The dreaded S&W lock

[buzz_knox]

What is called an agreement really wasn't. It was an out-of-court settlement, and as such was in effect a court order. That's a lot different then a simple agreement. If the current owners hadn't done what they did, when they did it, there would not be a Smith & Wesson company today.

Are you talking about the agreement with HUD or the settlement with Boston? They are two separate matters. The former is a contract with the federal government, and the latter was later thrown out.

 

[Old Fuff]

What you are calling an agreement with HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) wasn't exactly that. It was an out-of-court settelment to lawsuits brought against Smith & Wesson by approximately 32 cities and a couple of state attorney generals. After it was signed it was presented to the court that entered it into the record as a stipulation by the parties. As such it could be enforced by the court.

I have a copy of the document somewhere. If I can find it (big "IF") I will post it.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

No way; no how.

 

[buzz_knox]

We may both be in error, if S&W's recent Annual Report is correct.

We believe we are the only gun manufacturer to enter into settlement agreements with the city of Boston, the
Boston Public Health Commission, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, relating
to the manner of selling handguns. Adverse publicity regarding the settlement agreements resulted in a boycott by
certain of our dealers and customers. A number of dealers stopped carrying our products altogether, and many long
time customers began purchasing products from our competitors. Our settlement agreement with the Boston
authorities was vacated on April 8, 2002, and the HUD settlement is not being enforced.
The settlement agreement dated March 17, 2000 between us, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and HUD
has not been formally rescinded. The HUD settlement placed substantial restrictions and obligations on the
operation of our business, including restrictions on the design, manufacture, marketing, and distribution of our
firearm products. It was subsequently signed by two states and 11 cities and counties.
As of the signing of the HUD settlement, lawsuits had been filed against us by nine of the 11 cities and counties
that signed the HUDsettlement. Among other terms, the HUDsettlement provided that any city or county that was a
party to the HUD settlement and had a lawsuit pending against us would dismiss us with prejudice from its lawsuit
subject to a consent order.
We do not believe that the HUD settlement is legally binding for numerous reasons, including the lack of
consideration received by us for entering into the settlement. No assurance can be given, however, that our position
that the HUD settlement is not legally binding would ultimately prevail in any subsequent litigation. We have
received confirmation that the HUD settlement will not be enforced but have no indication that the HUD settlement
will be formally rescinded. If enforced, these restrictions contained in the HUD settlement could substantially
impair our ability to compete, particularly since none of our competitors is subject to such restrictions.

 

[Old Fuff]

A complete answer would require a long post, and I don't have time right now.

As the S&W statement says, the "agreement" is not being enforced, but at the same time it hasn't been rescinded. S&W claims that the agreement is illegal (and I agree) but never the less is not sure that a court in the future would see it that way. Also if this was some sort of agreement with HUD (and why were they involved in the first place?) why were the cities with pending lawsuits required to sign on?

In my copy of the agreement document it specifically says that the signed document will be entered, and become a court order - enforceable by the court.

 

[18DAI]

The local gunshop in Madison, has a copy of the agreement on the wall of the store.

In the agreement, the internal locks are specified. If the current owners are not honoring the terms of the agreement, why are all the revolvers equipped with locks?

 

[Goodshot]

I couldn't contain my excitement when I saw the new model 60 pro series. I knew it had a lock and I ordered it anyway. Now this is a nice revolver ! Even with the lock. $560 NIB +tax. I'm not happy about the lock, but I'm happy with the purchase.

 

[Moonclip]

Thanks for everyones participation and to the poster that said these polls are pointless, why did you participate?

Interesting votes, good points by most. I voted maybe but I'm much more in the never camp.

Heres a good point to ponder as to the question does S&W have to follow the agreement and put the lock.

IIRC there was a overrun of no lock j frame .38spls (maybe the mod 37?) released to the general public 1-2 years ago or so.

Also the new repro mod 40 with the grip safety is sans lock though I suppose the grip safety feature is why they decided it was ok to delete the lock. I'd maybe buy one if they weren't so darn expensive

I usually find pre locks and pre mim at prices comparable or lower to new production even in CA with some searching.

 

[sixgunner455]

I have a 642-2, with the dumb lock. I wasn't excited about the lock when I bought it several years ago, and I'm still not. I can't say that I haven't used it -- whenever I fly anywhere, I lock it and then lock it in the hard case and then put it in the hard suitcase. I know it's overkill, but I consider it revenge on somebody dumb enough to steal my luggage -- they may have gotten my gun, but they can't use it.

It's probably the only one I'll ever buy with the lock, though. If it didn't have it, I certainly wouldn't miss it.