Augustwest
Member
What dandean316 said.
Good article on ending the S&W boycott
- Thread starter SkunkApe
- Start date
- Status
What dandean316 said.
There seems to be some misunderstanding here concerning the HUD suit and the "agreement."
The suit never went to court. The new owners' actions combined with the new administration caused HUD etc. to drop the suit.
There is *no legal contract* for the next hostile administration to demand be enforced. Get it? THERE IS NO LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT. Hillary & Co. would have to file a new suit, and start negotiations all over again (with, I predict, a very different reaction from S&W.)
The only reason for S&W to "burn the (now irrelevant) agreement in public" and retool to eliminate the internal lock would be to thumb their noses at (and therefore energize) the anti-gunners. It might give you a warm fuzzy to watch them do it, but motivating your enemies to strengthen their forces and re-attack you after you have beaten them is not a great warfare strategy. Read your Sun Tzu.
Do not email me trying to convince me I'm wrong on this. You remind me of a pilot I knew once who flew his Cessna 172 into Lambert International just because he could legally do it, and wanted to show that General Aviation had rights. Controllers had to vector jumbo jets out of the way to comply with his demand to land. He infuriated hundreds of people, and predisposed them to hating General Aviation.
BTW I shoot pistols and rifles over water (or at aerial targets, for that matter)any time there's a good backstop, and will continue to do so until I'm too weak to hold a gun.
Yes, I'm a dealer, almost 100% NFA weapons. I said I could move 200 of the new .500s because I could, just as I could move 200 Corvettes a year if they had 1000 horsepower, a lifetime warranty, and a sub-$60,000 price tag.
Boycott the present S&W all you want, just don't try to get me to join in.
JR
The suit never went to court. The new owners' actions combined with the new administration caused HUD etc. to drop the suit.
There is *no legal contract* for the next hostile administration to demand be enforced. Get it? THERE IS NO LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT. Hillary & Co. would have to file a new suit, and start negotiations all over again (with, I predict, a very different reaction from S&W.)
The only reason for S&W to "burn the (now irrelevant) agreement in public" and retool to eliminate the internal lock would be to thumb their noses at (and therefore energize) the anti-gunners. It might give you a warm fuzzy to watch them do it, but motivating your enemies to strengthen their forces and re-attack you after you have beaten them is not a great warfare strategy. Read your Sun Tzu.
Do not email me trying to convince me I'm wrong on this. You remind me of a pilot I knew once who flew his Cessna 172 into Lambert International just because he could legally do it, and wanted to show that General Aviation had rights. Controllers had to vector jumbo jets out of the way to comply with his demand to land. He infuriated hundreds of people, and predisposed them to hating General Aviation.
BTW I shoot pistols and rifles over water (or at aerial targets, for that matter)any time there's a good backstop, and will continue to do so until I'm too weak to hold a gun.
Yes, I'm a dealer, almost 100% NFA weapons. I said I could move 200 of the new .500s because I could, just as I could move 200 Corvettes a year if they had 1000 horsepower, a lifetime warranty, and a sub-$60,000 price tag.
Boycott the present S&W all you want, just don't try to get me to join in.
JR
Excuse me? There is no contract? HUD threatened to file suit; HUD offered not to file suit in return for the agreement; S&W agreed.
There was an offer.
There was acceptance.
There was valid consideration (HUD got the agreement and did not sue). There is a contract.
1. No they're not back. More of the same substance-void apologist BS. Until the publicly repudiate the agreement (breach it) in writing, delivered to the gov't, the boycott will continue. There most certainly IS a contract. It's "enforceable" by the gov't if S&W breaches by the gov't doing that which they have contracted/promised not to do, to-wit, sue S&W as previously threatened. It IS enforceable in that sense, and IF there is no threat of enforcement in the event of breach, the why in the heck wouldn't S&W just breach/repudiate the darn thing??? You could not be more wrong about that. You've been listening to the apologists.
2. Is this the same John Ross who wrote "Unintended Consequences"? If so, I'm sorely disappointed in him.
3. Unlike the .357 and .44 mag, there is virtually no use for a handgun in that caliber - extemely mininal utility, if any, in most any circumstance. (I'm not knocking it in the sense that it shouldn't be made - make a .50 BMG CCW handgun for all I care - but it's nothing more than a "whose got the biggest" pissing match since Ruger made its .480). In a rifle, the cartridge may have merit, though doesn't the .50 Alaskan already cover this ground? Don't get me wrong, I want one myself (by Freedom Arms, of course) for spits & giggles, and masochistic range sessions - might even develop arm and shoulder strength in multi-shot sessions as a benefit, but why o why?
4. Jack T : ahhh, you've fallen victim to ye ole "antis want S&W out of business" fallacy. That's utter nonsense. S&W already DID go out of business once when Thompkins dumped them to Saf T Hammer. What could have happened at that time, but which didn't happen, but which now apparently must happen, is that we continue the boycott until sales suck bad enough to force them to sell the ASSETS only, and not the whole she-bang - the name, factories, patents, etc., without the liabilities - a liquidation, and of course without the agreement (or if they choose not to go down with the ship, repudiate the agreement instead). Forget what the antis want or don't want. That's irrelevant. There will be "x" supply and $$ going to revolvers and other guns that S&W currently makes. So any loss of sales to them will be made up for by $$ going to a competitor (like Taurus), so it's a zero-sum game in terms of our (and the industry's ) economic strength. Likewise, nothing's going to happen to the Smith design's - someone will always buy and own the patents/tooling/etc., and they will be available (preferably as a subdivision of Taurus ). But question is, will you give money to a management team of a company that helps take away gun rights? I submit that now that you're informed, if you continue to do so, then you're a traitor, no better than Chuck Schumer - worse, really, because you're a wolf in sheep's clothing, purporting to be the friend of gun owners. Same goes to anyone who buys S&W, of course.
"That's a .44 magnum, the most mediocre-powered handgun in the world. So, ask yourself, do you feel lucky, punk?" -Dirty Harry
2. Is this the same John Ross who wrote "Unintended Consequences"? If so, I'm sorely disappointed in him.
3. Unlike the .357 and .44 mag, there is virtually no use for a handgun in that caliber - extemely mininal utility, if any, in most any circumstance. (I'm not knocking it in the sense that it shouldn't be made - make a .50 BMG CCW handgun for all I care - but it's nothing more than a "whose got the biggest" pissing match since Ruger made its .480). In a rifle, the cartridge may have merit, though doesn't the .50 Alaskan already cover this ground? Don't get me wrong, I want one myself (by Freedom Arms, of course) for spits & giggles, and masochistic range sessions - might even develop arm and shoulder strength in multi-shot sessions as a benefit, but why o why?
4. Jack T : ahhh, you've fallen victim to ye ole "antis want S&W out of business" fallacy. That's utter nonsense. S&W already DID go out of business once when Thompkins dumped them to Saf T Hammer. What could have happened at that time, but which didn't happen, but which now apparently must happen, is that we continue the boycott until sales suck bad enough to force them to sell the ASSETS only, and not the whole she-bang - the name, factories, patents, etc., without the liabilities - a liquidation, and of course without the agreement (or if they choose not to go down with the ship, repudiate the agreement instead). Forget what the antis want or don't want. That's irrelevant. There will be "x" supply and $$ going to revolvers and other guns that S&W currently makes. So any loss of sales to them will be made up for by $$ going to a competitor (like Taurus), so it's a zero-sum game in terms of our (and the industry's ) economic strength. Likewise, nothing's going to happen to the Smith design's - someone will always buy and own the patents/tooling/etc., and they will be available (preferably as a subdivision of Taurus
). But question is, will you give money to a management team of a company that helps take away gun rights? I submit that now that you're informed, if you continue to do so, then you're a traitor, no better than Chuck Schumer - worse, really, because you're a wolf in sheep's clothing, purporting to be the friend of gun owners. Same goes to anyone who buys S&W, of course."That's a .44 magnum, the most mediocre-powered handgun in the world. So, ask yourself, do you feel lucky, punk?" -Dirty Harry
Last edited:
John R., the premises of the arguments leading to your conclusions are just flat wrong, and you are therfore embarrassing yourself:
"The suit never went to court. The new owners' actions combined with the new administration caused HUD etc. to drop the suit." [TRUE - the suit was dropped BECAUSE of the fact that a legally-binding settlement contract was entered into.]
There is *no legal contract* for the next hostile administration to demand be enforced." [UNTRUE- there is a legally binding contract, the method for enforcement of which is described in my previous post]. ".....THERE IS NO LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT." [Again, UNTRUE. Saying it in allcaps repeatedly doesn't make it true]. "Hillary & Co. would have to file a new suit, and start negotiations all over again" [YES, the gov't would have to "enforce" the agreement, the meaning of enforce being doing that which that had agreed to that, which is forego their lawsuit, which promise to not sue it's excused from, in the event of a breach/repudiation by the other party] "(with, I predict, a very different reaction from S&W.)" [Absolutely UNTRUE. There won't be ANY reaction because they WON'T be sued the next time the intimidation process starts with the courts by a Dem admin., because they're still COMPLYING WITH the agreement. You see? They're complying with the agreement in order to NOT BE sued the next time around, during the next wave of bogus lawsuits, and they're laughing at YOU for buying into their BS charade about how they can't repudiate, or whatever argument they have. It's all smoke and mirrors by them - if there were no consequences legally, then why not just repudiate it???] If you choose to bury your head, then fine - after all, you said, don't try to convince me. If you want to be like the idiot anti-gunners who refuse to listen to compelling logic, then that's your choice. But if you DO choose to listen to facts and logics, and also care about gun rights, then you'll boycott S&W. Having said that, I understand, it's difficult when it's part of making your living, as in your case, so it's somewhat understandable. Buying a S&W pesonally isn't though.
P.S. Shooting at wood floating on a river is safe IF there is a high bank on the far side, acting as a berm, and one can see all the places where a ricochet may go into said bank.
"The suit never went to court. The new owners' actions combined with the new administration caused HUD etc. to drop the suit." [TRUE - the suit was dropped BECAUSE of the fact that a legally-binding settlement contract was entered into.]
There is *no legal contract* for the next hostile administration to demand be enforced." [UNTRUE- there is a legally binding contract, the method for enforcement of which is described in my previous post]. ".....THERE IS NO LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT." [Again, UNTRUE. Saying it in allcaps repeatedly doesn't make it true]. "Hillary & Co. would have to file a new suit, and start negotiations all over again" [YES, the gov't would have to "enforce" the agreement, the meaning of enforce being doing that which that had agreed to that, which is forego their lawsuit, which promise to not sue it's excused from, in the event of a breach/repudiation by the other party] "(with, I predict, a very different reaction from S&W.)" [Absolutely UNTRUE. There won't be ANY reaction because they WON'T be sued the next time the intimidation process starts with the courts by a Dem admin., because they're still COMPLYING WITH the agreement. You see? They're complying with the agreement in order to NOT BE sued the next time around, during the next wave of bogus lawsuits, and they're laughing at YOU for buying into their BS charade about how they can't repudiate, or whatever argument they have. It's all smoke and mirrors by them - if there were no consequences legally, then why not just repudiate it???] If you choose to bury your head, then fine - after all, you said, don't try to convince me. If you want to be like the idiot anti-gunners who refuse to listen to compelling logic, then that's your choice. But if you DO choose to listen to facts and logics, and also care about gun rights, then you'll boycott S&W. Having said that, I understand, it's difficult when it's part of making your living, as in your case, so it's somewhat understandable. Buying a S&W pesonally isn't though.
P.S. Shooting at wood floating on a river is safe IF there is a high bank on the far side, acting as a berm, and one can see all the places where a ricochet may go into said bank.
I do not and never have earned my living selling Title I guns, so that is a non-issue. I make ZERO dollars selling S&Ws, because I don't sell any.
I have been told by people with more legal knowledge than I will ever have that "The Agreement" is not now a valid contract. Perhaps I am dead wrong for relaying what lawyers (completely unrelated to S&W) have told me. Won't be the first time.
I think you're expending your gun-rights energy in the wrong direction, but that's your priviledge.
In any event, I'm outta here.
JR
I have been told by people with more legal knowledge than I will ever have that "The Agreement" is not now a valid contract. Perhaps I am dead wrong for relaying what lawyers (completely unrelated to S&W) have told me. Won't be the first time.
I think you're expending your gun-rights energy in the wrong direction, but that's your priviledge.
In any event, I'm outta here.
JR
twoblink
Member
I think it's a "good faith" issue.
When I'm at a restaurant, and I get bad service, or bad food.. There are things that the manager can do (without admitting they are wrong) to rectify the situation...
I don't think SW has done those things (yet). So until they do..
When I'm at a restaurant, and I get bad service, or bad food.. There are things that the manager can do (without admitting they are wrong) to rectify the situation...
I don't think SW has done those things (yet). So until they do..
C.R.Sam
Moderator Emeritus
Quicky pickies.
Not just the handloaders n experimenters soupin the .38 Special. The 38-44 was a production cartridge and hot nuff to be high risk in some .38 Special guns.
S&W was bleeding red ink before the agreement. The boycott just intensified the situation. Giving the potential customers yet another reason to put pressure on the company. High price to quality ratio, AND the selling out to the government.
The trigger lock seems to be a design of S&W (under Tompkins owernership) and not the design of Saf T Hammer.
I have no problem with shooting water born targets and aerials IF backstop and land beyond is appropriate.
Smith was not alone in being pressured by the government to sign the agreement. Smith was the only one in the industry to give in tho.
"When I'm at a restaurant, and I get bad service, or bad food.. There are things that the manager can do (without admitting they are wrong) to rectify the situation..."....Twoblink
I agree that it is a , amongst other things, a "Good Faith" issue.
Screw me over and be notified of it. Then if an effort to correct the situation is made; I will keep track. If the situation is corrected, I will be back. If the situation is not corrected and no appearant effort is made to do so; I will not only not be back, I will attempt to educate others re the transgression.
Sam
Not just the handloaders n experimenters soupin the .38 Special. The 38-44 was a production cartridge and hot nuff to be high risk in some .38 Special guns.
S&W was bleeding red ink before the agreement. The boycott just intensified the situation. Giving the potential customers yet another reason to put pressure on the company. High price to quality ratio, AND the selling out to the government.
The trigger lock seems to be a design of S&W (under Tompkins owernership) and not the design of Saf T Hammer.
I have no problem with shooting water born targets and aerials IF backstop and land beyond is appropriate.
Smith was not alone in being pressured by the government to sign the agreement. Smith was the only one in the industry to give in tho.
"When I'm at a restaurant, and I get bad service, or bad food.. There are things that the manager can do (without admitting they are wrong) to rectify the situation..."....Twoblink
I agree that it is a , amongst other things, a "Good Faith" issue.
Screw me over and be notified of it. Then if an effort to correct the situation is made; I will keep track. If the situation is corrected, I will be back. If the situation is not corrected and no appearant effort is made to do so; I will not only not be back, I will attempt to educate others re the transgression.
Sam
Greg L
Member
Wow, I think Sam just used up a week's worth of responses right there
.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked