Things Must Be Getting Bad At S&W

For those who didn't chase the link:
"Papa Bill proposed that Congress enact legislation limiting the capacity of magazines to fifteen³ (15!) rounds."

Meanwhile, S&W introduces BBQ sauce 'cuz they don't like the taste of stewing in their own juices. John
 
Ooops! Did I knock over all those cases of condiments? I'm so sorry that you were not able to put any out on the shelves. Hmmm, must have been the butt of my SIG that accidentaly rammed into them ;)
 
I agree that S/W must die but I read earlier that they were considering selling. Why don't we do like the people of Wisconson did and anty up to buy it. Heck we got over 6000 members here, at 1000 a pop, add a few million JPFO's, Nra"s,and we've got some serious money!
 
There activities are going to hurt them financially atleast. I am new to Firearms and have decided not to rent or buy S & W. Guess, enough of us will put in a dent anyways.

Their website sucks in terms of information. But that is another story.

Amit
 
BBQ sauce, eh? Hmmmm .... well, if we could fry Ed Shultz, then I might be interested. ;)

And, think about it ... Slick & Wesson has managed to pi$$ off both the gun bigots and the RKBA folks. We'll be standing side-by-side with the HCI folks, pouring S&W BBQ sauce on the floor ... ;) What a crackup.


And, FUD, I think ds1973 put it very well - the lesson had to be shown to the other gun manufacturers. If S&W had profited by this treason, then the other manufacturers would have felt even greater pressure to fold. As it is, we have given them backbone.

S&W's only out, IMHO, is a Bush administration, and / or Chapter 11 ... hopefully followed by another, better management picking up all of their assets (name, designs, tooling, plant and equipment).

Regards from AZ
 
MP you've got it 100% correct. If anyone hasn't read it in full you should.

S&W must die! I'm doing my part and when they're dead I'll smoke their carcus and put a little of my own personal BBQ on it.

RKBA!
 
C.R. Sam,

H-D? Remember that they also got 'protection' from the feds so they wouldn't go out of business, much the same treatment that Chrysler got. I don't think the feds wil step in to save a *gasp* gun manufacturer.

Now back to the topic here....

If S&W is sold, that does not absolve them from the liabilities and the lawsuits. Who would buy a company that is under the threat of a multi-million dollar lawsuit. That is the reason that Tomkins PLC, the owner of S&W, wanted the 'agreement.' They wanted to sell off S&W but couldn't find a buyer with the lawsuits hanging over it. They thought that if the threat of the lawsuits were removed, they could then sell off S&W. Too bad for the Brits that it backfired!

The threat of lawsuits for liabilities for 50-year old products is what drove the light airplane manufacturers almost out of business. It wasn't until they got the tort reforms that they started making private aircraft again. Cessna didn't build any general aviation aircraft for over ten years! Similar action, again, is not very likely for a gun manufacturer!

------------------
Remember, just because you are not paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you!
 
Cougar, I'm not an attorney, but I've spent a fair amount of time in business. I believe that if S&W entered Chapter 11, their assets could be purchased by another company. And, the associate liabilities could be eliminated during dissolution of the existing corporation.

S&W must die.

Regards from AZ
 
The point of Tomkins selling S&W was to get money. They did not want to lose money by having S&W go belly up. Therefore, with the threat of the lawsuits hanging over S&W, no one would touch it. Tomkins was hoping that federal protection from the lawsuits would make S&W attractive to a potential buyer. That just isn't happening, -- What a shame! ;)

Yes, I realize that a bankrupcy might discharge the liabilities, but those really haven't been awarded yet. If someone files a lawsuit or recieves a judgement after the bankrupcy filing, it would not be discharged by the bankrupcy proceedings. Tomkins wouldn't want to eat that loss either. I'm sure that is why Tomkins hasn't filed for S&W bankrupcy yet.
 
Eventually, hopefully, Tompkins will no longer have a choice in the matter. It is altogether possible that they have their fingers crossed for the U.S. election, whichever way it goes.

Regards from AZ
 
CR Sam, the difference between HD and S&W is that the govt isn't trying to put HD out of business. I can promise that once S&W is sold, the lawsuits will NOT stop. We're on a downward slope, and you've really got to make something amazing as far as guns are concerned to be successful today.

Ben

------------------
Almost Online IM: BenK911
ICQ # 53788523
"Gun Control Is Being Able To Hit Your Target"
http://ben.gunsnet.net
 
:rolleyes:

------------------
God, Guns and Guts made this country a great country!

oberkommando sez:
"We lost the first and third and now they are after the Second!(no pun intended)"
 
I think we should have some sympathy for S&W and what is used to be as a gun maker. They made very fine guns a very long time. However, unlike Rugers error, S&W's mistake was a whopper and needed to be dealt with with an iron fist. Unfortunately this is a war and in a war sometimes there are scrifices. We are trying to send a message loud and clear to the government and the other gun manufacturers that we will not tolerate treson or mutiny. And if we have to sacrifice S&W to prove our point, so be it. They are just going to have to be our "sacrificial goat"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top