rrader
member
Is the Smith & Wesson boycott over the "Agreement" ended or are folks still not buying new S&W products untill the new management officially renounces it.
Smith & Wesson Boycott
- Thread starter rrader
- Start date
- Status
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
It depends on who you ask. Expect this to turn into a long-winded debate soon.
One side says the boycott was a bad idea because it's only hurting our own. There is some wisdom in this, I think, but I also think we do more harm by letting the precedent be established that there are no consequences for betraying gun owners.
Many say that the company is in American hands now, and that's good enough. I emphatically disagree.
Many say that the agreement never went into effect because a judge didn't sign it. That never passed muster with the lawyers here or at TFL and I have my own doubts. It would be welcome news, but if it's true you'd expect Smith and Wesson to announce it. And most agreements between two parties don't require the signature of a judge to be valid, after all.
Finally, many have said that because the Bush administration has not enforced the agreement, they've officially defaulted on it and Smith and Wesson will be able to use that in court to avoid complying if future administrations attempt to enforce it. Again, I really doubt that is the case.
I think it's clear that in many people's minds, the boycott was a temporary thing more about making themselves heard than anything else. Now that the message has been sent, they reason, it's time to ease off. For better or for worse, people are buying Smith and Wesson again. Not me, but I'm probably in the minority. I'd like to see public renunciation of the agreement before I start throwing my money at Smith and Wesson again.
One side says the boycott was a bad idea because it's only hurting our own. There is some wisdom in this, I think, but I also think we do more harm by letting the precedent be established that there are no consequences for betraying gun owners.
Many say that the company is in American hands now, and that's good enough. I emphatically disagree.
Many say that the agreement never went into effect because a judge didn't sign it. That never passed muster with the lawyers here or at TFL and I have my own doubts. It would be welcome news, but if it's true you'd expect Smith and Wesson to announce it. And most agreements between two parties don't require the signature of a judge to be valid, after all.
Finally, many have said that because the Bush administration has not enforced the agreement, they've officially defaulted on it and Smith and Wesson will be able to use that in court to avoid complying if future administrations attempt to enforce it. Again, I really doubt that is the case.
I think it's clear that in many people's minds, the boycott was a temporary thing more about making themselves heard than anything else. Now that the message has been sent, they reason, it's time to ease off. For better or for worse, people are buying Smith and Wesson again. Not me, but I'm probably in the minority. I'd like to see public renunciation of the agreement before I start throwing my money at Smith and Wesson again.
Folks, you need to understand something. When the “old†Smith & Wesson management signed the infamous agreement it was filed with the court. After that it became in effect an “order of the court.†It contains an enforcement provision that compels the court to enforce the agreement if the plaintiffs file a motion asking it too do so. Smith & Wesson’s “new†owners cannot, by themselves, disavow, repudiate or void the agreement. The Bush Administration has no authority to dismiss the agreement because the plaintiffs include a number of cities and at least two states. So long as no one makes a move the agreement will be moot, but if the plaintiffs get ticked off and make a move they’re could be an ugly battle, and a good likelihood the court would rule against the company. Just fighting the war would probably financially ruin them. Right now the company’s management is walking on eggshells and hoping for the best.
Now I have no love for the company’s previous owners, or for the Clinton Administration’s anti-gun so-called “Justice Department†that was behind all of this. But it is hardly fair to ask the new American owners too do something that they can’t.
Now I have no love for the company’s previous owners, or for the Clinton Administration’s anti-gun so-called “Justice Department†that was behind all of this. But it is hardly fair to ask the new American owners too do something that they can’t.
In theory, yes. Unless the parties negotiate another settlement, which would also have to be filed with the court. Or S&W’s current owners could go into court and ask that the previous settlement (agreement) be declared to be null and void because it was forced as part of a conspiracy (which is true, but they’d have too prove it). The plaintiffs would answer that there was no conspiracy, that the present owners knew what their obligations were when they bought the company, and as such they must follow the agreement’s provisions, which they are not. The plaintiffs would then ask that the court enforce the agreement and find the company to be in contempt of court.
If enough time passes, (and by this I mean years), and the plaintiffs make no effort to enforce the agreement a court might could rule in favor of the company, but then again they might not – all of this is going on in the anti-gun Northeast. If you read the “agreement†you will find an iron-clad enforcement clause, and no time limit. You will also find that the name “Smith and Wesson†is only mentioned in the heading. The document is a boilerplate intended to be imposed on the entire handgun industry. We are very lucky it didn’t happen.
If enough time passes, (and by this I mean years), and the plaintiffs make no effort to enforce the agreement a court might could rule in favor of the company, but then again they might not – all of this is going on in the anti-gun Northeast. If you read the “agreement†you will find an iron-clad enforcement clause, and no time limit. You will also find that the name “Smith and Wesson†is only mentioned in the heading. The document is a boilerplate intended to be imposed on the entire handgun industry. We are very lucky it didn’t happen.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
As long as that agreement stands, Smith & Wesson isn't going to get any of my dollars. The new owners need to square things up with the Second Amendment.
haven't we been here before? The agreement isn't standing because the Bush administration isn't enforcing it. It becomes moot after several years of this, but we need somebody to check with a federal lawyer to see how many years it takes.
Standing Wolf:
I would certainly agree that you and others have an absolute right to decide which companies you will do business with. And as long as Thompson PLC owned S&W I didn’t buy any of that company’s products. But this does not change the fact that the present Smith & Wesson management/owners are in a weak legal position. They can challenge the “agreement,†but only at great risk to themselves, while those who were responsible get away free and clear. Given that this “agreement†is in effect a court order the likely result of any legal challenge by the company would be to commit economic suicide. The courts in the Northeast are not as a rule, very friendly to firearms, or the firearms industry. At the present time the number of “American†companies left in the handgun business is growing less and less. Do we want to see even fewer and become dependent on Europeans? I for one, don’t.
I would certainly agree that you and others have an absolute right to decide which companies you will do business with. And as long as Thompson PLC owned S&W I didn’t buy any of that company’s products. But this does not change the fact that the present Smith & Wesson management/owners are in a weak legal position. They can challenge the “agreement,†but only at great risk to themselves, while those who were responsible get away free and clear. Given that this “agreement†is in effect a court order the likely result of any legal challenge by the company would be to commit economic suicide. The courts in the Northeast are not as a rule, very friendly to firearms, or the firearms industry. At the present time the number of “American†companies left in the handgun business is growing less and less. Do we want to see even fewer and become dependent on Europeans? I for one, don’t.
rrader
member
S&W needs to lobby heavily to get a provision in the lawsuit preemption bill added that declares all such agreements null and void. As a Massachusetts company however they aren't going to have much pull with the Republican Senate and House.
S&W also needs to move out of a state (MA) where most of the politicians would be happy to see them go out of business or move. No reason for them to stick in Springfield, MA when South Carolina would give them big tax breaks to attract them.
If the non-enforced agreement with S&W is enough to continue the boycott then why does Ruger get a pass? Bill Ruger helped write the legislation that resulted in the limitations on magazine capacity.
Also, where does this leave the buyer looking for an American-made revolver? Taurus is a Brazilian company no doubt subsidized by the marxist government down there.
That leaves Dan Wesson or buying used.
S&W also needs to move out of a state (MA) where most of the politicians would be happy to see them go out of business or move. No reason for them to stick in Springfield, MA when South Carolina would give them big tax breaks to attract them.
If the non-enforced agreement with S&W is enough to continue the boycott then why does Ruger get a pass? Bill Ruger helped write the legislation that resulted in the limitations on magazine capacity.
Also, where does this leave the buyer looking for an American-made revolver? Taurus is a Brazilian company no doubt subsidized by the marxist government down there.
That leaves Dan Wesson or buying used.
Arlin:
Contrary to what many think the Federal Government was never a litigant in the lawsuits, and the Bush Administration is not under any obligation to enforce the settlement that brought about the “agreement†with Smith and Wesson. While the Department of Housing and Urban Renewal and the BATF were named in the settlement (agreement) they were never plaintiffs. Some 30 cities and 2 or so states were. At any time they wish they, and only they, can bring an action to force Smith & Wesson into compliance. So far they haven’t done so, and I’d like to see it stay that way.
Contrary to what many think the Federal Government was never a litigant in the lawsuits, and the Bush Administration is not under any obligation to enforce the settlement that brought about the “agreement†with Smith and Wesson. While the Department of Housing and Urban Renewal and the BATF were named in the settlement (agreement) they were never plaintiffs. Some 30 cities and 2 or so states were. At any time they wish they, and only they, can bring an action to force Smith & Wesson into compliance. So far they haven’t done so, and I’d like to see it stay that way.
Zander
member
They most certainly can repudiate the agreement. And I'm not interested in any back-channel communications or "stays" of the agreement.
The current management is on the brink of a huge increase in business; all that is lacking is for them to state...publicly...that the agreement was not only a terrible business decision but is in direct contravention of the Constitution.
No company should enable the institution of fascism in its industry; nothing good can ever come of such a decision...the lawyers be damned.
If you want to be comforted, spend your time on the S&W board; if you're looking for the truth, you're in the correct place.
IMO...
rrader:
While the legislation now in Congress will effect pending and future lawsuits they will not overturn cases that were settled before the passage of such legislation – if it does indeed pass and become law in the future. Such a law would stop this kind of abuse from continuing, but that is all. If an amendment was proposed to provide relief for Smith & Wesson the most likely result we be an immediate action on the part of the plaintiffs – or some of them – to force S&W into compliance.
You are right, we are moving into an time when the American Handgun Industry is largely made up of many small, financially weak companies rather then three or so large ones. The time will come when the liberal Democrats take control of the Federal Government again, just as in the recent past the Republicans took power from them. When that happens the many small companies will be more vulnerable to political attack. Eliminating our own major players hardly seems like a good idea. In the end our own handgun buyers may accomplish what Bill Clinton couldn’t.
While the legislation now in Congress will effect pending and future lawsuits they will not overturn cases that were settled before the passage of such legislation – if it does indeed pass and become law in the future. Such a law would stop this kind of abuse from continuing, but that is all. If an amendment was proposed to provide relief for Smith & Wesson the most likely result we be an immediate action on the part of the plaintiffs – or some of them – to force S&W into compliance.
You are right, we are moving into an time when the American Handgun Industry is largely made up of many small, financially weak companies rather then three or so large ones. The time will come when the liberal Democrats take control of the Federal Government again, just as in the recent past the Republicans took power from them. When that happens the many small companies will be more vulnerable to political attack. Eliminating our own major players hardly seems like a good idea. In the end our own handgun buyers may accomplish what Bill Clinton couldn’t.
Zander:
Perhaps I failed to make myself clear. Smith & Wesson can indeed publicly “ disavow, repudiate or void the agreement.†However such an act would have no legal standing. Saying it’s so wouldn’t make it so, and the most likely response would be to invite a lawsuit by the plaintiffs to force compliance – one they would likely win. If you are outraged by this be assured I am too. While you may “damn the lawyers†the fact is that the plaintiffs in this affair hold most of the cards and are in control of the playground.
While I share your observations about the unconstitutionally of what has happened and understand the basis of your opinions – which are certainly not unpopular here – I would suggest that it is easy to hold a view when it doesn’t represent any liability or hardship to oneself. Smith & Wesson’s owners must see the situation in what for them, is a more realistic light.
Perhaps I failed to make myself clear. Smith & Wesson can indeed publicly “ disavow, repudiate or void the agreement.†However such an act would have no legal standing. Saying it’s so wouldn’t make it so, and the most likely response would be to invite a lawsuit by the plaintiffs to force compliance – one they would likely win. If you are outraged by this be assured I am too. While you may “damn the lawyers†the fact is that the plaintiffs in this affair hold most of the cards and are in control of the playground.
While I share your observations about the unconstitutionally of what has happened and understand the basis of your opinions – which are certainly not unpopular here – I would suggest that it is easy to hold a view when it doesn’t represent any liability or hardship to oneself. Smith & Wesson’s owners must see the situation in what for them, is a more realistic light.
rebbryan
Member
what's "the agreement"?
benewton
Member
Not that I buy all that many weapons in any given year, and the next on the list are most probably shotties or an upper or two, the reason I went with the boycot was S&W's belly up signon to that "agreement".
When that changes, which is to say, at the point that the agreement cannot be enforced against S&W, and, note that I mean cannot, as opposed to isn't, then I'll consider new S&W purchases.
'till then, I've seen no change in the situation, and so have no reason to reconsider my decision.
By the way, Don, given that my opinions about anything are always in the minority, I'd say we're sailing on alone. Sorry about that!
When that changes, which is to say, at the point that the agreement cannot be enforced against S&W, and, note that I mean cannot, as opposed to isn't, then I'll consider new S&W purchases.
'till then, I've seen no change in the situation, and so have no reason to reconsider my decision.
By the way, Don, given that my opinions about anything are always in the minority, I'd say we're sailing on alone. Sorry about that!
Monte Harrison
Member
Check out http://www.seark.net/~jlove/devildeal.htm
Also, to get a lot more commentary on The Agreement, do a Google search on "smith wesson deal with devil".
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Precisely. Smith & Wesson has taken no action, and clearly hopes we'll just conveniently forget all about its having hopped into bed with the Snopes Clinton-Liar Gore régime. I haven't even read a single word of apology from the company.
Boycott is still on at my house. Most of the gunowners I talk to face to face say the same thing.
I do not think the owners of Smith and Wesson go to bed at night feeling guilty that the way they purchased the company guaranteed the continued existance of the agreement.
They should.
If they go out of business because of me, Don, benwton, and Standing Wolf (and a few hundred thousand other thick headed mean spirited gun owners) I will toast their demise with a fine glass of wine.
I expect their CNC machinery would sit idle for about two months before a new owner reopened the all new Smythe and Wesson Firearms.
I do not think the owners of Smith and Wesson go to bed at night feeling guilty that the way they purchased the company guaranteed the continued existance of the agreement.
They should.
If they go out of business because of me, Don, benwton, and Standing Wolf (and a few hundred thousand other thick headed mean spirited gun owners) I will toast their demise with a fine glass of wine.
I expect their CNC machinery would sit idle for about two months before a new owner reopened the all new Smythe and Wesson Firearms.
Sir Galahad
member
Well, you may be toasting the end of firearms, too. Once American gunmakers go out of business, it'll be pretty easy to stop the importation of firearms, particularly handguns. It would actually be a relatively easy thing to do. Why do you think Norinco cannot import AKs here anymore, even done up like the Romanian SARs? Most overseas manufacturers make their money from military and security contracts. The U.S. private firearms market is just gravy, by and large. So, drink up. 
One nice thing about Capitalism is the incentive to fill available niches in the marketplace.
If Ford went out of business there would not be less cars on the market for long. Why would the gun industry respond differently? There have been new rifle manufacurers come into the marketplace in the last decade. Several in Illinois. Small manufacturers. The ones excelling in quality are prospering.
Smith and Wesson's demise would not be the death knell of the handgun industry. It would most likely be nothing more than the opportunity for the same property transaction that took place a few years ago to occur again, this time without the agreement.
They would have to change the logo stamped on the sideplate, and have the catalogs reprinted. I would be willing to adjust.
If Ford went out of business there would not be less cars on the market for long. Why would the gun industry respond differently? There have been new rifle manufacurers come into the marketplace in the last decade. Several in Illinois. Small manufacturers. The ones excelling in quality are prospering.
Smith and Wesson's demise would not be the death knell of the handgun industry. It would most likely be nothing more than the opportunity for the same property transaction that took place a few years ago to occur again, this time without the agreement.
They would have to change the logo stamped on the sideplate, and have the catalogs reprinted. I would be willing to adjust.
rrader
member
Folks: If you're boycotting S&W are you also boycotting Ruger? Bill Ruger help write the magazine capacity limitation legislation.
If so that pretty much leaves Charter2000 or used for an American-made SA/DA or DAO revolver unless you have heaps of cash for a Dan Wesson (edit->) or even more for a Colt (<-end edit).
If so that pretty much leaves Charter2000 or used for an American-made SA/DA or DAO revolver unless you have heaps of cash for a Dan Wesson (edit->) or even more for a Colt (<-end edit).
Last edited:
Old Fuff, dang, I didn't know that - thanks! in any case I know folks who are still boycotting Ruger after old Bill kicked the bucket earlier this year. makes no sense to me, but it makes them feel better - I just wish I could find a Ruger .45 that fit my hand!
Dan Wessons are not all that expensive.
I have several Colts. They are adequete, some of them are quite nice. I wouldn't rush out and buy a new production Colt, they are overpriced. Lots of used colts on the market, same with Smith and Wesson.
Taurus offers a fairly broad line of handguns. The quality may be a little hit or miss, but I have had good luck with them. I really do not care if they are made in Brazil.
Ruger makes some nice handguns, too.Ruger is not hot on producing CCW pieces, but that does not make them a threat to me.
I missed the Ruger Boycott by a couple of years, and really don't see the point of punishing them now. Bill Ruger screwed us. He is dead. They have done a lot since then to promote firearm ownership.
Smith and Wesson's owners bought this company after carefull research and market analysis. They did not buy the company and then three weeks later call their lawyers and say "Hey, does that agreement mean us, too?". They took a calculated risk, betting that our attention span was about ten minutes, and our memories would fade quickly.
They purposely bought the entire company, Logo, Name Recognition, customer base, and legal entanglements intact. For a chance to make more profit faster than if they had only bought the buildings and machinery. That was their choice. They have been tippy-toeing around the agreement ever since. That is their strategy.
It lacks a certain quality to inspire respect or the desire to see them flourish.
I have several Colts. They are adequete, some of them are quite nice. I wouldn't rush out and buy a new production Colt, they are overpriced. Lots of used colts on the market, same with Smith and Wesson.
Taurus offers a fairly broad line of handguns. The quality may be a little hit or miss, but I have had good luck with them. I really do not care if they are made in Brazil.
Ruger makes some nice handguns, too.Ruger is not hot on producing CCW pieces, but that does not make them a threat to me.
I missed the Ruger Boycott by a couple of years, and really don't see the point of punishing them now. Bill Ruger screwed us. He is dead. They have done a lot since then to promote firearm ownership.
Smith and Wesson's owners bought this company after carefull research and market analysis. They did not buy the company and then three weeks later call their lawyers and say "Hey, does that agreement mean us, too?". They took a calculated risk, betting that our attention span was about ten minutes, and our memories would fade quickly.
They purposely bought the entire company, Logo, Name Recognition, customer base, and legal entanglements intact. For a chance to make more profit faster than if they had only bought the buildings and machinery. That was their choice. They have been tippy-toeing around the agreement ever since. That is their strategy.
It lacks a certain quality to inspire respect or the desire to see them flourish.
Sir Galahad
member
There comes a time when cutting off your nose to spite your face becomes counterproductive (and also leaves your face looking rather horrid, if I may say so.) Betting that there will be new American firearms manufacturers is a bet I'm not willing to stake cash on. First, many smaller companies go out of business. Second, smaller companies do not have the money to fight legal battles. It's easier for them to fold than fight an extended court case. One point: Most of the American manufacturers are not making handguns. They make rifles and shotguns. Remington, for example. They're on safe ground. For now. S&W is one of the few American companies that solely manufacture handguns. They are really the only big company making handguns exclusively. Ok, so they go out of business. Yay! Sis-boom-bah! Strike up the band. Now the companies that make handguns as a sideline to their rifles and shotguns might say it's time to stop the "self-defense" handguns to avoid lawsuits and court battles. Ruger could probably still make a decent living from downsizing and selling the 10/22 alone. The rest of the handgun makers are going to be next in line for the courtroom chopping block. Many will just say to heck with it and get out of the business and use their CNCs to make bicycle parts. So now all the handguns you find are long tom hunting handguns and Contenders. Addone high-profile shooting crime with one of those and see how long those stay on the market. Next, the importers come under attack. This will sell itself: "We have to keep these FOREIGN tools of death for American kids! They're DUMPING 'non-sporting' guns on American streets!" You think Glock and Beretta will put up with those headaches?
You can ASSUME there will be new American manufacturers to replace S&W. But who the heck in his right mind is going to want to get into an operation like S&W and deal with tons of liberals and lawyers sucking up profits with court battles? The smaller manufacturers tend to specialize. They make custom 1911s. Or custom hunting revolvers. This is not the same thing as S&W by far. Faced with a lawsuit, many of these smaller companies would go belly-up. Gunmaking is a will-o-the-wisp. In good days, it makes lots of money. In bad days, it loses lots of money. Politics being what they are, there are more bad days than good. Looking to small manufacturers to pull your fat out of the fire is akin to saying, "Darn that iceberg! Full speed ahead! We can take it! This is the Titanic! And, besides, even if something DID happen, we have enough lifeboats."
Betting that there will be new American firearms manufacturers is a bet I'm not willing to stake cash on. First, many smaller companies go out of business. Second, smaller companies do not have the money to fight legal battles. It's easier for them to fold than fight an extended court case. One point: Most of the American manufacturers are not making handguns. They make rifles and shotguns. Remington, for example. They're on safe ground. For now. S&W is one of the few American companies that solely manufacture handguns. They are really the only big company making handguns exclusively. Ok, so they go out of business. Yay! Sis-boom-bah! Strike up the band. Now the companies that make handguns as a sideline to their rifles and shotguns might say it's time to stop the "self-defense" handguns to avoid lawsuits and court battles. Ruger could probably still make a decent living from downsizing and selling the 10/22 alone. The rest of the handgun makers are going to be next in line for the courtroom chopping block. Many will just say to heck with it and get out of the business and use their CNCs to make bicycle parts. So now all the handguns you find are long tom hunting handguns and Contenders. Addone high-profile shooting crime with one of those and see how long those stay on the market. Next, the importers come under attack. This will sell itself: "We have to keep these FOREIGN tools of death for American kids! They're DUMPING 'non-sporting' guns on American streets!" You think Glock and Beretta will put up with those headaches? You can ASSUME there will be new American manufacturers to replace S&W. But who the heck in his right mind is going to want to get into an operation like S&W and deal with tons of liberals and lawyers sucking up profits with court battles? The smaller manufacturers tend to specialize. They make custom 1911s. Or custom hunting revolvers. This is not the same thing as S&W by far. Faced with a lawsuit, many of these smaller companies would go belly-up. Gunmaking is a will-o-the-wisp. In good days, it makes lots of money. In bad days, it loses lots of money. Politics being what they are, there are more bad days than good. Looking to small manufacturers to pull your fat out of the fire is akin to saying, "Darn that iceberg! Full speed ahead! We can take it! This is the Titanic! And, besides, even if something DID happen, we have enough lifeboats."
- Status
