Smith And Wesson Agreement

M

maxinquaye

New member
I am new to this forum, and new to handguns in general. Probably too new to have a valid opinion on this most volatile of topics, but here goes anyway. Flame all you want, I am only expressing things as I see them, which may be different then those of you who have been around to witness this entire episode.

First off, I read their letter of introduction and "the agreement" (http://www.smith-wesson.com/helpdesk/parts.html). Their rationalization seemed reasonable. It looks to me like they took the only option really available to them. Perhaps if they had run their business differently they would have had more money to throw away in court, but boycotting them simply because they did not handle their cash flow well seems extreme. Would you all rather see S&W close their doors forever? That's what you will be doing by continuing to boycott them. Yes, they set a precedence that can be used against us. Yes, it sucks. But putting S&W out of business will not solve this.

If the same amount of effort is put into actively fighting for RKBA as was put into "bashing" S&W, perhaps we could prevent other manufacturers from falling victim to the high costs of frivolous lawsuits. Before you boycott S&W, think about how you would stand up to an angry crowd of losers who continually harassed you and kept dragging you into court for insignificant cases. How long would you, YOU PERSONALLY, hold out when faced with bankruptcy, faced with putting your family out on the street (tantamount to what S&W will have to do with layoffs due to lost revenue) in the face of such harassment? It is a sad state of affairs our legal system is in when an opponent who is more resourceful or numerous does not even have to win in court - they can harass you and break you with impunity.

If you want to direct your anger, if you want to fix things, become ACTIVE! Fight for RKBA. Fight against insipid laws that allow anyone to sue for anything. Start a local grassroots movement aimed at curbing the random acts of litigation that are so common by making them socially unacceptable. Do something, but don't boycott S&W simply because they did what they had to do to stay in business. That is their responsibility as a corporation. Your responsibility as a consumer is to make the proper choice when spending your resources. If you like that S&W - buy it. If not, don't. But don't condemn a company which is part of our history as a nation for doing what Americans do best - Surviving.

___________
The correct link to the agreement is this:http://www.smith-wesson.com/misc/agreement.html


[This message has been edited by maxinquaye (edited July 05, 2000).]
 
Hmm. S&W was faced with the choice of giving in or losing it all? Well, Glock, Sig, etc., seem to be doing all right, aren't they? And what, exactly, did S&W gain? They are still being sued, and various parties to the contract have backed out of it. Eventually, all of the parties except HUD will pull out and either continue their lawsuits against S&W or file new ones, leaving S&W locked into the agreement with absolutely no recourse. And no, in answer to your followup question, S&W can't declare the deal over. S&W may have a right to file breach of contract actions against the others, but as long as there is one entity keeping its part of the bargain, S&W is legally bound to maintain its end. Just goes to show that appeasement never works.

By the way, does it bother you at all that the contract constitutes, on its face, the worst restraint on trade and anti-trust violation this nation has ever seen? Guess not.

One final note: cash flow clearly wasn't the problem. Do you have any idea how much money is spent negotiating contracts like this? I'd be interested in seeing how much research/negotiation time S&W's law firm spent on this crap, compared to litigation costs incurred by other firms. Remember, these suits are getting kicked out at the base level right now, with minimal amounts of money spent. You don't get significant expenses until discovery starts, and it hasn't. The litigation expenses now are still in the "cost of doing business" category. S&W sold us out WAY before they ran any real risk of financial injury. All they were trying to do is gain market position on the competitors . . . and they lost. Too bad for them.

[This message has been edited by buzz_knox (edited July 05, 2000).]
 
Max. Read that agreement again. If it only affected S&W, I wouldn't have much problem with it. But it affectes any dealer sell S&W guns. He would not be able to sell AR-15's, Mini-14's, and handgun that had a hi-cap magazine, or any product made by companies making such products. The implacations of their agreement with our socialist government not only violates the Constitution of the United States, but a whole bunch of other laws including Title 10 of the U.S. Code.
Don't get me wrong, I have a few S&W firearms, and I think they're great, but I damn well will not buy another new one as long as that illegal, read a violation if the Constitution, agreement is in force.
Paul B.
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
 
Smith and Wesson sold out our constitutional right to the government. They showed that they are only trying to defend thier own company, and not the rights of the american people. Other companys were asked to sign into this "Pact" as people are calling it, and they showed some backbone and refused. Glock, Browning, and numerous other companys said no, and showed us, that some companys still care about us and our rights.

Smith and Wesson is owned by a British company. In England they dont have any guns. They dont care about ours. They dont care about our constitution. That company was only out to protect itself.

Smith and Wesson makes/made some of the best firearms around. Well made american guns. There was a big market for Smith and Wesson products. But after they signed that agreement, sales went down, way down. The american people showed Smith and Wesson that our rights are not for sale. They learned the hard way. Its sad to see that they are loosing so much buisness. They were a great company. If they go completely under I will miss them. Well made american guns.

But then again, they were onlt trying to save their own buisness from lawsuits. So I am not sure what to think. I dont like what they did. But there is really nothing we cn do about it now.
 
If I were a dealer, I would quit carrying Smiths -- and many have -- before complying with the "agreement". The imposition on dealers is illegal restraint of trade, and I believe a lawsuit is pursuing that point.

It also seems unfair restraint for the Fed to try to push local law enforcement agencies to give Smiths preferential treatment. It's also a bad thing businesswise, because from the looks of things, Smith will be out of business soon, and who wants their local cops to use guns they can't get support for? All of the torqued-off RKBA supporters are voting with their dollars. It is a shame to see a once-great American company, with a brand known around the world, go under, but when you ignore and anger your customer base, the marketplace eats you.

Smith & Wesson was silly to sign that deal. All they did was throw one bone into a howling pack of dogs. They can still be sued by cities not party to the original agreement -- and they have been.
 
I believe we (the Gun owners) will ultimately lose by S&W signing the agreement, and us boycotting S&W. :(

I purchased an SW99 in January 2000, my first and only handgun. I have not regretted my choice, but I wished S&W had not capitulated so easily.


[This message has been edited by LONESOMEDOVE (edited July 05, 2000).]
 
First of all, S&W sold out while most of these suits were being tossed out of court for being so ridiculous. They caved in almost immediately.

Second, S&W claims that it was a monetary decision don't hold water. They have the largest share of the firearms market and yet they can't hold out when every other manufacturer can?

Third, S&W gained nothing... not only did half of the cities continue their lawsuit, the after-settlement suits by Philadelphia and NY state also named S&W as a defendant. They'll be lucky if the settlement isn't used as some kind of admission of wrong-doing to bludgeon them to death entirely.

Last, S&W made a bad business decision. That agreement makes it impossible to sell their product and still be competitive. As a customer, I wouldn't shop at any store that had to abide by that agreement, regardless of what they sold. S&W shouldn't be surprised that its dealers and distributors are unwilling to sign their own death sentence.

Personally, I don't care if the Brits end up declaring bankruptcy for S&W. They can take the head of this comapny and post it on a pike as a warning to others.
 
If all one reads about the "deal" is the rationalization that S&W posted on their web site, then you've missed a lot of facts.

All their little descriptions of what they took the agreement to mean are just so much BS, and the Clinton Admistration has told them as much, but they continue to let it reside on their site. They signed the agreement - which is not a contract between Smith and others, it is a court order to which Smith is legally bound! - and then tried to weasel out by claiming they mis-understood the true meaning of what they signed...RIGHT! Clinton nipped that one right in the bud!!

In all the instances where they claim that the dealer's and distributor's responsibilities outlined in the agreement only apply to S&W products, the Government has made it clear that the agreement actually means exactly what it says. Any who want to carry S&W products must handle ALL products in the same manner! The requirements are extreme and go far beyond current law. The agreement does, however, give a sneak preview of what the current Administration calls a "common sense first step" toward their idea of gun control.

Find the text of the original agreement (all 15 or so pages) and read it without Smith's little comments. I think you will find it very clear in what it means and you'll wonder how S&W could have ever misunderstood it - the fact is they didn't and they signed it anyway!

Is it right for us to sacrifice S&W for their transgressions? YES! Far better companies (and men - and women) have been sacrificed for our freedoms. Those who would sacrifice essential freedom for momentary safety (even from lawsuits) deserve NEITHER! And S&W is getting exactly what it deserves...

Mikey
 
There is nothing anyone can say or do to defend S&W in what they have done. The only place that they can find sympathy with me is in the dictionary between sh** and syphylis. :) Anybody or any company that sidles up with Klinton and his gang of thugs is a loser :mad: And I always liked S&W and will no longer purchase anything they are trying to sell :p
My .02 worth :)

------------------
We preserve our freedoms by using four boxes: soap,ballot,jury, and cartridge.
Anonymous

[This message has been edited by loknload (edited July 05, 2000).]
 
I own a S & W revolver, and it is a great gun. You couldn't ask for a much better revolver for the price; the single action trigger matches that on a Kimber that I paid twice as much for.

However... I will not buy another gun from them, or buy a gun (of any brand) from a dealer that continues to sell them. They did something very wrong, and now they have to pay for it. I am sorry to see a company with as much history go down, but thats the way it is.

What bothers me even more is that Clinton couldn't get a law passed through Congress, and deciding that he knew better than the writers of the Constitution, decided to make it a law by going through the back door. In addition, the other politicians that went along with him (I am including the prosecutors that are pushing the law suits) all know that this is not the way that our system is supposed to work. Even those who honestly believe that guns are evil should know that doing something they mistakenly believe is right the wrong way is WRONG.

Instead of the lack of support for S & W nowdays being illegal, as Clinton and others are stating, the deals that they have struck are illegal. I honestly expect that in a few years, if we fight hard and long enough, someone is going to come along as fix that problem, at least.

Casey

[This message has been edited by Casey (edited July 05, 2000).]
 
No flame is intended, Max, but I don't think you have all the facts. As someone said above, S and W's "interpretation" of the agreement is shockingly bad. It bears no relation to the agreement, and the government publicly whacked S&W for lying about the agreement months ago.

Smith made a calculated decision to try to gain market position by making an agreement that they knew was illegal and morally repugnant. They were not trying to "save their company," they were trying to get the favored government vendor position they supposedly got and to make their competitors look bad and unsafe. That they had to break a bunch of laws and several rules of decency to do so didn't matter to them, because after all the other party to the agreement was the government that was supposed to be enforcing those laws. Yes, to answer your question, I'd rather see them go out of business. None of the local dealers carry new S&W anymore, and it's not a coincidence.
 
To reiterate what several have already said... If this agreement involved only S&W and big brother then that's their business. Unfortunately, the Clinton-Gores intended this deal to burden/cripple every firearms dealer who deals in S&W (which is a good- sized portion). I have spoken with several local shop owners and all have said "when the distributors dry up, that's it for us." One owner explained that even if he wanted to continue stocking S&W he couldn't afford to do so because of all the red tape and new time-consuming regulations this agreement will thrust upon his business. Firearms or fencing, whatever your business, time is money.

And the icing on the cake...I've heard rumors the Clinton-Gores have discussed taking such dealers to the carpet on restraint of trade issues. Now wouldn't that be an ironic kick in the teeth!
 
Wow what a response...I agree with what a couple of people have posted in that I should read more on this topic. Before commenting further, I want to UNDERSTAND the WHOLE issue. If what a lot of you say is true, then I expect to retract my earlier position, but I need to research some more.

Could anyone please help me out with some links/IRL's to other sources of information about this topic?
 
Smith & Wesson Agreement in PDF format

Smith & Wesson Agreement in MS Word (.doc) format

Notice how the S&W "clarification" left out some interesting points. The worst one IMO is this section on what FFLs must comply with if they choose to sell S&W firearms:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Part II.A.1.h
Not sell ammunition magazines that are able to accept more than 10
rounds regardless of the date of manufacture, not sell any semi-automatic
assault weapon as defined in 18 U.S.C.921(a)(30)
regardless of the date of manufacture, provide safety locks and
warnings with firearms, as specified in Section 1 above, and sell only
firearms that comport with the design criteria of this Agreement.[/quote]

This means that if you want to sell S&W products, you cant sell any pre-ban "assault weapons", or any pistol capable of accepting a pre-ban mag, or that doesn't incorporate the following:

A magazine disconnect safety
A loaded chamber indicator
An external safety
A firing pin block or lock.



[This message has been edited by BB (edited July 06, 2000).]
 
A few excerpts from the agreement to show you what I mean:

SAFETY AND DESIGN

All handguns must meet the following safety and design standards:

External locking device sold with all guns within 60 days.
(This is what the public thinks is the heart of the agreement-they'll just agree to sell trigger locks.)

Internal locking device on all guns within 24 months.

Smart Guns -- Authorized User Technology. Manufacturers commit 2% of annual firearms revenues to the development of authorized user technology.

Within 36 months, authorized user technology will be included in all new firearm models, with the exception of curios and collectors' firearms.
(Even though it doesn't work and shows no sign of being 3 years away from working, it's mandatory.)

If top eight manufacturers agree, authorized user Technology will be included in all new firearms.
(IOW, if the big eight sign, then the agreement ceases to be an agreement and becomes a law binding on EVERY other company even though they didn't agree to it and the legislature didn't pass it!)

Child Safety. Within 12 months, handguns will be designed so they cannot be readily operated by a child under 6.
(No one knows for sure what this means, but initial guesses are trigger pulls above 12 lbs for all weapons--even single actions!)

Performance test. All firearms will be subject to a Performance test to ensure safety and quality.
(There is no way to know what the Hell this will be. They can make it anything because the standards are not written down. I'm sure S&W got a verbal promise, but what's that worth?)

All pistols must meet the following additional requirements:

Safety device. Positive manually operated safety device.
(We all have to shoot Australian Glocks whether we're dumb enough to need 'em or not.)

Large capacity magazines. New firearm designs will not be able to accept large-capacity magazines that were manufactured prior to September 1994. (Manufacture of such magazines has been prohibited since that date.)
(WHAT? How dare they do this?)

Law enforcement and military exception. If law enforcement agencies or the military certify the need, exceptions to these requirements may be made.
(And here's why your local police went along--they don't think they'll have to use any of this worthless crap. Next time you think these features aren't a big deal, ask yourself why the police got it in writing that they could avoid them while we can't. They know the real score and, while they might feel bad for us, they're not going to put their lives on the line to use our bureacrat model pistols.)

Illegal firearms. Manufacturers will not sell firearms that can readily be converted into fully automatic weapons or that are resistant to fingerprints.
(Which could be every polymer-framed gun ever made, if they choose to read it that way. Don't think they would? No, of course you do.)

"Code of Conduct. The manufacturers will sell only to authorized dealers and distributors and allow their authorized distributors to sell only to authorized dealers.

Authorized dealers and distributors will agree to a code of conduct. If manufacturers receive notice of a violation by an authorized dealer or distributor, they will take action against the dealer or distributor, Including termination of sales to the dealer or distributor. The Oversight Commission will review such actions and have authority to require termination or suspension if warranted. "
(Have you seen the words "Smith and Wesson" yet? You won't. That's because this applies to ALL manufacturers, ALL dealers, and ALL distributors. If they don't abide by the agreement EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDN'T AGREE TO IT, then Smith and anyone else who signs HAS to cut them off and refuse to do business with them. Talk about restraint of trade.)

Well, I gotta go so I can get to the gun shop before work. Read the rest yourself and see if your blood doesn't boil. Seeya!
 
For the record, I will not purchase another S & W product. My next purchase will be a Kahr K9. I live in NYC and it takes a minimum of 3 months for licensed permit holders to receive another purchase voucher.

I just wished HUD would post the ENTIRE agreement, not just the safety aspect of the agreement. I’m in need of education in RKBA. We the gun-owners should attempt to educate those individuals we come in contact with that may have incorrect information or a negative outlook on RKBA.
Some family members and co-workers look at me as if I were mad for owning a firearm. Some have indicated the “rash” response from pro-gun individuals to the S & W agreement, and what THEY consider sensible gun laws. I have disagreed with them, but unfortunately I do not have the knowledge to intellectually argue my point of view.

I look forward to learning from all TFL members in the future. Thank You.
 
Good God Man!!!!!!!! Three months to buy a handgun. Why would you live in such a place. In three months I can get the paperwork done on a fully automatic submachine gun and thats through the federal government!!! No offense but why don't you people do something about your situation.
 
Some good ones to remember:

They have to donate 1 or 2% of revenue to anti-gun programs.


They force stores selling Smiths to not sell other legal products.

And at the bottom is a note that says: If any gun makers sign a nastier agreement, you must abide by that too. Who in the he** signs a "blank check" contract? That's pressure.


Battler.
 
The whole thing is truly a sad state of affairs. I had my eye on several S&W revolvers,(never cared for their semi-autos) but alas my money will now have to go elsewhere. In my opinion we have no other choice but total boycott. If they go down the tubes it will be unfortunate, but they made their bed now they get to LIE in it.

"Whatever it was, it's dead now."

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