[BudS]

Since S & W is now American-owned once again, but hasn't ditched the infamous Klinton & Ko. "agreement", would it be ethical to once again buy their products? I feel that, if a less-than-friendly-to-gun-owners administration gets back in in 2004, couldn't they force S & W into once again adhering to the agreement?

I like what our boycott did in forcing the company's hand at selling out back to an American (read: pro-gun) company. Even if Saf-T-Lok says they'll ignore the agreement, they need to take steps to completely negate the agreement. Until then, I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting them.

I'm asking this due to the fact I had thought of buying a S & W 69-series pistol, for compatibility reasons. I have a Kel-Tec P-11, which accepts the preban S & W 12-rd. mags and would like a larger pistol that accepts the same mags for those times I carry openly.

Maybe this could have gone in the Legal and Political area, but I thought this forum to be the best bet for good answers. Thanks in advance.

[Vern Humphrey]

The agreement is dead -- the Bush administration has disavowed it, and the new S&W management will not follow it.

[Justin]

Even though it's still on the books, I doubt that it could be enforced, even by a new anti-gun administration. Clinton told S&W that they would be protected from being named in lawsuits suing gun manufacturers for the misdeeds of criminals. S&W signed on, and got sued anyway.

My guess is that if someone tried to make the agreement stick that S&W could get it killed by bringing that up.


I am not a lawyer, nor do I own any S&W firearms.

[Lone_Gunman]

quote:

"The agreement is dead -- the Bush administration has disavowed it, and the new S&W management will not follow it."


Vern, you must be joking.

The Agreement is most certainly alive and well.

The Bush Administration has NOT disavowed it, only chosen to not enforce it.

The new management does not follow it because it is not being enforced, at the moment.

Next Democratic President = Enforcement

[Mike Irwin]

NO.

[BudS]

What does your "NO" response apply to? the agreement? o\Or buying any S & W pistol?

I have a Model 19 I bought 20+ years ago & still have it, when S & W was still a "good" company.

I value your opinion, Mike...please clarify!

In fact, I value all opinions here...what would y'all personally do? Of course, I could buy a used pistol, so that the $$$ would go to a private individual or a company NOT affiliated with S & W....but I wouldn't trash my pre-Klinton Model 19 "just because"....

[Lone_Gunman]

I dont think anyone here would say to get rid of pre-agreement guns, in fact I think the desirability of these weapons will increase.

I am not sure how many people would mind buying a used post-agreement gun.

I think a lot of people would not buy a new post agreement S&W.

[Standing Wolf]

I won't buy a new Smith & Wesson until the company a.) cancels the agreement it made with the Snopes Clinton-Liar Gore régime, and b.) offers me firearms without internal locks.

There's nothing even remotely like a shortage of used Smith & Wessons on the market.

[Stephen Ewing]

Mike, I think you forgot you lost your TFL signature.

Bud, Mike is usually a fountain of information about why not to buy new Smiths, and a quick trip to TFL will yield his old signature, which has a very interesting link.

Steve

[Neal Bloom]

People can justifying buying new S&W products anyway they want. For me I will not purchase any new S&W products; guns, knives, or golfclubs.

[Blackhawk]

If S&W repudiated the agreement loudly and forcefully, perhaps based on not getting the benefit of it because it was sued anyway, I might reconsider.

But for the present, no.

[Zander]

Per the agreement, the "new" S&W is still obligated to pay certain funds for the advancement of "gun safety". Has anyone examined their mandatory disclosures as a corporation to determine if they are actually sending a portion of our purchasing dollars to fulfill the Clinton Administration's anti-gun propaganda?

Whether you want to admit it or not, if you buy a new S&W firearm, you are contributing to the infringement and eventual dissolution of our RKBA.

The current management of S&W has a clear choice...disavow the agreement, legally and in public, or continue to suffer the consequences. All their spin and support from the media who accept their advertising dollars will not change the fact that they are still acting in collusion with the fed.gov to infringe our Second Amendment Rights.

[Mike Irwin]

Bob Scott's latest interviews indicates a man with his head firmly in the sand, desparately not wanting to see the danger that's right in front of him.

Until he shows some willingness to confront it head on, the danger remains.

There's simply no reason not to pursue formal relief from the agreement. The administration that's current in place is probably the most pro-gun that we can hope to see anytime soon.

Anyone care to postulate what Hillary Clinton might do with the agreement if she became President?

How about John McCain?

Sorry, but until Bob Scott and S&W demonstrate that they're interested in supporting the Second Amendment, I won't be supporting them.

As for my signature, I simply haven't set it up yet.

[Stephen Ewing]

See? I knew who could be counted on to articulate what is wrong with buying new Smiths.

Steve

[BudS]

I was reluctant to buy ANYTHING S & W that was new, because I was unsure of the "agreement"...but if, say. someone came up with a used 69-series (like a police trade-in at my local dealer(s) or a fellow gun owner), I'd rather put the money in their hands. Or, if there's something else out there that'd use the 12-rd. S & W mags other than the Kel-Tec that was on the full-size side (for open carry), I'd gravitate toward that....

Again, thanks for y'all's knowledge on the matter. Maybe we should all write to S & W & tell 'em to get some balls on & rip the "agreement up?!?!:fire: I think I will!