The Firing Line Forums

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

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 20, 2000, 10:56 AM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: August 22, 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Posts: 169
The dilemma is this: to whom does S&W owe the greater duty -- its (and our collective) soul in protecting the 2nd amendment or to its own survival. Clearly, S&W faces potential bankruptcy staring down the barrel of the US Government financed trial lawyers. Who benefited from the tobacco litigation? Clearly, the trial lawyers. In fact, the government now has a vested interest in making sure tobacco companies STAY IN BUSINESS in order that they can pay the confiscatory fines that the litigation against them exacted. Who loses? Smokers and the public generally. Who wins? The trial lawyers and the politicians whose noses are so far up the lawyers' asses that it makes me ill. Now for chapter two -- the gun industry. Who will lose? EVERYBODY. The second amendment, like the rest of the bill of rights, is a recitation of our God-given rights. Yes, given by God, a being of boundless wisdom. Who knows better than God apparently? Bill Clinton and his trial lawyers, who else? Who will gain? Trial lawyers and their lap-dog politicians.

Sorry folks, but my blood is a little hotter this morning than usual. To top it all off, I opened up my Wall Street Journal this morning to discover that GLOCK is following in S&W's footsteps.

Kind regards from a non-trial lawyer who dislikes these trial lawyers with a passion,

P.S. Here's an editorial from today's Washington Times:

Hands up, Smith & Wesson

Staring down the barrel of federal litigation last week, one of the nation's biggest gun makers cut a deal. Smith & Wesson agreed that from now on it would sell guns with trigger locks, develop so-called "smart gun" technology and much more in exchange for the dropping of the federal lawsuit against it. Administration officials were jubilant.
"[W]e can do much more through cooperation than through confrontation," said White House domestic policy adviser Bruce Reed. "Responsible, reasonable people can get together and make progress." Tim Russert of NBC's "Meet the Press" and reporters for The Washington Post likewise highlighted the "voluntary" nature of the agreement.
In fact, there was nothing voluntary about the pact at all. The court fight which the administration threatens to wage against the companies and their employees promises to be an expensive one, in some cases prohibitively so. Bragged famed trial lawyer John Coale, who is part of related lawsuits against the industry, "The legal fees alone are enough to bankrupt the industry." This sounds less like cooperation than an offer the company couldn't afford to refuse.
The constitutionally ordained setting in which reasonable, responsible persons come together to negotiate public policy like this is not Mr. Coale's office but Congress. And as a matter of fact, Congress is well along in the debate over firearms safety measures. The problem is that whereas the White House is insisting on a three-day background check for gun-show sales — a period which happens to be longer than many of the shows last themselves — and the House of Representatives wants a 24-hour limit. Lawmakers, including Democrats by the way, rightly point out that the 72-hour wait is the first step toward putting the shows out of business.
There the issue remained until Mr. Clinton and the trial lawyers went around Congress and began threatening the companies with a financial kneecapping. Mr. Reed said Smith & Wesson's announcement shows that public safety doesn't have to be held hostage to "legislative stalemate." But the precedent of using the bottomless resources of the federal treasury to strongarm an otherwise legal industry — first tobacco, now firearms — to abide by policies to which lawmakers have not agreed may some day make people yearn for the good old days of stalemate.
Worse, all the hype about the announcement may erroneously assure the public that it provides some important new safety provisions. It emphatically does not. Requiring the sale of gun locks with firearms — something that some manufacturers already provide — would not have saved the life of the young Michigan girl killed recently. She died at the hands of a classmate who brought a gun to school that he found in the drug-infested house that passed for his home. Government safety regulations aren't usually the top concern of crack addicts and dealers. And since they tend to have other sources for firearms than the local retailer, they aren't going to have to worry about new technology that limits who can use any one gun.
Some of the provisions to which Smith & Wesson agreed are potentially worse than pointless. One would keep the company from selling weapons to dealers who fail to ensure that their customers have completed a gun-safety course, for example. Safety training is obviously desirable. But this newspaper recently related the story of an 83-year-old San Francisco man who shot and killed an armed intruder late one night. Wonder if he hadn't been able to complete the course in time to defend himself? Is he considered expendable in the quest for gun control?
The security of others is not Mr. Clinton's primary concern; his own comes with the job. But it's something that more reasonable, responsible persons should consider before they target firms that make such security possible.
Oscar is offline  
Old March 20, 2000, 11:21 AM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: December 9, 1999
Location: Rochester Hills, Michigan
Posts: 130
The tobacco and firearms "settlements" have set precedents with sobering implications for this society in the future. Anytime that our government can use extortion to effect desired behavior from entities, be they individuals, groups, or businesses, without due process of law, we have ceased to be protected by our Constitution. We, as a society, must get the lawyers under control by limiting the use of litigation as a weapon or we will be destroyed from within. Shakespeare was right!
TMB2 is offline  
Old March 20, 2000, 09:30 PM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2000
Posts: 208
S&W had a gun to its head and they (S&W) pulled the trigger!!I suspect that they will go out of business....and now that the horse is out of the barn...there probably will be more Gov't extortion on remaining Firearms companies.
Sic semper tyrannis
Mr.X is offline  

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 09:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.05036 seconds with 7 queries