Robert T Crook wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert T Crook <ccsct@erols.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2000 8:28 PM
> Subject: Fw: Taurus interview
>
> >
> > Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2000 6:59 PM
> > Subject: Taurus interview
> >
> >
> > Here is a good article I received from a fellow firearm owner in Arizona.
> > To view the original go to
> >
>
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_metcalf_news/20000409_xngme_gun_maker_.
> > shtml
> >
> > SUNDAY Q&A
> > Gun maker
> > stands up to Clinton
> > Geoff Metcalf interviews
> > Bob Morrison, Executive VP
> > of Taurus International
> >
> >
> > By Geoff Metcalf
> > © 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
> >
> > Unable to push its hard-core gun control agenda
> > through Congress, the Clinton administration has
> > taken to using the threat of massive lawsuits to force
> > gun manufacturers to do its bidding. Smith and
> > Wesson recently gave in to the administration's
> > demands to avoid legal harassment.
> >
> > But not all manufacturers are caving in. Among those
> > standing firm is Miami-based Taurus International,
> > which makes pistols, revolvers and rifles.
> > WorldNetDaily reporter Geoff Metcalf interviewed
> > Taurus Executive Vice President / Chief Operating
> > Officer Bob Morrison about threats and offers of
> > bribery Morrison claims his company has received
> > from public officials. Morrison further describes the
> > extraordinary means government personnel have
> > employed in attempting to punish gun manufacturers
> > that hold their ground.
> >
> > Question: Bob, you were incorrectly quoted in the Wall
> > Street Journal on March 21, 2000. What did the Journal
> > say you said?
> >
> > Answer: They said we were going to go along with the
> > same thing that Smith and Wesson had signed, and that
> > we were ready to sign on and that we echoed their
> > concerns. That was a complete misquote.
> >
> > Q: So what did you do?
> >
> > A: We came back with a statement that said they had
> > really gotten it wrong and we restated our position: We
> > sell only to federally licensed distributors who sell
> > only to
> > federally licensed dealers and we couldn't find any
> > reason
> > for us to make any more prohibitions on their sales
> after
> > all that has already been placed there by the federal
> > government.
> >
> > Q: One thing I was not aware of until I checked out
> your
> > website was this locking device deal. You offered your
> > locking device to Smith and Wesson, didn't you?
> >
> > A: Yes we did. In fact, we have had an integral locking
> > device on all our firearms since 1997. Over a year ago,
> > we sent the entire industry a letter, including Smith
> and
> > Wesson, in which we offered to sell them those locks
> for
> > their firearms -- which would be perfectly acceptable
> and
> > become integral to their firearms -- at our cost. There
> > would be no profit to us. We re-reminded Smith and
> > Wesson of that offer in a letter (in late March)
> offering
> > them the same devices. This is what they promised the
> > government they would develop within the next two
> > years.
> >
> > Q: What was their response to you?
> >
> > A: We have had no response.
> >
> > Q: So what they are telling the government they will
> > develop within two years, you are willing to give them
> at
> > your cost?
> >
> > A: That is exactly correct. We don't understand it. We
> > have been putting gun locks on all our firearms since
> > 1998. We just simply didn't understand why Smith and
> > Wesson would have done that. In addition, they have
> > said they would start shipping all their guns with
> locks
> > within 60 days, but they have been doing that for over
> a
> > year.
> >
> > Q: Now the government is talking antitrust because,
> > apparently you, Glock, Browning and some others have
> > said, "No, we don't want to do what you want us to do."
> >
> > A: That is absolutely correct. We made an independent
> > decision when we found out we had been offered the
> > same deal as Smith and Wesson. We independently said
> > we wouldn't be interested.
> >
> > Q: And then the phone rang. Who called?
> >
> > A: Strangely enough, I got a call from HUD Secretary
> > Andrew Cuomo in which he furthered this conspiracy by
> > offering to bribe us. If we would come with S&W, he
> > would absolutely make us favored with lush government
> > contracts to buy more firearms from us.
> >
> > Q: Hold on a moment. If you as the chief operating
> > officer of Taurus were to offer a similar kind of
> > coercive
> > deal to someone else, you'd get in trouble, wouldn't
> you?
> >
> > A: I think it's called a bribe. And, that is certainly
> > illegal.
> >
> > Q: What was kid Cuomo's response when you said,
> > "Thanks, but no thanks."?
> >
> > A: He was frustrated that we wouldn't go along with it.
> > He even offered to tailor the deal to our particular
> > needs.
> > When we said we would never abrogate the fiduciary
> > responsibility of a branch of a publicly owned company
> > to a committee of five people -- only one of those
> being
> > from our company -- he seemed perplexed and
> > wondered why we wouldn't want to do that.
> >
> > Q: I try not to laugh, because this is serious.
> However,
> > this is abuse of power under the color of authority.
> >
> > A: I have a letter from New York Attorney General
> > Elliot Spitzer, addressed to the Honorable Bill Pryor,
> > attorney general of the state of Alabama. I believe
> Pryor
> > is the president of the Attorneys General Association.
> > The letter, dated March 16, 2000, starts out, "Dear
> > Attorney General Pryor: I would like to request your
> > participation in a nationwide coalition of state and
> > local
> > governments using the power of their purse strings to
> > encourage gun manufacturers to operate ..." Basically,
> he
> > wants us to cave in to all of their untoward demands.
> He
> > says, "Law enforcement purchases constitute a
> > substantial portion of the gun industry's business.
> > Together, we're in a unique position to dictate the
> terms
> > of that business and to make it safer for our
> > constituents."
> > And it goes on and on. He's asking them to join a
> > coalition of governments that will "award firearm
> > contract
> > only to those entities willing to abide by the
> > principles that
> > we enunciated in this new code."
> >
> > Q: Now that sounds like an antitrust violation. You
> guys
> > are faced with the potential threat of an antitrust
> suit
> > because a number of gun manufacturers have refused to
> > "abide by the principles ... enunciated in" the
> > government's blackmail deal. Yet, the government seems
> > to be involved in the same kind of reverse attack by
> > saying we are only going to buy from people who do
> > what we want them to do the way we want them to do it.
> >
> > A: We were confused by the same thing. We looked at it
> > and said, if there is anybody using antitrust against
> > anyone, it is the government against us. We have the
> > right
> > to make a business decision not to do anything that
> > would injure our business. Like I said, I exercise
> > fiduciary
> > responsibility for a corporate branch. I would never
> give
> > up the control of this company to four dissident people
> > and one regulatory agency. I just couldn't do that,
> yet,
> > that is what the other company has apparently wanted to
> > do with their company.
> >
> > Q: That used to be called fascism. One of the questions
> > is, given the government's threat of the antitrust deal
> > against those folks who won't tow their line, is there
> > any
> > kind of reciprocal legal recourse in which you guys can
> > bring suit against the government?
> >
> > A: Well, that's certainly being looked into. I can't
> > comment on it more than that. I am part of the Heritage
> > Fund. (Editor's note: Hunting and Shooting Sports
> > Heritage Foundation Fund, unrelated to the mutual
> > fund or the think tank.) We are looking into any
> > avenues that are open to us to retaliate against this
> > abuse
> > of power. I guess I could call it tyranny. When I
> looked
> > it
> > up it seems to fit all the definitions. At this point,
> as
> > an
> > American citizen, I am totally taken aback by all that
> is
> > happening here. I will say we have had some support
> > from Congress. We have had letters.
> >
> > Q: Bob Barr wrote you, didn't he?
> >
> > A: Yeah. He stiffened my backbone a bit by
> > complimenting us and thanking us for standing up to
> > protect Second Amendment rights and has offered to do
> > everything possible to prevent the administration from
> > what he says is following through with its threats to
> > punish
> > Taurus for not capitulating to its illegal pressures. I
> > really
> > do thank him for that.
> >
> > Q: What other support have you received?
> >
> > A: We have had thousands of e-mails and hundreds and
> > hundreds of faxes supporting our position and I do
> > appreciate that. It gets pretty lonely out here on the
> > battle
> > lines. If you could, ask your readers to talk to their
> > congressmen and write to their senators and ask them
> > what is going on with this thing. They are abusing
> their
> > power with aplomb. They don't seem to get prosecuted
> > or hurt on this. So we are looking into legal remedies,
> > but
> > at this point, I am not at liberty to go into those.
> >
> > Q: Actually, Thomas Jefferson said what you alluded to.
> > He said, "When governments fear the people, there is
> > liberty; but when the people fear the government,"
> which
> > is where we are at right now, Jefferson called that
> > tyranny.
> >
> > A: It is tyranny. We are looking at probably the most
> > burdensome standards that have ever been imposed on a
> > retailer right now by just having to pass through the
> > grids
> > of getting a firearm.
> >
> > Q: You are the most regulated manufactured product in
> > the country now.
> >
> > A: And the customers are already subjected to the most
> > invasive background checks ever imposed on an
> > American consumer. They have to pass an FBI screening
> > to be able to buy our products. And the fact that we
> rely
> > on those regulatory agencies to do their assigned jobs
> is
> > enough of a litmus test than we could ever imagine
> > imposing on anybody. What more could they want us to
> > do?
> >
> > Q: One of the frustrating things must be the complicity
> > of
> > the mainstream media. You are a southern Florida
> > company. When this S&W thing happened, the Miami
> > Herald never even spoke to you, did they?
> >
> > A: They did not. And we asked them to do that. I'll
> step
> > that up one level and speak about my face-to-face
> > conversation with Mayor Pinellis.
> >
> > We had been discussing with him the lawsuit and what
> > we would have to do in order to be relieved from this
> > lawsuit and many of the things they proposed to us were
> > very close to what our competitor has signed away. We
> > decided we didn't want to do that. However, in my
> > face-to-to face confrontation with him, I said, "Please
> > Mayor Pirellis, won't you, for the sake of the children
> > and
> > for the sake of the safety of this community, allow the
> > Heritage Fund to put Project Home Safe -- that's where
> > we give away free gun locks without any limit on the
> > number -- and do that in Miami? If you have a heart, do
> > that."
> >
> > And not unlike your fellow in Bellevue, Wash., he said,
> > "Not unless you go all the way with us." It's all or
> > nothing
> > at all, basically. And we pleaded with him again. I sat
> > and
> > looked him right in the eye and said, "You have to have
> a
> > bigger heart than this. You've got to care about the
> > people." And, at this point, they have turned us down.
> > We have been in this plea position for 10 months. We
> > did do it ourselves in Broward County, which is the
> > adjoining county to Miami / Dade, but we live in Miami
> /
> > Dade County. This is the same Mayor Pinellis who said
> > that if there were a riot in the streets in this city,
> > he would
> > blame it on the president and Janet Reno. That has to
> do
> > with the Elian Gonzales thing that has made all the
> news.
> >
> > Q: Bob, I want you to know you are not the Lone
> > Ranger. I recently spoke with the owner of a Bay Area
> > gun shop and he told me he had made the decision not to
> > carry your competitor's product anymore. He tried to
> get
> > some local radio, television or newspaper to talk to
> him.
> > They wouldn't touch the story.
> >
> > A: It is unfortunate. We have had a lot of dealers who
> > have come to us and asked us to ramp up our production
> > because they are going to look for substitutes for some
> > of
> > the other firearms that are out there. We appreciate
> that
> > and want those dealers to know we will be right there
> by
> > their side and have no intention of veering off this
> > course
> > we have taken.
> >
> > Q: Not too long ago, Citbank had a little flap where
> > there was some internal policy dictating they would not
> > do business with people who dealt with firearms. Well,
> in
> >
> > the wake of an overwhelming crush of people who were
> > tearing up cards and canceling accounts, they changed
> > their position. Although the government is now saying
> it
> > will buy only from people who are going to do what they
> > want, the way they want it, the other side of that coin
> > is
> > consumers. The rest of the buying public is doing the
> > same thing. They are saying, "Hey, I'm not going to buy
> > that product."
> >
> > A: That's a choice that the consumer has, just as a
> > business has; we all have choices we can make. In no
> > way would I ever try to influence anybody not to make a
> > legal choice. The thing that most people don't realize
> is
> > this is the most legal business of all legal
> businesses.
> > There has never been a business like this that has had
> > such overwhelming government scrutiny. We simply don't
> > understand why this has taken place.
> >
> > Q: The fact of the matter is, this long list of things
> > the
> > government is requiring is not going to reduce crime an
> > iota.
> >
> > A: We are at an all time low. In 1998, we had an all
> time
> > low of 900 fatalities that were associated with
> firearms.
> > That is in comparison to over 40,000 deaths by motor
> > vehicles, almost 17,000 by falls, 9,000 by poisoning.
> > What is going on is the administration has found a
> target
> > that is weak, that is rather indefensible and is a hot
> > button
> > they can push -- and they are furthering their
> political
> > agenda by attacking a very, very legal industry --
> > something I would never have imagined in this country.
> >
> > Q: I've heard from a lot of folks wanting to know if
> they
> > can contribute to any kind of legal defense fund.
> >
> > A: Right now, our preliminary explorations are being
> > funded by all the members of the Heritage Fund. That
> > fund is taking one percent of all our gross profits.
> > There is
> > no place right now where the public can contribute, but
> > I'll look into that for you.
> >
> > Q: What is this trigger-locking device you have and
> have
> > offered to Smith and Wesson and others?
> >
> > A: What we have is a mechanical device that blocks the
> > action of the gun being used at all. It is a very
> simple
> > device. A quarter of a turn clockwise turns it on and a
> > quarter of a turn counterclockwise turns it off.
> >
> > Q: Is this just a hammer block?
> >
> > A: It is a hammer or an action block, depending on the
> > firearm.
> >
> > Q: I used to have an old Walther and it had a little
> bar
> > safety thing where the hammer just wouldn't go past the
> > bar.
> >
> > A: It's very much like that. But this is a patented
> > device
> > that we have developed and offered to share with
> > everyone in the industry at our cost.
> >
> > Q: Since Miami's mayor has rejected your offer of gun
> > locks, why not just make them available to the
> individual
> > retailer?
> >
> > A: We did that in Broward County. However, we don't
> > want to put the gunshop owner in the position of being
> > sued if somebody doesn't use it properly, so we wanted
> > to do it through the cities. We have done that in over
> > 100
> > cities in the Untied States at this point. Project Home
> > Safe is probably the most successful program we have at
> > this point.
> >
> > Q: In light of the tobacco companies' problems and the
> > fact they have always complied with the requirement for
> > the Surgeon General's warning labels, has the
> government
> > offered to in any way immunize you from liability
> should
> > you fully comply with their new restrictions?
> >
> > A: No, they haven't offered very much of anything other
> > than the opportunity to turn our companies over to
> their
> > committees.
> >
> > Q: Yeah, but haven't they offered to have the cities
> that
> > are suing gun manufacturers to back off?
> >
> > A: They offered that in the other case but they failed
> to
> > come through. Some of the cities that were suing Smith
> > and Wesson have left the scene but not all. The problem
> > they have is our guns are safe. The people who use them
> > may choose not to use them in a very safe manner, but
> > they don't want to look at it that way. The beat goes
> on.
> >
> >
> >
> > Readers can express their views on this or any other
> > public policy issue at WorldNetDaily's Legislative
> > Action Center, which provides instant access to state
> > and federal representatives, media outlets and
> > additional legislative information.
> >
> >
> > Geoff Metcalf is a staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.
> >
> >
