Dear Mr. Paul Jannuzzo,
I know Glock is between the rock and hard place because of Smith and Wesson’s sell out.
What upsets me the most is that we were turning the tide in the Congress and, I think, in the media.
We are on the offensive. The sell out really hurts our cause. We have less to bargain with. I really did (actually, still do) think we can add a national CCW reciprocity amendment to the “Crime Bill”.
Smith and Wesson made a deal with the devil (so you don’t think I’m too much of a radical, I voted for Clinton in 1992). Congress appropriates funds. Bids must be competitive. HUD cannot legally enact preferential treatment, nor can any other federal entity. We must also remember that Clinton and Cuomo will be gone in 10 months. Should Bush be elected (and he probably will be), any deals made may well be undone. However, the damage Smith and Wesson has done to itself with gunowners may never be forgotten. I’ll never buy one…that’s a promise, Mr. Jannuzzo.
I expect Ed Shultz to be gone within a year.
Also, please remember that this “agreement” does not end all the lawsuits. Nor is it viable due to the demands made on the dealer (my dealer won’t sell Colts (except consignments). As he is class III, I don’t expect him to deal in Smith and Wesson anymore either due to the “pre-ban” rifle prohibition. I do expect the agreement to end up in court due to these demands.
And, of course, there is still going to be a huge market for state and local law enforcement.
I’m not going to ask you not to make some sort of arrangement with HUD. I am going to ask you to add a few stipulations yourself. The agreement would be contingent upon these stipulations.
1) Agreement to be contingent upon passage and signing of a National Concealed Carry Reciprocity law (see Ron Paul’s HR 407). This would make you and Glock heroes among gun owners…probably increase your civilian sales 25% or more.
2) No Law Enforcement/Military exemptions for “smart gun” technology. If it’s not reliable enough for that market, it’s not reliable enough for civilian defense sales. (Smart Gun technology can be tested using the Secret Service agents who will be guarding Clinton when he leaves office.)
3) No particular demands made on FFL dealers other then those approved by legislation. No limitations on other gun sales of legal weapons. (By the way, the “assault” rifle ban has a sunset provision…it expires in 2004).
4) Only NEW designs would not accept “pre-ban” magazines (I am very curious how S&W will interpret this provision in their agreement). In other word, existing designs would not be affected.
5) No limitations on purchases unless prohibited by state law (eliminates the 14 day waiting period to pick up multiple purchases).
6) 1% of profits to gun safety education. The course curriculum to be approved by manufacturer and states and must be pro-safety, not anti-gun. NRA safety course would be acceptable. Loss of profit to be 100% deductible to the manufacturer.
7) Gun Show sales per NICS. Costs to be assumed by HUD. Delays cannot exceed those required by legislative action. HUD assumes all liability for any other delays.
8) BAFT interpretation must be per strict Constitutional verbiage (i.e. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say anything about limitations for “sporting use”).
9) No government supplied statistical data unless verified by an independent agency to be distributed with purchases.
10) Oversight commission to include at least one (1) non-government or manufacturer representative. To be selected from a list of volunteers (interpret this as being a civilian/taxpayer (i.e. ME).
11) All handguns to be available to the civilian market.
12) No purchaser required taking any “safety” course unless required by individual state law. All costs of safety courses to be assumed by HUD.
13) Congressional representatives of the people must ratify the agreement. Any threat of lawsuit by HUD or other federal agency prohibited upon agreement between parties regardless of congressional vote of the agreement.
I’m sure you can continue…
By the way, no one has trouble with the hidden serial number. Few have trouble with the ballistic data collection.
I’m also going to ask you make this public (as a good corporate citizen) prior to sign off of the agreement. I suggest you give copies to John Dingell (D, Michigan) and Bob Barr (R, Georgia) prior to setting down with HUD.
I’m sure HUD will not be thrilled with this. However, it is a good faith effort, which will not alienate your civilian market. Part of the problem with the Smith and Wesson deal is that it was really underhanded (we expect that from Clinton and cronies….S&W really blew us away).
I am also going to ask you to pass this along to the other manufacturers threatened by HUD. A unified front will work…
Mr. Jannuzzo, I own two Glock handguns (a 12 year old 17L and a new 19C). I love these guns…well made, reliable, tough, easy to break down for maintenance. I’ve every intention of purchasing a 26 this year. I don’t think I’d boycott Glock…but, as a politically motivated taxpayer, I like to see my state (Pennsylvania) to get it’s money’s worth when buying arms for the police forces (PA isn’t using Glocks 100% yet). I call my local and federal representatives frequently on gun and other issues.
My e-mail address is: xxxxxxxxxxxx
if you wish further contact.
I wish you and Glock the best in this matter.
By the way, when are you going to get your web site finished?
I know Glock is between the rock and hard place because of Smith and Wesson’s sell out.
What upsets me the most is that we were turning the tide in the Congress and, I think, in the media.
We are on the offensive. The sell out really hurts our cause. We have less to bargain with. I really did (actually, still do) think we can add a national CCW reciprocity amendment to the “Crime Bill”.
Smith and Wesson made a deal with the devil (so you don’t think I’m too much of a radical, I voted for Clinton in 1992). Congress appropriates funds. Bids must be competitive. HUD cannot legally enact preferential treatment, nor can any other federal entity. We must also remember that Clinton and Cuomo will be gone in 10 months. Should Bush be elected (and he probably will be), any deals made may well be undone. However, the damage Smith and Wesson has done to itself with gunowners may never be forgotten. I’ll never buy one…that’s a promise, Mr. Jannuzzo.
I expect Ed Shultz to be gone within a year.
Also, please remember that this “agreement” does not end all the lawsuits. Nor is it viable due to the demands made on the dealer (my dealer won’t sell Colts (except consignments). As he is class III, I don’t expect him to deal in Smith and Wesson anymore either due to the “pre-ban” rifle prohibition. I do expect the agreement to end up in court due to these demands.
And, of course, there is still going to be a huge market for state and local law enforcement.
I’m not going to ask you not to make some sort of arrangement with HUD. I am going to ask you to add a few stipulations yourself. The agreement would be contingent upon these stipulations.
1) Agreement to be contingent upon passage and signing of a National Concealed Carry Reciprocity law (see Ron Paul’s HR 407). This would make you and Glock heroes among gun owners…probably increase your civilian sales 25% or more.
2) No Law Enforcement/Military exemptions for “smart gun” technology. If it’s not reliable enough for that market, it’s not reliable enough for civilian defense sales. (Smart Gun technology can be tested using the Secret Service agents who will be guarding Clinton when he leaves office.)
3) No particular demands made on FFL dealers other then those approved by legislation. No limitations on other gun sales of legal weapons. (By the way, the “assault” rifle ban has a sunset provision…it expires in 2004).
4) Only NEW designs would not accept “pre-ban” magazines (I am very curious how S&W will interpret this provision in their agreement). In other word, existing designs would not be affected.
5) No limitations on purchases unless prohibited by state law (eliminates the 14 day waiting period to pick up multiple purchases).
6) 1% of profits to gun safety education. The course curriculum to be approved by manufacturer and states and must be pro-safety, not anti-gun. NRA safety course would be acceptable. Loss of profit to be 100% deductible to the manufacturer.
7) Gun Show sales per NICS. Costs to be assumed by HUD. Delays cannot exceed those required by legislative action. HUD assumes all liability for any other delays.
8) BAFT interpretation must be per strict Constitutional verbiage (i.e. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say anything about limitations for “sporting use”).
9) No government supplied statistical data unless verified by an independent agency to be distributed with purchases.
10) Oversight commission to include at least one (1) non-government or manufacturer representative. To be selected from a list of volunteers (interpret this as being a civilian/taxpayer (i.e. ME).
11) All handguns to be available to the civilian market.
12) No purchaser required taking any “safety” course unless required by individual state law. All costs of safety courses to be assumed by HUD.
13) Congressional representatives of the people must ratify the agreement. Any threat of lawsuit by HUD or other federal agency prohibited upon agreement between parties regardless of congressional vote of the agreement.
I’m sure you can continue…
By the way, no one has trouble with the hidden serial number. Few have trouble with the ballistic data collection.
I’m also going to ask you make this public (as a good corporate citizen) prior to sign off of the agreement. I suggest you give copies to John Dingell (D, Michigan) and Bob Barr (R, Georgia) prior to setting down with HUD.
I’m sure HUD will not be thrilled with this. However, it is a good faith effort, which will not alienate your civilian market. Part of the problem with the Smith and Wesson deal is that it was really underhanded (we expect that from Clinton and cronies….S&W really blew us away).
I am also going to ask you to pass this along to the other manufacturers threatened by HUD. A unified front will work…
Mr. Jannuzzo, I own two Glock handguns (a 12 year old 17L and a new 19C). I love these guns…well made, reliable, tough, easy to break down for maintenance. I’ve every intention of purchasing a 26 this year. I don’t think I’d boycott Glock…but, as a politically motivated taxpayer, I like to see my state (Pennsylvania) to get it’s money’s worth when buying arms for the police forces (PA isn’t using Glocks 100% yet). I call my local and federal representatives frequently on gun and other issues.
My e-mail address is: xxxxxxxxxxxx
if you wish further contact.
I wish you and Glock the best in this matter.
By the way, when are you going to get your web site finished?