Maybe the subject's been beaten to death, but I wanted to share this with you because I told Mr. Schultz I would. Note that it will go to other forums as well. If you didn't know how far the sell-out went, check out your new issue of AR (because you're already an NRA member, of course!).
And a small nudge to encourage you to write to the powers that be, if you haven't.
-------------------------------------------
Mr. Ed Schultz
Chief Executive Officer
Smith & Wesson
Dear Mr. Schultz
The June issue of American Rifleman arrived in my mailbox yesterday. You have probably seen the piece on page 40, “The Sad Saga of Smith & Wesson.” I had no prior knowledge of the extent of your agreement with the government. Frankly, I was shocked at the draconian terms that AR outlined in the article’s sidebar.
You’ve always struck me, in interviews and in letters others have shared with me, as a stand-up, honorable fellow. Now, news stories of clandestine meetings in Treasury building conference rooms with Clinton lackeys, and cynical, beyond-the-pale capitulation redraw your profile. Who are you, and what do you stand for? Do you understand the implications of what you’ve done? Do you care?
Among other things, you’ve lost the loyalty of many gun owners, and you may have permanently crippled your company’s firearms division. I hope so. But you’ve also caused untold damage outside your own company’s selfish little universe. Anti-gun politicians and anti-gun interest groups can proudly point to you and your company as reasonable, sensible, and compliant, just as the other gun manufacturers should be; so what’s wrong with them, anyway? Inspired politicians will rub their hands together, saying, “Well, if one can fall, so too the others; let’s keep hammering those gun companies, with S&W as our poster child for the cause.” Other beleaguered gun companies will feel the heat (and already have) more than you did when you signed off on this sorry scheme.
Let’s not even get into the chaos you’re unleashed by achieving a clearly illegal “favored vendor” status with HUD and possibly other government agencies. Who knows what the outcome of that will be, except to further fill the coffers of law firms representing the gun industry, the government, and anti-gun groups. I hope you never see one piece of silver from your ill-gotten status.
Speaking of which, was that part of the deal— special and exclusive favors from the government? Other than getting the lawsuits off your back, were any other concessions offered to you? Did the government compromise with anything positive, or just withdraw the negative of litigation?
May I offer a modest proposal? Take a page out of Olin’s book. They licensed the Winchester name to another concern that wanted to build their rifles, firearms having been an enterprise that Olin managed unenthusiastically. Olin retained the trademark rights to Winchester ammunition. It seems to have been a win-win arrangement, and brought better products to market in the bargain. Why not do the same with your handgun division? License the S&W name to another entity that would like to build your guns. Besides, your British bosses would clearly rather make bicycles and do other things that yield higher profit margins. They probably think this 2nd Amendment Yank stuff is just plain silly anyway, and rather inconvenient, don’t you know. Fine. But don’t let Smith & Wesson drag the rest of the industry down with it.
Let me mention that I have owned a number of S&W pistols and revolvers over the years. A customized 686+ Mountain Gun is a most treasured possession. I was planning to acquire other S&W products in the near future but won’t, unless I know that a given gun is a “pre-sellout” (as they are becoming widely known). I am also encouraging friends and family and anyone else who will listen to boycott your products until your head clears and you renege on this agreement.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Ross Bellingham
rossbzn@aol.com
ec: The Firing Line.com
Gunspot.com
ShootersTalk.com
Wayne LaPierre, NRA
And a small nudge to encourage you to write to the powers that be, if you haven't.
-------------------------------------------
Mr. Ed Schultz
Chief Executive Officer
Smith & Wesson
Dear Mr. Schultz
The June issue of American Rifleman arrived in my mailbox yesterday. You have probably seen the piece on page 40, “The Sad Saga of Smith & Wesson.” I had no prior knowledge of the extent of your agreement with the government. Frankly, I was shocked at the draconian terms that AR outlined in the article’s sidebar.
You’ve always struck me, in interviews and in letters others have shared with me, as a stand-up, honorable fellow. Now, news stories of clandestine meetings in Treasury building conference rooms with Clinton lackeys, and cynical, beyond-the-pale capitulation redraw your profile. Who are you, and what do you stand for? Do you understand the implications of what you’ve done? Do you care?
Among other things, you’ve lost the loyalty of many gun owners, and you may have permanently crippled your company’s firearms division. I hope so. But you’ve also caused untold damage outside your own company’s selfish little universe. Anti-gun politicians and anti-gun interest groups can proudly point to you and your company as reasonable, sensible, and compliant, just as the other gun manufacturers should be; so what’s wrong with them, anyway? Inspired politicians will rub their hands together, saying, “Well, if one can fall, so too the others; let’s keep hammering those gun companies, with S&W as our poster child for the cause.” Other beleaguered gun companies will feel the heat (and already have) more than you did when you signed off on this sorry scheme.
Let’s not even get into the chaos you’re unleashed by achieving a clearly illegal “favored vendor” status with HUD and possibly other government agencies. Who knows what the outcome of that will be, except to further fill the coffers of law firms representing the gun industry, the government, and anti-gun groups. I hope you never see one piece of silver from your ill-gotten status.
Speaking of which, was that part of the deal— special and exclusive favors from the government? Other than getting the lawsuits off your back, were any other concessions offered to you? Did the government compromise with anything positive, or just withdraw the negative of litigation?
May I offer a modest proposal? Take a page out of Olin’s book. They licensed the Winchester name to another concern that wanted to build their rifles, firearms having been an enterprise that Olin managed unenthusiastically. Olin retained the trademark rights to Winchester ammunition. It seems to have been a win-win arrangement, and brought better products to market in the bargain. Why not do the same with your handgun division? License the S&W name to another entity that would like to build your guns. Besides, your British bosses would clearly rather make bicycles and do other things that yield higher profit margins. They probably think this 2nd Amendment Yank stuff is just plain silly anyway, and rather inconvenient, don’t you know. Fine. But don’t let Smith & Wesson drag the rest of the industry down with it.
Let me mention that I have owned a number of S&W pistols and revolvers over the years. A customized 686+ Mountain Gun is a most treasured possession. I was planning to acquire other S&W products in the near future but won’t, unless I know that a given gun is a “pre-sellout” (as they are becoming widely known). I am also encouraging friends and family and anyone else who will listen to boycott your products until your head clears and you renege on this agreement.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Ross Bellingham
rossbzn@aol.com
ec: The Firing Line.com
Gunspot.com
ShootersTalk.com
Wayne LaPierre, NRA
