glockguy45
New member
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32101-2000Mar17.html
Gun Industry Views Pact as Threat to Its Unity
By Sharon Walsh
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2000; Page A10
NEW YORK, March 17 –– Gunmakers sent a blistering rebuke to Smith & Wesson today as some industry observers said the agreement between the country's largest manufacturer of handguns and the Clinton administration could force firearms manufacturers to admit they bear some responsibility for gun safety and gun crimes.
"The decision by foreign-owned handgun manufacturer, Smith & Wesson, to forge an agreement with the most anti-gun administration in history has violated a trust with their consumers and with the entire domestic firearms industry," said Robert Delfay, head of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents all major gunmakers.
The heat in Delfay's response was matched only by the stunned silence of individual gun manufacturers such as Prince George's County's Beretta U.S.A. Corp. and Georgia-based Glock Inc., where officials said they knew nothing about the agreement before the announcement was made. Although the government and all of the gun companies have long been in negotiations on the same issues, Smith & Wesson had "run off and cut their own deal" in a move that "fractures the unity we had since the first lawsuit was filed in October 1998," Delfay said.
The settlement puts other gun companies in a position uncomfortably similar to that of the tobacco industry after Liggett Group Inc. agreed in 1996 that it was liable for cigarette-related illnesses and submitted to demands for strong warnings on packages, some gun industry observers said today. That move was the first chink in the armor of an industry that had been unified in refusing to admit responsibility for tobacco-related medical problems and that had never settled or lost a case.
"This creates great peril and havoc for the industry," said one attorney active in the city lawsuits. "Juries will know that this is essentially an admission by Smith & Wesson that they needed more stringent rules. It's devastating to the other companies."
By agreeing both to make guns safer with locks and to have a code of conduct for wholesalers and retailers that sell its guns, Smith & Wesson has tacitly admitted that it could have been doing more all along to prevent gun accidents and gun crimes, attorneys said.
Of particular concern to the industry is the company's agreement to more closely monitor gun distribution. In the past, the companies have said they bear no responsibility for the actions of dealers who sell guns. But some of the 29 lawsuits brought by various cities have said that gunmakers knowingly distribute guns to dealers who sell to criminals.
"It's wonderful because it breaks the ice in terms of the resistance of the gun industry," said Richard Daynard, chairman of the Tobacco Products Liability Project and a professor at Northeastern University School of Law who follows the gun lawsuits.
While Liggett was a very small tobacco company, Smith & Wesson is seen as the most powerful player in the gun industry, he said. "It's very symbolically important for Smith & Wesson to do it," he said.
One reason Smith & Wesson may have agreed to settle, industry observers said, is that Tompkins PLC of Britain, which owns the company, wants to sell it. But there are no buyers for the $161 million company as long as it has dozens of lawsuits hanging over its head.
The gun industry has been plagued in recent years by lawsuits from cities, states and individuals. Even though gun and ammunition sales were up last year, many smaller manufacturers have been dropped by their insurers and are drowning in legal bills. Three California gun companies already have gone out of business and this settlement may bring other companies to the table, experts said.
The settlement lets Smith & Wesson out of a potential government lawsuit, but not out of city suits already filed--unless the mayors agree. It is unclear how many cities will drop Smith & Wesson from their lawsuits. But some cities, such as Chicago and Boston, have said they'll continue to sue the company.
And lawsuits already are headed to trial in New Orleans, Atlanta and Cleveland.
"The legal fees alone are enough to bankrupt the industry," said John Coale, a Washington lawyer involved in the city suits.
"The pressure is going to be on," said Daynard. "If I were general counsel of a gun company, I would want to join the settlement quickly."
The element of the deal that was most galling to the gun industry was that much of what Smith & Wesson agreed to do is either already federal law or is being done by other gunmakers. In some cases, Smith & Wesson only agreed to do things it already had put in motion--such as providing safety locks with all of its guns.
Virtually all gunmakers now ship their guns with external safety locks, industry experts said. Beretta, for example, has been including a cable lock with each gun since 1998 and will provide locks for guns sold before that if owners request them.
Delfay said many of Smith & Wesson's concessions were on the books. In one part of the agreement, for example, Smith & Wesson said that no sales of guns would be made until the buyer passes a background check, which is federal law.
Even advocates of gun control agreed that there was little that was new or valuable in the settlement.
"The problem is, a lot of this is done already," said Josh Horowitz, director of the Firearms Litigation Clearinghouse. "As far as a real impact on making America safer, it's no big deal. . . . We will litigate this. We will go forward. And we will win," he said.
Some gun control advocates said the idea of a deadline for having personalized guns that would work only for their owners was the most valuable of the provisions, though several companies have been working on that technology for years.
Others said the agreement was really all about politics.
"There's something amiss in this whole thing," said David Tinker, editor of Firearms Business, a newsletter about the industry. "It's been politicized. They're trying to use a company to force the others to go along. . . . If this is a victory for someone, it eludes me."
© 2000 The Washington Post Company
Gun Industry Views Pact as Threat to Its Unity
By Sharon Walsh
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2000; Page A10
NEW YORK, March 17 –– Gunmakers sent a blistering rebuke to Smith & Wesson today as some industry observers said the agreement between the country's largest manufacturer of handguns and the Clinton administration could force firearms manufacturers to admit they bear some responsibility for gun safety and gun crimes.
"The decision by foreign-owned handgun manufacturer, Smith & Wesson, to forge an agreement with the most anti-gun administration in history has violated a trust with their consumers and with the entire domestic firearms industry," said Robert Delfay, head of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents all major gunmakers.
The heat in Delfay's response was matched only by the stunned silence of individual gun manufacturers such as Prince George's County's Beretta U.S.A. Corp. and Georgia-based Glock Inc., where officials said they knew nothing about the agreement before the announcement was made. Although the government and all of the gun companies have long been in negotiations on the same issues, Smith & Wesson had "run off and cut their own deal" in a move that "fractures the unity we had since the first lawsuit was filed in October 1998," Delfay said.
The settlement puts other gun companies in a position uncomfortably similar to that of the tobacco industry after Liggett Group Inc. agreed in 1996 that it was liable for cigarette-related illnesses and submitted to demands for strong warnings on packages, some gun industry observers said today. That move was the first chink in the armor of an industry that had been unified in refusing to admit responsibility for tobacco-related medical problems and that had never settled or lost a case.
"This creates great peril and havoc for the industry," said one attorney active in the city lawsuits. "Juries will know that this is essentially an admission by Smith & Wesson that they needed more stringent rules. It's devastating to the other companies."
By agreeing both to make guns safer with locks and to have a code of conduct for wholesalers and retailers that sell its guns, Smith & Wesson has tacitly admitted that it could have been doing more all along to prevent gun accidents and gun crimes, attorneys said.
Of particular concern to the industry is the company's agreement to more closely monitor gun distribution. In the past, the companies have said they bear no responsibility for the actions of dealers who sell guns. But some of the 29 lawsuits brought by various cities have said that gunmakers knowingly distribute guns to dealers who sell to criminals.
"It's wonderful because it breaks the ice in terms of the resistance of the gun industry," said Richard Daynard, chairman of the Tobacco Products Liability Project and a professor at Northeastern University School of Law who follows the gun lawsuits.
While Liggett was a very small tobacco company, Smith & Wesson is seen as the most powerful player in the gun industry, he said. "It's very symbolically important for Smith & Wesson to do it," he said.
One reason Smith & Wesson may have agreed to settle, industry observers said, is that Tompkins PLC of Britain, which owns the company, wants to sell it. But there are no buyers for the $161 million company as long as it has dozens of lawsuits hanging over its head.
The gun industry has been plagued in recent years by lawsuits from cities, states and individuals. Even though gun and ammunition sales were up last year, many smaller manufacturers have been dropped by their insurers and are drowning in legal bills. Three California gun companies already have gone out of business and this settlement may bring other companies to the table, experts said.
The settlement lets Smith & Wesson out of a potential government lawsuit, but not out of city suits already filed--unless the mayors agree. It is unclear how many cities will drop Smith & Wesson from their lawsuits. But some cities, such as Chicago and Boston, have said they'll continue to sue the company.
And lawsuits already are headed to trial in New Orleans, Atlanta and Cleveland.
"The legal fees alone are enough to bankrupt the industry," said John Coale, a Washington lawyer involved in the city suits.
"The pressure is going to be on," said Daynard. "If I were general counsel of a gun company, I would want to join the settlement quickly."
The element of the deal that was most galling to the gun industry was that much of what Smith & Wesson agreed to do is either already federal law or is being done by other gunmakers. In some cases, Smith & Wesson only agreed to do things it already had put in motion--such as providing safety locks with all of its guns.
Virtually all gunmakers now ship their guns with external safety locks, industry experts said. Beretta, for example, has been including a cable lock with each gun since 1998 and will provide locks for guns sold before that if owners request them.
Delfay said many of Smith & Wesson's concessions were on the books. In one part of the agreement, for example, Smith & Wesson said that no sales of guns would be made until the buyer passes a background check, which is federal law.
Even advocates of gun control agreed that there was little that was new or valuable in the settlement.
"The problem is, a lot of this is done already," said Josh Horowitz, director of the Firearms Litigation Clearinghouse. "As far as a real impact on making America safer, it's no big deal. . . . We will litigate this. We will go forward. And we will win," he said.
Some gun control advocates said the idea of a deadline for having personalized guns that would work only for their owners was the most valuable of the provisions, though several companies have been working on that technology for years.
Others said the agreement was really all about politics.
"There's something amiss in this whole thing," said David Tinker, editor of Firearms Business, a newsletter about the industry. "It's been politicized. They're trying to use a company to force the others to go along. . . . If this is a victory for someone, it eludes me."
© 2000 The Washington Post Company
