S&W - Let me get this straight...

F

Futo Inu

New member
Guys, regardless of which way you come out on this issue, please consider the following in your decision:

The argument of "hey, it was the prior management of S&W, not the current management" aint gonna cut it as an argument. S&W, if they are to be boycotted, must be boycotted regardless of whether they change ownership and management 1 time or 100 times. Otherwise, and and all gun makers - just go down the list of all gun makers, could do the exact same thing (cave in and make a deal with the omnipresent devil - the government), and then pull the exact same kind of smoke and mirrors trick with the gun-buying public that S&W did ("Oh, gee, we're real sorry about what that idiot Shultz did; we're good now and for gun owners, see - we have new management in place that would never do that again") BS ALERT, folks! There is one and only one way to show that you're sincere (S&W) about the cave-in: reneg or repudiate the deal, and put yourself back in the exact same position you were in, fighting shoulder to shoulder with the other gun makers against the gun ban and lawsuit nonsense.

Having said that, if you MUST buy one or the other (S&W or Ruger), by all means buy S&W - what they did cannot compare, IMO, with the active support of the 94 gun ban that Ruger did, as pointed out in the thread currently active in this legal forum entitled "Hi guys - Quick question re ToysRUs" - this one is more about Ruger now.
 
W

Will Beararms

New member
Great let's get Ruger after Smith and next Taurus for their work on smart guns and before you know it, we will be posting about our latest mattel and how we hate those orange barrel plugs.

You must change the culture. We know what to expect from the democrats. They respond to what their constituents call for. This boycott is a band aid at best.

The same can be said of the abortion debate depending on how you view it. The mission is to change the hearts of those who would have an abortion, not attack the clinics or the doctors. Do you think there would be a drug problem if there were no demand in this country. Does anyone think the HUD agreement or The 1994 Crime Bill would have passed if the people would have been against it?
 
B

bastiat

New member
Will-

The subject seems to have shifted a bit. Do you still believe that S&W isn't bound by the HUD agreement due to the contract language, as you stated before?
 
W

Will Beararms

New member
I know you guys think i'm a pecker wood and it's to your credit for putting up with me but all of the gun dealers I buy from are telling me that this thing is a goner.

I have known some of these guys since 1994 and I have had a chance to see how they operate and I just can't see em' lying to me. (I am a memeber of the one gun a month club.)
 
F

Futo Inu

New member
PS. Bastiat, you are absolutely right on the legal issue. An entity's assets (such as the trademark/tradename/goodwill of "S&W") can be sold about any time, in a liquidation or normal course of business, without selling the liabilities (debts and contract obligations, as here). The creditors and obligees (in this case, the gov't) COULD in that event have a legal basis for challenging the sale of assets without the liabilities, absent a bankruptcy or receivership procedure, depending on the presence or absence of certain factors (insolvency, etc.).

Now, if a new company calling itself S&W bought just the name and manufacturing facilities from the current S&W, should we continue the boycott????? Hmmm, now that IS a tough question and I'm not sure of the answer. I will have to think about that, and we should debate it. I'm inclined to think the boycott should end at that point, but let me see if I can think of a principle of WHY my intuition tells me that is fair.......

PS. BTW, as repugnant as the substance is to me, the federal gov't does in fact by quantities of SPAM. :) One of my lawyer friends traveled to the the Marshall Islands to see about "importing" babies for adoption in the U.S. (there is a shortage of babies to adopt here), and he described how the natives over there get tons of goods and money from the US government as payment, since we constantly bomb their atolls with test missiles and what not for some reason, and one of the things we give them is SPAM. My friend says about all they do all day over in the Marshall's is sit in their huts in 100 degree heat, staring at each other (no TV) and eating SPAM.
 
T

treeprof

New member
all of the gun dealers I buy from are telling me that this thing is a goner

Only three parties can legally declare this thing a goner: the Feds, S&W or a federal court. None has. Gun shop pronouncements to the contrary constitute worthless hearsay, even if they help assuage one's conscience. Un-enforced is not the same as non-existent.

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

Like with any bully, if you refuse to bend over and take it the 1st time, they'll be less likely to pick on you a 2nd time. If they try it again, you have both the friends who stuck by you and the courage it took to stand fast the first time around. Having bent twice, S&W is now at the mercy of the Feds and state of MA, no matter how many guns they sell.
 
B

bastiat

New member
I know you guys think i'm a pecker wood and it's to your credit for putting up with me but all of the gun dealers I buy from are telling me that this thing is a goner.

I have known some of these guys since 1994 and I have had a chance to see how they operate and I just can't see em' lying to me. (I am a memeber of the one gun a month club.)
Click to expand...

2 Possibilities:

1st: They are lying to you to get you to buy more s&w guns, or to justify them selling guns

2nd: They believe what they're saying, either because they've been told it by someone else, or they're misreading the agreement.

Here are the only real, undisputable facts:
1. S&W and the government signed the agreement
2. The new owners of S&W are still bound by the agreement because they bought the company itself, not just the assets.
3. The agreement cannot just 'fade away' because it's not being followed right now. Any future administration can resurrect the agreement at will. A current government attorney on this board (forgot who it is) has said as much.
4. The new owners of s&W have stated that they will abide by all agreements.

Like I said, those four things are honest to goodness facts. If there's any way to dispute any of them, address them.

Statements by gun store owners or employees are not law. They are conjecture - just talk. They mean nothing in respect to the agreement.

So if you can accept that all four of the above are now true, that leaves us with the substance of the agreement to deal with. Which I'm still waiting for any S&W defender to do.
 
B

BigG

New member
I, for one, don't think you are a pecker wood... :p

However, Bastiat, what you are asking people to do is to predict how a judge/jury will interpret the agreement if and when it ever comes up in court, which is anybody's guess. My crystal ball is in the shop right now...

There is no way that anybody can rightly say WHAT that agreement means. An agreement like that is interpreted only when it is enforced. If it is not enforced it means NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING - not worth the paper it is printed on.

I know you and others are highly incensed at what you (and I at a certain age would also) perceive as treachery and treason against the country. However, I know the longer that agreement goes unenforced the less likely it is to be enforced as it is becoming STALE even as we ruminate about it. Any good attorney could throw up a hundred instances when the agreement should have been enforced and get a prosecutor laughed out of court for daring to bring such a losing case to trial.

I am not pretending to like what S&W did, but I am astute enough to see that there is no black and white interpretation of the agreement until it is enforced.

As others have said, if we are to be consistent, all of the manufacturers are wh0res - stop splitting hairs and boycott them all.
 
B

bastiat

New member
However, Bastiat, what you are asking people to do is to predict how a judge/jury will interpret the agreement if and when it ever comes up in court, which is anybody's guess. My crystal ball is in the shop right now...
Click to expand...

Huh? What? This is unbelievable! Is this another case of not knowing what the meaning of the word 'is' is???

The agreement means exactly what it says. Take some time to read it. It's in pretty plain english.

Now if you're trying to dispute whether it is binding, see the four undisputable truths of the s&W agreement posted above. It is a binding contract, duly signed by s&W. s&W was purchased in whole by saf-t-hammer. Just about every single company buyout under the sun means the new company buys the obligations as well. The contract doesn't give any weasel language. AND THE NEW OWNERSHIP HAS STATED THEY WILL ABIDE BY THE AGREEMENT. Let me say that again, in case you didn't catch it: THE NEW OWNERSHIP HAS STATED THEY WILL ABIDE BY THE AGREEMENT

There is no way that anybody can rightly say WHAT that agreement means. An agreement like that is interpreted only when it is enforced. If it is not enforced it means NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING - not worth the paper it is printed on.
Click to expand...

My goodness, I have to be honest and say this is one of the weakest, clinton-administration like attempts at the defense of the agreement I've ever read! Yes, if it's not enforced it means nothing. It doesn't mean that it just goes away. If an administration ever wants to enforce it at any time in the future, THEY CAN!!

Here's my request to the s&w defenders and apologists: If you want to buy s&w guns in spite of the agreement, but can't respond to facts with other facts, just say "I'm only interested in buying their guns. I don't care about the agreement." At least it's honest.
 
B

BigG

New member
My goodness, I have to be honest and say this is one of the weakest, clinton-administration like attempts at the defense of the agreement I've ever read! Yes, if it's not enforced it means nothing. It doesn't mean that it just goes away. If an administration ever wants to enforce it at any time in the future, THEY CAN!!
Click to expand...

No, it is a mature, reasoned, real world perspective on the issue. It is not a Chicken Little "the sky is falling" alarmist panic like some of our members interpret it. When you own a legitimate business, you will sign up to some very distasteful things - or you will not be in business long.

We are not talking about your personal honor or word here - this is business. When you are paying their (S&W's) bills, then you can dictate their response. You also have the right to vote with your money. But there are no traitors here. You are not the judge.
 
B

bastiat

New member
I've owned my own business for 3+ years. I've never had to do any distasteful things. I could have done many of them and made a lot more money, but I have this thing called a conscience. I know a business owner who had the same type of 'be honest and forthright' attitude that I have. I guess he was a chump who didn't know about the business world when he sold his company at exactly the right time for $25 million. What an idiot he was!

While I didn't face s+w's situation, every other major manufacturer faced it. Only s+w caved. Instead of uniting and fighting, their british ownership thought they could cut a deal. That says alot about them.

Here's the deal:
The original s&w ownership was boycotted for caving.
The new ownership is being boycotted for not ripping up the agreement, and stating they will abide by it.

The RKBA fight is like its own little war. In a war you have victories and defeats. You face hardships along the way. If someone on your side, suffering from the same hardship everyone else, gives the enemy aid and comfort and contributes to your defeat - you don't give them a raise, you hang them as traitors.
 
D

deanf

New member
The provisions of the settlement are not technically new federal laws; they're the next best thing.
Click to expand...

If I may correct:

It's the other way around. New federal laws are the next best thing to the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement is not directly subject to the same participatory democratic process that at least federal laws are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top