Assume for a moment Kerry wins - S&W question

F

FirstFreedom

Moderator
I know it's disgusting but it's a real possibility. Now further assume that Kerry asks his DOJ & HUD lawyers to re-institute the suit against gun manufacturers to pay for the costs of shootings in housing projects (somehow this is the mfr'ers fault). Of course, S&W has NOT been complying with their end of the settlement agreement by following all the terms. So therefore they are in breach of the settlement agreement. Therefore they are fair game as a defendant. But what if they try to claim protection by immediately invoking renewed compliance? I suppose if they do that, then we could air this crap all out again and expose them for it. Hmm, I'm trying to figure out at what point I should end my boycott of them. It's confusing, but I need some principled, specific reason to end, since they never formally, publicly rupudiated or anticipatorily breeched the settlement agreement, and therefore are still technically "in" the agreement, even though they are in actual breech. We need a REAL, solid answer to this question - Has anyone written S&W for the details and gotten an actual reply, or do I need to do it? At least answer me this: I am correct, aren't I, in saying that they are definitely NOT complying with the various agreement terms, such as selling only to dealers who agree to do x, y, and z, with respect to all guns sold from any maker, etc., right? I would like to get a smith or 2, but cannot without a principled basis for ending the boycott (smoke and mirrors / lip service ain't gonna cut it). But perhaps the actual breech itself is a principled enough basis, since they would (if sued by HUD again) have to either (a) enter into a new agreement to weasel out like they did last time, instead of providing a unified front of opposition to the lawsuits, or (b) renew compliance with the old agreement, and claim immunity on that basis. Seems to me, either way, we'll have sufficient notice of their weaseling to re-institute a big boycott (which most are no longer following at present). So they're weasely, to be sure, but given that they are in fact exposed to the [bogus] liability at this point, is that enough of a reason to buy from them? Anyone have further insight into the legal details of what would happen if a Kerry administration once again renewed that HUD lawsuit?
 
FirstFreedom, you pose several interesting questions in your post. I don't have to think about it much though for my answer, . . . I never really liked S&W guns to start with. That said, . . . after the shennanigans they cut with the Clinton bunch, . . . they would have to be the LAST manufacturer on earth (other than High Point, maybe) before I would buy one.
Fact is, . . . if the Ketchup slinger weasels his way into the white house, I will probably make some arms dealer happy as I will be doing 2 M1A's and some clone of an M16 just as soon as I can get my Visa shined up and ready. I may even spring for another 1911 just in case.
I may not get to enjoy shooting for a big bunch of more years, . . . but I'm going to try to at least have enough around to be able to if I decide to do it.
May God bless,
Dwight
 
The news topic for today is the resignation of President Kerry after only 4 months in office:

After being awarded 3 purple hearts while in office, the President decided to resign.

FIRST AWARD- An errant stapler not fully embedded in a series of military documents, pierced his skin causing undue discomfort.

SECOND AWARD- Reeling from a paper cut from an anti-gun legislation proposal, he seeked medical help from the President's medical team. The team, consisting of a Psychiatrist, Gynecologist and a Veterinarian,
deemed the President able to carry on with his duties, despite the aroma of smelling salts.

THIRD AWARD- While receiving his haircut, it was found that the President had passed out from the sound
of the scissors which resembled machine gun fire. The fallen hair have given all for their country. No DNA testing was used to determine whether it was his hair or not.
 
From S&W 2004 Annual Report to Stockholders:

... Although the agreement has not been formally rescinded, we do not believe that the agreement is legally binding for numerous reasons. We have received confirmation that HUD will not seek to enforce the agreement. Additionally, among other terms, the agreement provided that any city or county that was a party to the agreement and had a lawsuite pending against us would dismiss us with prejudice from the lawsuite subject to a consent order. As of March 17, 2000, lawuits have been filed against us by nine of the 11 cities and counties that signed the agreement. None of those nine cities and counties has dismissed us with prejudice from its lawsuit subject to a consent order under the agreement. No assurance can be given, however, that our positition that this agreement is not legally binding would ultimately prevail in any subsequent litigation on this issue.
 
Well I guess you told them Mike!

If JFK wins I'm not worried about S&W, I'm thinking it's time to go buy that semi-auto 50 BMG with a truck load of ammo. I made the same vow for Gore and will do the same when and if the Hillary show hits the fan in 08! The thought being that either way that will be one of the first things firearms related that will be banned. :eek: You are witnessing the same incremental encroachment on the 1st as we have been dealing with on the 2nd amendment. As we all know you can't have the 1st without the second and while there have been a few hiccups the past 4 years it's been nice not to have to spend my time protesting the million morons/hgc crowd. But we'd better get word to our legiscritters before they go back into session on the 4th of Sept that we want the "semi-auto" weapons ban to sunset!
 
Uh, let's assume I started shooting after the whatever with S&W & Clinton in nineteen ninety-whatever. Let's assume I like S&W revolvers and have become more or less dependent on them. Let's further assume I'm not a big believer in boycotts, and have no problem with the tiny lockhole in the sides of a couple of my guns, which might as well not be there for all the trouble it causes me.

If some agreement signed ten years ago were to take effect or be enforced anew or whatever, what actual effect would it have on my ability to buy S&W revolvers?

I'm honestly asking, not trying to be snide or cute.
Please feel free to call me names if you want, but I really would like to know what practical effects I might be looking at. Thanks.
 
Chris W,

What it will mean in a nutshell if the agreement is ever miraculously enforced, is that you won't be able to buy any more new S&W firearms because the company will go out of business.

See, the goofy lock clauses and whatnot in the agreement are just a sideshow. The real poison pill in the agreement are the clauses that state what S&W will expect from their dealers and distributors. All kinds of odious stuff about training classes and not selling "assault weapons" and "high-capacity ammunition feeding devices" and whatnot.

On that hypothetical day, every dealer and distributor in America will be faced with a choice: Either drop S&W or drop Springfield, Colt, Glock, HK, SIG, Beretta, et cetera, ad nauseum. Guess which is going to happen?
 
I see; and thank you, Tamara. But, that doesn't sound likely, does it? I mean, the government--headed in this hypothetical scenario by a long-time senator from Massachusets--shutting S&W down, cold, in favor of furrin companies like Beretta?

Is there some fantastic scenario in which it would actually be politically expedient for anyone to shut down S&W and their sixguns without bothering Kel-tec and SIG and Glock?
 
Mike I, you couldn't be more right. You hit the nail on the head!

Tam, with this quote, you couldn't be more wrong:

What it will mean in a nutshell if the agreement is ever miraculously enforced, is that you won't be able to buy any more new S&W firearms because the company will go out of business
Click to expand...

I'm surprised someone of your insight buys into that BS argument. There will ALWAYS be S&W guns to buy, because if forced into chap 11 or chap 7, you can bet your last nickel that SOMEONE will buy the name, intellectual property, tooling, factories, etc., and keep making the same great guns, under NEW management/ownership. So aint nuttin gonna change there. The question is, when those guns are sold, will the PROFITS from the sale of those guns go into the pockets of the owners/managers/board members who agree that its ok to sell us out (which is the present situation), or to NEW owners/managers who actually believe in and understand and protect gun rights on behalf of their valued customers, unlike S&W, that is; whoever buys the assets from the bankruptcy trustee and dumps the liabilities including the old school managers with the save-our-ass-screw-the-gun-owners attitude. You hit the nail on the head when you said indicated that some people are not concerned about our rights - they are those of course who buy S&W without a principled basis to end the boycott - I'm all ears if there IS a principled basis to end it. The owners being saf-t-block instead of tompkins, by itself, aint gonna cut it, because saf-t-block has demonstrated, by refusing to rescind, that they don't really understand what customer loyalty is about. Please don't spout those obvious lies, Tam, about s&w products will be no more if a boycott persists - the fine reputation, tooling, etc., will always be bought behind the scenes, and production will continue. I will have to assume that if you spread that idea again, you're knowingly spreading a lie, with all that that entails vis a vis your character. And if you actually believed that nonsense before this moment, then great, you just learned something!

On that hypothetical day, every dealer and distributor in America will be faced with a choice: Either drop S&W or drop Springfield, Colt, Glock, HK, SIG, Beretta, et cetera, ad nauseum. Guess which is going to happen?
Click to expand...

If you believe that that means that S&W won't do it, then why on earth do you think that S&W won't just flat rescind the damn thing? The answer is, because it won't come to that - because once they cave in, as they demonstrated they are inclined to do, then the unified front falls, and the remaining companies start falling like dominoes, in which case many of them end up in the same or a similar agreement, and then they have the clout to overrule the "other side" that didn't cave, and voila, dealers & distributors will break their leg rushing to change their policies so they can stock s&w, ruger, x, y, and z, who caved, and give up stocking a, b, c, who didn't cave. It's about providing a unified front to the bogus suits to keep the other fence-sitting type companies from following suit and falling like dominoes.
 
FirstFreedom,

Please don't spout those obvious lies, Tam, about s&w products will be no more if a boycott persists -
Click to expand...

Please try to read my post for content before calling me a liar.

And, while we're making requests, please try to comprehend the nature of the agreement.

The most odious parts of it, and the ones that make it a suicide pact for S&W, have nothing to do (directly at least) with the shooting public. Network managers and technical writers can pontificate 'til they're blue in the face about the effects of fragmented consumer boycotts, but enforcement of the agreement will lead to the only boycott that counts. Listen to me now and believe me later, but should the agreement be upheld in court this is what will happen: Within six months every current S&W stocking dealer and distributor will drop the product line like a live grenade. It would be financial suicide for any dealer or distributor to attempt to live up to the inane clauses in the agreement. Smith sales just don't constitute a significant enough portion of any dealer or distributor's sales to make living up to the standards outlined by the agreement possible, much less desireable.

Now, given the tiered firearms market imposed by GCA '68, explain to me just how you envision S&W getting its product to market without anyone being willing or able to sell it? The company, as it exists, will disappear. Will someone else buy the rights to the name and the designs? I don't know. Probably, but I'm not dealing in speculation in this post, just in cold, hard business fact.

I boxed up all my S&W impedimentia and terminated a Stocking Dealer agreement once back in early '00, and I can cold guarantee that should the agreement ever be enforced, I'll do it at my current business, because to do anything else would be to go out of business. If S&W is desparate to commit fiscal suicide, they can damn well do it without me.
 
Having watched several local gun businesses tell S&W to piss up a rope...

After S&W signed that onerous piece of crap, and the resultant loss in sales that forced a hiatus at the S&W plant, I seriously doubt they could survive enforcement of the still-valid-on-paper agreement. They have to sell guns to stay in business, and the few remaining distributors who'd knuckle under to S&W's demands per that agreement wouldn't be enough to keep them solvent. They'd go Tango Uniform in short order, and whoever bought the remains would have an uphill battle. Look what happened to the remnants of High Standard, Stoeger, and AMT - they floundered after they were purchased by new owners, then fizzled away. Heck, look at Colt, I'd be interested to see if they'd survive another Chapter 11 without a government bail-out. You're right though, there will always be S&W guns to buy. Used ones, that is.
 
It's confusing, but I need some principled, specific reason to end, since they never formally, publicly rupudiated or anticipatorily breeched the settlement agreement, and therefore are still technically "in" the agreement,
Click to expand...


It's not confusing, First. You sorted it out very nicely. The agreement is in full legal force, and it will not take any miracle for it to be enforced. All it will take is Hillary in '08, and that is a very likely scenario. (Who are the Repubs going to run? Cheney? Rumsfeld? Ashcroft? Ridge? Ha. They'll need a virtual super candidate to beat the Hildebeast. If they had anybody of that stature we'd already know who they are.)

Yes, Tam, it will kill S&W, but that has nothing whatever to do with gun owners selling out NOW.

It stopped being about S&W a long time ago. It's about sending a message to anyone else who is tempted to sign a deal with the antis.

Oh, and those who don't think boycotts are effective ought to read S&W's financial statements for the last few years since the agreement. They sold for how much? Did someone say, "Peanuts?" And the reason the Brits sold them because they were suddenly hugely profitable? Yeah.



Mike, I'm with you.


Chris W, since you are a newcomer to this issue and have honest questions, I'm sure Mike could dig up a link to the text of the agreement for you. You must read it to see what a monster it is.
 
Quartus,

It stopped being about S&W a long time ago.
Click to expand...

Not as long as S&W is the only signatory to the agreement it hasn't.

Don't think that every other gunmaker doesn't understand the crystal-clear implications of the situation I've highlighted above. The only way it will be remotely profitable for any other gunmaker to sign on would be if legislation passes that makes it virtually impossible for citizens to buy guns, in which case we'd have bigger fish to fry.

Be with whoever you want, but the realities of the suicide pact S&W signed are clear to anyone who cares to look.

Bottom line: It's in abeyance right now. Barring another Federal law on the order of GCA '68, the only immediate effect that enforcing the agreement would have would be to put S&W under. Period.

(...and don't give me that "What have you done?" I'll bet I've severed more contracts with S&W over the Agreement than you, Mike, and FirstFreedom put together.)
 
Thanks, Mike; I believe I will.

I'll consider it the reward for actually doing something beyond uttering solemn oaths not to buy guns I wouldn't have bought anyway and occasionally throwing a snit on the internet. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top