You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
P. James Debeny - the CEO of Smith & Wesson - questions...
- Thread starter Skans
- Start date
S&W nearly went bankrupt over that little episode and will not be doing that again.
Link to a man who is all business and pretty smart to boot.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/james-debney/11/24b/52a
Link to a man who is all business and pretty smart to boot.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/james-debney/11/24b/52a
Numerous representatives I've spoken with from S&W have told me they have no intention of honoring the HUD agreement in any way.
Interestingly enough, even if they wanted to, nobody knows who's supposed to oversee it, who's supposed to enforce it, or even how to comply. HUD apparently wants no part of it.
Interestingly enough, even if they wanted to, nobody knows who's supposed to oversee it, who's supposed to enforce it, or even how to comply. HUD apparently wants no part of it.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Numerous representatives I've spoken with from S&W have told me they have no intention of honoring the HUD agreement in any way."
Such a nice story. I'm sure they told it in very convincing fashion. I'm glad that they think that they might have that option.
Problem is, the HUD agreement has the same force as a legally binding contract or court order.
That it's dormant right now means nothing. If the government chooses to demand enforcement of all of its provisions, S&W, and gunowners in general, could very well be righteously screwed.
Smith & Wesson's ownership sat on its hands and did nothing for the 8 years of the Bush Presidency when they could have worked actively towards a termination of this agreement, and yet did nothing.
While the agreement was signed by Thompkins PLC, the subsequent sale of the company to Saf-T-Hamer (sp?) also means nothing. The agreement didn't vaporize simply because the company changed hands.
Smith & Wesson's current ownership has their heads in the sand regarding the status of the agreement. I just pray that it doesn't come back to bit them, and us, in a very negative way.
"nobody knows who's supposed to oversee it..."
The agreement very clearly lays out the mechanisms by which that happens in establishing an autonomous oversight committee. HUD was not accorded a seat on the Committee - ATF was, as were the various cities, states, and counties that sued gunmakers at the time.
HUD was merely the "face on the view screen." You weren't supposed to look behind the curtain at who was really controlling things.
Finally, and interestingly enough, the agreement also does nothing to prevent the Government or the other parties to it from filing additional legal actions against S&W, nor does it prevent others who were not party to it from doing the same thing.
I'd love for the agreement to be dead. I'd love to believe that S&W thinks that it can simply ignore it away.
Fortunately, my Mother didn't raise any fools.
Such a nice story. I'm sure they told it in very convincing fashion. I'm glad that they think that they might have that option.
Problem is, the HUD agreement has the same force as a legally binding contract or court order.
That it's dormant right now means nothing. If the government chooses to demand enforcement of all of its provisions, S&W, and gunowners in general, could very well be righteously screwed.
Smith & Wesson's ownership sat on its hands and did nothing for the 8 years of the Bush Presidency when they could have worked actively towards a termination of this agreement, and yet did nothing.
While the agreement was signed by Thompkins PLC, the subsequent sale of the company to Saf-T-Hamer (sp?) also means nothing. The agreement didn't vaporize simply because the company changed hands.
Smith & Wesson's current ownership has their heads in the sand regarding the status of the agreement. I just pray that it doesn't come back to bit them, and us, in a very negative way.
"nobody knows who's supposed to oversee it..."
The agreement very clearly lays out the mechanisms by which that happens in establishing an autonomous oversight committee. HUD was not accorded a seat on the Committee - ATF was, as were the various cities, states, and counties that sued gunmakers at the time.
HUD was merely the "face on the view screen." You weren't supposed to look behind the curtain at who was really controlling things.
Finally, and interestingly enough, the agreement also does nothing to prevent the Government or the other parties to it from filing additional legal actions against S&W, nor does it prevent others who were not party to it from doing the same thing.
I'd love for the agreement to be dead. I'd love to believe that S&W thinks that it can simply ignore it away.
Fortunately, my Mother didn't raise any fools.
Mike, what I think you're overlooking is the significance of the amount of time that has passed without HUD being enforced. I am not a lawyer and not particularly well-versed in "legalese" but Rob Firriolo is and the following link contains his opinion on the matter:
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/sw-hud+3.html
Additionally, here is some information on Mr. Firriolo:
http://www.duanemorris.com/attorneys/robertpfirriolo.html
Also, I don't think that its insignificant that both the Bush and Obama Administrations have failed to act on the HUD agreement. Without getting too far off onto politics, suffice to say that we can safely conclude that President Obama and the majority of his administration are not particularly friendly to gun rights. Given his stance on 2A and his record of changing policy through means that do not have to go through congress such as executive order or rulings by gov't agencies like ATF, I find it odd that President Obama would not pursue enforcement of the HUD agreement if he could. More likely, I think, as Mr. Firriolo does, that the failure to abide by the agreement by both S&W and the government for so many years most likely represents abandonment and both S&W and the government have waived any rights afforded to them by the agreement through their failure to act. The reason, I believe, that President Obama has not attempted to enforce the HUD agreement is because he can't.
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/sw-hud+3.html
Additionally, here is some information on Mr. Firriolo:
http://www.duanemorris.com/attorneys/robertpfirriolo.html
Also, I don't think that its insignificant that both the Bush and Obama Administrations have failed to act on the HUD agreement. Without getting too far off onto politics, suffice to say that we can safely conclude that President Obama and the majority of his administration are not particularly friendly to gun rights. Given his stance on 2A and his record of changing policy through means that do not have to go through congress such as executive order or rulings by gov't agencies like ATF, I find it odd that President Obama would not pursue enforcement of the HUD agreement if he could. More likely, I think, as Mr. Firriolo does, that the failure to abide by the agreement by both S&W and the government for so many years most likely represents abandonment and both S&W and the government have waived any rights afforded to them by the agreement through their failure to act. The reason, I believe, that President Obama has not attempted to enforce the HUD agreement is because he can't.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Webley,
I'm familiar with the arguments raised there.
I'm also familiar with the fact that it's simply one attorney's opinion.
There have been other attorneys who have opined that the agreement is only truly dead in one of two cases -- 1. Both parties agree to that, or 2. One party attempts to enforce compliance and it is struck down by the courts.
I'm not an attorney, but given the nature of the Federal government, its long history of arbitrary actions, and the peculiar nature of the judiciary, I'm not going to accept the presumption that the agreement is dead simply because it looks dead.
Smith & Wesson squandered a prefect opportunity to put the matter to rest legally, and that's unforgivable.
I'm familiar with the arguments raised there.
I'm also familiar with the fact that it's simply one attorney's opinion.
There have been other attorneys who have opined that the agreement is only truly dead in one of two cases -- 1. Both parties agree to that, or 2. One party attempts to enforce compliance and it is struck down by the courts.
I'm not an attorney, but given the nature of the Federal government, its long history of arbitrary actions, and the peculiar nature of the judiciary, I'm not going to accept the presumption that the agreement is dead simply because it looks dead.
Smith & Wesson squandered a prefect opportunity to put the matter to rest legally, and that's unforgivable.
Uncle Buck
New member
I have to admit I was ignorant of what the HUD Agreement was. For others reading who aslo may not know, here is a short overview of the concerns raised.
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/jeff_snyder_on_sw.html
The actual agreement:
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/sw-hud.html
I thought congress passed laws that covered situations in which a manufacturer could not be sued if their products were used in an unlawful manner or in a manner not prescribed by the manufacturer?
The inroads the gun lobby has been making in regards to the right to keep and bear arms, does this in anyway nullify parts of the HUD Agreement? I do not think so.
As for some of the technology (Engraving serial numbers, etc), wasn't that contested because there was only one company that had the ability (and patent) to engrave in such a way the agreement called for? (I could be thinking of something different, one of the smarter people will be able to clarify it.) Maybe that had something to do with California Law....
Either way, this discussion has shown me that I should have been aware, a LONG TIME ago, about stuff that could affect me. I was in Asia when this was going on and Stars and Stripes did not cover it very well, if at all.
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/jeff_snyder_on_sw.html
The actual agreement:
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/sw-hud.html
I thought congress passed laws that covered situations in which a manufacturer could not be sued if their products were used in an unlawful manner or in a manner not prescribed by the manufacturer?
The inroads the gun lobby has been making in regards to the right to keep and bear arms, does this in anyway nullify parts of the HUD Agreement? I do not think so.
As for some of the technology (Engraving serial numbers, etc), wasn't that contested because there was only one company that had the ability (and patent) to engrave in such a way the agreement called for? (I could be thinking of something different, one of the smarter people will be able to clarify it.) Maybe that had something to do with California Law....
Either way, this discussion has shown me that I should have been aware, a LONG TIME ago, about stuff that could affect me. I was in Asia when this was going on and Stars and Stripes did not cover it very well, if at all.
Last edited: