No More S&W Mag Compatibility
- Thread starter ceestand
- Start date
- Status
Wasn't S&W owned by the Brits when the agreement was signed? And wasn't jolly 'ole England finishing up their civilian gun sweep at the time? Perhaps the former owners were s****ing their pants that if they didn't do anything they might end up with nothing? As in no company at all?
Food for thought.
Food for thought.
Mike Irwin
Member
"Of course at that time there will be all sorts of legal calisthenics peformed to delay enforcement. With the possibility of an injunction delaying the enforcement it could be business as usual for several years before it gets sorted out."
Which doesn't make a lot of sense now, does it?
Keep your head in the sand and wait until you have to take legal action with an unfriendly Government more than willing to make you burn a huge amout of money in legal fees, as opposed to working with a Justice Department whose leader presented the NRA with a letter stating that yes, almost 40 years of previous Governmental policy had been wrong, the Second Amendment IS an individual right.
How long do you think the next attorney general will be in office before that letter is retracted?
I'm betting before his butt really has a chance to warm his chair.
Which doesn't make a lot of sense now, does it?
Keep your head in the sand and wait until you have to take legal action with an unfriendly Government more than willing to make you burn a huge amout of money in legal fees, as opposed to working with a Justice Department whose leader presented the NRA with a letter stating that yes, almost 40 years of previous Governmental policy had been wrong, the Second Amendment IS an individual right.
How long do you think the next attorney general will be in office before that letter is retracted?
I'm betting before his butt really has a chance to warm his chair.
Tamara
Senior Member
Mike,
In point of fact, since the only signatory to the vile agreement is S&W, and the agreement is only enforceable through S&W distributors and dealers, how long do you think it will take for distributors and dealers to decide whether to drop S&W or instead drop all their other lines of firearms?
The agreement is a delayed suicide pact for Smith, should the government ever try to hold them to it. Until then, it is a non-factor...
In point of fact, since the only signatory to the vile agreement is S&W, and the agreement is only enforceable through S&W distributors and dealers, how long do you think it will take for distributors and dealers to decide whether to drop S&W or instead drop all their other lines of firearms?
The agreement is a delayed suicide pact for Smith, should the government ever try to hold them to it. Until then, it is a non-factor...
Mike Irwin
Member
I don't agree in the very least that it's a non-factor, Tamara.
As long as it remains in effect, but dormant, it remains a vaulable propaganda tool for antigunners, and a potental bludgeon against the industry.
And contrary to popular misbelief, I don't want to see Smith & Wesson go out of business through corporate suicide. That's why their continued inaction on this front is frustrating and perplexing. The effort needed to officlally break this agreement once and for all at the current time will be much less than the legal wranglings and basketsful of money that will be required under a hostile admistration.
It's not unlike regular maintenance on your car. You fix the small things now, when they don't cost you a lot, instead of waiting for that 29 cent seal to allow all the oil to leak out of your engine, resulting in a $3,000 rebuild.
Which course of action is the more intelligent one?
Then, of course, the Federal Government has already reneged on its stated benefices to S&W, yet the company seems perfectly content with that. As courts have ruled before, a governmental entity not holding up its end of an agreement is no concrete reason for a contract to be voided.
As long as it remains in effect, but dormant, it remains a vaulable propaganda tool for antigunners, and a potental bludgeon against the industry.
And contrary to popular misbelief, I don't want to see Smith & Wesson go out of business through corporate suicide. That's why their continued inaction on this front is frustrating and perplexing. The effort needed to officlally break this agreement once and for all at the current time will be much less than the legal wranglings and basketsful of money that will be required under a hostile admistration.
It's not unlike regular maintenance on your car. You fix the small things now, when they don't cost you a lot, instead of waiting for that 29 cent seal to allow all the oil to leak out of your engine, resulting in a $3,000 rebuild.
Which course of action is the more intelligent one?
Then, of course, the Federal Government has already reneged on its stated benefices to S&W, yet the company seems perfectly content with that. As courts have ruled before, a governmental entity not holding up its end of an agreement is no concrete reason for a contract to be voided.
Tamara
Senior Member
Mike,
Try and grok what I said:
Until it is enforced, it's a non-factor. (Find me an antigunner using it for propaganda.)
Once it is enforced, it's the death of the company, as the only effect on the gun industry will be for dealers and distributors to drop S&W like a live grenade.
You and I, who have pretty much zero interest in current S&W offerings can make mouth-music about boycotts until the sun fades to red, but it means diddly-squat. Either Smith rescinds the agreement, or it lies dormant until someone re-activates it and Smith immediately goes bankrupt. Those are the two options. There aren't any others, all chest-thumping aside...
Try and grok what I said:
Until it is enforced, it's a non-factor. (Find me an antigunner using it for propaganda.)
Once it is enforced, it's the death of the company, as the only effect on the gun industry will be for dealers and distributors to drop S&W like a live grenade.
You and I, who have pretty much zero interest in current S&W offerings can make mouth-music about boycotts until the sun fades to red, but it means diddly-squat. Either Smith rescinds the agreement, or it lies dormant until someone re-activates it and Smith immediately goes bankrupt. Those are the two options. There aren't any others, all chest-thumping aside...
3 gun
Member
You miss the third possible outcome of S&W signing the agreement. In the near future an administration unfavorable to the 2nd rules that only firearms on an approved list can be sold. Guess what only S&W has signed, so only S&W makes the list.
Far fetched? Ask the people in NJ how much they are looking forward to the first "smart gun" on the market. Ask the people in CA and MA how hard and how much more it costs to find and buy a firearm that's on an approved list.
S&W signing the agreement undermines the 2nd and the BoR like no other "business" deal I can think of at the moment.
They wanted relief from the lawsuits and an advantage in bids for government contracts when they signed agreement. In the hands of an administration willing to enforce the agreement and to further undermine the 2nd, it's a ready-made pathway.
Far fetched? Ask the people in NJ how much they are looking forward to the first "smart gun" on the market. Ask the people in CA and MA how hard and how much more it costs to find and buy a firearm that's on an approved list.
S&W signing the agreement undermines the 2nd and the BoR like no other "business" deal I can think of at the moment.
They wanted relief from the lawsuits and an advantage in bids for government contracts when they signed agreement. In the hands of an administration willing to enforce the agreement and to further undermine the 2nd, it's a ready-made pathway.
Tamara
Senior Member
3 gun,
Sorry, but that scenario is a bit far-fetched. They may as well say "Only guns with internal locks can be sold," or "Only guns with a 'Z' in the serial number and orange plastic frames can be sold."
If they passed a Federal law saying "only guns made by signatories to this agreement can be sold," then watch all the other gun companies sign on and where'd be the special opprobrium for S&W then?
That, however, is not the case, so let's not worry too much about hypotheticals, here...
Sorry, but that scenario is a bit far-fetched. They may as well say "Only guns with internal locks can be sold," or "Only guns with a 'Z' in the serial number and orange plastic frames can be sold."
If they passed a Federal law saying "only guns made by signatories to this agreement can be sold," then watch all the other gun companies sign on and where'd be the special opprobrium for S&W then?
That, however, is not the case, so let's not worry too much about hypotheticals, here...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
