A Gunmaker tried to Reform, the NRA almost destroyed them

DaleA · February 27, 2018, 06:06 PM

Well here's an interesting take on the S&W fracas of 18 years ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.119279ae6ac9

You see the gun company (S&W), full of remorse tried to DO THE RIGHT THING but the evil NRA stepped in and thwarted there good intentions and today (or a week or so ago) an S&W ASSAULT WEAPON was used to murder children and teachers in Florida. Oh if only those CHILD LOCKS S&W agreed to put on their guns would have become a nation wide regulation...

Ohhh the dumb....it burns, it burns.

rickyrick · February 27, 2018, 06:19 PM

Terribly written article... about 1/4 way through you forget what you are reading about. Lots of attempts to stick to a chronological order, but also tried to maintain some kind of tone.
Journalists have stopped trying to make anything readable past the headline and sometimes they fail at that.

muzzleblast... · February 27, 2018, 07:13 PM

Naw. Wasn't the NRA. S&W enthusiasts simply hate the "Hillary Hole."

TDL · February 27, 2018, 07:43 PM

This occurred in the heyday of gun control lobby outright pushing total bans. Including bans on all handguns and including bans that had been successfully implemented.

This narrative that the NRA "changed" absent the context that many US politicians wanted to totally strip Americas of the right to firearms is the ultimate big lie being pushed by the Post and others. The mendacity and total inversion of cause and effect of that post piece would make Orwell blanch

The amount of counter factual flat earth garbage out of the Post is getting amazing. The NRA and its members did not wake up one morning and simply decide to change their complacency, they were faced with organized campaigns to end the right to keep firearms at all in this case by the Brady campaign huge amount of spending on the issue.

here at the trend lines, NRA is FOLLOWING not leading the wishes of gun owners and the MAJORITY of Americans:

In The Ten Ring · February 28, 2018, 01:44 AM

I recall that time! I remember hearing about S&W owners destroying their weapons out of protest. *I found that hard to believe though but anyway.

I did join in the boycott however, not that it really mattered, Smith didn't have anything I was really interested in at that time.

**Mike Irwin** · February 28, 2018, 09:54 AM

What an utter pile of crap.

S&W did NOT try to "reform" itself. It was NOT a compromise.

It knuckled under to threats from the Clinton administration on promises that it would receive preferential government treatment in supplying firearms to the government (which was later soundly rejected by Congress).

The Clinton Administration was ecstatic at the prospect of knocking off the gun companies one by one and making them partner to the S&W agreement and doing by coercion, threat, and bait and switch promises what it couldn't do through a Constitutional process.

Much to their shock and horror, though, companies such as Remington, Mossberg, Glock, refused to get on board, especially after the backlash started.

S&W's British owners hung the company out to dry because hey were trying to make a dent in the huge market that Glock had. They failed.

I just LOVE how the article tries to paint the WHOLE fiasco as being about locks on guns.

What a crock of crap.

Even a cursory reading of the agreement that S&W signed with the government shows just how wide ranging, invasive, and dangerous to the Second Amendment rights of all of us that agreement was.

Bartholomew Roberts · February 28, 2018, 09:58 AM

If by “try to reform” you mean “were coerced by legal blackmail” via pre-PLCA lawsuits and outright collusion by the DoJ with those groups, then maybe. It still wasn’t the NRA who did that. NRA just followed where gun owners were already headed, as they are apt to do anyway.

**Tom Servo** · March 1, 2018, 08:57 PM

To expand on Mike and Bart's comments, Smith and Wesson was owned by a British company called Tomkins PLC. They'd purchased S&W mostly for the trademark. It was under them that the company failed to follow the changing civilian gun market in favor of making handcuffs and bicycles for law enforcement contracts.

Then Glock came along and pushed them out of the very market that was the core of their business. Word on the street was that Tomkins wanted out of the gun business. They had underestimated the controversial nature of the gun industry and they couldn't compete.

Then the Mayors of Chicago and Bridgeport decided to sue gun manufacturers for the damage inflicted by the criminal misuse of their products. The underlying concept was to take the template they'd used to sue the tobacco industry and use it to cripple the gun industry.

The secretary of HUD at the time was one Andrew Cuomo (yep, one and the same), who crowed that targeted lawsuits would subject the gun industry to "death by a thousand cuts." The whole idea was to sue gun manufacturers not for breaking any law, but simply because they made guns. That drivel is why we have the PLCAA.

The Clinton administration threatened to sue just about everybody. Glock, Beretta, and several others lawyered up and told them where to go. But not S&W. Tomkins didn't want a costly and public legal fight, so they folded like a wet newspaper and let the administration dictate terms.

To say it was a public relations disaster is like saying the burning of Carthage was a setback. One of the provisions was that all S&W guns be manufactured with an integral lock. The company contracted to make the locks was Saf-T-Hammer. While in negotiation with Tomkins, the story goes that one of the Saf-T-Hammer folks asked one of the Tomkins folks how much they'd just sell S&W for. I'm told it was around $17 million.

Saf-T-Hammer bought the company, fired the board of directors, and refocused on the civilian market. They also announced they have absolutely no intention of following the Clinton agreement. As it is, the enforcing agency was not the DOJ but HUD, and it turns out nobody at HUD seems to know who's supposed to do that.

In The Ten Ring · March 2, 2018, 04:49 AM

Tom Servo,

Reading your post was like re-reading all the NRA and Guns & Ammo articles I had long since forgotten. Very good job man.

And now, S&W is arguably on top of the firearms world again. I have bet my life on one of their J-frames daily for some four years now.

February 27, 2018, 06:06 PM	#1
DaleA Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2002 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 5,313	A Gunmaker tried to Reform, the NRA almost destroyed them Well here's an interesting take on the S&W fracas of 18 years ago. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.119279ae6ac9 You see the gun company (S&W), full of remorse tried to DO THE RIGHT THING but the evil NRA stepped in and thwarted there good intentions and today (or a week or so ago) an S&W ASSAULT WEAPON was used to murder children and teachers in Florida. Oh if only those CHILD LOCKS S&W agreed to put on their guns would have become a nation wide regulation... Ohhh the dumb....it burns, it burns.

February 27, 2018, 07:43 PM	#4
TDL Senior Member Join Date: January 25, 2013 Posts: 317	This occurred in the heyday of gun control lobby outright pushing total bans. Including bans on all handguns and including bans that had been successfully implemented. This narrative that the NRA "changed" absent the context that many US politicians wanted to totally strip Americas of the right to firearms is the ultimate big lie being pushed by the Post and others. The mendacity and total inversion of cause and effect of that post piece would make Orwell blanch The amount of counter factual flat earth garbage out of the Post is getting amazing. The NRA and its members did not wake up one morning and simply decide to change their complacency, they were faced with organized campaigns to end the right to keep firearms at all in this case by the Brady campaign huge amount of spending on the issue. here at the trend lines, NRA is FOLLOWING not leading the wishes of gun owners and the MAJORITY of Americans: Last edited by TDL; February 27, 2018 at 07:56 PM.

February 28, 2018, 09:54 AM	#6
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,389	What an utter pile of crap. S&W did NOT try to "reform" itself. It was NOT a compromise. It knuckled under to threats from the Clinton administration on promises that it would receive preferential government treatment in supplying firearms to the government (which was later soundly rejected by Congress). The Clinton Administration was ecstatic at the prospect of knocking off the gun companies one by one and making them partner to the S&W agreement and doing by coercion, threat, and bait and switch promises what it couldn't do through a Constitutional process. Much to their shock and horror, though, companies such as Remington, Mossberg, Glock, refused to get on board, especially after the backlash started. S&W's British owners hung the company out to dry because hey were trying to make a dent in the huge market that Glock had. They failed. I just LOVE how the article tries to paint the WHOLE fiasco as being about locks on guns. What a crock of crap. Even a cursory reading of the agreement that S&W signed with the government shows just how wide ranging, invasive, and dangerous to the Second Amendment rights of all of us that agreement was. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

February 27, 2018, 06:19 PM	#2
rickyrick Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2010 Posts: 8,237	Terribly written article... about 1/4 way through you forget what you are reading about. Lots of attempts to stick to a chronological order, but also tried to maintain some kind of tone. Journalists have stopped trying to make anything readable past the headline and sometimes they fail at that.

February 27, 2018, 07:13 PM	#3
muzzleblast... Senior Member Join Date: April 16, 2015 Location: Obwat, TN Posts: 285	Naw. Wasn't the NRA. S&W enthusiasts simply hate the "Hillary Hole."

February 28, 2018, 01:44 AM	#5
In The Ten Ring Senior Member Join Date: January 26, 2018 Posts: 380	I recall that time! I remember hearing about S&W owners destroying their weapons out of protest. *I found that hard to believe though but anyway. I did join in the boycott however, not that it really mattered, Smith didn't have anything I was really interested in at that time.

February 28, 2018, 09:58 AM	#7
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	If by “try to reform” you mean “were coerced by legal blackmail” via pre-PLCA lawsuits and outright collusion by the DoJ with those groups, then maybe. It still wasn’t the NRA who did that. NRA just followed where gun owners were already headed, as they are apt to do anyway.

March 1, 2018, 08:57 PM	#8
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	To expand on Mike and Bart's comments, Smith and Wesson was owned by a British company called Tomkins PLC. They'd purchased S&W mostly for the trademark. It was under them that the company failed to follow the changing civilian gun market in favor of making handcuffs and bicycles for law enforcement contracts. Then Glock came along and pushed them out of the very market that was the core of their business. Word on the street was that Tomkins wanted out of the gun business. They had underestimated the controversial nature of the gun industry and they couldn't compete. Then the Mayors of Chicago and Bridgeport decided to sue gun manufacturers for the damage inflicted by the criminal misuse of their products. The underlying concept was to take the template they'd used to sue the tobacco industry and use it to cripple the gun industry. The secretary of HUD at the time was one Andrew Cuomo (yep, one and the same), who crowed that targeted lawsuits would subject the gun industry to "death by a thousand cuts." The whole idea was to sue gun manufacturers not for breaking any law, but simply because they made guns. That drivel is why we have the PLCAA. The Clinton administration threatened to sue just about everybody. Glock, Beretta, and several others lawyered up and told them where to go. But not S&W. Tomkins didn't want a costly and public legal fight, so they folded like a wet newspaper and let the administration dictate terms. To say it was a public relations disaster is like saying the burning of Carthage was a setback. One of the provisions was that all S&W guns be manufactured with an integral lock. The company contracted to make the locks was Saf-T-Hammer. While in negotiation with Tomkins, the story goes that one of the Saf-T-Hammer folks asked one of the Tomkins folks how much they'd just sell S&W for. I'm told it was around $17 million. Saf-T-Hammer bought the company, fired the board of directors, and refocused on the civilian market. They also announced they have absolutely no intention of following the Clinton agreement. As it is, the enforcing agency was not the DOJ but HUD, and it turns out nobody at HUD seems to know who's supposed to do that.

March 2, 2018, 04:49 AM	#9
In The Ten Ring Senior Member Join Date: January 26, 2018 Posts: 380	Tom Servo, Reading your post was like re-reading all the NRA and Guns & Ammo articles I had long since forgotten. Very good job man. And now, S&W is arguably on top of the firearms world again. I have bet my life on one of their J-frames daily for some four years now.