S&W - Let me get this straight...
- Thread starter Big Dog Dad
- Start date
Will, you know I respect you. But that just plain isn't true. Someone, somewhere along the line, has lied to someone, and it's being passed on to you. The agreement is not really all that long or complicated--you can go to any of the online sources and read the complete agreement for yourself. See if you can find any wording that so much as implies that the agreement is ended if S&W gets sold. I'd love to believe that, but I've read the agreement several times from start to finish and it's just not there.
If you don't believe me, do a search for Saf-T-Hammer and find what they said after they bought Smith. They were very clear about the fact that the agreement was still in effect and they planned to abide by it--then they haven't mentioned it since.
If anyone out there is still not convinced, think about why it would be a secret known only to dealers if the agreement WERE rescinded. Smith has to know that the current boom in gun sales won't keep them afloat forever. They know they need to get business back--but they don't tell the gun-buying public that there's a good reason not to boycott anymore? That just doesn't make sense.
If you don't believe me, do a search for Saf-T-Hammer and find what they said after they bought Smith. They were very clear about the fact that the agreement was still in effect and they planned to abide by it--then they haven't mentioned it since.
If anyone out there is still not convinced, think about why it would be a secret known only to dealers if the agreement WERE rescinded. Smith has to know that the current boom in gun sales won't keep them afloat forever. They know they need to get business back--but they don't tell the gun-buying public that there's a good reason not to boycott anymore? That just doesn't make sense.
Will Beararms
New member
Don:
I am keeping an open mind and as such I believe none of what I hear and half of what I see.
Thanks for your tactful prose and I like you will stay vigillant.
I am keeping an open mind and as such I believe none of what I hear and half of what I see.
Thanks for your tactful prose and I like you will stay vigillant.Big Dad Dog said:
My opinions on this topic are documented in more than just 1or 2 posts here.
I leave you with the last line of your original post, which makes it clear what you were asking for:
(Hey!...assuming your most recent post was referring to me,maybe I am the only individual that has responded in the spirit of the original!)
My opinions on this topic are documented in more than just 1or 2 posts here.
I leave you with the last line of your original post, which makes it clear what you were asking for:
(Hey!...assuming your most recent post was referring to me,maybe I am the only individual that has responded in the spirit of the original!)
AugustWest
New member
It's for the children?
Will Beararms
New member
The agreement was written in a legal language that dictates the terms will not be passed on to new owners. The Feds either overlooked this or it was an informal escape clause for Smith. The agreement (HUD) is no longer in force. It died when Safety Lok bought Smith.
In any event, we should boycott Smith and then when they go under, boycott Remington when they get targeted by the next democratic administration and when they go under, boycott Ruger and when they go under, boycott Sig and when they go under boycott Glock and when Glock goes under, boycott HK and when HK goes under, boycott CZ and when CZ goes under, boycott Century arms and when they go under boycott Browning and when Browning goes under, boycott Kimber and on and on and finally, WE'LL SHOW EM WON'T WE!
Oh yeah, Taurus is now working with the New Jersey Institute of Technology on personlized firearms------------------get ready to boycott them too! If Smith wants to put a safety Lok on their guns, guess what? They have the right to. Remember HK, Springfield Armory and now Taurus----------Uh oh-------------time to boycott. Gee locks were a part of the agreement, does that mean these other guys are guilty too?
In any event, we should boycott Smith and then when they go under, boycott Remington when they get targeted by the next democratic administration and when they go under, boycott Ruger and when they go under, boycott Sig and when they go under boycott Glock and when Glock goes under, boycott HK and when HK goes under, boycott CZ and when CZ goes under, boycott Century arms and when they go under boycott Browning and when Browning goes under, boycott Kimber and on and on and finally, WE'LL SHOW EM WON'T WE!
Oh yeah, Taurus is now working with the New Jersey Institute of Technology on personlized firearms------------------get ready to boycott them too! If Smith wants to put a safety Lok on their guns, guess what? They have the right to. Remember HK, Springfield Armory and now Taurus----------Uh oh-------------time to boycott. Gee locks were a part of the agreement, does that mean these other guys are guilty too?
Let me start by saying I do not smoke and am not a friend to cigarettes. (Cigars are another issue altogether)
Big Tobacco danced so many legal waltzes with state and federal governments to stay out of court not even their lawyers can keep count.
Big tobacco is Smaller tobacco now but still alive.
Their attempt to keep out of litigation was a failure. They have been and are being taken to court endlessly and loosing. They are a cash cow for the governments they thought they were getting in bed with. Bad plan, executed to perfection.
The factor Big tobacco never had to consider was the end user, since they were "hooked". Now the smokers smoke in the rain in the parking lot. Smoking will keep you from getting many jobs for insurance or political correctness reasons. Maybe soon smokers will not have the selection of apartments, housing , doctors etc they once had.
Big tobacco made a mistake thinking they could "deal" with the govenment. Ditto for Smith and others that manufacture firearms if they follow a similiar game plan.
Smith will not go out of business because I choose not to buy their products.
They may add to the momentum that will have us, one and all , smoking out in the parking lot in the rain because they care not a hoot in h%ll about the second amendment or their customers.
I have no objective evidence that boycotts do one bit of good to remodel the thinking of a targeted manufacturer. I simply will not contribute one cent to the financial prosperity of a company that disadvantages me to keep themselves from being taken to court or hasseled by the government.
Wheather the agreement is on or off or transferrable or binding on this or that party is irrelevant. That is the stuff of focusing on the peebles at you feet and not noticing there is a mountain right in front of you. Smith has shown their mindset is unfriendly to my personal interests. (and franky if you are into the shooting sports yours too if you would admit it).
And so....let them be toast.
Selfdfenz
Big Tobacco danced so many legal waltzes with state and federal governments to stay out of court not even their lawyers can keep count.
Big tobacco is Smaller tobacco now but still alive.
Their attempt to keep out of litigation was a failure. They have been and are being taken to court endlessly and loosing. They are a cash cow for the governments they thought they were getting in bed with. Bad plan, executed to perfection.
The factor Big tobacco never had to consider was the end user, since they were "hooked". Now the smokers smoke in the rain in the parking lot. Smoking will keep you from getting many jobs for insurance or political correctness reasons. Maybe soon smokers will not have the selection of apartments, housing , doctors etc they once had.
Big tobacco made a mistake thinking they could "deal" with the govenment. Ditto for Smith and others that manufacture firearms if they follow a similiar game plan.
Smith will not go out of business because I choose not to buy their products.
They may add to the momentum that will have us, one and all , smoking out in the parking lot in the rain because they care not a hoot in h%ll about the second amendment or their customers.
I have no objective evidence that boycotts do one bit of good to remodel the thinking of a targeted manufacturer. I simply will not contribute one cent to the financial prosperity of a company that disadvantages me to keep themselves from being taken to court or hasseled by the government.
Wheather the agreement is on or off or transferrable or binding on this or that party is irrelevant. That is the stuff of focusing on the peebles at you feet and not noticing there is a mountain right in front of you. Smith has shown their mindset is unfriendly to my personal interests. (and franky if you are into the shooting sports yours too if you would admit it).
And so....let them be toast.
Selfdfenz
Will, I swear I'm not trying be irritating here, but I wish you would either cite this passage you say exists or stop making such claims. You said you were going to be careful and "vigilant," but in less than a day you are back claiming to have read legal language in the agreement that no one else seems able to find. It would take about ten seconds to prove this if it were true--just post the language along with the "address" within the document.
If you post it I'll be first in line for one of those ultra-lightweight .44 Specials. I want to believe, but no one will give me evidence.
(I really want a Schofield, but that won't happen either way. I could sell my truck and still not afford it.)
If you post it I'll be first in line for one of those ultra-lightweight .44 Specials. I want to believe, but no one will give me evidence.
(I really want a Schofield, but that won't happen either way. I could sell my truck and still not afford it.)
Will Beararms
New member
http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/jeffsnyder.html
Read all the way through and on the last page in a blue box at the bottom of the article is an addendum explaining the legal jargon that gets a new owner out of the agreement.
(Should be /sportsrec/jeffsnyder and so on but it won't come out this wat although it appears normal when I type it in.)
Read all the way through and on the last page in a blue box at the bottom of the article is an addendum explaining the legal jargon that gets a new owner out of the agreement.
(Should be /sportsrec/jeffsnyder and so on but it won't come out this wat although it appears normal when I type it in.)
Will, you're doing a little too much wishing here. Read the box again:
You missed the middle part. He's mentioning the same thing I mentioned previously. If you purchase solely the assets of a company, you can usually escape being bound by their agreements and legal obligations. That's why I don't care if the current S&W goes out of business - it still can rise from the ashes in parts, like many companies have done in the past. But it would have the added bonus of no agreement attached.
Example: Suppose hormel has a contract with the government (they probably do), in which they are required to make 1 million cans of spam every month. (who knows why, we're talking about the government here).
If you bought the company, hormel, you'd still be bound by legal agreement to fulfill the contract. You'd have to deliver 1 million cans of spam each month.
However, if you entered into an agreement to only buy either the recipe for spam (the 'intelectual property' equivalent to the above mentioned patents) or the equipment that makes spam ( equivalent to the tooling of S&W), you would not be liable to supply one million cans of spam a month. The entity known as hormel would be liable.
Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W, the company. Not just the patents, or the tooling, they bought the whole company. With that it bought the clinton HUD and boston agreements.
Using the text you cited from the article, that means the agreement is still binding.
Also, the new management has stated they will abide by all agreements.
Do you need any more proof?
You missed the middle part. He's mentioning the same thing I mentioned previously. If you purchase solely the assets of a company, you can usually escape being bound by their agreements and legal obligations. That's why I don't care if the current S&W goes out of business - it still can rise from the ashes in parts, like many companies have done in the past. But it would have the added bonus of no agreement attached.
Example: Suppose hormel has a contract with the government (they probably do), in which they are required to make 1 million cans of spam every month. (who knows why, we're talking about the government here).
If you bought the company, hormel, you'd still be bound by legal agreement to fulfill the contract. You'd have to deliver 1 million cans of spam each month.
However, if you entered into an agreement to only buy either the recipe for spam (the 'intelectual property' equivalent to the above mentioned patents) or the equipment that makes spam ( equivalent to the tooling of S&W), you would not be liable to supply one million cans of spam a month. The entity known as hormel would be liable.
Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W, the company. Not just the patents, or the tooling, they bought the whole company. With that it bought the clinton HUD and boston agreements.
Using the text you cited from the article, that means the agreement is still binding.
Also, the new management has stated they will abide by all agreements.
Do you need any more proof?
Last edited:
Will, let's not forget that after the HUD agreement was signed, S&W signed a similar document with the city of Boston. This is some of the text that appeared on a page at About.com:
They didn't learn their lesson, though -- S&W entered yet another agreement in December of 2000, this time with the city of Boston. In this agreement (according to CNN.com), S&W "agreed to commit 2% of annual firearm sales to developing safety technology and design changes on triggers. The agreement largely mirrors one the company reached in March with the Clinton administration and some other states and cities."
I spoke with Carol Heine (who's in charge of Saf-T-Hammer's Customer Service) about the buyout this afternoon. My first question was, naturally, "What will this do to the "deal?" Answer: They don't know yet. Saf-T-Hammer's attorneys are pounding away at it, looking for any "room" that may be built into the agreement, and I'm certain that Saf-T-Hammer is hoping (and searching) for a chance to renegotiate this agreement. After all, the HUD deal is what enabled Saf-T-Hammer to buy S&W for a mere $15 million (the Brits paid $112 million for it in 1987), and now it's time to start rebuilding the company's image (and therefore its worth).
Unfortunately, the Boston deal cannot be avoided or renegotiated -- at all. It won't be going away, and Ms. Heine confirmed that it is, indeed, "set in stone" -- while she quickly pointed out that it only affects the state of Massachusetts, rather than the entire USA.
What can we conclude? Well, at the time this was written (mid May 2001), Saf-T-Hammer themselves would not claim the the Agreement was null & void; it would appear that they bought the firm not knowing if they would be able to wiggle out of it. They did however know that the Boston Agreement which "largely mirrored" the HUD document was "set in stone".
Now granted, I don't live in one of the People's Republics of the USA so the Boston agreement doesn't affect me - but it is another corner of or RKBA that is being chipped away. No other firearm manufacturer has compromised so much.
They didn't learn their lesson, though -- S&W entered yet another agreement in December of 2000, this time with the city of Boston. In this agreement (according to CNN.com), S&W "agreed to commit 2% of annual firearm sales to developing safety technology and design changes on triggers. The agreement largely mirrors one the company reached in March with the Clinton administration and some other states and cities."
I spoke with Carol Heine (who's in charge of Saf-T-Hammer's Customer Service) about the buyout this afternoon. My first question was, naturally, "What will this do to the "deal?" Answer: They don't know yet. Saf-T-Hammer's attorneys are pounding away at it, looking for any "room" that may be built into the agreement, and I'm certain that Saf-T-Hammer is hoping (and searching) for a chance to renegotiate this agreement. After all, the HUD deal is what enabled Saf-T-Hammer to buy S&W for a mere $15 million (the Brits paid $112 million for it in 1987), and now it's time to start rebuilding the company's image (and therefore its worth).
Unfortunately, the Boston deal cannot be avoided or renegotiated -- at all. It won't be going away, and Ms. Heine confirmed that it is, indeed, "set in stone" -- while she quickly pointed out that it only affects the state of Massachusetts, rather than the entire USA.
What can we conclude? Well, at the time this was written (mid May 2001), Saf-T-Hammer themselves would not claim the the Agreement was null & void; it would appear that they bought the firm not knowing if they would be able to wiggle out of it. They did however know that the Boston Agreement which "largely mirrored" the HUD document was "set in stone".
Now granted, I don't live in one of the People's Republics of the USA so the Boston agreement doesn't affect me - but it is another corner of or RKBA that is being chipped away. No other firearm manufacturer has compromised so much.
Its good to remind people that S$W made the same move twice, once with HUD and once with Boston.
Why should you boycott S$W? Well let me point out to you what the HUD and Boston agreements (and the AG's regulations which are effectively the HUD deal) have done to the price of pistols in Massachusetts. You can now purchase a H&K USP40 full size for $800. Glocks go for around $600 if you can find one -- USED!
I just want to thank S$W and all those who deal with them for helping us with this problem.
~USP
Why should you boycott S$W? Well let me point out to you what the HUD and Boston agreements (and the AG's regulations which are effectively the HUD deal) have done to the price of pistols in Massachusetts. You can now purchase a H&K USP40 full size for $800. Glocks go for around $600 if you can find one -- USED!
I just want to thank S$W and all those who deal with them for helping us with this problem.
~USP
Will Beararms
New member
USP45:
With all due respect, the people in Massachusetts and California as a collective unit allowed this to happen. Does anyone think this would have occured in Texas, Mississippi or Louisiana? You would have had street riots i assure you.
The sad truth is more and more people are anti-gun and thus the reason these despots in congress can act with impunity. After Smith it will be someone else and when that someone else is blackmailed the same way Smith was blackmailed by Spitzer and the like we shall see what becomes of them.
Yes I am glad Glock and Beretta resisted but wait to see what happens after Smith is gone and another maker is in the crosshairs of the next democratic administration. They will bend the law to suit them and create a situation unbearable for the targeted maker.
Our battle is against public opnion and the liberal despots who court this anti-gun sentiment.
With all due respect, the people in Massachusetts and California as a collective unit allowed this to happen. Does anyone think this would have occured in Texas, Mississippi or Louisiana? You would have had street riots i assure you.
The sad truth is more and more people are anti-gun and thus the reason these despots in congress can act with impunity. After Smith it will be someone else and when that someone else is blackmailed the same way Smith was blackmailed by Spitzer and the like we shall see what becomes of them.
Yes I am glad Glock and Beretta resisted but wait to see what happens after Smith is gone and another maker is in the crosshairs of the next democratic administration. They will bend the law to suit them and create a situation unbearable for the targeted maker.
Our battle is against public opnion and the liberal despots who court this anti-gun sentiment.
Most of the gunmakers were in the crosshairs. Most of the gunmakers resisted the same pressure put on Smith. Smith and Safe-T-Hammer have not resisted.
They are making money on the corpse of our rights. As owners, as dealers, as distributers. Smith has put it to all of us.
Reward the resistors by supporting THEM. Don't reward Smith for what they have done.
Sam.....ex Smith dealer......unbelivagable
They are making money on the corpse of our rights. As owners, as dealers, as distributers. Smith has put it to all of us.
Reward the resistors by supporting THEM. Don't reward Smith for what they have done.
Sam.....ex Smith dealer......unbelivagable