Smith & Wesson negitive vibe?
- Thread starter Just4Fun
- Start date
it is mostly political. check out
http://www.smith-wesson.com/misc/agreement1.html
for an instance.
CFB
http://www.smith-wesson.com/misc/agreement1.html
for an instance.
CFB
The short answer goes something like this...
S&W signed an agreement to attempt to avoid a series of lawsuits brought by municipalities against several gun manufacturers in order to hold them liable for crimes committed with their guns. As I understand it, the legal logic went something like this: "If you, S&W, knew and/or encouraged your dealers to use business practices that increased the likelyhood of handguns being purchased or used by criminals or kids, then you are partially liable for the crimes and accidents that occur because of those actions or negligence." (paraphrased, not quoted)
The gun manufactureers prior to S&W's agreement had formed a (semi) united front against these lawsuits saying in effect that this was not a product liability issue and that rather it was a case of unsanctioned misuse of product by criminals and that it was clearly false to hold them responsible.
When S&W broke ranks and bowed to the legal pressure to form an agreement with the Clinton Administration, they did several things that angered most 2nd ammendment rights supporters, their dealers and other gun manufacturers:
1. They agreed to REQUIRE their dealers to adhere to certain business practices in order to sell S&W guns.
2. They implied by their capitulation that all gun manufacturers bore some responsibility for illeagal use of firearms.
3. They weakened the stance of the remaining manufacturers and compromised their legal position by not forming a united front.
4. They abandoned their institutional defense of 2nd ammendment rights in order to dodge a legal bullet in order to maximize profitability in the future through close ties with the govt.
5. They angered every one of their dealers by committing them to changes in business practice that many of the dealers disagree with on constitutional grounds.
6. As part of the agreement, Clinton urged government agencies to give S&W preferential treatment for new procuration, angering other manufacturers and prompting legal action against the govt and S&W.
Although S&W was not the first company to support gun-unfriendly government measures (Ruger comes to mind), it was the most recent, most publicized, and gave President Clinton something to crow about to his gun-control supporters. None of this was helped by the rumors that S&W's british parent company really wants to sell S&W and this was a means to avoid the burden of impending legal action against the company.
Although the fallout has not entirely run its course, word has it that most of S&W's dealers are selling out their stock and refusing to carry their product. In addition, many of the municipalities have refused to drop their lawsuits against S&W.
I would say that most (not all) of the TFLers here support a boycott of new S&W purchases, although I also think that most (not all) dont have a problem with people who currently own or wish to buy a "pre-sellout" copy.
You will have to make your own decision on the long term effects of this agreement, but I think its fairly clear that it represents a weakening of the legal and practical position of the gun industry in general. If serious litigation is the order of the day for the manufacturers, I think you will see a SIGNIFICANT rise in the price of firearms, maybe to the point that so few are purchased that many lines will be withdrawn from the market.
For this reason alone, I personally support a boycot of new S&W purchaes, even though I own a S&W revolver.
Hope this helps!
J.T.
as usual, FWIW, YMMV, IMHO, and all that...
[Edited by J.T.King on 01-29-2001 at 05:27 PM]
S&W signed an agreement to attempt to avoid a series of lawsuits brought by municipalities against several gun manufacturers in order to hold them liable for crimes committed with their guns. As I understand it, the legal logic went something like this: "If you, S&W, knew and/or encouraged your dealers to use business practices that increased the likelyhood of handguns being purchased or used by criminals or kids, then you are partially liable for the crimes and accidents that occur because of those actions or negligence." (paraphrased, not quoted)
The gun manufactureers prior to S&W's agreement had formed a (semi) united front against these lawsuits saying in effect that this was not a product liability issue and that rather it was a case of unsanctioned misuse of product by criminals and that it was clearly false to hold them responsible.
When S&W broke ranks and bowed to the legal pressure to form an agreement with the Clinton Administration, they did several things that angered most 2nd ammendment rights supporters, their dealers and other gun manufacturers:
1. They agreed to REQUIRE their dealers to adhere to certain business practices in order to sell S&W guns.
2. They implied by their capitulation that all gun manufacturers bore some responsibility for illeagal use of firearms.
3. They weakened the stance of the remaining manufacturers and compromised their legal position by not forming a united front.
4. They abandoned their institutional defense of 2nd ammendment rights in order to dodge a legal bullet in order to maximize profitability in the future through close ties with the govt.
5. They angered every one of their dealers by committing them to changes in business practice that many of the dealers disagree with on constitutional grounds.
6. As part of the agreement, Clinton urged government agencies to give S&W preferential treatment for new procuration, angering other manufacturers and prompting legal action against the govt and S&W.
Although S&W was not the first company to support gun-unfriendly government measures (Ruger comes to mind), it was the most recent, most publicized, and gave President Clinton something to crow about to his gun-control supporters. None of this was helped by the rumors that S&W's british parent company really wants to sell S&W and this was a means to avoid the burden of impending legal action against the company.
Although the fallout has not entirely run its course, word has it that most of S&W's dealers are selling out their stock and refusing to carry their product. In addition, many of the municipalities have refused to drop their lawsuits against S&W.
I would say that most (not all) of the TFLers here support a boycott of new S&W purchases, although I also think that most (not all) dont have a problem with people who currently own or wish to buy a "pre-sellout" copy.
You will have to make your own decision on the long term effects of this agreement, but I think its fairly clear that it represents a weakening of the legal and practical position of the gun industry in general. If serious litigation is the order of the day for the manufacturers, I think you will see a SIGNIFICANT rise in the price of firearms, maybe to the point that so few are purchased that many lines will be withdrawn from the market.
For this reason alone, I personally support a boycot of new S&W purchaes, even though I own a S&W revolver.
Hope this helps!
J.T.
as usual, FWIW, YMMV, IMHO, and all that...
[Edited by J.T.King on 01-29-2001 at 05:27 PM]
cuerno de chivo
Moderator
Basically SMITH and WESSON started what Ruger has done for many years.
I just re-read the agreement that S&W signed with Boston, which FratBoyTX provided a link to. It seems to have some subtle changes when compared to the agreement S&W signed with the government. I see it states that one of the liscenced dealers obligations is to sell no high cap. mags or semi-automatic "assault" weaponsmade by Smith and Wesson. I believe the original agreement states that if a dealer wants to sell S&W products he must not sell any high cap. mags or any semi-auto rifle capable of holding a mag designed to hold more than 10rnds. period. I believe the intent was to clear all non-P.C. weapons out of the seller's inventory. Am I mistaken about this??