the dark side of smith and wesson!

"They made no effort to comply with the terms of the agreement and publicly stated that they consider it null and void. Short of burning the agreement and spitting on the ashes in the public square, I don't see how you can get any more "disavowed"."

Well, I guess they couldn't do anything more... Except pursuing the matter through official, legal processes...

Not by going Nanny Boo Boo, Not Gonna Listen To You!

How successful do you think you (or anyone else would be) if you tried that approach?

Think it has any legal standing? Any merit (other than to sucker in people who don't know any better)?

Yeah.

"Even if the agreement was legally binding to subsequent owners of S&W (it's changed owners at least twice that I know of since 2000), it is unlikely that the current administration or any subsequent one could enforce it due to the statute of limitations (S&W's failure to comply would have to be considered breach of contract). I believe, and the members who are lawyers can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, that the statute of limitations for a civil suit in federal court is five years."

I may be wrong about this (I don't think that I am), but in as much as the agreement was entered into as a court order with no finite end date defined, I'm not so sure that a statute of limitations applies.

If that is the case, which I believe it to be, the agreement remains dormant. Not dead.
 
Originally posted by Mike Irwin
"They made no effort to comply with the terms of the agreement and publicly stated that they consider it null and void. Short of burning the agreement and spitting on the ashes in the public square, I don't see how you can get any more "disavowed"."

Well, I guess they couldn't do anything more... Except pursuing the matter through official, legal processes...

Not by going Nanny Boo Boo, Not Gonna Listen To You!

How successful do you think you (or anyone else would be) if you tried that approach?

Think it has any legal standing? Any merit (other than to sucker in people who don't know any better)?

Yeah.
Click to expand...

I guess it just comes down to whether or not you take S&W at their word when they stated that their legal department doesn't consider the agreement legally binding. If they really believe that the agreement is not legally binding due to the change in ownership, then I really don't see what further action there is to take.

I don't see that there would be any legal standing for a lawsuit if the agreement was entered into by an entity that, for all legal purposes, no longer exists particularly since the other party, HUD, hasn't attempted to enforce it and therefore there are no damages. I suppose if you believe that S&W was blowing smoke up our rears and they do, in fact, consider the agreement to still be legally binding then perhaps there is further action they could attempt to nullify it, but I find risking a lawsuit by simply ignoring a legal contract too risky and foolish a course of action for any company to take.

"Even if the agreement was legally binding to subsequent owners of S&W (it's changed owners at least twice that I know of since 2000), it is unlikely that the current administration or any subsequent one could enforce it due to the statute of limitations (S&W's failure to comply would have to be considered breach of contract). I believe, and the members who are lawyers can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, that the statute of limitations for a civil suit in federal court is five years."

I may be wrong about this (I don't think that I am), but in as much as the agreement was entered into as a court order with no finite end date defined, I'm not so sure that a statute of limitations applies.

If that is the case, which I believe it to be, the agreement remains dormant. Not dead.
Click to expand...

I guess we're understanding the agreement as different things. My understanding is that it was/is a written contract. It is also my understanding that if/when one party fails/refuses to honor their part of a written contract, that the recourse for the other party is to sue them for breach of contract. Admittedly, I wasn't able to find as clear an answer about a federal statute of limitations for breach of contract as I'd have liked to, but the state statute of limitations that I cited were specifically for breach of written contract and were taken from this link:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/statute-of-limitations-state-laws-chart-29941.html

Also, the fact that the current administration has not even attempted to enforce the terms of the agreement is somewhat telling. President Obama has already very publicly expressed an interest in promoting gun control. The latest fiasco with the ATF and M855 ammunition demonstrates to me that the administration is amicable to the idea of gun control which does not require participation from congress (likely because they can't get congressional participation). It seems to me that, if they could, invoking the terms of the agreement would be a very easy way for them to achieve their stated goal of more gun control with rather minimal effort and expenditure of political capital (particularly now that the President is in his second term). Basically, if, as you say, the agreement could be invoked at any time and if it would be as disastrous for gun owners as you suggest, I find it almost unbelievable that the Obama administration would be able to resist plucking such low-hanging fruit.

Now, admittedly I am not a lawyer and the views/understanding that I am expressing are those of a layman. I openly invite the members of the forum who are lawyers to give us their take on the issue if they care to do so.
 
It was obvious that Mr. Haws doesn't like S&W. No harm in that. I think he was only giving his reasons as to why he doesn't. Doing so is going to get response's from the S&W crowd that is critical of his opinions and what he bases them on. No different than anything else really. but to bash what most seem to think is the greatest thing on earth and sure is priced that way, you are going to get these kind of reactions back in return every time whether talking about pistols or bubble gum.

I own or have owned a lot of revolvers. S&W's, Ruger's, Tauras's, Rossi's, and a few other brands. I have spent a good bit of time with more down through the ultimate cheapo lines. My honest opinion is this. S&W is good. Real Good. Their business history has outlasted whole country existence's. So, you got to believe that they are getting it right for the vast majority or the results would be different.

Politics aside, because Ruger has a black eye on that too, I do like the Ruger better as a whole. Just a better gun in my opinion and way more affordable. I have often thought this cult like following by a smaller percentage is just that, Because they aren't any better shooters than a lot of my other brands. Hey, it's your money, spend it like you want. I will no longer be spending a whole lot of mine on any S&W product. Only because I don't want one. If I did, I'd go buy it and know I was likely going to be getting a great firearm, Regardless of who says yay or nay. :p God Bless
 
It was obvious that Mr. Haws doesn't like S&W. No harm in that. I think he was only giving his reasons as to why he doesn't. Doing so is going to get response's from the S&W crowd that is critical of his opinions and what he bases them on.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Chuck Hawks believes he's being objective (whose self-evaluation is ever anything different?) in his criticism of S&W, but his piece doesn't at all read like reasonable criticism. He has some kind of subrational hatred for the company, and it comes across pretty clearly in numerous exaggerations, distortions, and misrepresentations, as previously detailed.

And I say that as someone who is not part of the "S&W crowd," as you call it, since the only non-P&R models that interest me are pre-MIM 586s and 686s. Which is to say that that S&W has made almost no wheelguns that interest me over the last three and a half decades. (And they've made no semi-autos that interest me since the early '90s, with the exception of now-discontinued Performance Center semi-autos, which were only nominally S&W anyway back when the PC was basically a true custom shop producing some extraordinary guns).

I do like the Ruger better as a whole. Just a better gun in my opinion and way more affordable.
Click to expand...

In fact, I agree with this completely. There are several current-production Ruger revolvers I would buy. The new Rugers have it all over the new Smiths, in my opinion.

And I still think Chuck Hawks was speaking from his backside.
 
I guess all those police departments who issued S&W revolvers and semi autos, and the MILLIONS of civilians owners, not to mention the US military who issued the Model 10 and the 15, must be wrong and Chuck Hawks knows something that we don't.
 
Mr. Haws seems to have an agenda to belittle and bash S&W. We don't know if it is a hatred for the guns or if he has a hidden financial reason for it. I am a confused person regarding S&W. I have an old Taurus Model 84 that is a close copy of the S&W Model 15 and a S&W SD9VE that is a close copy (very similar) of a Glock 19. Since they are both really good guns, it sorta tells me that S&W can design and develop good guns but is also good at copying them.
 
"I guess it just comes down to whether or not you take S&W at their word when they stated that their legal department doesn't consider the agreement legally binding."

The same legal department that advised Tompkins management that it would be a win-win for the company to sign the agreement in the first place?

Hum...

"My understanding is that it was/is a written contract."

Read the full agreement at the link that I provided.

Well, just read the part that says "The Agreement will be entered and is enforceable as a Court order and as a contract."

Court order.

Court order.

Why do you think I've been repeatedly saying court order in this thread and just about every thread in which I've participated in regarding the agreement?

Just to amuse myself?

Does any of the information you've dug up say anything about contracts that are also court orders?

That phrase of the agreement isn't separable. It can't be ignored simply because it's convenient to do so.

No one from Smith & Wesson has ever addressed the aspect of the agreement being exactly what it is -- a court order.
 
"I guess it just comes down to whether or not you take S&W at their word when they stated that their legal department doesn't consider the agreement legally binding."

The same legal department that advised Tompkins management that it would be a win-win for the company to sign the agreement in the first place?

Hum...
Click to expand...

Was it? When a company changes ownership, it is fairly commonplace for the new owners to make personnel changes. I know that if I were able to acquire a company like S&W at the bargain that Saf-T-Hammer got when they bought it from Tomkins, the first thing I'd do would be fire whoever thought the agreement, which directly led to Tomkins selling S&W at a huge loss, was a good idea.

Also, you're assuming that the legal department who thought the agreement was a good idea were employees of S&W rather than of the parent company. Do we know for a fact that, when Tomkins sold S&W, the legal department went with it?

"My understanding is that it was/is a written contract."

Read the full agreement at the link that I provided.

Well, just read the part that says "The Agreement will be entered and is enforceable as a Court order and as a contract."

Court order.

Court order.

Why do you think I've been repeatedly saying court order in this thread and just about every thread in which I've participated in regarding the agreement?

Just to amuse myself?

Does any of the information you've dug up say anything about contracts that are also court orders?

That phrase of the agreement isn't separable. It can't be ignored simply because it's convenient to do so.

No one from Smith & Wesson has ever addressed the aspect of the agreement being exactly what it is -- a court order.
Click to expand...

What court ordered it? What Judge decreed it? Who is going to enforce it? The whole "court order" language sounds a lot like gobbledygook put there to make it sound more impressive/scarier than what it is: a contract.

However, even if it were a court order, we come back to the statute of limitations. Violation of a court order is defined under 18 u.s.c. § 401 as Contempt of Court. However, 18 u.s.c. § 3282 sets a five year statute of limitations on such an offense. So, even if S&W is technically in Contempt of Court for failing to comply with the terms of the agreement, the government has waited so long to take any action against them that they are now unable to do so.
 
"However, 18 u.s.c. § 3282 sets a five year statute of limitations on such an offense."

Hum. Well, OK, then.

I guess that they may be free and clear of the agreement, through little to no action of their own.

That still doesn't buy them a pass in my book, and never will.
 
Chuck Hawks is a knowledgeable guy and often has interesting things to say, but sometimes he gets on a rant and loses all perspective.

He famously ripped the Tikka T3 for all the steps they took to drive the price down. He documented each cost saving change in detail, missing nothing, except the forest for the trees.

Tikkas use the same barrels as Sakos. If they were built with the fancy checkering, all steel parts and the other Sako embellishments whose lack Hawks bemoans, they'd cost as much as Sakos.

But they don't. Then in another article he writes: "I believe that the Tikka Whitetail Hunter and the new T3 are fine guns, and they are economically priced. I do not have a bias for any gun manufacturer or brand, but my bias is heavily weighted towards value."

I guess he took his meds that day.

You can still get fancy walnut, cut checkering and high polish blue these days. You just can't get it for $300 any more.

As far as S&W goes, it's tempting to look at S&W as one continuous company, but it's been owned by a lot of different conglomerates in its history, each of which has run it differently. I don't doubt that S&W has had its rough patches in the QA department, it's a common place for a new owner to mistakenly try to save some money. But to act as if it's commonplace for S&Ws to be poorly built is inaccurate.

There may be some truth in the copying charge, but this is the gun industry, everybody copies. Take a look at the Ruger LCP. They should be paying Kel-tec royalties. The funniest one was taking S&W to task for making a 1911 copy. Like nobody else is doing it.
 
Used to be that article was a weekly post on gun forums, mostly when the S&W vs Ruger threads heated up. Not so much anymore. Guess the reaction to the article(or non reaction) shows how valid it and Mr. Hawk's opinion is.
 
SOUND like some one has some hard feelings. Chuck sound like he has lived sense the 1800. I have S&W also Dan Wesson and love them all. Yesterday me and my grand son put around 250 rounds throw my S&W 38 357 41 mag & 44 mag. We scoped in his 308 and my BM AR it took around 7 rounds each on them.
 
Chuck Hawks is angry at S&W because the company lies. Reading the article, I hope he's angry at himself considering how few truths are in the article........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top