Smith & Wesson Anything goes holding action

M

Master Blaster

New member
I had a thought that the present agreement really only concedes on the smart gun issue.

All the other concessions are things that S&W already does (trigger locks with each gun. Authorized dealers already do background checks at gun shows because they are ALL FFL holders).

So their current move delays lawsuits for a while so they can stay in business, and that is with the hope that the next president will be more sympathetic.

They can reneg on the smart gun promise by saying they cant make a reliable one.
Reneging later buys them survival now.

This is a back to the wall tactic.

Legal fees can easily put a company under they can run into tens or even hundreds of millions each year depending on the number of seperate suits filed in individual jurisdictions.

And you never know waht a jury may decide to do if you fight to the bitter end. If you do fight to the bitter end you may run out of money even if you win.

BUY Smith & Wesson guns and help save our freedoms.



[This message has been edited by Master Blaster (edited March 24, 2000).]
 
I REALLY wish people would read the S&W agreement.

There are good reasons why the media keeps saying it's about "trigger locks".


If you must know a few key points, have you been to a gun show? Currently, non-FFLs can sell there too, unless enough gun makers sign on that is.

And now that only FFLs can sell, oh look, in the agreement these FFLs can no longer sell pre-ban mags and rifles.


Battler.
 
What he said.


The agreement is NOT what has been published in the press. Read the whole thing. It is 15 pages long.

Why would the government let S&W off the hook for something they are doing already?
 
Master Blaster,

You are terribly misinformed. Go here and read the entire 15 page agreement http://www.nraila.org/research/20000321-BillofRightsCivilRights-002.shtml

You will see that it prohibits dealers and distributors from selling magazines that hold over 10 rounds, pre-ban assault weapons, handguns without the required features (Sigs,Kahrs, 1911's) and require dealers to set up a computer database of firearms transactions among other things.

Brian
 
Get smart,S&W sold out,period. They deserve to die. Join the boycott!!!!

------------------
BOYCOTT SMITH AND WESSON!!!!!
The only justice for a traitor is at the end of a rope!!!!
Off my meds (quit smoking), armed to the teeth, and loose on an unsuspecting society!!!
 
The agreement also says that S&W dealers cannot let you take more than one gun home, if you bought two or more guns you could take the first one today but you have to wait 14 days before you can pick up the others (any guns, not just S&W). What a bunch of crap they agreed to, they're losers. My local dealers will refuse to carry S&W also I'm told and I will do no business with any shop that continues to carry S&W.
 
Well guys I read the entire agreement and it is pretty draconian. It will errode our right to own a gun. It probably will only apease a small number of the antis and will actually encourage many of the anti's like blood in the water encourages sharks.
It may also drive some of the foreign manufacturers out of the market for civilian sales in the US.

It may be time to trad in those S&W guns on Sigs and glocks and Barettas and HKs.

Of course I can't blame the guy who made my 1966 vintage S&W 27-2 can I ;) so I won't sell this one.

The uqestion is will Ruger, Glock, Sig etc feel compelled by lawsuits to also sign this agreement?

Remember the penalty for reneging on the deal is the reinstatement of lawsuits already filed and ended, and the filing of new lawsuits.



------------------
Master Blaster
 
If I were a dealer this part would concern me greatly since it seems to be a defacto admission of liability for the actions of the purchaser.

"Part II.A.1.h, below. c.Where available, carry insurance coverage against liability for damage to property and for injury to or death of any person as a result of the sale, lease, or transfer of a firearm in amounts appropriate to its level of sales, but at a minimum no less than $1 million for each incident of damage, injury or death."

It would also open dealers up to predatory lawsuits filed on contingency fee by plantiffs attorneys, 30-50% of $1 million is a significant reward for an attorney.

Smith & Wesson wants to share the pain of lawsuits with the small dealer.

This type of insurance would be incredibly expensive if it can even be found,
No insurer wants to write a known loss in progress, which is exactly what any dealer in business for any length of time would be.


[This message has been edited by Master Blaster (edited March 25, 2000).]
 
Actually, the dealer and purchase portions of the agreement are very close to what we have here in California, except for the 18 year old guns-is-porno part. We are required to show a DD-214 or pass a safety test. Couldn't tell that by watching new gun owners at the range, though.

I would welcome Instant Check to avoid multiple 10 waiting periods.
 
I don't know about anywhere else, but here in Mass, dealers from out of state must hook up at the show with a Mass dealer at the show. At a show last month in Mass a Conn dealer sold a guy a .45. The dealer told the guy to fill out the paper work, and check out the rest of the show and come back. The conn dealer went to a Mass dealer to have him do a nics check. The whole thing seemed painless, but I only observed the one transaction.
 
Master Blaster,

Like you I initially didn't see any real problems with the S&W settlement. Then I read a little closer. The Settlement puts an incredible burden upon the dealers. They must agree to abide by restrictions in their inventory, carry a large amount of liability insurance, submit to a nebulous regulatory body, and send all their employees to some damn ATF training course. They must maintain computer databases and inconvenience their customers even more than the law already requires. Is it any wonder that the dealers and distributors don't want to be bothered? S&W stepped on the proverbial crank on this one. A deal like this only works if ALL the major manufacturers agree. When Glock and Browning said no thanks, S&W lost their bet. Unless they can convince the other parties to modify the agreement, they are probably out of the civilian handgun markets. I wonder if they can sell enough bikes to survive?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Master Blaster:
I had a thought that the present agreement really only concedes on the smart gun issue.

[/quote]
This is a recent letter to Ed Shultz:

Dear Mr. Shultz,

I read S&W’s interpretation of the HUD agreement.



Unfortunately, this will not change my mind about your product…probably not many other peoples’ either.



You dealt with the devil (by the way, I voted for Clinton in ’92…worst voting mistake I ever made) and sold the soul of your company.



You, single-handedly, circumvented the legislative process by this decision.



We are, on a grass roots level, trying to get this agreement declared null and void in Congress. I believe we’ve a reasonably good chance in doing this. However, to help us with this, I am asking you to tell Cuomo that the “law enforcement/military exemption” will not be adhered to. He’ll scream…rant and rave. But he’ll acquiesce… The PR of exempting “unproven technology” (which will likely result in product liability suits) to civilians, yet giving government more reliable offensive/ defensive weaponry (since the feds have no “right” to bear arms) is totally unacceptable. I do suggest (somewhat tongue in cheek) that you insist Clinton’s Secret Service agents are the ones who test “smart gun” technology after he leaves office.



I also suggest you and S&W fully support George Bush in the upcoming elections. He may well undo much of the damage the Clinton and cohorts are trying.



You could also take the agreement to court if you felt in anyway coerced or mislead. As I’ve read recently that an attempt by a lawyer to “bankrupt” his opponent in a lawsuit is unethical, this could result in the disbarment of some of the personal involved. Obviously, don’t consider Clinton…he’s already going to be disbarred (trivia: first setting president to be disbarred in modern times).



Frankly, I still won’t buy S&W…I support the boycott 100%.



But you can undo the damage…at least some of it.
 
Everybody seemed to miss the portion of the agreement that requires all weapons to have a minimum barrel length of 3 inches and a combined height and length of at least 10 inches. No more snub J-frames.
 
Dear sir:
What follows is an e-mail I sent to S&W today:

This is in follow-up to my prior e-mail concerning your acceptance of the agreement with HUD. I have just read your interpretation of the agreement and I must say that I find your attempt to regain favor with your customers very distasteful. I presume that you are acting in response to the boycott that is forming against your company, most notably by RSR. Your attempt at justifying your actions, however, is disingenuous at best and completely fraudulent at worst.

Do you really believe that the portions of this agreement concerning dealers only applies to Smith & Wesson products? This interpretation is in no way supported by the agreement, and as such, has no weight. For example, the prohibition against assault weapons and high capacity magazines adopts the definition from 18 U.S.C. 922. It is all inclusive and in no way limited to Smith & Wesson products. If you truly believe that your interpretation is correct, then you should inform your attorneys to notify their malpractice carriers immediately because you have received completely improper and outright false counsel. If you were aware that this interpretation was false when you endorsed it, then I can only assume that you believe your customers are too ignorant to learn the truth and would merely accept your word. This demonstrates a level of contempt and arrogance that I find shocking.

As an aside, in my prior e-mail, I stated I would no longer support a company which engages in activities such as yours. I will, instead, support those companies who will not submit to blackmail, and who will not lie to their customers. To that end, I purchased a Glock on the day they rejected the settlement.

Finally, I must admit that I find it somewhat ironic that many of the cities have refused to drop your company as a defendant. Instead, your actions have essentially told them that they have a chance, even if the law is otherwise. Your actions have cost you and your company, sir, and I pray that only you and your company pay the price, rather than the free citizens of this nation.


Come on, folks, let's keep those e-mails flowing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top