I am no S&W fan, but I must point out a few salient facts about the deal they made. They were unquestionedly put under incomprehensible pressure to sign the deal. Remember, LaPierre slammed it outta the ball park when he pointed out Clinton and Co. simply were not enforcing existing laws. There is no question that Clinton and Co. cut S&W out of the herd for special consideration. Point 1) S&W is in financial trouble for a lot of reasons. . . one being they make marginal products in the fastest growing segment of the arms market. Point 2) S&W is a wholly owned subsidary of a British firm who would has made no secret of its desire to unload S&W. Point 3) S&W has a huge and very sensitive pressure point in that S&W's owners are a British company. The Brits are ruled by Tony Blair, a fellow-traveller of Bill clinton. Point 4) the British are not pestered with details like the Second Amendment. They have case law, but that can be overruled at the pleasure of the legislature.
What did S&W do? They adapted to survive. As it turned out the agreement immediately came under attack, as well it should. Is S&W implementing the agreement? Only to the extent they had provisions already under construction. Would S&W back out of the agreement? I think so. NO CONTRACT SIGNED UNDER DURESS WILL BE UPHELD IN COURT. The sooner this deal get to court, the more we will all learn.
For my 2 cents, I think S&W did everyone a favor in caving in the to Fascists. Finally, finally, the industry began a counter attack.
Am I saying we should support S&W???? No! Sink 'em. In doing so we will let everyone know there are consequences to our actions. If S&W goes TU some other company will buy the intellectual property and the name. S&W will live on!
------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater--1964