The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52246-2000Apr10.html
Why I Won't Buy Smith & Wesson
By Tom Cannon
Tuesday, April 11, 2000; Page A23
If you follow the gun issue at all, you're aware that last month Smith & Wesson, one of the oldest American gun manufacturers,
signed a deal with several government entities at all levels. The primary purpose of this deal was to release Smith & Wesson from
the lawsuits being filed against gun manufacturers seeking to hold them responsible for the criminal misuse of their products by
unrelated third parties.
Among other things, this agreement is a legally binding contract not just between Smith & Wesson and the government but also
between the manufacturer and every wholesaler, retailer and private customer of Smith & Wesson products--even though these
parties were not consulted, advised or asked for their consent. Any wholesaler or retailer who wishes to continue carrying Smith &
Wesson products will be required to agree to the terms of this contract, and force its customers to do likewise. My primary objection
is that the last time I checked, I had not granted Smith & Wesson power of attorney.
In immediate response to this "unholy alliance" between a once-respected company and the government, gun owners from all over
the country, myself included, contacted their local gun stores and begged them to discontinue carrying Smith & Wesson products.
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners sent a letter to every S&W dealer in Michigan, asking on behalf of our
thousands of members that they drop the line. Across the country, thousands if not millions of us pledged not to patronize a
business that sold Smith & Wesson products under the terms of this new agreement.
Whether because of this market pressure or because of the onerous terms of the agreement itself, many dealers have decided to
drop the Smith & Wesson line. As a free market economy, it seemed our work was done; our dollars had spoken for themselves.
We would provide a harsh object lesson for other manufacturers about the attitudes of the market.
But shortly after the Smith & Wesson agreement was announced, several of the same government entities that signed the deal
announced investigations of S&W's competitors for alleged violations of antitrust laws. In short, the message seems to be: "You
will buy Smith & Wesson." Personally, I find this even more insidious than the original lawsuits that brought on this foolishness. In
gangster movies this would be called a "protection racket." It brings to mind the bus boycott in Montgomery, Ala., during the civil
rights movement, and the local government's reaction to it.
There is nothing to prevent Smith & Wesson from opening its own retail stores in every gun-buying market or from franchising its
retail licenses, unless of course you count the fact that they won't sell many firearms to the traditional gun-buying public. A friend
of mine, a collector whose passion is Smith & Wesson revolvers and who reportedly has "more Smiths than Smith," says he is done
buying new Smith & Wesson products. Their days in this market are probably numbered.
Can Smith & Wesson survive? Sure, it could limp along on government contracts, or get some other kind of help from its new best
friends. After all, our government has propped up thousands of businesses over the years long after they should have succumbed
to market pressure and closed up shop.
Or anti-gun groups such as Handgun Control Inc., with their incessant claims of support from suburban "soccer moms," could
create a new market by encouraging these moms to buy Smith & Wesson in support of their so-called "dedication to safety."
Handgun Control Inc. has already posted articles on its web site praising Smith & Wesson for its actions, so it's really only a
half-step farther to promote Smith & Wesson's products to its audience.
And that could just be the icing on the cake. More people would own guns, thus being able to defend themselves against crime,
and traditional gun owners like me would split our sides laughing at the ironic spectacle of HCI shilling for S&W.
If the soccer moms want guns whose purchase requires the voluntary surrender of the rights of choice, association and privacy,
then let the soccer moms buy them.
The writer is on the board of directors of the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners.
© Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company
Why I Won't Buy Smith & Wesson
By Tom Cannon
Tuesday, April 11, 2000; Page A23
If you follow the gun issue at all, you're aware that last month Smith & Wesson, one of the oldest American gun manufacturers,
signed a deal with several government entities at all levels. The primary purpose of this deal was to release Smith & Wesson from
the lawsuits being filed against gun manufacturers seeking to hold them responsible for the criminal misuse of their products by
unrelated third parties.
Among other things, this agreement is a legally binding contract not just between Smith & Wesson and the government but also
between the manufacturer and every wholesaler, retailer and private customer of Smith & Wesson products--even though these
parties were not consulted, advised or asked for their consent. Any wholesaler or retailer who wishes to continue carrying Smith &
Wesson products will be required to agree to the terms of this contract, and force its customers to do likewise. My primary objection
is that the last time I checked, I had not granted Smith & Wesson power of attorney.
In immediate response to this "unholy alliance" between a once-respected company and the government, gun owners from all over
the country, myself included, contacted their local gun stores and begged them to discontinue carrying Smith & Wesson products.
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners sent a letter to every S&W dealer in Michigan, asking on behalf of our
thousands of members that they drop the line. Across the country, thousands if not millions of us pledged not to patronize a
business that sold Smith & Wesson products under the terms of this new agreement.
Whether because of this market pressure or because of the onerous terms of the agreement itself, many dealers have decided to
drop the Smith & Wesson line. As a free market economy, it seemed our work was done; our dollars had spoken for themselves.
We would provide a harsh object lesson for other manufacturers about the attitudes of the market.
But shortly after the Smith & Wesson agreement was announced, several of the same government entities that signed the deal
announced investigations of S&W's competitors for alleged violations of antitrust laws. In short, the message seems to be: "You
will buy Smith & Wesson." Personally, I find this even more insidious than the original lawsuits that brought on this foolishness. In
gangster movies this would be called a "protection racket." It brings to mind the bus boycott in Montgomery, Ala., during the civil
rights movement, and the local government's reaction to it.
There is nothing to prevent Smith & Wesson from opening its own retail stores in every gun-buying market or from franchising its
retail licenses, unless of course you count the fact that they won't sell many firearms to the traditional gun-buying public. A friend
of mine, a collector whose passion is Smith & Wesson revolvers and who reportedly has "more Smiths than Smith," says he is done
buying new Smith & Wesson products. Their days in this market are probably numbered.
Can Smith & Wesson survive? Sure, it could limp along on government contracts, or get some other kind of help from its new best
friends. After all, our government has propped up thousands of businesses over the years long after they should have succumbed
to market pressure and closed up shop.
Or anti-gun groups such as Handgun Control Inc., with their incessant claims of support from suburban "soccer moms," could
create a new market by encouraging these moms to buy Smith & Wesson in support of their so-called "dedication to safety."
Handgun Control Inc. has already posted articles on its web site praising Smith & Wesson for its actions, so it's really only a
half-step farther to promote Smith & Wesson's products to its audience.
And that could just be the icing on the cake. More people would own guns, thus being able to defend themselves against crime,
and traditional gun owners like me would split our sides laughing at the ironic spectacle of HCI shilling for S&W.
If the soccer moms want guns whose purchase requires the voluntary surrender of the rights of choice, association and privacy,
then let the soccer moms buy them.
The writer is on the board of directors of the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners.
© Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company
