A little inside information on S&W...

I usually am a voice of reason but the SW agreement is a hideous one.

The mandate that all new guns be smart guns if enough manufacturers sign on is enough for me alone. That provision was an attempt to blackmail the industry and give SW a compelled by government competitive advantage.

Despite what PR hacks say, the Feds say they have to do everything. PR folks say anything.

How about having the PR state that that SW opposes the move to have government preferences for SW and want their products to compete freely in the marketplace for government contracts.

Sorry - this was a craven sell-out. Let them
be destroyed.

In WWII, we fought the Vichy when they opposed us. Sure they were in a tough place with France occupied. But tough. Same to SW.
 
Whenever I think of S&W, I think of Ole Yeller at the end. You know what you have to do, but still you fondly remember the good times.

S&W is rabid. We can't cure it, only S&W can.
 
I wanted to hurt S&W not kill them. :( On a positive note since our boycott firearm manufacturers are bolder now. Taurus offering free NRA memberships, Glock speaking out against S&W deal, etc...

Signing any deal with Big Brother harms us. If anyone gives an inch they'll try and take a mile. S&W learned that lesson because after the signing the feds reinterpreted the wording and implications of the deal. There was a big disagreement over it. What ever become of that?

Shok
 
Regardless of how we feel abouth this the Anti's have won.

Don't you see?

One of the finest and oldest firearm manufacturers will most likely fold.

So how did we "win"?

Who will be next? Ruger? Colt?

Granted, we did unite on this, but we did lose.

CMOS :(

------------------
NRA? Good. Now join the GOA!
 
No mercy to traitors and spineless collaborators. Let S&W twist in the wind.

When they are owned and operated by an American, pro-RKBA leadership, they can be welcomed back.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Rob, this is like a bad used car deal ... 'I know the contract says that, but we would never enforce that provision!'. ;)

S&W signed a bad deal, and now wants to reinterpret their way out of it. That doesn't change what they signed.

I'm with DC et al ... let S&W twist in the wind. They've made their own bed, albeit with the 'help' of this administration ... who've acted exactly like economic fascists in this situation. (Take a look at the economic features of fascism - this is it - allow private ownership of business, but the government tells you exactly how to run it.)

I'll part with this final thought ... consider, in light of the agreement S&W signed, if this had worked out differently. What if there had been no backlash from consumers and the industry, all of their municipal adversaries had settled with them and the media had trumpeted the great success of this venture? I venture that S&W would not have come up with their reinterpretation of their agreement, and the pressure on all of the other manufacturers would have been incredible - I'd wager that most would have caved. As it is, S&W had to be the example.

As my way of saying thank you for falling on their sword, I'll buy S&W revolvers again after they proceed through bankruptcy and, as DC says, are once again owned by American, pro-RKBA management / investors. S&W stood with the enemy, and they can't be allowed to survive under present management.

Next time you come to AZ, bring your new AR and we'll hit Ben Avery. Probably not fair for me to sample S&W's booze, so we'll work something out on that front. ;)

Regards from AZ
 
Well, I understand that people are upset.... and I'm disappointed, but th efact is that S&W has no control over how many handguns someone buys every 14 days or every 14 years.... and until I have reason to believe that they are even attempting to regulate anything besides their own product line, I'll stop short of wishing for their swift erasure from the pages of the firearm's industry.

When someone has that info about them actually trying to get dealer's to do any of these horrible things, please email me. Until then it is all "sky is falling" rhetoric. S&W has been consistent from day one of the agreement that they (and their lawyers) felt that it only affected their product line... as they have no legal influence over anything else.

I've heard both sides and no one has shown me how a dealer cann be held to an agreement that they didn't sign.

Jeff,

Oh, No... I bought that bottle. (now you can have a full wallet and a clean conscience ;))

------------------
-Essayons
 
I have a simple rule of thumb. Any company that Clinton likes I dislike. I heard Clinton say that "he was pleased with S&W". Nuff said!
 
Rob,

S&W can't enforce these agreements as LAW, but they can enforce them as part of a sales agreement with their dealers and distributers. In a round-about way, every FFL who sells S&W products has to sign the deal with Clinton.

-no "assult weapon" sales
-no high capacity magazine
-no sale of ANY handgun with a government approved safety program
etc.
etc.

S&W can say all they want about what they THINK the agreement says, but the text is crystal clear. In fact, the text is abundantly clear that no S&W dealer can sell at a gun show unless ALL GUNS at the show have background checks performed on them.

------------------
There are two types of men: those with guns, and those at their mercy.
 
Rob,

Two points on how S&W harmed us;

First, by signing the agreement, S&W agreed to the context and language of those who wish to restrict the rights of gun owners. The first rule of negotiating with the irrational, is to never adopt their language. By signing, it lent validity to concepts which do not pass rational analysis - universal trigger locks save lives, assault weapons are evil . . . . As someone else on this board once noted; never argue with a fool, he’ll just pull you down to his level and he has more experience there. Countering a faulty argument takes either logic, or case examples. We (they) have just given a case example to the other side.

Second, the agreement was overly broad, for a contract with a specific entity. S&W signed up to enforce behavior from those who they did not have a right to speak for. Which then begs to question - who else has the 'right' to make concessions on our behalf.

Marty

PS Good to meet you last week. I should get a chance put the P-14 through it’s paces tomorrow.
 
WASHINGTON DC
26 November 2002
__________________

In what is being lauded by President Gore as a "Victory for Americas children," the last gun manufacturers have agreed to what has been called self imposed common sense marketing. The agreement by the manufactures will relieve them of the suits brought by HCI.
"Now," explains HCI president Rosie O'Donnel, "we can monitor the purchasers of guns using ATF agents to insure that they (guns) do not fall into the wrong hands."
O'Donnel is referring to a portion of the agreement in which all manufactures have consented to voluntarily only sell their products through government stations. The agreement further states the agency regulating the Gun Buyers Stations (GBS) shall impose required safety measures of all purchasers prior to releasing the gun. Spokespersons for the GBS program have assured gun owners that the stations will be in operation within the next eighteen months and approved safety programs should be in place shortly there after. The halt of all new guns sales in the interim will be a minor inconvenience for some but worth the lives that will be saved.
"The voluntary agreement by manufactures to only sell their guns through this program will save the lives of thousands of children a year in this country," praises vice president Sarah Bradey.
This unprecedented lard mark victory was began by the common sense agreement signed by Ed Schultz president of Smith & Wesson in March of 2000.

What the hell it is only an agreement.........right?

------------------
Gunslinger TFL Imperial Potentate

TFL End of Summer Meet, August 12th & 13th, 2000
 
Well, for Rob, I don't know what to tell the guy. For the rest of you, MD Governor Glendenning directly credited the S$W decision for allowing the passage of the "smart-gun" requirement, read gun-ban, in Maryland. It had been deadlocked, but several key MD legislators cited it as giving them cover to vote for one of the most Draconian gun bans in US history. I'll assume that Rob doesn't live in Maryland or is not a real gun enthusiast. Both of MY parents who DO live in Maryland are directly harmed in their ability to choose the means of defending thier lives when the deadline falls in 2002. Those of you who want to normalize this abomination might not be on the right forum...
 
"... might not be on the right forum."

Pardon me?

Differing opinions (reasonably stated) about firearms and civil rights are precisely proper on this forum.

Civility is required. Agreement is not.
 
I AM FROM CANADA AND YOU GUYS DOWN SOUTH SURE HAVe it in for S&W> I AM NOT FULLY UP TO SPEED ON WHAT THEY DID BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY AGREED TO THE GOVERNMENTS NEW GUN REGULATIONS? I OWN TWO S&W AND THINK THEY ARE HIGH QUALITY PIECES> SO WHATS UP WITH THE S&W REVOLUTION?
 
Simonov, believe me when I say we have no stronger, nor more dedicated, supporter of the RKBA than Rob. Because of Robs move and (relativly) new job he has not been able to post much since you have been here. However, we that have been here for a long time are familiar with his (Rob's) RKBA stance and he has nothing to prove in that area....nor any other for that matter.

Please do not misinterpet this post as any type of flame to you either. Frankly Rob's view point on the S&W agreement confuses me as well. If I did not know him I may interpet his post as you have. However bear in mind he is not saying he would not support a boycott of Smith. Rather he hasn't, to his satisfaction, been shown how it impacts on us (gun owners). I hope my above post may have helped in that.

I, being one of the most out spoken members here regarding the "agreement", appreciate your passion regarding the issue.

Also speaking from the perspective of being perhaps the most out spoken member against the "agreement" humbly suggest we (the membership) begin to temper our remarks opposing others views regarding same. I have, to be sure, been the most guilty of aggressive language with respect to this topic.

------------------
Gunslinger TFL Imperial Potentate

TFL End of Summer Meet, August 12th & 13th, 2000
 
S&W says that, by their interpretation, these strictures would only be imposed on FFL dealers- when selling S&W products. Rob says that the dealers can't legally be held accountable when selling non-S&W firearms. I agree. And there's the rub- since when has Klinton been concerned about what's legal or lawful? He may not be able to actually sue or prosecute those dealers, but he most certainly can have the BATF harass, audit, investigate, and nitpick those dealers until they fold out of frustration or insurmountable legal costs.

Furthermore, that's just Smith's interpretation of the agreement. Equally important, perhaps more so, is Klinton and his kronie's interpretation. If S&W continues to distribute to an FFL dealer that released 5 SIGs and H&Ks to one customer on the same day, the Klinton DOJ could, and probably would, interpret that as a violation and take action against S&W (plus the aforementioned BATF harassment of the FFL). If Klinton can, in any way shape or form, use (or make) a back door in this agreement to make it apply to ALL manufacturers, rest assured he will do it. :mad:

Sure, maybe it has no direct impact upon me- but that's short term. What about the long term? S&W played ball with Klinton in his end run around Congress :mad:. They showed His Billness that a major gun manufacturer would sign a contract affecting (read abrogating) Constitutionally protected rights, without any Congressional or judicial oversight or approval :mad:. Which gunmaker will be the next target? This is why I'm angry at S&W, and will not buy their products despite a lack of immediate harm. This is why all free citizens of these United States must stand together and tell Leader Klinton- "We will not be wheeled and dealed into subjection!"

------------------
"Anakin! Tell them to go to the TFL End of Summer Meet !"

If it isna Scottish, it's CRAP! RKBA!

[This message has been edited by Jedi Oomodo (edited June 03, 2000).]
 
Rob, what about the oversight commission? The one that is to be heavily weighted against us?

Beyond that, I invite you to consider...

Tomkins did not get to be a huge holding company by being stupid. I find it hard to believe that they would knowingly allow someone in their organization to enter into an agreement that would put them at a distinct competative disadventage in price or otherwise.

Assume that S&W is right, and the agrement aplies only to their products. Now who will buy their guns? Some people will, but certainly not those who care about 2nd amendment rights (among other things) AND HAVE SOME OTHER CHOICE.

So now they have to consider that sales will be diverted to the other brands that did not sign the agreement (as in - "the competition"). Would they intentionally drive customers away from their product? I think not. Should we not suspect that they fully expected to get most, if not all, other manufacturers to join the pact, by force or by agreement? How else would it make sense.

Clearly, S&W misread the mood and expectations of the American public and the firearms industry. But I don't think they are stupid enough to voluntarily shackle themselves in a market that they are already struggling in.

Or do you suppose that they were so arrogant as to believe we would all still flock to their "superior" product - with all the attendant restrictions - regardless of what we believe and expect in a firearm?

Either way, I think rightious indignation is in order. And I know backwash when I see it.

-FreeMe
 
Dennis & Gunslinger, thanks for the quick defense... Now that I am back more often I have to remember the Newbies... but you'd think that the "administrator" tag would've been a clue ;)....
(No hard feelings Simonov, I appreciate your zeal.)


Anyway, I don't want to beat a dead horse, so I'll fade out on this thread. I haven't bought a S&W firearm since the deal. (I won one in at a competition in April, though ;)). As I stated above, I have been very direct with people I know at S&W that I don't htink they made a great move and I have asked several questions to clarify exactly what they thought they were (or think they are) doing. So, far, I have been satisfied that they have really only cut their own throats. The article that Gunslinger posted is just another media interpretation. The actions in Maryland are just more political maneuvering. If Clinton et al can claim S&W as allies and cause discussions like this to happen, why shouldn't they? I'd like to see a little more skepticism from RKBA, why are we suddenly quoting HCI and Clinton to make our points? To really on the opinion of our sworn enemies as reasons from hoping for the death of a great US gun company seems somehow very wrong to me.

If S&W violates the Govt's interpretation (and to be honest, my interpretation) of what the agreement says, then they will be the ones who suffer, because they go through all this crap AND the law suit will be back on, probably with a "breach of contract" to boot!
Like I said, the agreement concerned me very much, I interpret it the same way everyone else does... but when S&W has not asked any other dealer or manufacturer to join them in its tenets.. and until they do I wwill regard this move as a horrible one for S&W, as FreeMe points out: S&W misread a lot of things (no pun intended).

Now, can anyone can point me to the Rosie O'Donnel fan club site??



------------------
-Essayons
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top