Smith & Wesson on VCDL's "Unfreindly to Gun Owners" list


PDA






7mmsavage
March 6, 2009, 06:22 AM
I just read this and was suprised and dissapointed. Anyone else heard of this? For those unfamiliar with them, VCDL is a great organization, constantly fighting for Va gun owner's rights.

NOTE: THE NEW OWNERS HAVE DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO FIX THE EGREGIOUS AGREEMENT THE PREVIOUS OWNERS SIGNED WITH THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. OUR CALL FOR A BOYCOTT OF SMITH & WESSON STILL STANDS!

The Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. is calling for all supporters of the Second Amendment to vote with their pocket books, and refuse to purchase any products from Smith & Wesson. This boycott is the only viable course of action against a corporate management which has agreed with the Clinton administration to impose regulations on the American people which they could not get from our elected representatives. Smith & Wesson has agreed to impose on its dealers requirements that they not sell guns at gun shows when private sales occur without a background check, even though such sales would otherwise be lawful. Further, each sale of Smith & Wesson firearms must include a written certification that the purchaser has obtained training in the safe handling and storage of firearms.

A more important issue is that guns cannot be transferred as allowed under the Brady Law if the background check is not completed in the legally allowed time. One must wait for the background check to be complete, even if it is dragged out for months. Remember how the National Instant Check System was down for days on the weekend of the so called "Million Mom March?"

The sale of Smith & Wesson to a US based company is irrelevant to the issue. Neither the old company (Tompkins), nor the new company (then called Saf-T-Hammer), have done anything to void the March 17, 2000 agreement. At the February 2002 S. H. O. T. Show in Las Vegas, then Smith & Wesson President, Bob Scott, admitted to me and another activist, that the agreement is still in place, and if we get a new US President, it could immediately be enforced. Please look at the agreement to remind yourself as to how egregious is at:

http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf18/pressrel/gunagree.html

The agreement contains nearly all of the items on the gun haters wish list. Please look at the web page. If it doesn't make you angry, you are not a supporter of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. On principle, we oppose those who would ban Smith & Wesson's new gun, or any other gun. However, we hope no supporter of our gun rights will support Smith & Wesson by purchasing it, or any other of their guns, until they void the HUD agreement.

Let's be clear; Smith & Wesson cannot be allowed to hide behind the notion that we are better off that it is owned by a US company, than an UK company. So far, both companies are exactly the same; they both are supportive of the agreement they made with Clinton's HUD

If you enjoyed reading about "Smith & Wesson on VCDL's "Unfreindly to Gun Owners" list" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bill2e
March 6, 2009, 07:11 AM
Link did not work.

I see dealer selling Smiths at Gun show so that point is moot. All gun manufacture put a safty statement statement in the manual. I have not noticed a training certificate.

The only thing idon't like is the lawyer locks on the handguns. Those I will not buy.

MachIVshooter
March 6, 2009, 08:19 AM
The only thing idon't like is the lawyer locks on the handguns. Those I will not buy.

I noticed lately they've been disappearing from certain models.

SaxonPig
March 6, 2009, 08:27 AM
These people still complaining about the ill-fated "agreement" need to build a bridge and get over it. It was never fully implemented, Clinton is no longer president, and S&W changed ownership years ago. This deal was a bad idea but it was never acted on and has been forgotten by most people. If S&W tried to bring it up at this point to officially get out of it all it would cause is negative attention from the media and the anti-gun groups. Move on, already.

Old Fuff
March 6, 2009, 08:51 AM
NOTE: THE NEW OWNERS HAVE DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO FIX THE EGREGIOUS AGREEMENT THE PREVIOUS OWNERS SIGNED WITH THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. OUR CALL FOR A BOYCOTT OF SMITH & WESSON STILL STANDS!

And just how do the folks at The Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. know just what and what hasn't transpired? Smith & Wesson's position and actions have been largely dictated by the advise of they're attorneys, who might know a bit more then the VCDL. They just might have been influenced by one clause in the agreement that gave a court the power to enforce it, and it would be a sad day for everybody if this happened.

Every day people are buying Smith & Wesson handguns, and each one that does has a good reason to join us in our fight to preserve the Second Amendment, and the related right to own, use and carry handguns. By the simple act of selling guns they have made us stronger. If Smith & Wesson should go under, or cease making firearms, just who would benefit the most?

statelineblues
March 6, 2009, 09:04 AM
I seem to remember that when the new owners of Smith & Wesson took control of the company, they stated in an interview that they did not feel obligated to support the "Clinton Agreement" signed by the former owners.

ArmedBear
March 6, 2009, 09:13 AM
It seems to me that Smith and Wesson has been pretty busy supplying firearms to the growing number of civilians who have taken up concealed carry.

It also seems to me that they don't want this market to disappear. When push comes to shove, they're going to be on the side that will keep their business open.

An effective boycott wouild make damn sure that S&W's market depends on government contracts, not civilian sales. We would be screwing ourselves, and would help turn S&W into another Colt.

If you're going to refuse to buy guns from a company, why not try Colt, instead?

MAKster
March 6, 2009, 09:30 AM
Clearly the people saying we should boycott S&W have some hidden agenda. This issue is so dead I doubt anyone in the govt even remembers it existed in the first place. While it's true the agreement was never officially rescinded by the government, the likelihood that it could be enforced now is very slim. S&W never carried out any of the practices they agreed to. The government never carried out the actions they agreed to perform. The government never brought suit against S&W for not performing their end of the deal. Therefore, it can be argued that the government has waived their rights under the deal.

Hk91-762mm
March 6, 2009, 09:31 AM
S+W stock is up!
AND they make an AR-15 platform rifle!

Old Fuff
March 6, 2009, 09:51 AM
Clearly the people saying we should boycott S&W have some hidden agenda. This issue is so dead I doubt anyone in the govt even remembers it existed in the first place. While it's true the agreement was never officially rescinded by the government, the likelihood that it could be enforced now is very slim. S&W never carried out any of the practices they agreed to. The government never carried out the actions they agreed to perform. The government never brought suit against S&W for not performing their end of the deal. Therefore, it can be argued that the government has waived their rights under the deal.

An excellent summary...

But if Smith & Wesson had done what some seem to demand, and been aggressively contentious about the matter, and in effect rubbed the other side’s nose in it, they might have decided to respond in a like manner. My 20-20 hindsight says that S&W have handled the situation right. It remains to be seen what will happen now that the “other side” has a more friendly administration in Washington, but without question, events and time have weakened their position.

CoRoMo
March 6, 2009, 10:06 AM
I hope the shame still lingers thick at the HQs of S&W and Ruger for their conduct in the 90s. And I hope it makes for a different position when the next confrontation ensues.

Bubba613
March 6, 2009, 10:06 AM
S&W owners should call for a boycott of VCDL.

Acera
March 6, 2009, 10:20 AM
S&W is not as friendly to most of my 2nd amendment beliefs as I would like.


One example, look at their commercials. Only people in uniform are shown using anything semi-automatic. My impression is that they feel like the wheel guns, bolt action rifles, etc. are for citizens, but any semi-autos for military and LEO only.

It's just a mindset. But they will gladly accept the profits from civilian sales.

Hanafuda
March 6, 2009, 11:49 AM
I'll worry about this whenever S&W gets pushed into a corner over it by the federal government. The new owners bought that rotten apple along with the tree, and they can't just make it disappear at will. Furthermore, it would be idiotic & suicidal for the company to go public with a 'screw that agreement' campaign right now.

S&W makes something for just about every niche of the firearms market that I would care to own ... revolvers (including the best CCW weapon in existence IMHO), target rimfire pistol, plastic fantastics, all steel semi-autos, 1911's, and AR15. About the only things I would feel I NEED to go elsewhere for a suitable example would be a pump shotgun and a lever rifle. I don't see the S&W company as being unfriendly to me at all.

Duke of Doubt
March 6, 2009, 11:53 AM
MAKster nailed it in one.

I helped organized my then regional aspect of the very effective S&W boycott when it was owned by Burger King, and to terminate said boycott when new ownership picked up the stricken company for a song. The new owners have ignored the settlement, which is not enforceable like a commercial contract. Either party is free to walk away, and S&W clearly has. The only "enforcement" possible is to bring suit for the claims negotiated away under the settlement. Today, those claims would fail in court. The HUD deal is DEAD, and I suspect Taurus is behind the effort to smear the new pro-gun ownership of S&W.

Harve Curry
March 6, 2009, 12:06 PM
Why does S&W have to label anything M&P ?

Why not a Citizens Rifle , American, or Minuteman model.

statelineblues
March 6, 2009, 12:15 PM
Posted by Harve Curry:

Why does S&W have to label anything M&P?


Because it is recognizable and they already own the name...

jerkface11
March 6, 2009, 12:23 PM
M&P has been a S&W trademark for a century.

tinygnat219
March 6, 2009, 12:38 PM
Clearly the people saying we should boycott S&W have some hidden agenda.
Eh? HOW? Please come up with some sort of reason, or simply back off on the rumors.

This issue is so dead I doubt anyone in the govt even remembers it existed in the first place. While it's true the agreement was never officially rescinded by the government, the likelihood that it could be enforced now is very slim. S&W never carried out any of the practices they agreed to. The government never carried out the actions they agreed to perform. The government never brought suit against S&W for not performing their end of the deal. Therefore, it can be argued that the government has waived their rights under the deal

It's not as dead as people would like it to be. The signed agreement is still in place with HUD. It's on life support for one fact, the Bush administration simply didn't make it a point to enforce or even talk about. Even with the new ownership when it was sold back to an American company, that agreement could be made valid in a moment's notice with the current Obamessiah administration.

I agree it's silly to call for a boycott of S&W right now, but it's important to note that the agreement is still there and COULD be right back out in front. I also have something to ask, when was the last time anyone saw a full-court press by the VCDL to ensure that a boycott stayed strong? Easy, there hasn't been. I think the VCDL leadership isn't making a strong case for this as there hasn't been a need to under the last administration and is hedging their bets that S&W will not fold if pressured to under the agreement. If anyone feels differently, the contact information for our President is on the webpage.

Full disclosure here: I am a VCDL member and proud to be one. If there's a better, more effective organization out there that's run completely by volunteers, I have yet to even hear about it.

Hungry Seagull
March 6, 2009, 12:40 PM
I dont care what they say, I feel the S&W M&P .45 is a good gun for me.

One day our lives may depend on it.

deadin
March 6, 2009, 01:36 PM
What an arrogant, pompous bunch to assume that anyone that isn't in lock step with their program is anti 2nd.
At least it shows me another group that won't be getting any of my support dollars.

Duke of Doubt
March 6, 2009, 01:40 PM
Hear, hear.

feedthehogs
March 6, 2009, 04:36 PM
If everyone is gonna start picking at the scab again, then why not include all those gun makers with built in locks?

JR47
March 6, 2009, 05:21 PM
The locks on many handguns aren't the result of the federal government, nor any attempt by the feds on your rights. They are the result of a group that isn't bound by the Constitution, per see. They are the states. Maryland requires a fired shell casing, and an internal lock on any handgun sold in the state. I believe that New York, California, and a multitude of other states require the same types of equipment.

Smith & Wesson, the name and all properties, was sold to a new group. They aren't signatories to the original agreement, and would probably successfully resist a court challenge by the Administration. However, the idea that linton is gone, and nobody remembers the agreement is bogus. The current Attorney General, Eric Holder, had a finger in that pie, and I can assure you that he knows about it, today.

As to whether the S&W attorneys, or those of the VCDL are better is an interesting, but trivial, point. S&W, prior to the Agreement, wasn't in any danger of insolvency, and was selling weapons quite well. Yet, they entered into the agreement. So, let your paranoia run rampant about them selling out a second time.

As far as the comment about people marching in lock-step goes, we see a lot of that on these forums. You don't mouth the same pious platitudes about the Constitution and the government, and you're suspect.

searcher451
March 6, 2009, 06:51 PM
SaxonPig and others who have chimed in are correct here: This is old news, and it's not even particularly interesting news at this point. S&W has some serious issues to contend with this at the moment, including a recall of every PPK and PPK/S pistol they've manufactured from day one, a new administration in Washington, a global economic meltdown, etc. Make-work nonsense like this, and at this late date, is not worth anyone's time of day.

Spot77
March 11, 2009, 10:28 PM
Maybe a dealer here can chime in. Is this true?

Smith & Wesson has agreed to impose on its dealers requirements that they not sell guns at gun shows when private sales occur without a background check, even though such sales would otherwise be lawful. Further, each sale of Smith & Wesson firearms must include a written certification that the purchaser has obtained training in the safe handling and storage of firearms.


If that's true, then I find it kind of troublesome, and although I can't afford a nice S&W product, I'd have my doubts about buying a gun from a company that imposes restrictions far greater than most states' laws.

rscalzo
March 12, 2009, 10:30 AM
S&W is not as friendly to most of my 2nd amendment beliefs as I would like.

Have you ever seen a S&W commercial? The ones I see feature S&W being used by civilians in hunting and compertition. And yes LE because that is a big chunk of their business. If you don't like it, too bad.

Let's go ahead and try to put them out of business. One less company which will result in less choice. Get over the locks. Springfield was putting them on their 1911's.

As far as their stock, it's down 100 percent from their yearly high. Fireaqrm's companies are not doing as well as some around here beleive.

Maelstrom
March 12, 2009, 12:19 PM
Don't come down too hard on VCDL. They have done a LOT to change the laws in Virginia for the better. They've been responsible for a number of cities having to pay up for illegal laws kept in place after the state passed preemption.

This is likely the most harsh thing I've seen them put out. They're not like GOA where EVERYTHING causes panic. If they say it's bad, it more than likely is.

MikePGS
March 12, 2009, 12:23 PM
As far as their stock, it's down 100 percent from their yearly high.
...so they went bankrupt?

zoom6zoom
March 12, 2009, 05:36 PM
That's been on the VCDL page for a long time, it just hasn't been updated. VCDL is totally volunteer staffed, no paid members, there isn't anyone who maintains the website on a daily basis.

rscalzo
March 12, 2009, 06:08 PM
so they went bankrupt?

That was a bad calculation. A little over fifty percent. While most would think the firearm's companies are doing great, they really aren't.

ironvic
March 12, 2009, 06:23 PM
I've been buying Smith & Wesson guns since the Bangor-Punta days and like their product (except for some of the B-P dogs they made). I dislike the lock on my 686 Plus snubby, but, dang!, it's got a trigger as slick as any old-time S&W, so I'll keep it tucked right in my front pocket.

S&W made a deal with a corrupt administration to keep them off their back and never delivered on their end, clever. I'll keep supporting S&W, they're not the enemy. I'll vote the S&W ticket with my wallet any day. They're a far sight better than the Obama administration that I did not vote for.

jaysouth
March 12, 2009, 06:27 PM
VACL is a fine organization which has some great legislative accomplishments under its belt. I wish that TN has as aggressive gun rights org.

However, boycotting Smith over ancient history under different regimes is shortsighted. It is also difficult to think how smith could enforce a ban on gun sales at gun shows where private transactions occur. Smith does not sell to dealers, they sell to distributors who in turn sell to dealers. Such a rule could not be monitored or enforced.

I deal with Smith because I like their products and really like their free shipping on repairs. Great folks to deal with.

JohnBT
March 12, 2009, 06:55 PM
"If S&W tried to bring it up at this point to officially get out of it all it would cause is negative attention from the media and the anti-gun groups."

It would be the right thing to do. That's why.

John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Patron Member

Yellowfin
March 12, 2009, 07:17 PM
I have considerably more beef with Glock as they supply pistols at cost or less to LE agencies of states and cities of severe anti 2A inclinations.

Hardtarget
March 12, 2009, 11:44 PM
Our Federal Atty. General and the Pres.,( don't forget most of the Senate and House of Rep), are very anti gun. Don't think for one second they have forgotten that Clinton/HUD ?S&W agreement. It will come center stage when it fits the agenda. It is still there and still viable.

just my $.02

Mark

If you enjoyed reading about "Smith & Wesson on VCDL's "Unfreindly to Gun Owners" list" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!