike Irwin]

Pkay,

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but that would require my moving to Massachusetts. No way, No how.

All I can tell you is this. Were I an employee of S&W the day this agreement was signed, my only action on the next day would have been to clean out my desk.

[Big Dog Dad]

My original post was not meant to be a troll. It was merely a request for information and opinions on the subject. My thanks for all of the enlightened information. Most (except for one) were very informative and enlightening. Of course, there will always be somebody on a board this size that will not offer anything informative, but merely throw out a flame.:( I'll leave it up to you to figure out who has nothing to offer but criticism.

[Will Beararms]

Bought another gun Friday, not a Smith this time but again for the second time in a week another gun dealer told me that due to the wording of the HUD agreement, specifically that the terms would not pass to a new owner, the agreement is null and void.

Now either there's collusion on the part of many gun dealers in my area, the Smith Reps are lying to them or there's something to this.

[bastiat]

I'd go with the smith reps lying to them. You buy a company, you buy all it's legal obligations. Also, remember the new owners stating they would abide by all agreements.

[Don Gwinn]

Will, you know I respect you. But that just plain isn't true. Someone, somewhere along the line, has lied to someone, and it's being passed on to you. The agreement is not really all that long or complicated--you can go to any of the online sources and read the complete agreement for yourself. See if you can find any wording that so much as implies that the agreement is ended if S&W gets sold. I'd love to believe that, but I've read the agreement several times from start to finish and it's just not there.

If you don't believe me, do a search for Saf-T-Hammer and find what they said after they bought Smith. They were very clear about the fact that the agreement was still in effect and they planned to abide by it--then they haven't mentioned it since.

If anyone out there is still not convinced, think about why it would be a secret known only to dealers if the agreement WERE rescinded. Smith has to know that the current boom in gun sales won't keep them afloat forever. They know they need to get business back--but they don't tell the gun-buying public that there's a good reason not to boycott anymore? That just doesn't make sense.

[Will Beararms]

Don:

I am keeping an open mind and as such I believe none of what I hear and half of what I see. ;) Thanks for your tactful prose and I like you will stay vigillant.

[Kevinch]

Big Dad Dog said:My original post was not meant to be a troll. It was merely a request for information and opinions on the subject. My thanks for all of the enlightened information. Most (except for one) were very informative and enlightening. Of course, there will always be somebody on a board this size that will not offer anything informative, but merely throw out a flame. I'll leave it up to you to figure out who has nothing to offer but criticism.
:rolleyes:

My opinions on this topic are documented in more than just 1or 2 posts here.

I leave you with the last line of your original post, which makes it clear what you were asking for:

Feel free to flame away!!

(Hey!...assuming your most recent post was referring to me,maybe I am the only individual that has responded in the spirit of the original!):eek:

[Don Gwinn]

OK, that's enough. It was obviously a misunderstanding. Don't let it become more.

[AugustWest]

And while you're formulating your next response, please take a look at the summary of what the agreement, when it is enforced, will accomplish. Tell me which of these aren't that bad. Heck, if your'e feeling adventurous, go line by line and defend every one of them.

All guns must have internal locking devices
All guns must have Authorized User Technology ('smart' guns)
All guns must have a DA trigger pull of 10 lbs or more
All guns must have a barrel length of 3", unless it meets some set performance specs
All pistols cannot have a combined length and height of less than 10"
All pistols must have a manual safety
All new guns cannot accept pre-ban high cap magazines.
All guns will be ballistically fingerprinted

All dealers can no longer sell government defined 'assault weapons'.
All dealers can no longer sell pre-ban high capacity magazines.
All dealers can no longer sell at gun shows that allow private sales
All dealers can only show a customer one gun at a time. Comparing two similar guns side by side not allowed.
All dealers must store their guns in fireproof vaults after hours

All buyers must complete a certified training course
All buyers must wait 14 days between buying handguns
All buyers will contribute via their purchase to a fund to educate the public about the dangers of guns.


It's for the children?

[SamAdams]

It's for the children?


OOOH! I think he's got you there! :p

[bastiat]

Oh no! It's the "It's for the children" trump card! The equivalent of the triple dog dare! You've got me!

I must now fill up my wheelbarrow with guns and ammo and take them to the nearest gun buyback to be destroyed. I must think of the children!

[Dave R]

"All guns must have a DA trigger pull of 10 lbs or more "

That alone is grounds to continue the boycott! Talk about cruel and unusual punishment!

jk. I do support the boycott.

[Will Beararms]

The agreement was written in a legal language that dictates the terms will not be passed on to new owners. The Feds either overlooked this or it was an informal escape clause for Smith. The agreement (HUD) is no longer in force. It died when Safety Lok bought Smith.

In any event, we should boycott Smith and then when they go under, boycott Remington when they get targeted by the next democratic administration and when they go under, boycott Ruger and when they go under, boycott Sig and when they go under boycott Glock and when Glock goes under, boycott HK and when HK goes under, boycott CZ and when CZ goes under, boycott Century arms and when they go under boycott Browning and when Browning goes under, boycott Kimber and on and on and finally, WE'LL SHOW EM WON'T WE!

Oh yeah, Taurus is now working with the New Jersey Institute of Technology on personlized firearms------------------get ready to boycott them too! If Smith wants to put a safety Lok on their guns, guess what? They have the right to. Remember HK, Springfield Armory and now Taurus----------Uh oh-------------time to boycott. Gee locks were a part of the agreement, does that mean these other guys are guilty too?

[C.R.Sam]

The agreement was written in a legal language that dictates the terms will not be passed on to new owners. The Feds either overlooked this or it was an informal escape clause for Smith. The agreement (HUD) is no longer in force. It died when Safety Lok bought Smith.

Can this be authenticated ?

In light of Safe-T-Hammer's public statement wherein they said they would honor and abide by the agreements entered into by the previous ownership.....I find it hard to believe.

Sam

[Selfdfenz]

Let me start by saying I do not smoke and am not a friend to cigarettes. (Cigars are another issue altogether)

Big Tobacco danced so many legal waltzes with state and federal governments to stay out of court not even their lawyers can keep count.
Big tobacco is Smaller tobacco now but still alive.
Their attempt to keep out of litigation was a failure. They have been and are being taken to court endlessly and loosing. They are a cash cow for the governments they thought they were getting in bed with. Bad plan, executed to perfection.
The factor Big tobacco never had to consider was the end user, since they were "hooked". Now the smokers smoke in the rain in the parking lot. Smoking will keep you from getting many jobs for insurance or political correctness reasons. Maybe soon smokers will not have the selection of apartments, housing , doctors etc they once had.

Big tobacco made a mistake thinking they could "deal" with the govenment. Ditto for Smith and others that manufacture firearms if they follow a similiar game plan.

Smith will not go out of business because I choose not to buy their products.

They may add to the momentum that will have us, one and all , smoking out in the parking lot in the rain because they care not a hoot in h%ll about the second amendment or their customers.

I have no objective evidence that boycotts do one bit of good to remodel the thinking of a targeted manufacturer. I simply will not contribute one cent to the financial prosperity of a company that disadvantages me to keep themselves from being taken to court or hasseled by the government.

Wheather the agreement is on or off or transferrable or binding on this or that party is irrelevant. That is the stuff of focusing on the peebles at you feet and not noticing there is a mountain right in front of you. Smith has shown their mindset is unfriendly to my personal interests. (and franky if you are into the shooting sports yours too if you would admit it).

And so....let them be toast.

Selfdfenz

[Don Gwinn]

Will, I swear I'm not trying be irritating here, but I wish you would either cite this passage you say exists or stop making such claims. You said you were going to be careful and "vigilant," but in less than a day you are back claiming to have read legal language in the agreement that no one else seems able to find. It would take about ten seconds to prove this if it were true--just post the language along with the "address" within the document.

If you post it I'll be first in line for one of those ultra-lightweight .44 Specials. I want to believe, but no one will give me evidence.

(I really want a Schofield, but that won't happen either way. I could sell my truck and still not afford it.)

[Will Beararms]

http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/jeffsnyder.html

Read all the way through and on the last page in a blue box at the bottom of the article is an addendum explaining the legal jargon that gets a new owner out of the agreement.

(Should be /sportsrec/jeffsnyder and so on but it won't come out this wat although it appears normal when I type it in.)

[bastiat]

Will, you're doing a little too much wishing here. Read the box again:

I received the latest Gun News Digest on Saturday (5 August 2000), and it reports that S&W is now officially up for sale. I privately predicted that this would occur.

The S&W Agreement, amazingly, does not contain the standard "successors and assigns" clause (e.g., "This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective successors and assigns.")

Perhaps this was an oversight on the part of the government agency lawyers who wrote the thing, since we all know that government agencies simply last forever and the thought would never occur to them that they would have "successors or assigns." Perhaps it was a non-obvious negotiated "out" for S&W if the agreement proved disastrous. In any event, this creates a very good legal argument that anyone who buys the assets of S&W (as opposed to buying the company itself), including the valuable S&W name (formerly valuable?) can do so free and clear of the obligations of the S&W agreement. If and when such a sale occurs, we can expect a blitz of advertising designed to win back lost customers and dealers with salient references to "under new management."

You missed the middle part. He's mentioning the same thing I mentioned previously. If you purchase solely the assets of a company, you can usually escape being bound by their agreements and legal obligations. That's why I don't care if the current S&W goes out of business - it still can rise from the ashes in parts, like many companies have done in the past. But it would have the added bonus of no agreement attached.

Example: Suppose hormel has a contract with the government (they probably do), in which they are required to make 1 million cans of spam every month. (who knows why, we're talking about the government here).

If you bought the company, hormel, you'd still be bound by legal agreement to fulfill the contract. You'd have to deliver 1 million cans of spam each month.

However, if you entered into an agreement to only buy either the recipe for spam (the 'intelectual property' equivalent to the above mentioned patents) or the equipment that makes spam ( equivalent to the tooling of S&W), you would not be liable to supply one million cans of spam a month. The entity known as hormel would be liable.

Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W, the company. Not just the patents, or the tooling, they bought the whole company. With that it bought the clinton HUD and boston agreements.

Using the text you cited from the article, that means the agreement is still binding.

Also, the new management has stated they will abide by all agreements.

Do you need any more proof?

[C.R.Sam]

Well written Bastiat, thank you.

This has been brought up in the past, and the same conclusions reached each time.

Sam

[Kevinch]

Will, let's not forget that after the HUD agreement was signed, S&W signed a similar document with the city of Boston. This is some of the text that appeared on a page at About.com (http://hunting.about.com/library/weekly/aa010515.htm):

They didn't learn their lesson, though -- S&W entered yet another agreement in December of 2000, this time with the city of Boston. In this agreement (according to CNN.com), S&W "agreed to commit 2% of annual firearm sales to developing safety technology and design changes on triggers. The agreement largely mirrors one the company reached in March with the Clinton administration and some other states and cities."

I spoke with Carol Heine (who's in charge of Saf-T-Hammer's Customer Service) about the buyout this afternoon. My first question was, naturally, "What will this do to the "deal?" Answer: They don't know yet. Saf-T-Hammer's attorneys are pounding away at it, looking for any "room" that may be built into the agreement, and I'm certain that Saf-T-Hammer is hoping (and searching) for a chance to renegotiate this agreement. After all, the HUD deal is what enabled Saf-T-Hammer to buy S&W for a mere $15 million (the Brits paid $112 million for it in 1987), and now it's time to start rebuilding the company's image (and therefore its worth).

Unfortunately, the Boston deal cannot be avoided or renegotiated -- at all. It won't be going away, and Ms. Heine confirmed that it is, indeed, "set in stone" -- while she quickly pointed out that it only affects the state of Massachusetts, rather than the entire USA.

What can we conclude? Well, at the time this was written (mid May 2001), Saf-T-Hammer themselves would not claim the the Agreement was null & void; it would appear that they bought the firm not knowing if they would be able to wiggle out of it. They did however know that the Boston Agreement which "largely mirrored" the HUD document was "set in stone".

Now granted, I don't live in one of the People's Republics of the USA so the Boston agreement doesn't affect me - but it is another corner of or RKBA that is being chipped away. No other firearm manufacturer has compromised so much.

[USP45]

Its good to remind people that S$W made the same move twice, once with HUD and once with Boston.

Why should you boycott S$W? Well let me point out to you what the HUD and Boston agreements (and the AG's regulations which are effectively the HUD deal) have done to the price of pistols in Massachusetts. You can now purchase a H&K USP40 full size for $800. Glocks go for around $600 if you can find one -- USED!

I just want to thank S$W and all those who deal with them for helping us with this problem. :(

~USP

[Will Beararms]

USP45:

With all due respect, the people in Massachusetts and California as a collective unit allowed this to happen. Does anyone think this would have occured in Texas, Mississippi or Louisiana? You would have had street riots i assure you.

The sad truth is more and more people are anti-gun and thus the reason these despots in congress can act with impunity. After Smith it will be someone else and when that someone else is blackmailed the same way Smith was blackmailed by Spitzer and the like we shall see what becomes of them.

Yes I am glad Glock and Beretta resisted but wait to see what happens after Smith is gone and another maker is in the crosshairs of the next democratic administration. They will bend the law to suit them and create a situation unbearable for the targeted maker.

Our battle is against public opnion and the liberal despots who court this anti-gun sentiment.

[C.R.Sam]

Most of the gunmakers were in the crosshairs. Most of the gunmakers resisted the same pressure put on Smith. Smith and Safe-T-Hammer have not resisted.

They are making money on the corpse of our rights. As owners, as dealers, as distributers. Smith has put it to all of us.

Reward the resistors by supporting THEM. Don't reward Smith for what they have done.

Sam.....ex Smith dealer......unbelivagable

[Futo Inu]

Guys, regardless of which way you come out on this issue, please consider the following in your decision:

The argument of "hey, it was the prior management of S&W, not the current management" aint gonna cut it as an argument. S&W, if they are to be boycotted, must be boycotted regardless of whether they change ownership and management 1 time or 100 times. Otherwise, and and all gun makers - just go down the list of all gun makers, could do the exact same thing (cave in and make a deal with the omnipresent devil - the government), and then pull the exact same kind of smoke and mirrors trick with the gun-buying public that S&W did ("Oh, gee, we're real sorry about what that idiot Shultz did; we're good now and for gun owners, see - we have new management in place that would never do that again") BS ALERT, folks! There is one and only one way to show that you're sincere (S&W) about the cave-in: reneg or repudiate the deal, and put yourself back in the exact same position you were in, fighting shoulder to shoulder with the other gun makers against the gun ban and lawsuit nonsense.

Having said that, if you MUST buy one or the other (S&W or Ruger), by all means buy S&W - what they did cannot compare, IMO, with the active support of the 94 gun ban that Ruger did, as pointed out in the thread currently active in this legal forum entitled "Hi guys - Quick question re ToysRUs" - this one is more about Ruger now.

[Will Beararms]

Great let's get Ruger after Smith and next Taurus for their work on smart guns and before you know it, we will be posting about our latest mattel and how we hate those orange barrel plugs.

You must change the culture. We know what to expect from the democrats. They respond to what their constituents call for. This boycott is a band aid at best.

The same can be said of the abortion debate depending on how you view it. The mission is to change the hearts of those who would have an abortion, not attack the clinics or the doctors. Do you think there would be a drug problem if there were no demand in this country. Does anyone think the HUD agreement or The 1994 Crime Bill would have passed if the people would have been against it?

[bastiat]

Will-

The subject seems to have shifted a bit. Do you still believe that S&W isn't bound by the HUD agreement due to the contract language, as you stated before?

[Will Beararms]

I know you guys think i'm a pecker wood and it's to your credit for putting up with me but all of the gun dealers I buy from are telling me that this thing is a goner.

I have known some of these guys since 1994 and I have had a chance to see how they operate and I just can't see em' lying to me. (I am a memeber of the one gun a month club.)

[Futo Inu]

PS. Bastiat, you are absolutely right on the legal issue. An entity's assets (such as the trademark/tradename/goodwill of "S&W") can be sold about any time, in a liquidation or normal course of business, without selling the liabilities (debts and contract obligations, as here). The creditors and obligees (in this case, the gov't) COULD in that event have a legal basis for challenging the sale of assets without the liabilities, absent a bankruptcy or receivership procedure, depending on the presence or absence of certain factors (insolvency, etc.).

Now, if a new company calling itself S&W bought just the name and manufacturing facilities from the current S&W, should we continue the boycott????? Hmmm, now that IS a tough question and I'm not sure of the answer. I will have to think about that, and we should debate it. I'm inclined to think the boycott should end at that point, but let me see if I can think of a principle of WHY my intuition tells me that is fair.......

PS. BTW, as repugnant as the substance is to me, the federal gov't does in fact by quantities of SPAM. :) One of my lawyer friends traveled to the the Marshall Islands to see about "importing" babies for adoption in the U.S. (there is a shortage of babies to adopt here), and he described how the natives over there get tons of goods and money from the US government as payment, since we constantly bomb their atolls with test missiles and what not for some reason, and one of the things we give them is SPAM. My friend says about all they do all day over in the Marshall's is sit in their huts in 100 degree heat, staring at each other (no TV) and eating SPAM.

[treeprof]

Only three parties can legally declare this thing a goner: the Feds, S&W or a federal court. None has. Gun shop pronouncements to the contrary constitute worthless hearsay, even if they help assuage one's conscience. Un-enforced is not the same as non-existent.

Yes I am glad Glock and Beretta resisted but wait to see what happens after Smith is gone and another maker is in the crosshairs

Like with any bully, if you refuse to bend over and take it the 1st time, they'll be less likely to pick on you a 2nd time. If they try it again, you have both the friends who stuck by you and the courage it took to stand fast the first time around. Having bent twice, S&W is now at the mercy of the Feds and state of MA, no matter how many guns they sell.

[bastiat]

I know you guys think i'm a pecker wood and it's to your credit for putting up with me but all of the gun dealers I buy from are telling me that this thing is a goner.

I have known some of these guys since 1994 and I have had a chance to see how they operate and I just can't see em' lying to me. (I am a memeber of the one gun a month club.)

2 Possibilities:

1st: They are lying to you to get you to buy more s&w guns, or to justify them selling guns

2nd: They believe what they're saying, either because they've been told it by someone else, or they're misreading the agreement.

Here are the only real, undisputable facts:
1. S&W and the government signed the agreement
2. The new owners of S&W are still bound by the agreement because they bought the company itself, not just the assets.
3. The agreement cannot just 'fade away' because it's not being followed right now. Any future administration can resurrect the agreement at will. A current government attorney on this board (forgot who it is) has said as much.
4. The new owners of s&W have stated that they will abide by all agreements.

Like I said, those four things are honest to goodness facts. If there's any way to dispute any of them, address them.

Statements by gun store owners or employees are not law. They are conjecture - just talk. They mean nothing in respect to the agreement.

So if you can accept that all four of the above are now true, that leaves us with the substance of the agreement to deal with. Which I'm still waiting for any S&W defender to do.

[SamAdams]

Which I'm still waiting for any S&W defender to do.

We've been over this. It's for the kids.

[BigG]

I, for one, don't think you are a pecker wood... :p

However, Bastiat, what you are asking people to do is to predict how a judge/jury will interpret the agreement if and when it ever comes up in court, which is anybody's guess. My crystal ball is in the shop right now...

There is no way that anybody can rightly say WHAT that agreement means. An agreement like that is interpreted only when it is enforced. If it is not enforced it means NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING - not worth the paper it is printed on.

I know you and others are highly incensed at what you (and I at a certain age would also) perceive as treachery and treason against the country. However, I know the longer that agreement goes unenforced the less likely it is to be enforced as it is becoming STALE even as we ruminate about it. Any good attorney could throw up a hundred instances when the agreement should have been enforced and get a prosecutor laughed out of court for daring to bring such a losing case to trial.

I am not pretending to like what S&W did, but I am astute enough to see that there is no black and white interpretation of the agreement until it is enforced.

As others have said, if we are to be consistent, all of the manufacturers are wh0res - stop splitting hairs and boycott them all.

[bastiat]

However, Bastiat, what you are asking people to do is to predict how a judge/jury will interpret the agreement if and when it ever comes up in court, which is anybody's guess. My crystal ball is in the shop right now...

Huh? What? This is unbelievable! Is this another case of not knowing what the meaning of the word 'is' is???

The agreement means exactly what it says. Take some time to read it. It's in pretty plain english.

Now if you're trying to dispute whether it is binding, see the four undisputable truths of the s&W agreement posted above. It is a binding contract, duly signed by s&W. s&W was purchased in whole by saf-t-hammer. Just about every single company buyout under the sun means the new company buys the obligations as well. The contract doesn't give any weasel language. AND THE NEW OWNERSHIP HAS STATED THEY WILL ABIDE BY THE AGREEMENT. Let me say that again, in case you didn't catch it: THE NEW OWNERSHIP HAS STATED THEY WILL ABIDE BY THE AGREEMENT

There is no way that anybody can rightly say WHAT that agreement means. An agreement like that is interpreted only when it is enforced. If it is not enforced it means NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING - not worth the paper it is printed on.

My goodness, I have to be honest and say this is one of the weakest, clinton-administration like attempts at the defense of the agreement I've ever read! Yes, if it's not enforced it means nothing. It doesn't mean that it just goes away. If an administration ever wants to enforce it at any time in the future, THEY CAN!!

Here's my request to the s&w defenders and apologists: If you want to buy s&w guns in spite of the agreement, but can't respond to facts with other facts, just say "I'm only interested in buying their guns. I don't care about the agreement." At least it's honest.

[BigG]

My goodness, I have to be honest and say this is one of the weakest, clinton-administration like attempts at the defense of the agreement I've ever read! Yes, if it's not enforced it means nothing. It doesn't mean that it just goes away. If an administration ever wants to enforce it at any time in the future, THEY CAN!!

No, it is a mature, reasoned, real world perspective on the issue. It is not a Chicken Little "the sky is falling" alarmist panic like some of our members interpret it. When you own a legitimate business, you will sign up to some very distasteful things - or you will not be in business long.

We are not talking about your personal honor or word here - this is business. When you are paying their (S&W's) bills, then you can dictate their response. You also have the right to vote with your money. But there are no traitors here. You are not the judge.

[bastiat]

I've owned my own business for 3+ years. I've never had to do any distasteful things. I could have done many of them and made a lot more money, but I have this thing called a conscience. I know a business owner who had the same type of 'be honest and forthright' attitude that I have. I guess he was a chump who didn't know about the business world when he sold his company at exactly the right time for $25 million. What an idiot he was!

While I didn't face s+w's situation, every other major manufacturer faced it. Only s+w caved. Instead of uniting and fighting, their british ownership thought they could cut a deal. That says alot about them.

Here's the deal:
The original s&w ownership was boycotted for caving.
The new ownership is being boycotted for not ripping up the agreement, and stating they will abide by it.

The RKBA fight is like its own little war. In a war you have victories and defeats. You face hardships along the way. If someone on your side, suffering from the same hardship everyone else, gives the enemy aid and comfort and contributes to your defeat - you don't give them a raise, you hang them as traitors.

[USP45]

There is no way that anybody can rightly say WHAT that agreement means.

Just like the Constitution and BOR?

~USP

[Don Gwinn]

It is a reasoned response . . . . to deny the possibility of reason? I don't know about that one.

[C.R.Sam]

Well said USP45.

Sam

[deanf]

The provisions of the settlement are not technically new federal laws; they're the next best thing.

If I may correct:

It's the other way around. New federal laws are the next best thing to the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement is not directly subject to the same participatory democratic process that at least federal laws are.