Questions on the HUD Agreement

V

VictorLouis

New member
How do we interpret "new" guns? Does that mean new models, or newly made versions of existing models?

What is "not readily operable" by a 6y.o.?

Are polymer frames "print resistant"?

Are the Taurus & Steyr keyed locks to be considered as "external" or "internal" style?

Define "readily convertible" to auto fire.

Who decided what is to be included in a "performance test" of standards? What will pass/fail?

What will be an acceptable "certified safety course" in the eyes of the Feds?

I'm not looking for answers here. I just want you all to fathom the immense can of worms this has opened. Read the agreement! The "insurance" requirement alone could be responsible for shutting down most all of the gun shops as we now know them!
 
This agreement is so vague that there is really no way to enforce it. Without a REAL glossary of terms (legal terms), there is no way to really gauge its impact. And. As of yesterday, they deal is already doom to failure. Two cities, Boston and Chicago, have said that they will continue to pursue with the lawsuits. Other cities and HCI have not spoken yet. The deal hinges on the cities dropping their claims against Smith & Wesson. Yes, it is all about money.

To rob from what a retired senator said about Republicans, I will say the same about ALL us gun owners. GUN OWNERS EAT THEIR YOUNG! I am disappointed at my peers! Knee jerking, just like LIBERALS! And we claim that we are different than society. BULL!

At this time nobody, and I mean NOBODY, knows the exact interpretation of this agreement or its impact. Put on a poker face and be cool. Let this thing play itself out.

Robert

[This message has been edited by Robert the41MagFan (edited March 19, 2000).]
 
Robert, I hope I understood you correctly. Are you saying that this "agreement" is moot unless EVERYONE signs on and drops their suits? If that's the case, then maybe there's hope. I don't think the sharks will stop their feeding frenzy over a little chum like this!
 
According to the first sentence that states the following:
"Preamble: The city, state, county and federal parties agree to dismiss the parties from the pending suits and refrain from filing suits against the manufacturer parties based on an equivalent cause of action."

Based on that statement. Yes. If ALL parties do not sign on, most likely, the deal is mute. Think about it, why would Smith & Wesson sign a deal that does not eliminate government civil liabilities? As of right now Boston and Chicago have said NO to the deal and will continue to sue. I believe New Orleans is still scheduled to go to trail.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I know what the terminology means. This is just a synopsis of the real deal. But, bases on some common sense, would have to go with this theory.

Robert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top