S&W Boycott, Now I'm confused..

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OneShot

Member
Joined
May 6, 2003
Messages
137
Location
Nor Cal
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
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. :)
 
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
 
Right here, Pax.

S&W's Agreement with the Federal Government


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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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..
 
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.
 
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
 
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."
 
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.
Click to expand...
Can anybody here confirm or refute this statement that the agreement will lapse due to the government not enforcing it ?
 
It's obvious by your comments above that if I'm not in lock step with your philosophy, I'm an ignorant dunderhead.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
A simple statement of fact.
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
This just in from S&W
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
2nd 41
2nd 41
S
  • Locked
Good article on ending the S&W boycott
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
citizen
C
Z
  • Locked
Baby Guns: NRA & S&W Spit in Anti's face's....
Replies
5
Views
832
Balog
B
T
  • Locked
Organizations???
Replies
7
Views
428
spartacus2002
spartacus2002
N
  • Locked
Yes I said it, I'm considering joining NRA
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
BBQLS1
B
Back
Top