Smith and Wesson Contreversy

[shurefire]

What's everyone's opinion on S&W's cooperation with the government? Sound Off!

------------------
A simple but lethal equation:

Me + +P+ = -U :)

[Cole]

What exactly was S&W cooperating with the government on. I read an article but I forget the specifics. I believe it had something to do with gun locks? Correct me if I am wrong.

[This message has been edited by Cole (edited 04-27-2000).]

[TLR]

Spineless Jelly Fish! I hope gunshops across the nation refuse to sell their product. And as you know S&W's parent is an English company and the brits are notorious about handgun regulation. They are still pissed for kicking their ass in the war!

------------------
TLR

[Sosah]

Hey anyone see Bushmaster's site? There's a small note detailing their views on S&W. Nothing special, but what they have to say is definitely the truth.
www.bushmaster.com (http://www.bushmaster.com)

[Cole]

Well, what did S&W do again?

[Mark Salvati]

The agreement between Smith and Wesson and the government is simple buisness. I am currently employed in the firearms retail industry, and can assure everyone Smith sold no one out. If you will take the time to read the entire agreement you will note that with pure genious Smith did not agree to anything that they were not already doing or planning to do. Any argument on that point is therefore moot. Furthermore, those that have been claiming a boycott of Smith products is neccary need note that Smith revolvers are some of the finest in the world, and therefore have market security, while their autoloaders have never appealed to the more sophesticated gun crowd, but instead to first time gun buyers who could care less about any agreement. Finally, the remark about the English holding of Smith and Wesson was obviouly ill thought out. English or not the purpose of owning any company firearms or otherwise, is to make money. There is not a buisnessman in the world willing to throw away millions to simply further a moral agenda, the bottom line will always win, and the bottom line in this case would be to preserve PROFITABLE handgun sales by staving off potential litigation. The agreement was a highly intellingent buisness move, and nothing more.

[TLR]

Mark,

Your point is noted and unfortunately in my opinion mistaken.

Calling what they did ingenious by settling out early is ridiculous. In fact, if you know anything about litigation you would realize the government strategy was to divide and conquer, which they were successful with Smith & Wesson. Bravo to Glock and Browning for holding the line!

I would agree that their revolvers were some of the best, however, just because they have a good does not mean they can solely rely on that to keep them a float. The Ruger SP101 is just as good if not better and their Morals are unquestioned. Unfortunately, my Marine Corps upbringing has instilled some morals that will be unshaken! My company that I work for stands to make a lot of money from the U.S. giving Favored Trade Status to China. Money or not I refused to write my congressman or senator to vote for their approved status! China is still a communist country with atrocious civil liberties. So once again money or not good product or not if you don’t have strong moral character I won’t support it and hopefully most will not as well. Therefore, I do hope people boycott their product. Proving that their decision was wrong and surely cost them more in sales then defending the lawsuit! It is about morals not about money!

You are confused if you say making money is the number 1 reason any business. Providing a good product that will help society should be first. Many businesses are confused with making money and are driven by the all mighty dollar. This in my opinion is absurd. As for the English they have no idea what the 2nd amendment stands for and were easy to cave in to the pressure and threat of an American Lawasuit! Hell without us they would be part of Germany right now!

Finally, yes there are companies willing to throw away millions to simply further a moral agenda ask Bill Gates he is fighting to prove he is not a monopoly as accused by the government. Yes, he stands to make money for fighting it but he does stand for the American Free Enterprise.

The bottom line does not always win! Ask any underdog! I am sure you would be the first Benedict Arnold just because you thought the English would win! It is up to the common folk by boycotting Smith and Wesson to prove that they made an error in judgement!

Semper Fi

TLR

[Mark Salvati]

I'm pleased to see some people here can have a civil discussion, and TLR I applaud your demeanor. That said, here comes the rebuttal. You are correct in saying the government is attempting to divide and conquer the firearms industry. As we speak the government is encouraging law enforcement agencies to boycott all firearms retailers that havn't met the conditions of the memorandum, i.e. evryone except S&W(This includes Colt, primarily a government contractor). From a 2nd Amendment standpoint this is a poor turn of events for all concerned, from a buisness standpoint this is a very good turn of events for Smith. There is more though, so keep reading. By agreeing to the memorandum Smith has in fact united the firearms industry, due to the fact that they are now all in the doghouse together. Now for the cincher, Colt has annouced a class action law suit against several government department heads and several cities that have filed suits themselvs against the firearms industry. This law suit is comprised by heavywieghts such as Colt, Glock, H&K, and Sigarms. I know its streaching the point, but this would not have even happened without Smith's breaking ranks. You briefly discussed Browning and Glocks initial defiance, but you missed the whole story. Browning no longer imports Hi-Powers and for the most part is no longer a player in the American handgun market at all. Whereas Glock made there dicision not on principal, but on once again buisness. All Glock handguns minus the 36 and large frame small frame differances, have the same magazine dimensions. To take that one step farther, all Glock hanguns accept hi-cap magazines, a stipulation in the memorandum. To meet the conditions of the memorandum, Glock would have had to discontinue more than half their line and start over, not a wise buisness move. That said you can see through the 2nd Amendment to, once again the bottom line. Why do gunmakers, retailers, gunsmiths, and employees within the buisness like myself defend it wholeheartedly? 1. It's a right 2. It's our livelihood. In that order. Smith will not give up on the American Constitution if not for reason #1 than simply for reason #2. Money and the bottom line are truly not everything, and I understand and empathise with your stance. But at the very lowest level it is the final motivating factor. Even if every employee at Smith was a liberal member of the Sierra Club, the bottom line would still motivat production. What i'm trying to say is, their principals will quickly go out the window when the food on their table is at stake, and the bottom line that motivates is on our side.

I know it was an unorganized rambler, but I just got off work and I'm tired. However I do apologize for the many spelling and grammatical errors.

Keep it coming TLR, I agree with much of what you are saying, but I am militant against the Smith story, and the boycott. My pricipals prevent that. If you are interested I could go all day about any manufacturar you like. We're a Glock, Colt, Smith, H&K, Remington, and Sig dealer. We also have Ruger on large.

[This message has been edited by Mark Salvati (edited 05-18-2000).]

[xcop]

Guys,
Anyone who has a question about the agreement that S&W signed onto needs to read the complete details of what was in there...the current issue of American Handgunner has it and without going into a longer post than I have time for, it is not just a simple "business deal" or good business sense.

[Mark Salvati]

Lesser of two evils folks. Agree, or go under, or get sued into oblivion. Those were the options presented them. Survival sometimes depends on drastic measures. Economics will decide evrything that doesn't get to fighting, and some things that do. Case in point are the tobacco settlements. Another completly legitamite industry being sued by tax dollars. The 'right' thing to do would be to fight for their rights. Tobacco is legal, and they are entitled to produce it. The economical thing to do, and what is currently being done, is to settle out of court. Principal and emotion fall vicitm to the almighty dollar, just as it is with Smith. How many lawsuits can you afford to fight on principal before you have no more money to sustain your buisness? We are at a turning point in history, for the first time the country is divided amongst those who own firearms, and those who don't and wish evryone else did not. Fortunatly we are in a unique position, in that the country has more gun owners than meets the eye.

[D.E. Watters]

Mark: S&W stepped into the agreement thinking that the majority of the requirements were already satisfied by their existing product line and thus wouldn't adversely effect their dealers. However, the devil is in the details. The Feds have already indicated that the S&W Dealer requirements will also apply to other manufacturers' products in stock.

If you want to remain a S&W dealer, you won't be able to sell _any_ manufacturers' pre-ban hicaps, not just S&W. You won't be able to sell _any_ pre-ban 'assault weapons', even if it isn't a S&W. You won't be able to stock any new pistol designs from any manufacturer that can accept a hicap mag, that lack a postive manual safety or a magazine disconnect safety, etc.

Now, are you as a dealer ready to decide between stocking S&W products versus Ruger, Glock, Colt, etc.? S&W didn't think so when they signed the agreement, but the Feds have indicated that they are ready to take S&W to court if they don't force their dealers to apply the agreement's standards to their _entire_ inventory.

[jcollettusa]

I happened to speak with a S&W gun dealer this past weekend about this deal, and he said, "We are not doing anything new, we have been doing this for the last two years." It was just a political issue to make Pres. Clinton look like he was doing something about "gun control."

This was his opinion, not mine. I have not read the statute that was past, but it sounds to me like S&W just made a business deal. I have always like S&W guns, but I don't care for them trying to be politically correct and passing bills just to please the politicians on the hill. Guns do not kill people, people kill people.

------------------
Semper Fi

[Mark Salvati]

The store that I work at currently is both an S&W, Glock and Colt licened dealer, I won't say the name of the store but we're the only one in Houston that is an official dealer in those firearms. jcolletusa has it exactly right, not a thing has changed thus far. The details you mentioned are interesting in that we still stock all kinds of preban mags, and whatnot. Futhermore, Smith and Wesson does not, and will not, enforce any of those 'rules' minus the gunshow restriction. That restriction pertains only to FFL's anyway so that point remains moot. Finally if anyone thinks that any of the fine print will ever be enforced they are mistaken. S&W refuses to, and it is unenforceable to begin with. Any argument to that case should look at the current NFA registry. The ATF can't even enforce the holiest of holy firearms restrictions. It(the agreement) made everyone feel better, made Clinton look like a hero, and made gun control less of an issue in November. A stroke of brilliance.

[D.E. Watters]

Part II.A.1.h: ( The manufacturer parties to this Agreement may sell only to authorized distributors and authorized dealers. In order to qualify to become an authorized distributor or authorized dealer, the distributor or dealer must agree in writing to: ) Not sell ammunition magazines that are able to accept more than 10 rounds regardless of the date of manufacture, not sell any semi-automatic assault weapon as defined in 18 U.S.C.921(a)(30) regardless of the date of manufacture, provide safety locks and warnings with firearms, as specified in Section 1 above, and sell only firearms that comport with the design criteria of this Agreement.

Part II.A.2: The manufacturer parties to the Agreement shall incorporate into any distribution or agency agreement with their authorized distributors and authorized dealers, including franchisees, procedures for terminating distributors, dealers or franchisees that engage in conduct in violation of this Agreement. Distributors and dealers shall agree to this enforcement system as a condition of becoming authorized. The manufacturer parties to this Agreement shall require annual certification by their authorized dealers and distributors that they are in compliance with the requirements in II.A.1(a-r) of this Agreement and applicable provisions of B. and C., below.

Part VIII: The Agreement will be entered and is enforceable as a Court order and as a contract.

This agreement hasn't effected your dealerships to date simply because S&W and the Feds haven't put their foot down yet. Once again, the Federal lawyers interviewed made it quite clear that S&W's interpretation of the agreement was overly optimistic.

[Mark Salvati]

I'm glad you can qoute the agreement I have read in its entireity several times. I assure you that I did read it all, due to its direct influence on my life, however there have been and will be no changes. Furthermore, I deal with the ATF on a dailiy basis, and can tell you they do not enforce NFA, nor do federal DA's. If they can't enforce NFA they can't enfoce anything, therefore it all boils down to words on paper that mean nothing to anybody. Once again, a warm fuzzy feeling for treehuggers, with no penalty to the rest of us. I have a recent inra-office letter I can print for you amusement, but it boils down to this: The choices presented to Smith were 1. Close S&W forever 2. Sell only to LE and Military 3. Agree to the gov't, which since they were already doing most all the provisions wasn't agreeing to much of anything. They chose #3, Colt chose #2 although they still are producing firearms for civilians, contrary to popular belief. #1 may have seemed far fetched but there are currently 29 lawsuits against the firearms industry in litigation as we speak, at over 1 million a pop to fight these suits it's easy to see why the companies are bailing out. Browning no longer imports handguns, Colt told people they were out of the civilian market, Smith complied with the gov't, Remington also complied with the agreement by installing locking safeties on all thier new weapons. Since Remington only sells long guns, and didn't 'announce' anything though, they are exempt from the boycott mob. Folks just give it a rest and leave Smith alone, they did what had to be done to keep providing their product. And the way they did it was indeed brilliant.

[xcop]

Mark,

I understand your point, but I think you are completely off the mark on this one. The main problem is, and remains, that the agreement is a legal contract which signs away our 2nd Ammendment rights by a manufacturer without any legal recourse--S&W can not sue the government if at any time in the future they do decide to enforce all of the provisions of the agreement. (And if you are naive enough to believe that if they have the signed agreement, they will never enforce it, you need to check your history of gun control laws. How many times have we heard that just this one more measure is all they want?) If they back out, they are right back to square one. The assault weapon ban and hi-cap ban both have a limited life span--by agreeing to the G's contract S&W has extended that life span forever--and when the date comes due to drop the hi-cap ban, etc. that is when the gov. will look at enforcement of the contract. Once again, look at it in this light--this is a legal contract that negates the citizen's 2nd Ammendment rights! This is not only wrong headed, it is evil. Remember the quote, "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". That is what the gov. is counting on--the incremental addition of further and further restriction until, like the frog in the pot, we're cooked. The agreement also has provisions for de facto gun registration, as the records will be immediately available for gov. scrutiny. My question was, and remains, why could S&W not have waited until NOV and seen how the election turns out. If we take back the presidency while not losing both house and senate, this would be a moot point for the next 4-8 years. Why rush into an agreement now?

As a dealer, you are no doubt aware that S&W is diversifying as quickly as they can. They are trying to find any other products they can manufacture using the existing tools and machines they have other than firearms--this is also good business, no doubt, but it sure looks like they have given up the fight to me. That is what this agreement, bottom line, is--an agreement that the eventual confiscation and destruction of all firearms in this country is inevitable. That is what both the gov. and S&W are now planning for, one actively, and the other as a "business strategy". I have owned and carried S&W products for 20 years. I will no longer do so.

[Mark Salvati]

XCOP,

You present a very good argument, and I understand your viewpoint now much better. You are correct in stating Smith is in trouble, and diversifing quickly. Police departments have even started buying their bicycles from Smith. The fact still remains this is as good as it gets right now, we are in a very anti-gun climate(just read letters to Newsweek), and it's my belief, as shared by Smith that anything we can do to pasify the resistance without affecting the bottom line is positive. That is why I mantain this to be positive. I'll post viewpoints on ban's, etc. on another thread as this one is probably becoming tired to most people. My mission was to show everybody the other side of the story, not to argue right or wrong. My opinion is now clearly stated and I will end my part of this thread with this post. Once again I appreciate the positive, constructive nature of this discussion.