[OneShot]

I'm not sure if this should go here or in political so move it if needed.

I understand that some are boycotting Smith and Wesson due to the fact that they joined with the Clintonistas to pass anti gun laws. I decided recently that because S&W was under new ownership that I would go ahead and purchase a new Airweight 38 from them.

Low and behold that in the box was a notice that read "Smith and Wesson encourages you ro join the NRA and help protect your second amendment rights" It also reads that S&W is offering $10 off of a one year membership in the NRA and also "Join now and help US in the fight to preserve our unique American freedoms"

So exactly what does this mean? Are the new owners signaling that they do not support the decisions of the previous owners?

Give me your opinions on this please----Rob

[CGofMP]

They signaled but never abandoned...


That is to say they make all kinds of noise about being Americans, not agreeing with previous owners, etc etc etc BUT nowhere have I read them actually state they are going to ignore the agreement or even work to have it legally vacated.

LEGALLY that agreement is still in place and is binding.

My boycott of S and W firearms made after the agreement still stands. Which is a pitty because I LOVE the product and in fact until I held one of my client's pistols the 586/686 line was my absolute favorite handgun. I have yet to find a better revolver than the old Smith's

And also be it known that since Bill Ruger sold us out on the magazine ban I have bought not one thing from his company either.


Charles

[dakotasin]

i'll not have a ruger or s&w in this house - especially s&w!

there are plenty of other firearms mfgrs out there that make a quality piece and are more in-step w/ my political beliefs than s&w.

[OneShot]

OK, for the sake of discussion, what EXACTLY would they have to do to regain favor in the eyes of the gun buying public. Also has anybody actually voiced what it would take to do so to the new owners?

[CGofMP]

On excellent question One-Shot.

Simple to say, tough for a company to do:

1) PUBLICLY and in print state that they are sorry for the mistakes of the past owners and that they will not abide by any of the provisions in the agreements.

Sadly this would lead to a possible contempt or other violation so....

2) Work publicly and have these agreements overturned, vacated or otherwise nullified.


I LOVE S&W stuff... but they did somehtign ugly to the pooch and now simply saying "oops... the last guys that were in chage made a boo boo" just is not enough.

They took a risk and they lost. In my personal opinion, they THOUGHT they would get a lot of money in new S&W contracts from government buys for cops and whatever... instead guys like me dumped all plans of buying their product AND the government did not make up for it in sales.

You can bet that had the government dropped golden egg contracts on them that they would not in my opinion be trying to cozy back up to us.


The above is my speculation and opinion only. :neener:
Charles

[Jeff OTMG]

S&W has been actively dismantling the work of the former administration. They have had 12 agreements repealed, the largest being the one with Boston. Keep your eyes on the news this fall, you just might see something that may surprise you.

I still boycott Ruger, but when S&W went to the AG and cities to try to get this resolved, they were okay in my book. For liability reasons you will NEVER see S&W take out an ad saying 'WOO-HOO! Look what we did! We got out of it!' If you are waiting for that, you will never buy a new S&W.

[JDSlack]

OK, so everyone gets mad at S&W and stops buying their stuff. They go in the dumpster. That'll show them anti-gunners. And if you don't think they can go belly up, look at Colt, they had a rough row to hoe. AND they had Gov't contracts and the loyal gun buying public was behind 'em, right?

[CGofMP]

Other more deserving companies that do not side withthose messing with the consitution get my business instead. THAT will show the antis.... even those who have a management say in a gun company. :-)

[pax]

OneShot,

This does belong in L&P, so I'm moving it over there.

To partially answer your question, gun owners began the boycott of S&W because of the agreement (Mike Irwin, where are you? I need the link) between S&W and the federal government. This agreement wasn't a law exactly, but it would have had -- and still could have -- the force of law. And it didn't just affect S&W, but other gun manufacturers and dealers. So the effect would be like a law, but it was completely outside the law-making process.

Gun owners wanted to kill the agreement, and saw the boycott as the only way to do so. The boycott wasn't about who owned the company, or about the products, or about 'punishing' the perpetrators. It was a way to kill the agreement so it would never go into effect.

The agreement was signed by both the feds and by S&W, but it is not currently being enforced. Partly this is because the company changed hands, but mostly it has to do with elephants in the White House. Enforcing it would be a political loser.

The NRA wants to rehabilitate S&W and get gun owners to break the boycott. That's why you're seeing plugs for the NRA on S&W boxes. I'm pretty sure that some significant money passed hands somewhere in order for that to come about, but I'm also pretty sure that most the folks at the NRA who made that decision really believe that the agreement being dormant & unenforced is good enough.

The important thing to realize is that the agreement is not yet dead. It is inactive, and under a RKBA-friendly administration it is not being enforced. But it isn't dead; it is only out of play for awhile.

The company is under new ownership, and I think the new owners really mean well. But unless they repudiate the agreement now, while they've got quasi-2A-friendly people in the White House & Justice Dept, the agreement can and will roar back to life just as soon as the anti-RKBA pendulum swings again. If it's going to be killed all the way, it has to be killed now, and it has to be killed dead. None of this, "well no one's enforcing it" crud.

They don't want to kill it the rest of the way because doing so could stir up a hornet's nest. But they've got to do it anyway, or we will all suffer the consequences.

pax

The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves. – Dresden James

[Mike Irwin]

Right here, Pax.

S&W's Agreement with the Federal Government (http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=31&1=View)


We've discussed that particular aspect many times over on The Firing Line, JD.

Quite frankly, if the loss of Smith & Wesson means that not a single other gun company enters into a similar agreement with the Government, then it's a loss that I'm willing to accept.

It's not like S&W is the only firearms company out there.


Fighting for the S&W boycott as I have over the past 3 years has, sadly, very clearly illustrated to me how poorly directed, organized, and concerned the vast majority of gun owners really are.

There are far too many who are willing to accept what S&W did, rationalizing it away as nothing more than a minor bump by a "friend" in the industry.

And there are far too many who know better, but simply don't care because they don't think it's going to affect them.

No wonder firearms rights are in such a precarious position in this nation.

[Standing Wolf]

If Smith & Wesson ever does the right thing by the Bill of Rights and repudiates the agreement it signed with the Snopes Clinton-Liar Gore régime, I'll consider buying its products. The burden of proof is on Smith & Wesson, not me.

[OneShot]

So it kind of seems like a Damned if Ya do , Damned if Ya don't situation for S&W. Repeal the agreement, piss off the government, don't repeal it and piss off potential customers.

It really makes you wonder, how the Agreement between S&W and the NRA went down.... My bet is Bigggg money changed hands as was previously mentioned. Kinda makes you wonder about the integrity of the NRA in my book.

So who actually owns S&W now? In particular how can we get in touch with them directly ala the Applebees boycott and put pressure on them.

By the way...Those of you who are leading the charge to boycott S&W aren't doing all that great of a job, I didn't even hear about the whole issue until after I had made my purchase. Sales of Smith and Wesson products were quite brisk at the dealer that I bought from. I noticed that several more revolvers were gone from the case when I went into the shop today. I asked the owner if anybody had mentioned the boycott and he replied NO, not at all.

Just food for thought. I think that this is a good discussion to have unless it has already been beaten to death--OneShot

[jsalcedo]

Smith has some government sales too...

It seems most big gun companies with significant LEO and agency
contracts don't want to rock the boat and potentially piss off some autocrat, JBT procurement, or Senator Graft.

Civilian sales are just icing for Colt, Glock Sig and a few others.
S&W is trying to hop on the gravy train so it no longer has to appease us malcontents and troublemakers.

Its all about money. I would venture to say any company with a board of directors will choose money over freedom and morality
99.9% of the time.

[JDSlack]

Ok, I understand now. S&W entered into this agreement with the Feds to increase sales of its pistols. Pretty sneaky. Does that mean that S&W has an interest in Beretta, who seems to have the military handgun thing sewn up, and Glock, who seems to have a good grip (no pun intended) on the LEO market? And then, in order to continue this nefarious plot they (S&W) bribe (!) the NRA to help them out. WOW! Thant's it I'll never buy another S&W, and I outta the NRA. Its Glocks, SIGs, Taurus and Norinco for me from now on. And I'm joining the ACLU, they'll protect my Second Amendment rights, won't they?

[gun-fucious]

JD,


If the agreement had come to full power,
S&W would have been the prefered provider for Govt purchases
and if smart guns came into being,
all the S&W guns would be required to become smart

and all S&W stocking dealers would have been required to provide
nightly in safe storage for all firearms in the store

and Stocking dealers would not be allowed to sell preban magazines
or "assault rifles"

nice
ruined my St Patricks day fer sure

[OneShot]

Now I'm seeing it for what it is...A bunch of dishonest crap. I wish I had known the full story before I had made my purchase.

I also now frown on the NRA. Where are all the boycott the NRA cheerleaders? Thay are just as guilty by association aren't they? by taking money from S&W--Rob

[JDSlack]

AND IF....frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts when they hop.

I still suppport the NRA and buy S&Ws.

Gimme an "S", Gimme "a funny little sign that means 'and' ", Gimme a "W"..whatta got... S&W, YEA!!!. Guess that makes me an S&W cheerleader, huh.

[Shooter 2.5]

I think for the agreement to go away, both sides have to agree to it. That doesn't help S&W which was almost put out of business by both sides.

It was like the EPA walking into your house and saying you had dangerous chemicals under your foundation but we can "help' you. There's too may posters who forgot who the real bad guys were in this.

This was an American Company held hostage by British owners and the clinton administration. Nothing more.

It's nice the new company is supporting the NRA. It will come in handy for the CCW fight in Wisconsin, Ohio, Kansas and Missouri.

[Frenchy]

Fighting for the S&W boycott as I have over the past 3 years has, sadly, very clearly illustrated to me how poorly directed, organized, and concerned the vast majority of gun owners really are.

I consider myself a fairly enlightened person when it comes to gun issues Mike, even though I don't march behind your banner of "I'm right, and to hell with the rest of you".

It's obvious by your comments above that if I'm not in lock step with your philosophy, I'm an ignorant dunderhead.

I’ve always respected your stance on the S&W Agreement (although I didn’t/don’t agree with you). It’s a shame that you can’t reciprocate in kind..

[Mike Irwin]

You're absolutely right, Frenchy, I don't respect your position. I have absolute loathing for it.

Why should I reciprociate with "respect" of a position that so fundamentally endangers my rights? Especially when it's held by people who otherwise profess to be ardent supporters of those rights? And especially when the agreement lays out, in no uncertain terms, what the "coming attractions" are.

I don't respect Sarah Brady's or Charles Schumer's positions, I wouldn't respect the positions of a person who owns firearms but professes to agree that the California AW ban is a good thing, and I certainly don't respect the position that the S&W agreement is harmless, and that the company and its new ownership is to be coddled.

[pax]

Shooter2.5,

Their reasons don't matter, when it gets right down to it. It isn't about Americans vs British, nor about Clintonistas' coersive tactics. Those things don't matter in the long run.

What matters is the agreement. The whole imbroglio is about the effect that their behavior has had and will have on the rest of the industry.

If some crazy comes at me with a knife and has the clear stated intent of killing me, I'm not going to analyze his motivations. I'm going to get away if I can, or fight back if I must. Anything else is just foolish.

pax

If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism. -- Thomas Sowell

[Mike Irwin]

Not if, JD, when.

When the next anti-gun President sits in the White House, with an anti-gun congress, and decides that it's time to make some inroads into gun control.

How's it most likely to happen?

By attempting to pass a large and rancorous bill through Congress, or by mandating strict compliance with the S&W agreement?

This is exactly what I was talking about with firearms owners.

10 years ago we were facing the assault weapons ban, and it seemed as if gun owners, other than a small group of them, just simply didn't give a damn. Membership in NRA, GOA, and the other pro-firearms organizations was either stagnant or dropping, and it was widely believed in Congress that NRA's influence was going the way of the dinosaurs.

So, we got a 10-year experiment in how to ban firearms on cosmetic grounds.

Only AFTER the ban passed did some gun owners start to sit up and take notice. It took awhile, but people finally started joining NRA, GOA, etc., helped rebuild politicial influence, and finally made some inroads in elections in 2000 and 2002.

Only, wouldn't it have been a lot easier to do this a decade ago?

Sounds familiar, and for some reason, I really think it's a game we're going to be playing again sooner, rather than later.

And the power to do something about it rests in the hands of firearms purchasers, and the owners of Smith & Wesson. Yet, neither seems to be doing a damned thing.

So, when the agreement is enforced by the letter, and S&W does finally fold because of the costs of complying with the agreement and the belated consumer backlash, just who's going to be to blame then?

Politicians?

S&W's management?

Or the people who coddled the company now and essentially said "Hey, it's OK, you don't have to take action while there's a gun friendly administration in office. We love you, Agreement and all."

[Silver Bullet]

There was a thread here a while back

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12072

that ended with an interesting claim:
AFAIK those who said that the agreement with the govt is an assumed liability are essentially correct. They are, however, ignoring something else that happened about 5 or 6 months into the current Bush administration. At that point in time the Bush Administration stated (publicly, but not terribly loudly) that they did not see the agreement as enforcible and were not interested in enforcing it. I do not know the technical terminology for this, but what they've effectively done is to give the new S&W an out which does not require them to spend one more dollar on legal fees in this regard. Even should (God forbid) President Bush not get re-elected, by the time whoever comes after him gets into office the government will have allowed the agreement to lapse due to the fault of the government, which means S&W gets off scott free as long as they keep their mouths shut.
Can anybody here confirm or refute this statement that the agreement will lapse due to the government not enforcing it ?

[Sergeant Bob]

It's obvious by your comments above that if I'm not in lock step with your philosophy, I'm an ignorant dunderhead.

I don't think he's saying that at all. If you really think about it dispassionately, it's just a statement of fact about gun owners in general . There are an estimated 80 Million gun owners in the U.S., about 4 million of which are members of the NRA. Of those 4 million members, how many actually do anything about their gun rights, besides just sending a check to the NRA once a year? How many have actually read the S & W agreement?
Until I read the link in his sig, I thought it was just about trigger locks (that's about all I heard from the media).
With 80 million gun owners, we should be able to have our way in this country but, most are content to sit back and let someone else do the work. We don't even have to work hard at it. Call your congressman, write letters, take someone shooting, join a gun rights group, boycott S & W.
Fighting for the S&W boycott as I have over the past 3 years has, sadly, very clearly illustrated to me how poorly directed, organized, and concerned the vast majority of gun owners really are.
A simple statement of fact.

[Shooter 2.5]

Pax, we aren't writing about someone out to kill you.

I said it was like you had the EPA come to your door and tell you they came to "help" you.

The bad guys aren't S&W. It was the clinton administration.

So you still want to boycott? What about :
Kimber-Smith parts
Colt-made an agreement for smart guns
Norinco-Commies
Para-Ordnance-Socialists
Ruger-Magazine ban
Browning-Made in Japan

Did I miss anyone?

[Mike Irwin]

Sorry, 2.5, but that argument has been tried many times before, and it's as effective now as it was then.

S&W is not some poor, abused hostaged forced by the Big Bad Clintonistas to hand over their ATM numbers at the point of a gun.

S&W's management at that time entered into the agreement willingly, and if you believe some accounts, even sought out the governemnt instead of the other way around.

S&W's current management inherited the agreement when they bought the company.

They were concerned enough to work toward getting the agreemnt with Boston dropped, and yet have done nothing to break the agreement with the Federal government.

S&W has a rather unique opportunity, which they're wasting. An Attorney General who has said, in writing, that the Second Amendment is an individual, not collective, right.

A President who, while not the best gun friend we've ever had in office, certainly isn't the worst.

And a Congress that's, at the moment, largely amenable to our side.

What's S&W waiting for?

President Hillary Clinton?

Time's now, folks. If S&W doesn't take advantage of this opportunity in history, that Agreement is going to end up being shoved down the throats of every gun owner in this nation, even the ones who see its dangers now and have to courage to stand up for their rights, not just the millions of johnny-come-blindly's who will come out of the woodwork and raise a fuss only AFTER it's too late.

[Zander]

The bad guys aren't S&W.Spoken like someone who hasn't read the agreement...which intended nothing less than instituting fascism in the firearms industry.

If any other companies had been foolish enough to sign, we'd be crying about having to buy "smart" guns and wishing for the good ol' days.

I'm with Mike and pax and lots of others on this one...no new S&Ws for me; not until the agreement is formally and publicly repudiated.

[pax]

Pax, we aren't writing about someone out to kill you.
No, we are writing about someone out to kill my rights -- which is worse.

The bad guys aren't S&W. It was the clinton administration.
Okay, the bad guys were the folks in the Clinton administration. So?

It doesn't matter whether the folks at S&W are actually to blame for placing their own behavior, or whether the Clintons made them do it.

Of course every Right Thinking Gun Owner hates the Clinton adminstration and wants to blame everything bad that has happened in the last century on the evil, conniving wackos who inhabited the White House a few years back.

But it doesn't matter.

It ain't about the reasons and it ain't about who's to blame and it ain't about the Clintons, the British, the other gun manufacturers who haven't always been our friends either. It ain't about any of that stuff. It is about the agreement.

The agreement has the force of law to people who haven't even signed the durn thing. We can't repeal it, 'cause it ain't a law. We can't vote out the slimes who signed it, because half the signatories already landed on their keisters and the other half ain't politicians.

The only thing that matters now is that the agreement is still alive. If the agreement doesn't die, it will be enforced just as soon as the elephants step out of the White House.

The agreement is the guy with the knife. I don't care how he got here, I don't care why he's here. I do care that I and my rights survive the encounter.

Capiche?

pax

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate.

[Leaky Waders]

To start with...Boycotting S & W won't work - it's all lip service. People who want a new in box reliable revolver will choose the weapon they feel will be most effective and relaible when the time comes to use it...regardless of any political stance by some
internet guru.

e.g. How many people treasure nazi proofed and communist proofed arms? These old and new 'gun manufacturers' are not interested in your rights...yet they are imported and bought by the truckloads. Seems nobody is boycotting ak's - even though they killed americans by the truckload - literally; or norinco...even though they are from a communist country which doesn't have rights like ours, or skb or browning or other japanese manufacturers...hell they can't even own a sword there....

Also, S&W...made a poor business decision. But they didn't initiate it. I mean, they didn't say - how can we undermine the rights of Americans...i know...promulgate this contract. They made a decision for the survival of the company. Many firearms companies do this already...look at the ugly safety locks on remingtons, the new ones on beretta, the ones on taurus etc. Yea they didn't 'sign' a contract...but they are playing the same game none the less. I don't hear any boycott about these w/ the exception of ruger - a company that is doing pretty well.

In addition...any failure of S&W is simply another success story for the anti-gunners. Imagine, putting a company out of business that made the .22 rimfire, the .357. A company w/ over 100 years of firearms manufacturing. Gee, that's smart...lets boycott Beretta next because the anti gunners suggest them selling us locks w/ their pistols. Then we can knock another icon of the block.

Lastly, for a boycott to work...which I don't support. The boycott should put the onus on gun owners to pressure the smith and wesson distributors. They would feel that. In other words...march down to your nearest firearms store displaying a S&W...new used who cares...place your boxes of ammo, holsters, new weapon purchases, or sporting goods by the register and then meekly say, "Oh i see you still sell S&W, despite the political controversy which surounds them. I'm sorry, I can't purchase anything from this store until you no longer deal with that company." Then leave.

In short, the anti-gunners are making huge strides amongst the gun owners by empowering us to eat our own. We should probably be ashamed. In the end, we will all lament the loss of S&W if they were to fold by this fanciful boycott. The real culprit resided in the white house...he is gone. S&W is making strides to correct their mistakes....animated persons boycott them regardless...nobody is boycotting cigars, Monica Lewinsky had her own TV show, Wild Bill is dropping hints of constitution reform for a possible 3rd run...hell has indeed frozen over.

v/r,
L.W.

[Frenchy]

I believe your points are well taken LW, but it will be lost on many here. They are too fixated on S&W's destruction of our Constitutional rights to allow common sense to weigh in.
I’ve been a member of TFL & THR (TFL jr.) for some time, and have come to believe that there is/has been an air of anti-Smith & Wesson here/there for some time amongst a core group. My opinion, of course. ;)

[Thumper]

I can't imagine how any gun owner who has read and understood the agreement can support S&W.

DO YOU GET THAT IF (WHEN) THIS AGREEMENT IS ENFORCED, YOU WILL LOSE A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF YOUR GUN RIGHTS!!!???

The agreement has to be dissolved...or we WILL lose, without any laws passed or votes counted.

WHAT DON"T YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND?

:confused:
:cuss:

[Frenchy]

Easy Thumper....You're gonna pop a vessel! :D

[Thumper]

Actually...I think I did...I need to sit down.

:D

[Mike Irwin]

"To start with...Boycotting S & W won't work - it's all lip service."

Actually, it would work if more people had a sense about their rights, Leaky.

What is TRULY lip service is the lip service that so many gun owners are giving S&W -- "they're not to be blamed..." "they shoudn't be held responsible," "the agreement doesn't endanger our rights..."

THAT'S lip service of the worst kind, the kind. It's the kind that has the same person saying "I don't care about the agreement," in one breath, and "I care about my Second Amendment rights," in the next.

Sorry, but they're positions that are at opposite ends of the spectrum, in complete opposition.

"How many people treasure nazi proofed and communist proofed arms?"

We've played this game before, and it's still a smokescreen.

Please point to the map and show me where Nazi Germany is today.

Oops, that's right, they were crushed out of existence 50 years ago.

Communist arms? Last time I looked, the Soviet Union and most of its satellite states are now under the heading of FORMER Communist states.

Even China is making inroads towards a quasi-capitalist economic system. And even so, the purchase of firearms from China doesn't fall into the same league.

Britain and France also don't have rights like ours, either. Do you also have problems with them?

"Also, S&W...made a poor business decision. But they didn't initiate it. I mean, they didn't say - how can we undermine the rights of Americans...i know...promulgate this contract."

Uhm... Yes, they certainly DID initiate it. While S&W representatitives were sitting on a council of firearms companys working to adopt a unified front against both government action and lawsuits, S&W was going behind the entire industry's back to deal with the Federal government.

"look at the ugly safety locks on remingtons, the new ones on beretta, the ones on taurus etc."

This isn't about safety locks. I don't know why people insist on thinking it is.

Go read the agreement again.

Pay close attention to the sections that agree to give the Federal Government SIGNIFICANT control of the company via a council.

Pay close attention to the marketing restrictions that S&W would, as an agent of the Federal government, require of its dealers, such as no selling LEGAL full-capacity magazines for LEGAL firearms.

Those are just two of the onerous provisions, but they're not the only ones.

By extension, the issue of internal locks isn't even a blip on the radar, except for those who don't understand the agreemnt.


"In addition...any failure of S&W is simply another success story for the anti-gunners."

We've discussed this many times before, as well.

The Government and anti-gunner's agenda was to get EVERY firearms manufacturer doing business in the United States to sign this agreement.

So far, Smith & Wesson is the ONLY one.

If we lose S&W, sure, that's a tragic thing. But it's a victory if that loss keeps other manufacturers from signing the agreement.

And for the anti-gunners?

The loss of a single company is a phyrric victory at the very best, because now the ONLY company that agreed to abide by the agreement is gone. They're starting over at ground zero.

At least before, they and their agreement had a foot in the door of the industry.

"The boycott should put the onus on gun owners to pressure the smith and wesson distributors. They would feel that. In other words...march down to your nearest firearms store displaying a S&W...new used who cares...place your boxes of ammo, holsters, new weapon purchases, or sporting goods by the register and then meekly say, "Oh i see you still sell S&W, despite the political controversy which surounds them. I'm sorry, I can't purchase anything from this store until you no longer deal with that company." Then leave."

I urge you to visit www.thefiringline.com and read my messages on this subject.

I've stopped doing business with companies that still sell S&W products, and have let them know.

I've urged my friends to purchase from those shops that do NOT sell S&W products, and let the other shops and dealers know why.

I've also successfully talked a number of people into purchasing other firearms, or from other dealers, for the reasons I've stated above.

I fully agree with you on this -- the boycott should be mult-pronged.

Unfortunately, though, I'll admit that it has lost momentum.

From the initial successes in the days after S&W signed the agreement the boycott has slacked considerably.

People have bought into the theory that when S&W was sold, the agreement somehow died.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

When S&W worked with the city of Boston to break that agreement, another segment of people assumed that meant the Federal agreement died then. Again, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Finally, the National Rifle Association once again sold out gun owners by letting S&W back into the fold with absolutely no movement by S&W on the Federal agreement at all.

I suspect, but can't prove, that NRA was the recipient of a bunch of S&W's blood money.

The day of reckoning is coming.

The day when representatitves of the Federal government, headed by an anti-gun President and fronted by an anti-gun Congress, will be sitting in a controlling position at S&W, just as the agreement states that they will.

And, when that day comes, American gun owners will once again prove themselves to be a day late and dollar short in protecting their rights.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

That's pretty close to the truth here.

[Frenchy]

Watch out Mike!!...You can suffer from oxygen deprivation up there. :D

[pax]

They are too fixated on S&W's destruction of our Constitutional rights to allow common sense to weigh in.
Frenchy,

Constitutional rights still matter. They aren't obsolete and they aren't up for sale to the highest bidder.

If that means I lack common sense, so be it.
To start with...Boycotting S & W won't work - it's all lip service. People who want a new in box reliable revolver will choose the weapon they feel will be most effective and relaible when the time comes to use it...regardless of any political stance by some internet guru.
Leaky Waders,

The basis of your entire argument is, "It's hopeless because gun owners don't actually give a pile of belly button lint about our rights. The only thing they care about is being able to buy a good wheelgun and to Hades with the consequences."

Oddly, when Mike Irwin expressed a similar sentiment (but in gentler language than I did), folks on the other side jumped on him for being disrespectful. :D

The rest of your points expressed a fundamental misunderstanding as to the reason behind the boycott. Let me explain it again: The boycott is not about killing the company. It isn't about the company at all, in fact. It has nothing to do with why the company did what it did. It has nothing to do with who owns the company. It has nothing to do with what other companies have done in other situations. It has nothing to do with foreign policy, with communism, or with the availability of trigger locks. It doesn't have anything to do with those things.

The boycott is about killing the agreement, which has the force of law against people and companies which never agreed to be bound by it. The agreement is an end run around the law, and its terms are a Not A Good Thing for gun owners.

Unless it is killed now, the despicable thing will be enforced as soon as the donkeys get into the White House again.

When that happens, gun owners who only care about getting a good wheelgun will be shocked at what happens to their guns and their dealers. They will start whining about the good old days before the agreement went into effect. They won't be able to do a condemned-to-the-Netherworld thing about it then, though.

But asking gun owners to do something about it now, while we still can, is somehow against common sense. :confused: Pardon me, but I don't buy that argument.

pax

It is interesting to hear certain kinds of people insist that the citizen cannot fight the government. This would have been news to the men of Lexington and Concord, as well as the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. -- Jeff Cooper

[Mike Irwin]

"Watch out Mike!!...You can suffer from oxygen deprivation up there."




the friend of my enemy is my enemy....

[Thumper]

Frenchy,

Have you actually taken the time to read the agreement? Be honest.

[pax]

Oh, er, ...

<moderator hat on>
Some of the posts in this thread have skirted right on the very edge of personal attacks.

That ain't allowed, folks.

Attack the arguments, not the arguer.
</moderator hat off>

pax

[Thumper]

Not attacking anyone...I think that we can all agree here that someone that would knowingly and willingly support giving up their own human rights are dispicable.

Before we continue, do we all agree on that point?

[Leaky Waders]

Why not boycott the justice department..they signed it too didn't they?

My argument about the boycott is that I wonder if S&W even realize they are boycotted? I mean ya...some people tyrade on the net about the dreaded boycott...but sales continue. Why? Because S&W makes a fine revolver and...because S&W isn't really in some coup to overthrow the second amendmant.

So my point is...the Clinton administration has probably (I'm no lawyer) overstepped their authority by coercing a manufacturer into signing a non-constitutional agreement. And, we as John Q Public are like....ok let's stone the person coerced by the government. It's really ridiculous.

It's kind of like the cia coming to your house and saying...we've been watching you...you wear blujeans everyday. We are making a contract for you to wear a dress. If you don't sign the contract and raise your hem-line then we'll deplete all your money from your bank accounts by you having to hire expensive trial lawyers. Sure, we know that you're in between jobs, but we're pressing you now anyways...because we want a new fashion movement. So after much fretting you sign the damn agreement, you don't shave your legs or anything but you put on some moo moo and get your newspaper. The headline is that the rest of the neighborhood is going to stone you at dawn for being a transvestite. They don't care if you were coerced. They don't care if you're wearing heals or pursuing less expensive ways to fight the government. They just look to you as someone who wants everyone to wear dresses. In scotland - where kilts are the rage - you'd be a hero...here youre a scapegoat. The other people who made the contract and signed the contract are let off scot free (pun intended).

If you feel that the NRA and S&W and Ruger are really and truly trying to debase your second amendment rights. Then go ahead..boycott them. Then, when there is no more classic gun companies making quality arms we can all carry around our commy made norincos thinking about how we patriotically saved the second amendment by forcing the american companies to die in our vain attempts to effect change.

There's a better way to end this thing w/o killing the victim. I don't know how....but there's got to be a little more commonsense than this...a boycot. It is indeed ridiculous.

v/r,
LW

PS All bleeding stops :)

PSS It's just my opinion...I have no problem w/ any arms maker...including S&W. Call me an anomaly.

[Sir Galahad]

It's almost as if some people think we're a breath away from being marched off to concentration camps. You really want to punish those responsible? QUIT PAYING YOUR INCOME TAX. I DARE those here complaining the loudest about federal quashing of rights to stop paying taxes. I dare them to make out their W-2s so that they wind up owing taxes and then DON'T PAY IT. It's easy to be that patriotic crusader by not buying a handgun most probably wouldn't buy anyway. Not so easy to face federal prison for those same beliefs. The Patriot Act is financed by YOUR tax dollars. Gun control and the AWB is financed by YOUR tax dollars. Until thse folks refuse to pay taxes, I conclude it's easy to look like a freedom fighter boycotting a product. But it's another thing to actually prove it.

Make mine a Smith.

[Thumper]

My argument about the boycott is that I wonder if S&W even realize they are boycotted?
Leaky, you haven't been following this very closely , have you?

[Frenchy]

the friend of my enemy is my enemy....

So be it Mike!! I've had enough of this tiresome thread. Ya'll can have at it..

[Thumper]

There's a better way to end this thing w/o killing the victim.

Leaky, S&W was in no way a victim in any of this, aside from being a victim of their own decision to sell out gun owners.

They certainly weren't forced.

No offence, but you really should read up on some of this before commenting. Does S&W know about the boycott? Yeah, they sold a company they paid 112 million for for 3 mil...A loss they attributed publicly to the boycott that you insinuate they might not have known about. The new owners refuse to denounce or refute the agreement. :rolleyes:

Galahad,

I'm surprised at your response. By your argument, unless I actively refuse to pay taxes, I might as well not even bother with supporting the Second. I'll continue to be a "pathetic crusader" if it means that we continue to make positive changes.

[Leaky Waders]

Thumper...yes I have...did...done ;)

I've read the agreement, read the arguments and respected yours and others opinions. I just don't feel the coersion of a company by the government merits boycotting of that company.

After all that...I purchased a 686. The only S&W I own...see I voted (with my dollars) to save the company under their new owneship rather than to be one of the monickers who will have to explain to their grandchildren how a company like S&W went belly-up. Still haven't shot it yet...it resides in my gun safe now.

I'm also in the process of renewing my NRA membership and DU membership. See...none of these organizations are perfect. But they have a track record...and it is generally good.

BTW...Bill Clinton and his cronies aren't evil. They are/were doing what they thought was best for the country. Even though we disagree w/ what he did/ordered/coerced...we permitted him to reside for 8 years in the white house. Eventually the supreme court will have to weigh in on all this second amendments stuff...waiting periods, magazine capacity, world gun taxes...whatever. Until then we will fiddle about worried who is plotting to take our rights away.

V/R,
L.W.

[Thumper]

Leaky, I respect your decision.

I also hope that a Dem White House never gets a chance to take this legally binding agreement for a test drive.

I understand that you realize the ramifications...oh well.

[Sir Galahad]

Nope, that's not what I said Thumper. What I said was that if you want to cut off funds that go to an enity you feel tramples your rights, then stop paying your taxes. The federal government couldn't care less if you buy a S&W or not. Fienstein and Schumer get paid anyway with your tax dollars. What gets me is the "More 2nd Amendment than thou" BS. "The NRA is a bunch of sell-outs! S&W is a bunch of sell-outs!" Geez, it's freakin' tiring.:rolleyes: My life doesn't revolve around preaching to others why they're a bunch of "traitors" or what-not for buying a S&W or being in the NRA or being happy and not hating the friggin' government as much as the radicals think they ought to.

So, again, you can make a better statement by refusing to pay your income tax. That way, you will be 100% SURE your money will NOT go towards trampling your rights. You can even go so far as claiming "soveriegn citizenship" in not paying your taxes. Anyone can boycott Smith. Even an anti.:D But who has the guts to stand up for what he believes and refuse to pay into what he sees as a tyrannical system? Any takers?

[benewton]

Ah, to those involved, so far as I remember, the boycott DID work.

For what price was S&W bought by the brits, and for what was it sold? And to whom, and what was their major product at the time?

Leaky; I try to boycott the government at all times: what does it take to get them to boycott me?

Mike, I like your attitude and lines, but Pax is more logical: the objective is the agreement, no more no less. I think that a lot of people running machining centers could be badly hurt by an effective, post corporate sale, boycott, but that can't enter into the logic when rights are at stake.

That agreement, and most/all of the anti weapons/individual rights laws must go now, peacefully, while we have a good chance. 'cause if they don't, then it's only a matter of time before we all find out just how well we, and our weapons, function.

And that I wish to avoid.

As a final, S&W produces weapons, and so do many others. I seek performance and functionality, and many companies match Smith, at least in revolvers, since, for auto's, damned near anything is as good or better, as far as I'm concerned. I'd like cute, of course, and American made, but I'm most concerned that the bullet launcher does exactly that, and that the round flies to the "same" place every time.

I think we could lose S&W with no significant loss of choice, and agree that the setback to the antigun types would be worth the effort.

[Thumper]

Galahad, I see what you're trying to say, but:

I think I make a better statement by picking battles that are currently winnable...come to think of it, that might be a workable definition of strategy. Whaddaya think?

;)

We have to work to make this agreement disappear.

[Waitone]

Under normal circumstances you can't swing a dead cat without smacking into a gaggle of lawyers, yet for some reason none have surfaced.

IIRC Buzz Knox gave us a course in Conscent Decree 101 on this very topic. He explained in graphic detail why the "agreement" was ABT (A Bad Thing).

I tried a forum search but came up with nothing.

Anyone else out there remember Buzz Knox class?

I'll post as soon as I find it.

[Lone_Gunman]

Too bad Frenchy left the discussion BEFORE he answered the question posed by Thumper...

If you are still with us, Frenchy, please tell us whether or not you have actually read it?

[jdmb03]

I have a question. If a boycott of S&W somehow does manage to put the company out of business (however not likely) wouldn't that be a win for the anti-gun crowd?

Trying to put one of the largest firearm companies in america out of business is not going to help any of us who really like guns.

And if you think boycotting is going to get S&W to change the agreement it is not going to happen.

[Atticus]

1) The agreement is dreadful- and if fully enforced would have a dramatic effect on the gun industry as a whole.

2) If S&W wanted to take measures to bury it and start anew -NOW IS THE TIME. It is doubtfull that we'll ever see a more gun friendly administration than the current one.

3) If ******* is elected in 2008 (God forbid)- or even if another Democrat is elected in 2008- there is a very good chance that the agreement will be strictly enforced. If not in 2008... then later.

S&W is riding the fence because they can. If more people put pressure on them -even in a positive way- they might spend the time and money to do away with the agreement once and for all.

I'll stick to the pre-agreement guns for now. I'd buy a new one tomorrow if they would take the appropriate action to kill it.

[Old Fuff]

Few people fully understand what was going on when the Clinton Administration, ably supported by 30-some cities and state attorney generals – mostly Democrats – attacked the handgun industry. The circumstances are described in the following newspaper article in the “New York Times.” Notice the complete lack of ethics and abuse of power as these back-lot despots tried to take Smith & Wesson, as well as the entire handgun industry down. The “Times” is well known for its left leaning so it is not surprising that the reporter never sees anything wrong.

===============================================================

April 3, 2000, Monday
Metropolitan Desk


DUEL FOR THE LIMELIGHT: A special report; Behind Gun Deal,
2 Ambitious Democrats Wrestle for the Credit



By ERIC LIPTON

Eliot L. Spitzer had arranged quite a celebration to mark his first anniversary as New York State's attorney general. He planned a trip to Las Vegas, as the leader of a negotiating team that with a bit of luck, he figured, would soon deliver a landmark gun control deal.

He booked his plane ride and a hotel reservation at the luxurious Bellagio. But the intervention of another New York Democrat, Andrew M. Cuomo, spoiled Mr. Spitzer's party.

The trip was called off. The talks with gun dealers canceled. And within days, Mr. Cuomo, the United States housing secretary, had secretly managed to restart negotiations, without the attorney general.

A deal ultimately was reached, but when the announcement came two weeks ago in Washington that the nation's oldest and largest handgun manufacturer had agreed to change the way it designs and sells handguns, it was Mr. Cuomo, 42, the eldest son of the former governor, who stood at the podium. Mr. Spitzer, 40, an intense, Harvard-educated lawyer, sat with his hands on his lap, in the background.

''After many false starts and after much gridlock, we are finally on the road to a safer and more peaceful America,'' Mr. Cuomo said.

What had transpired was not just a watershed event in the nation's long-running debate over gun control. For New Yorkers, it was a high-stakes showcase of the intense rivalry that formed between two men considered among the state's most promising -- and ambitious -- Democrats.

Mr. Cuomo, who has already announced his intention to run for governor in 2002, and Mr. Spitzer, who says his sights are not yet set on anything more than a second term as attorney general, espouse similar views on gun control, believing that handguns should be redesigned to make them harder to fire accidentally and easier to trace if they are used in a crime.

But by many accounts, the path to a settlement with Smith & Wesson on March
17 produced a bitter rivalry that colored the negotiations with cities and the gun makers, at times degenerating into angry letters, confrontations at closed-door meetings, dueling press releases and, some have even said, threats of sabotage.

''It has been a kind of running theme throughout the negotiations, the competition for credit,'' said John P. Coale, a Washington lawyer. Mr. Coale has observed and at times been involved in the negotiations, representing cities that have sued the gun manufacturers. ''It was what you see in politics all the time -- people vying for attention. But it got down and dirty and very intense. And it quite came close to hurting the process.''

Ed Shultz, the chief executive at Smith & Wesson, which has come under considerable criticism within the industry for breaking away and settling, has seen his share of negotiators in the last few years. He said the one-upmanship between Mr. Cuomo and Mr. Spitzer was obvious during the talks.

''It is two rich kids trying to be captain of the team,'' Mr. Shultz said. ''They are rivals. There is no question that each one of them wanted to have their own party and each would have been happy to have the party without the other one there, if they could arrange that.''

Mr. Spitzer has publicly complained to the White House and members of Congress about Mr. Cuomo's actions. For his part, Mr. Cuomo insists that there is no personal dispute, and that he did not deliberately exclude Mr. Spitzer. Instead, he said, he was just using the clout of the federal government and the Clinton administration to broker a deal.

But in the two weeks since the settlement, the jockeying has only intensified. Both have initiated national campaigns to persuade local and state governments to shun gun makers who do not sign the pact.

Mr. Spitzer was the first to take the lead last July, holding closed-door meetings with prominent gun makers like Colt's Manufacturing of Hartford and Smith & Wesson of Springfield, Mass. Sporadic talks organized by former Mayor Edward G. Rendell of Philadelphia and others had sputtered, despite a backdrop of threatened or filed lawsuits by more than two dozen cities like Bridgeport, New Orleans, Atlanta and Chicago, which were trying to force gun makers to add safety devices and to pay for the medical treatment of gunshot victims.

Mounting legal bills from those lawsuits troubled some gun makers, who signaled a growing willingness to make some concessions, something Mr. Spitzer hoped to capitalize on. Still, some officials involved in the litigation viewed Mr. Spitzer's entry into talks warily, they said, accusing him of cutting them out of the talks. But Mr. Spitzer had amply shown in his short public career that he was not shy about trying to jump ahead of the
pack.
Mr. Spitzer, the son of a successful real estate developer, grew up in a rarefied world, attending Riverdale Country Day School, Horace Mann School, then Princeton University, before getting his law degree at Harvard. Mr. Spitzer was 35 in 1994, when he first ran for attorney general, and his entire public service consisted of six years as an assistant district
attorney in Manhattan and one year as a federal court clerk. Despite an infusion of money from his father, Mr. Spitzer lost that race. Running again in 1998, he was carried into office with one of the narrowest political victories in the history of New York State.

Since then, Mr. Spitzer has been quick to inject himself into state issues, from air pollution caused by trash trucks to a battle by New York City neighborhood activists to save their community gardens.

From the start of his round of the gun talks, Mr. Spitzer pushed for what he called a code of conduct, which would require changes in the way guns are designed and marketed to make them safer, as well as harder for criminals to buy. His initial proposal, some gun control advocates said, was vague, providing gun makers too many opportunities to avoid compliance.

Mr. Spitzer agreed to revisions advocated by several gun control advocates, including Dennis A. Henigan, legal director of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. Ultimately, this revised code served as the framework for the deal Mr. Cuomo reached with Smith & Wesson, requiring safety locks and hidden serial numbers, among other conditions.

But Mr. Spitzer and the negotiating partners he invited to join him -- including Mr. Henigan and representatives from Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Miami -- were never able -- or never had a chance -- to deliver the deal.

Talks started with a small group of gun makers, then were expanded at the gun makers' insistence to include the industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which was much more resistant to the proposals.

Mr. Spitzer was convinced he was making progress. He said last week that his plan all along was to use the intransigence of the industry leaders to persuade companies like Smith & Wesson that it was time to break away.

But by late last year, federal officials, who were not yet involved in the talks, and even some of Mr. Spitzer's negotiating partners had concluded that his drive was going nowhere.

''It was not, in fact, working,'' Mr. Henigan said. One federal official said, ''If he was saying he was close to a deal with Smith and Wesson, that is a pipe dream.''

Mr. Cuomo sensed an opening. He had been consulting with the mayors of New Orleans and Philadelphia about their gun control efforts since before Mr. Spitzer was elected. But the federal government had remained largely on the sidelines as nearly 30 cities and counties filed lawsuits and attorneys general like Mr. Spitzer and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut got involved.

But by late last year, deciding that federal intervention was needed to invigorate the process, the White House authorized Mr. Cuomo and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to step in. Mr. Cuomo put considerable pressure on the industry by threatening a lawsuit by some of the nation's 32,000 local housing authorities, where gun violence had plagued low-income residents.

Mr. Cuomo said he was also concerned that the different cities suing the industry could not agree to a single settlement without a bit of corralling by federal authorities.

''Eliot was aggressive in taking the lead,'' Mr. Cuomo said. ''New Orleans was taking the lead. Miami was leading it. That was the problem.

''On the federal side, we have jurisdiction over the country. We are at the top of the food chain.''

As the son of Mario M. Cuomo, the former governor, Andrew Cuomo developed his political skills at a young age. In his mid-20's, during the early years of his father's service as governor, Mr. Cuomo served as a dollar-a-year assistant. Mr. Cuomo, who received a law degree from Albany Law School, then briefly worked as a prosecutor in Manhattan, joined a Park Avenue law firm.

He started a group that developed housing for the homeless. During those years, Mr. Cuomo, who drove a Jaguar with license plate AMC ESQ, earned respect for his ability to get things done, but he also built a reputation for arrogance and inflexibility. In 1993, at 35, he became an assistant secretary at HUD, and became President Clinton's housing secretary in 1997.

Initially, Mr. Spitzer welcomed Mr. Cuomo's involvement. Publicly comparing the threat of the lawsuit to a dagger, he said, ''The Feds' is a meat ax,'' implying that federal intervention would only intensify the pressure on gun makers to settle. But by mid-January, friction between the two men had grown noticeable, and many of the officials involved in the talks began to worry.

From the very start of a strategy session on Jan. 13, at the Old Executive Office Building, an annex to the White House, officials from the Departments of Justice and Treasury and lawyers representing cities that had filed lawsuits saw the tension firsthand.

First, in a raised and angry voice, Mr. Spitzer berated a plan by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to play a central role in monitoring gun industry compliance with any deal. Later, he rejected a suggestion by Mr. Cuomo that Mr. Spitzer expand the negotiating team he had formed to include representatives of HUD, the White House and other cities that had filed lawsuits.
Eight days ahead was the much-anticipated Las Vegas meeting, where Mr. Spitzer envisioned a personal triumph -- finally starting to pull the deal together. But if Mr. Cuomo swelled the ranks of those at the table, Mr. Spitzer warned, it would all fall apart.

''Wait a minute,'' Mr. Spitzer said in an interview last week, recalling the conversation. ''The Vegas meeting won't work if we have 25 people there.'' He said he challenged Mr. Cuomo, asking, ''How as secretary of HUD are you any more qualified than the attorney general of New York and our negotiating team to represent the interest of the parties?''

Several witnesses said later that they felt Mr. Spitzer had been out of line. ''There has been much more interaction between the cities and the secretary of HUD than with the attorney general of the Empire State,'' Mayor Scott King of Gary, Ind., recalls saying in Mr. Cuomo's defense. ''Sure, New York is a big place, but now he was in an even bigger sandbox,'' a Clinton administration official, who asked not to be named, said of Mr. Spitzer. A lawyer who attended the meeting added, ''He should have recognized immediately that he needed to establish a cooperative relationship and figure out what his niche should be instead of beating his head against the Washington wall.''

For a brief moment, Mr. Spitzer re-established his commanding role when the lead gun-industry negotiator, Robert T. Delfay of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, insisted that while gun makers welcomed his attendance at the Las Vegas meeting, they did not want Clinton administration representatives there.

''All they were looking for was an opportunity to stand before a microphone and say look at what we have done,'' Mr. Delfay said. ''As far as Mr. Cuomo was concerned, the motivations were 100 percent political.''

In a conference call among the gun control advocates and federal officials, Mr. Spitzer argued for the negotiations to go forward. But federal officials and other cities decided that no one should attend the meeting because it would signal that the gun makers had dictated who would negotiate for them.

Much to Mr. Spitzer's frustration, the Las Vegas meeting was canceled. Mr. Cuomo secretly made the next move, underscoring the break with Mr. Spitzer and assuming the dominant role that would lead to the settlement.

Mr. Cuomo directed his deputy general counsel, Max Stier, to call Mr. Shultz of Smith & Wesson to pursue a deal. This time, HUD insisted on new conditions, a federal official said.

''He explicitly said this has to be absolutely confidential,'' a federal official said. And in a later conversation, Mr. Shultz, according to a federal official, said that ''in our talks with Eliot, they became talks out in the press,'' implying that Mr. Spitzer should be excluded to avoid leaks to the news media.

Mr. Shultz denied in an interview that he had ever made such a request. And Mr. Spitzer rejects any suggestion that he had been a source of news leaks. In reality, some of Mr. Spitzer's backers said, Mr. Cuomo had his own reason for cutting Mr. Spitzer out: an effort to gain more attention for himself.

By late February, Mr. Spitzer had got wind of the secret talks. He was furious. He telephoned officials at all levels, at HUD, the White House and the Treasury Department, demanding an invitation to the talks. Finally, on March 6, he dispatched an angry, six-page letter to Bruce Reed, the director of domestic policy at the White House.

''Through a series of press announcements, the administration invited itself into the negotiations, only to have the gun manufacturers refuse to meet with you,'' Mr. Spitzer wrote. ''Now it seems that solidarity is a one-way street. In secret, with select manufacturers, the Departments of Treasury and Housing and Urban Development restarted the very negotiations that you, personally, asked our group to eschew.''

To make matters worse, Mr. Spitzer said, once he complained to the White House, no one returned his calls, but Mr. Cuomo's office began to contact the cities to brief them on the effort.

''I hope you understand that we can differentiate between genuine teamwork and the ploy of someone caught with his hand in the cookie jar,'' Mr. Spitzer wrote.

Mr. Spitzer was so angry, a federal official said, that he threatened to torpedo the talks by leaking word of it to the news media unless they included him. Mr. Spitzer denies ever making such a threat. His objections went unanswered and they soon became moot.

Smith & Wesson agreed to the code of conduct. And then Mr. Cuomo won a $60 bet with Mr. Shultz by persuading about 15 of the local governments to sign off on the settlement.

For his part, Mr. Cuomo played down any tension and praised Mr. Spitzer. ''There was never any tension between the two of us personally,'' he said. Mr. Spitzer admits some frustration. ''It is like a running back who takes the ball 90 yards and then somebody else steps in and takes it over the goal,'' Mr. Spitzer said. ''You want to carry the ball across the line.''

Since the agreement was signed, the political jockeying for center stage has continued, practically unabated. Mr. Spitzer rolled out a campaign to persuade local and state governments to give preference to Smith & Wesson guns, unless other companies sign the deal. Two days later, Mr. Cuomo, having teamed with two cities Mr. Spitzer thought he had already recuited, announced his own campaign for governments to buy only from Smith & Wesson.

Several political observers said the rivalry was not likely to end soon, with Mr. Spitzer and Mr. Cuomo continuing to struggle for attention on the New York political stage.

''Gun control is just an incidental tableau,'' said a Democrat who represents New York in Congress.

*************************************

[Thumper]

I have a question. If a boycott of S&W somehow does manage to put the company out of business (however not likely) wouldn't that be a win for the anti-gun crowd?

The boycott very nearly did put Smith out of business...look it up.

Think of it this way, if you develop testicular cancer, do you keep your boys because they served you well for years? Or do you lop 'em off cause if you keep them they'll kill you?

Think on it.

[Zander]

Breaks my heart that a rung on Spitzer's ladder to the governership of the Peoples' Republic of New York broke and dumped him on his all-left brain. Maybe he can score a few points by making sure that Martha Stewart gets to make license plates.

What the heck...no honor among thieves.

[Mr. James]

Anyone who thinks this agreement was the work of a desperate gun-maker breaking the surface and gasping for air just isn't paying attention.

I know for a fact that, aside from his abundant other qualifications to comment, Mike Irwin likes S&W revolvers. On a grossly less informed level, so do I. But Mike and others recognize this was a willing assault by S&W against our God-given rights. For heaven's sake, re-read the agreement! S&W wasn't raped, they put on the CFMPs and perfume and went to the dance.

I can think of a baker's dozen S&W revolvers I'd love to call my own. In the immortal words of Dana Carvey, "not gonna do it...wouldn't be prudent."

Mike, pax, others - thanks for reminding us of what a malignancy this agreement was, and IS.

That article from the New York Crimes. Blech. I need a shower. It's like being a fly on the wall for the Stalin-Hitler negotiations to carve up central Europe. Commence emesis.

[sm]

OneShot: "
...I didn't even hear about the whole issue until after I had made my purchase..,"
______
IMO,
The drive of "actions" boil down to sex, money and greed. It is my responsibility to be responsible for me, in anything. I use THR/TFL and various resources to assist in what I feel is responsible-for me

Naturally having been around and my life experiences, one is going to want you to buy what he stocks, he will not volunteer anything negative about himself, products or services...he will berate his competitor.

Mike Irwin , and pax are better at expressing with words than I. I agree with and have no fault with Mike's works on the subject.pax - as usual , expresses it concise and I agree.

I only buy the OLD S&W revolvers, first because IMO the quality went down, Second, because of the agreement--matter of principal. If next week all is well and good...I still will not buy. The quality, and I don't trust people, I remember, and I don't forget nor forgive easy.

Let it stand as a lesson , a caveat, to others. The reality is S&W doesn't know me, I die tommorrow why should they care? If being responsible, not supporting them, keeping abreast of this and other efforts that step on my rights is all that people remember...well maybe a memory will last of me for 2 or 3 seconds,and maybe in that 3 second time period someone chooses to be informed and responsible.

I could care less about bling bling, I can't write like Irwin or pax, I have no idea how some guns work, know the model #'s and doo dads. I ain't that smart. I keep it simple, My rights are important--period. Hard-headed people like me will be around fighting and doing what we can...I leave the other stuff to the better educated. I am fighting--in my way, first I stay informed, ask questions, and bug the fire out of people for resources and answers.

I adimit it, Irwin is 10 years younger...but a bunch smarter.

[NukemJim]

A question please.


Since the agreement ( which I have read, albeit a while back ) is not law and cannot be repealled what is the mechanism for killing it?

Can S&W just say " we withdraw" ( Vast oversimplification I am sure ), do they have to go to court, does the Gov have to agree to cancel it?

I am not asking if we should get the agreement killed I am asking HOW it could be done, or is the only way to eliminate the agreement is to elimante S&W ?

Thank you

NukemJim

[Leaky Waders]

Most of us - me included - are too hard-headed to agree on this...as I leave this thread...ponder this...

when you buy a 'standard capacity' magazine,

weapon with a gun lock,

weapon on an approved list within your state,

wait 3-5 days for a cool down period before picking up your purchase,

purchase a politically correct AR like rifle,

sell only to an ffl dealer,

perform background checks....

Are you by default debasing everyones second amendment rights? Shouldn't you be boycotted as well...for passively following these 'agreements'? Yes? No?

See that's the same predicament S&W and everyone else is in...the government, our government, elected by us, who represents us, is trampling our constitutional rights. Instead of focussing efforts for goverment reform - the perpetrators of the rights limitations - we bash those who are coerced into doing whats politically correct.

It's very easy for people to say I would do this or that. It's very different when it's your livlihood at stake.

I would argue that the gunlock issue is a huge part of the agreement. See how many other non-signers jumped on the gunlock bandwagon to be pc? You can bet your tail that they are r&d'ing 'smart guns' too. Do they produce high capacity magazines and distribute them despite the ban? If and when a smart gun comes along...it won't only be a S&W...you will see a taurus, ruger, remington, and beretta smart gun hit the shelf within the same quarter.

The real problem is how the second amendment is interpretted - I think if the issue is brought before the supreme court - and S&W wins...all gun owners will win a huge victory. Until then, we as americans will be divided and the take out our frustrations on organizations that have a legacy of supporting our rights based upon a long track record.

Wow...that strengthens us...Lincoln spoke of houses divided...this one barely has a stud to place a beam upon.

Thank you for your discussion,

V/R,

LW

[Redhawk1]

Leaky Waders, well put. I love my Smith & Wesson's, Ruger's and I am a Life member of the NRA. The boycotts will not work. And yes I sat and read all of this thread. Very interesting.

[Thumper]

Love 'em all you want. Smith has failed to repudiate this abomination of an agreement. It is still legally binding. It has the effect of law on manufacturers who never signed it.

Do you understand that the agreement effectively will do more to limit your gun rights that Charles Schumer ever did?

Do you really understand?

We'll revisit this thread during the next Dem's presidency.

[jdmb03]

Relax Thumper. Not everyone has the same thoughts as you. Some people do have their own opinions.

[Lone_Gunman]

jdmb03,


Too bad everyone doesnt have Thumper's thoughts, though.

As Thumper said, wait til the next Democrat is President, and you will see.

[Thumper]

Relax Thumper. Not everyone has the same thoughts as you. Some people do have their own opinions

Of course they do...and it's not unheard of for them to be able to back those opinions up.

Perhaps you'd care to explain why you do or do not support the agreement?

[jdmb03]

I don't support the agreement, but I also think boycotting S&W is not the answer. In my opinion if you boycott a gun company you are no better than the anti-gun people. Their has to be a better solution to the problem other than trying to put a gun company out of business.

[Thumper]

Alright...nice start. What do you propose?

[jdmb03]

I've read some strong opinions on this thread. Has anyone taken their opinions directly to S&W? Send emails? Talk directly to the head people at Smith?

S&W is a business and when they signed the agreement that is what they were thinking. Businesses want to make money, and if that means making compromises, that is what they will do.
I don't think Smith had the intention of saying "To all of our loyal customers we don't care about you".

[Thumper]

I've read some strong opinions on this thread. Has anyone taken their opinions directly to S&W? Send emails? Talk directly to the head people at Smith?

Partner, I don't know how to say this without sounding mean...

Have you even read this thread?

Yes, emails were sent. Saf-T-Hammer officials were spoken with...at length. Smith and Wesson sales dropped over 60%, possibly more. They came very near to bankruptcy. I assure you, they were aware of the public's anger.

This boycott is the single largest issue that has ever effected S&W. It was front page news on The Wall Street Journal.

How do you propose to argue this very important issue when you don't seem to even understand the basic facts?

Can you perhaps understand some of my frustration?

[Redhawk1]

Thumper, for argument sake, say all of us boycotted Smith & Wesson, then Ruger, and they go out of business. What did we accomplish? Nothing! We would fall into the anti-gunners hands and they would thank us. NOT ME!! Instead of a boycott get with the gun makers and find a salutation to the problem. You seam to voice your opinion loud, get people to rally with you to find a solution. Boycotting is not the answer. We all make business decisions to keep in business, it may not always be the best decision but at least one was made.

[Frenchy]

Have you actually taken the time to read the agreement? Be honest.

I have read the agreement more than once Thumper (twice), and you had to peel me off the ceiling when I read it. In fact if you search around various old forum threads, I was pro-boycott very early on.
It was after I cooled off (took some time), that putting a gun company out of business wasn't in my (pro-gun) best interest.
I don't have the answer, but jdmb03 has at least part of it.

I don't think Smith had the intention of saying "To all of our loyal customers we don't care about you".

Nor do I think Bill Ruger did either.

[Thumper]

Thumper, for argument sake, say all of us boycotted Smith & Wesson, then Ruger, and they go out of business. What did we accomplish? Nothing!

Two things, Redhawk:

1.) The boycott is to encourage S&W to repudiate the agreement, not go out of business.

2.) If they DO go out of business, the agreement is no longer enforceable.

Let me ask you to do this...

Describe a gunstore as you see it under the HUD agreement.

Do you understand that there would BE very few gunstores? Do you realize that there would be no more gunshows? Do you realize most of the guns you like would no longer be available?

Please Redhawk...with the agreement in place as you understand it, describe your favorite gunstore. Buy a couple of revolvers in your scenario. I'm waiting...

[jdmb03]

Yes, I understand "the basic facts", they have been said several times over and over again on this thread.

When the emails were sent, was it to the old owners or the new owners? From what I understand the new owners are trying to make changes with the company.

You stated S&W almost came close to bankruptcy, is that a good thing in your opinion?

I can understand why people are frustrated. It is not easy seeing some of your rights as an american taking away by the government. Gun makers are always a target of politicians.

Smith was making a compromise of how to keep the government and the people happy without going out of business.

[Thumper]

jdmb03, your use of the past tense to describe the situation betrays your misunderstanding.

Is a major manufacturor going out of business a bad thing for gun rights? Superficially, yes.

Unfortunately, a superficial glance at a complex issue begets a superficial understanding.

The agreement is still viable. A repudiation of that agreement can only be effected by financial means.

If you examine the ramifications of that agreement, I think you'll find them intollerable.

Oh well, gun owners reap what they sow...

[another okie]

Any agreement can be rescinded if all the parties to the original agreement agree to rescind it, unless some court has approved it. In that case all the parties have to go to court and tell the court they all agree, and the court rescinds the agreement. I have broken several estate planning trusts this way.

As far as this agreement goes, I think the boycott has been successful. The management that made the agreement is gone. The company was nearly bankrupted. The current management doesn't even admit that the agreement still exists, which just shows you how locked into denial people can be.

We are never going to get everything we want, and I suspect we have gotten all out of S & W we are ever going to get. They are terrified of drawing fire in Congress if they actively seek to end the agreement, and we have all seen that Bush lacks the courage to stand up against the media for the Second Amendment, though he's far better than the alternative.

In any practical terms, the boycott is over and we won.

I'm still not willing to buy a S & W, though there are about four of them I would surely like, but I think those of us who still feel that way need to recognize that you cannot carry on a boycott forever and there are always going to be people unwilling to accept any inconvenience or bar to their wishes no matter the consequences. Let's declare victory and move on. If Hillary is elected, or pretty much any of the Demos except Dean, this agreement will be the least of our problems.

[jdmb03]

Well said, okie.

I guess we all have opinions that will or will not affect our thoughts on S&W. This never ending thread will just go back and fourth with "I agree" and "I don't agree".

That being said, I will always support an american company that offers me great products as Smith and Wesson does. :)

[Old Fuff]

Okie: "Any agreement can be rescinded if all the parties to the original agreement agree to rescind it."

Yes indeed, but the anti-gun plaintiffs have never offered to do this. Maybe they will in the future, but the haven’t so far.

Okie: “--- unless some court has approved it. In that case all the parties have to go to court and tell the court they all agree, and the court rescinds the agreement.”

The agreement is now part of a court order. This is the reason S&W cannot “rescind” the agreement without the approval of the other parties. In addition, not all of the plaintiffs signed “the agreement” and their suits are still pending in some cases.

Okie: “I have broken several estate planning trusts this way.”

I presume after all the parties agreed to go along with what you wanted. You couldn’t simply say, “I’m out, forget all of this.” If you and I simply agreed to something you might, but not if our “agreement” became a court order – which the S&W Agreement did.

Put simply, it was an out-of-court settlement. When some (not all) of the parties (including the then owners of S&W) signed the Agreement it was presented to the court, which then issued it as an order. If you read the Agreement document you will find a pretty inclusive section on compliance and enforcement. Fortunately the plaintiffs haven’t invoked it.

[benewton]

I'm still not buying new, but, I guess, when you think of it, buying late models increases their value, and thus the price and desirability of the new models.

There are situations in which you cannot win, no matter what you do...


As a side comment, old closets are getting cleaned, due to the weather, and, lo and behold, the old packaging for my 4516 shows up from the female controlled portion of the home. (With the STRONG suggestion that it go somewhere else in the male controlled portion of the known universe. She points, I go; we all know how that one works!)

Anyway, looked at the documentation that came with it, since it's been off line since I managed the USPc, and, lo and behold, it came with a fired cartridge.

Which was a 9mm NATO.


There have got to be some good guys over there, but, as I said, sometimes you just can't tie, much less win, and nobody ever said that it was fair. So, for me, no S&W.