Saf-T-Hammer = Nothing New = Same Old S&W
- Thread starter JohnKSa
- Start date
Silver Bullet
New member
Thanks, AR-10 !
See what you got me into ?
Nicely done, JayCee ! I'll be back later with my response. I'll have to cite paragraph and verse in my rebuttal. Seventeen pages of legalese is a lot to study.
I was looking at the agreement earlier for one of my previous responses, and it took me so long it was past 5 o'clock before I finished my post. Unfortunately, I was intending to call Saf-T-Hammer today to inquire about the agreement, and they close at 5. I'll try again next week; meanwhile, I hope Ed2 doesn't read that I still haven't called.
See what you got me into ?Nicely done, JayCee ! I'll be back later with my response. I'll have to cite paragraph and verse in my rebuttal. Seventeen pages of legalese is a lot to study.
I was looking at the agreement earlier for one of my previous responses, and it took me so long it was past 5 o'clock before I finished my post. Unfortunately, I was intending to call Saf-T-Hammer today to inquire about the agreement, and they close at 5. I'll try again next week; meanwhile, I hope Ed2 doesn't read that I still haven't called.
Point number two is an easy one to deal with. The agreement says;
A. Authorized distributors and dealers.
1.The manufacturer parties to this Agreement may sell only to authorized distributors and authorized dealers.
C.Authorized dealers--additional provisions.
ln addition to the requirements in section II(A)(1), authorized dealers must agree
1.Not to sell any of the manufacturers' products to any federal firearms licensee that is not an authorized distributor or authorized dealer of that manufacturer.
Therefore, any dealer that does not adhere to the terms of the agreement will not be allowed to purchase S&W products for resale, period. So... any shop that wants to sell Smiths will have to tow the line.
A. Authorized distributors and dealers.
1.The manufacturer parties to this Agreement may sell only to authorized distributors and authorized dealers.
C.Authorized dealers--additional provisions.
ln addition to the requirements in section II(A)(1), authorized dealers must agree
1.Not to sell any of the manufacturers' products to any federal firearms licensee that is not an authorized distributor or authorized dealer of that manufacturer.
Therefore, any dealer that does not adhere to the terms of the agreement will not be allowed to purchase S&W products for resale, period. So... any shop that wants to sell Smiths will have to tow the line.
Silver Bullet,
I'm not really trying to "win" the argument here. Each of us is entitled to our opinion, and probably neither of us will convince the other that our position is right. All I'm really trying to do is put a little perspective into the discussion. Do I think Smith & Wesson is blameless? No. From what I've read about the background to the discussion, Ed Schultz buddied up with a couple of the negotiators from HUD and lost sight of his responsibilities as a corporate CEO. The settlement, if there had to be one, could have been better. However, I don't fault S&W for trying to settle the case; this should be the goal of all participants in a lawsuit.
I guess I'm just tired of hearing how Smith & Wesson "done us wrong". There's plenty of blame to go around, and, in my opinion, much of it should go to the government agencies that initiated the lawsuit. They're used our tax dollars to do this, and I just feel there should be more outrage. Whether the boycott will accomplish the goals hoped for, I can't say. I personally can't say that my freedoms have been curtailed by the agreement, but who's to say they won't be at some point in the future. My gut feeling is that the agreement will simply fade away, since it's doubtful the current administration will put much effort into enforcing it.
Anyway, thanks for a good exchange of ideas.
Best regards,
JayCee
I'm not really trying to "win" the argument here. Each of us is entitled to our opinion, and probably neither of us will convince the other that our position is right. All I'm really trying to do is put a little perspective into the discussion. Do I think Smith & Wesson is blameless? No. From what I've read about the background to the discussion, Ed Schultz buddied up with a couple of the negotiators from HUD and lost sight of his responsibilities as a corporate CEO. The settlement, if there had to be one, could have been better. However, I don't fault S&W for trying to settle the case; this should be the goal of all participants in a lawsuit.
I guess I'm just tired of hearing how Smith & Wesson "done us wrong". There's plenty of blame to go around, and, in my opinion, much of it should go to the government agencies that initiated the lawsuit. They're used our tax dollars to do this, and I just feel there should be more outrage. Whether the boycott will accomplish the goals hoped for, I can't say. I personally can't say that my freedoms have been curtailed by the agreement, but who's to say they won't be at some point in the future. My gut feeling is that the agreement will simply fade away, since it's doubtful the current administration will put much effort into enforcing it.
Anyway, thanks for a good exchange of ideas.
Best regards,
JayCee
Your third point takes the text and spins it with presumption that is unwarranted. Why would other manufacturers only be held to one or two of the new improved standards when it clearly says;
"...and sell only firearms that comport with the design criteria of this agreement."
It sounds like you are trying to rewrite the document. Legal weaseling is not likely to work in our favor on this one.
"...and sell only firearms that comport with the design criteria of this agreement."
It sounds like you are trying to rewrite the document. Legal weaseling is not likely to work in our favor on this one.
AR-10,
I would argue that the agreement is unclear. It really needs to state "...sell only firearms that comport with all the design criteria of this agreement" to be completely clear. Otherwise, one is free to argue that compliance with one or two of the requirements is sufficient. From a practical standpoint, I haven't yet seen any of the gun stores I frequent reduce their inventory of non-compliant guns in order to keep selling S&Ws. As I noted in my post to Silver Bullet, my gut feeling is that the agreement will simply fade away, since the current adminstration will likely have little stomach to enforce it. If neither party abides by or enforces the agreement, the argument could be made that it was de facto rescinded. That's why I hope S&W will still be around.
JayCee
I would argue that the agreement is unclear. It really needs to state "...sell only firearms that comport with all the design criteria of this agreement" to be completely clear. Otherwise, one is free to argue that compliance with one or two of the requirements is sufficient. From a practical standpoint, I haven't yet seen any of the gun stores I frequent reduce their inventory of non-compliant guns in order to keep selling S&Ws. As I noted in my post to Silver Bullet, my gut feeling is that the agreement will simply fade away, since the current adminstration will likely have little stomach to enforce it. If neither party abides by or enforces the agreement, the argument could be made that it was de facto rescinded. That's why I hope S&W will still be around.
JayCee
Silver Bullet
New member
I’ll reply on the same points in the same order.
#1: When I said, “It allows the government to dictate through an Oversight Commission what features must be designed into future and present guns”, it came from paragraphs I.1 and I.2, which list several features that the government is requiring to be designed into the guns. III.2 gives the Commission review authority of the ATF or proofing entity of the design and safety requirements. You’re right, the agreement doesn’t give the Commission direct authority to dictate design and safety requirements, but the fact that they have final review authority indirectly provides them with a form of veto power; they can reject designs until one is presented that the approve of.
#2:
#3:
#4:
#5:
On #1, you’re technically correct, but the government is still going to have some control over safety and design. I worded this poorly, but the fact remains the government would have control where they did not previously. On #2, I think your points are ... beside the point ! They in no way diminish my assertion that the government would have used the agreement to ban the sale of hi-cap mags by dealers. On #3, I stand by my interpretation. On #4, I think my characterization is accurate: part of the profits will go towards anti-gun ads, even if the agreement itself doesn’t say that explicitly; On #5, you’re right about III.A.2 being a limit on the funding, but my point in that clause was the makeup of the Commission.
So, on issue #1 I was sloppy in my description, but I feel that my original post is overall a very accurate description of some of the ways the government would control (if “dictate” is too strong a term) the firearms industry.
Can I sit down now ?
#1: When I said, “It allows the government to dictate through an Oversight Commission what features must be designed into future and present guns”, it came from paragraphs I.1 and I.2, which list several features that the government is requiring to be designed into the guns. III.2 gives the Commission review authority of the ATF or proofing entity of the design and safety requirements. You’re right, the agreement doesn’t give the Commission direct authority to dictate design and safety requirements, but the fact that they have final review authority indirectly provides them with a form of veto power; they can reject designs until one is presented that the approve of.
#2:
I didn’t say “the agreement doesn’t dictate to dealers that they can’t sell high capacity magazines,” I said “it dictates that dealers must not sell hi-cap mags.” The actual text is “.II.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, ... , and sell only firearms that comport with the design criteria of this Agreement.” Since the dealer can’t sell S&W unless he agrees to not sell hi-cap mags, effectively the government is attempting to prevent dealers from selling hi-cap mags through their nefarious agreement. I think my description is a fair characterization of the effect of this agreement paragraph.
#3:
This references the same agreement paragraph I quoted in #2. How do you presume 1 or 2 standards would be sufficient ? I presume .II.1.h to mean all of the design standards must be met. When my loan contract states I must make payments by the first of the month, I presume they mean all 360 payments, not just 1 or 2 .
#4:
"VI ... the manufacturer parties to this Agreement shall dedicate one percent of annual fireams revenues to a trust fund to implement a public service campaign to inform the public about the risk of firearms misuse, safe storage, and the need to dispose of firearms responsibly.” This says S&W is funding the campaign propaganda, not writing it. Somebody else will actually write the campaign ads, and I’m guessing it will be more like Lowe’s “Get all guns out of the house” than “Keep your hands off the trigger until you’re ready to shoot.”
#5:
"III.A.2. The costs of the Commission shall be funded by the parties to the Agreement. Each manufacturer party to this Agreement will pay no more than $25,000 annually.” What I was expressing throughout my post was examples of how the government would control the industry through the agreement. My last example was bout the makeup of the Commission; I added the part about the funding as an additional bit of outrage over the agreement in general, but it has nothing to do with the gist of my post. If you want, I’ll change my statement to “the manufacturer has to partially fund the Commission,” but it doesn’t change the point of my statement.
On #1, you’re technically correct, but the government is still going to have some control over safety and design. I worded this poorly, but the fact remains the government would have control where they did not previously. On #2, I think your points are ... beside the point ! They in no way diminish my assertion that the government would have used the agreement to ban the sale of hi-cap mags by dealers. On #3, I stand by my interpretation. On #4, I think my characterization is accurate: part of the profits will go towards anti-gun ads, even if the agreement itself doesn’t say that explicitly; On #5, you’re right about III.A.2 being a limit on the funding, but my point in that clause was the makeup of the Commission.
So, on issue #1 I was sloppy in my description, but I feel that my original post is overall a very accurate description of some of the ways the government would control (if “dictate” is too strong a term) the firearms industry.
Can I sit down now ?
JayCee,
You have my respect for at least reading the agreement, anylizing it, and being willing to discuss it. As you said, we will likely never agree.
I do not know who to pressure in government to persuade them to keep their nose out of the marketplace. I cannot stand by and do nothing while this travesty plays out. The only course I can persue right now is the same course you would likely persue after the agreement is enforced. Boycott the manufacturer and shops that cater to the manufacturer.
If the agreement is enforced, which it will be eventually if Smith survives, gunshops will turn their backs on them and S&W will fold. I am just trying to make sure that other manufacturers see that there is no profit in tagging along. If others sign on, shop owners and customers will have NO choice about patronizing supporters of the agreement. We will buy the government's guns, or none at all. Not much freedom involved in that scenario.
You have my respect for at least reading the agreement, anylizing it, and being willing to discuss it. As you said, we will likely never agree.
I do not know who to pressure in government to persuade them to keep their nose out of the marketplace. I cannot stand by and do nothing while this travesty plays out. The only course I can persue right now is the same course you would likely persue after the agreement is enforced. Boycott the manufacturer and shops that cater to the manufacturer.
If the agreement is enforced, which it will be eventually if Smith survives, gunshops will turn their backs on them and S&W will fold. I am just trying to make sure that other manufacturers see that there is no profit in tagging along. If others sign on, shop owners and customers will have NO choice about patronizing supporters of the agreement. We will buy the government's guns, or none at all. Not much freedom involved in that scenario.
If the agreements are ignored by all parties, they are still viable and if and when the present administration is replaced by an even more socialistic one they will be enforced to the letter.
We can be sure that the Brady Bunch will continue to pressure for enforcement. We must in turn continue to hammer on our elected officials and on Saf-T-Hammer to rescind the agreements.
Meanwhile, our continued pressure validates the risks taken by the other manufacturers in refusing to sign the agreements. Encouraging them to continue to refuse to sign these and similar agreements.
Sam
We can be sure that the Brady Bunch will continue to pressure for enforcement. We must in turn continue to hammer on our elected officials and on Saf-T-Hammer to rescind the agreements.
Meanwhile, our continued pressure validates the risks taken by the other manufacturers in refusing to sign the agreements. Encouraging them to continue to refuse to sign these and similar agreements.
Sam
Silver Bullet and AR-10,
While we may not agree, I respect your reasoned and articulate arguments. I now understand a little better the thinking behind the boycott movement. I hope my position is a little clearer to you. I think we can all agree that whatever direction we take, our goals are the same: to maintain our right to keep and bear arms.
All the best,
JayCee
While we may not agree, I respect your reasoned and articulate arguments. I now understand a little better the thinking behind the boycott movement. I hope my position is a little clearer to you. I think we can all agree that whatever direction we take, our goals are the same: to maintain our right to keep and bear arms.
All the best,
JayCee
Ok, I intentionally DIDN'T adress the rationale behind the boycott in my original post, just pointed out that the new owners of s&w are mostly old s&w executives.
But, I think I'll comment after reading through the morass of information and opinions displayed on this thread.
What many seems to be missing is that the agreement is mostly neutered because there weren't enough signees. In large part because of the boycott.
The INTENTION of the agreement, much more than the effect of the agreement is what is odious.
It's true that the agreement only applies to those who do business with s&w. However, if the American consumer had told s&w that all was fine and dandy, the logical assumption is that OTHER manufacturers would have signed up. What's more, it's clear that the INTENT of the governmental organizations involved was to form a large group of gun makers (hopefully one that was eventually all-inclusive) that would sign, abide by, and enforce the agreement.
Once several gun makers had subscribed to the agreement, then all of the 'non-dictatorial' provisions of the agreement would become very dictatorial indeed. All of the non-enforcement would evaporate once enough gun makers signed up. Imagine trying to run a gun shop and not doing any business with 4 or 5 of the major gun manufacturers. Effectively most dealers would have to cave or go out of business. Where does that leave the consumers? Being dictated to, that's where.
Therefore, the following arguments:
1. It's not a problem because it only bound dealers who wanted to carry new s&w products.
2. No one's enforcing the agreement, so it's all moot.
3. It doesn't dictate anything, only restricts those who deal with s&w.
are flawed because they all ignore a very important point.
The reason that all of these statements can be made is because no other maker signed up--at least partially because of the boycott. Get it? The boycott weakened the agreement to the point that these arguments are supportable.
Therefore, it makes very little sense to use these arguments AGAINST the boycott.
BTW, :barf: I'm sick to death of this topic.
If you want to buy s&w, do it.
Just don't spend so much time trying to make converts. It's a known fact that the human brain can rationalize what it considers desirable actions so effectively that the owner of the brain is practically unaware of the mental prestidigitation that's going on.
That doesn't mean that the rationalizations aren't painfully obvious to others who take a more objective view.
But, I think I'll comment after reading through the morass of information and opinions displayed on this thread.
What many seems to be missing is that the agreement is mostly neutered because there weren't enough signees. In large part because of the boycott.
The INTENTION of the agreement, much more than the effect of the agreement is what is odious.
It's true that the agreement only applies to those who do business with s&w. However, if the American consumer had told s&w that all was fine and dandy, the logical assumption is that OTHER manufacturers would have signed up. What's more, it's clear that the INTENT of the governmental organizations involved was to form a large group of gun makers (hopefully one that was eventually all-inclusive) that would sign, abide by, and enforce the agreement.
Once several gun makers had subscribed to the agreement, then all of the 'non-dictatorial' provisions of the agreement would become very dictatorial indeed. All of the non-enforcement would evaporate once enough gun makers signed up. Imagine trying to run a gun shop and not doing any business with 4 or 5 of the major gun manufacturers. Effectively most dealers would have to cave or go out of business. Where does that leave the consumers? Being dictated to, that's where.
Therefore, the following arguments:
1. It's not a problem because it only bound dealers who wanted to carry new s&w products.
2. No one's enforcing the agreement, so it's all moot.
3. It doesn't dictate anything, only restricts those who deal with s&w.
are flawed because they all ignore a very important point.
The reason that all of these statements can be made is because no other maker signed up--at least partially because of the boycott. Get it? The boycott weakened the agreement to the point that these arguments are supportable.
Therefore, it makes very little sense to use these arguments AGAINST the boycott.
BTW, :barf: I'm sick to death of this topic.
If you want to buy s&w, do it.
Just don't spend so much time trying to make converts. It's a known fact that the human brain can rationalize what it considers desirable actions so effectively that the owner of the brain is practically unaware of the mental prestidigitation that's going on.
That doesn't mean that the rationalizations aren't painfully obvious to others who take a more objective view.
CRUSH THEM UNTIL THEY CHANGE
I like companies that make guns.
I like (some) S&W guns.
I hope that someday again we can buy their products, but at THIS MOMENT, if you buy a S&W gun you promote the loss of our (previously) unalienable rights (some of you go look those two words up in the dictionary).
The boycott is the only tool we have to correct the course.....
I like companies that make guns.
I like (some) S&W guns.
I hope that someday again we can buy their products, but at THIS MOMENT, if you buy a S&W gun you promote the loss of our (previously) unalienable rights (some of you go look those two words up in the dictionary).
The boycott is the only tool we have to correct the course.....
Jaycee, if the miniscule letter of the law were the only thing that matters we would not be debating this at all. The 2A is clear enough, and the FFA, GCA '68, etc. should never have even been considered, let alone passed, lo these many years ago.
But political wrangling and re-iinterpretation is reality, and any document that opens the door to ANY further infringment of our rights OR THE RIGHTS OF GUN MANUFACTURERS OR DEALERS to conduct their business as they see fit is something that we cannot tolerate.
The statists have gotten as far in eroding our rights as they have by incrementalism. THe S&W agreement, even if it is as benign as you seem to think it is (which it is NOT) is just another step in eroding our rights.
The dealer can simply choose not to deal S&W products? Sure! That doesn't harm our freedom? How not? If ALL dealers do the right thing and refuse, can we buy new S&W products? No, there's nowhere left to buy them. That's not an infringement of our freedom?
The issue is really not complicated. There are only 3 questions that need to be answered.
1. Does the S&W agreement pose a threat to our freedoms? The two possible answers are Yes or No. Any graduation of Yes, is Yes.
2. Do you want other manufacturers signing a similar agreement? Again, Yes or No.
3. Has the boycott been, so far, effective in influencing other manufacturers to not sign such an agreement? Again, Yes or No.
If you answer No to #1 or #3, you are smoking something. Likewise if you answer Yes to #2.
Of course, there is a third answer to all of these, one that you have rejected, Jaycee: "I don't care!"
For these we have only contempt. I'm glad that's not your answer.
But political wrangling and re-iinterpretation is reality, and any document that opens the door to ANY further infringment of our rights OR THE RIGHTS OF GUN MANUFACTURERS OR DEALERS to conduct their business as they see fit is something that we cannot tolerate.
The statists have gotten as far in eroding our rights as they have by incrementalism. THe S&W agreement, even if it is as benign as you seem to think it is (which it is NOT) is just another step in eroding our rights.
The dealer can simply choose not to deal S&W products? Sure! That doesn't harm our freedom? How not? If ALL dealers do the right thing and refuse, can we buy new S&W products? No, there's nowhere left to buy them. That's not an infringement of our freedom?
The issue is really not complicated. There are only 3 questions that need to be answered.
1. Does the S&W agreement pose a threat to our freedoms? The two possible answers are Yes or No. Any graduation of Yes, is Yes.
2. Do you want other manufacturers signing a similar agreement? Again, Yes or No.
3. Has the boycott been, so far, effective in influencing other manufacturers to not sign such an agreement? Again, Yes or No.
If you answer No to #1 or #3, you are smoking something. Likewise if you answer Yes to #2.
Of course, there is a third answer to all of these, one that you have rejected, Jaycee: "I don't care!"
For these we have only contempt. I'm glad that's not your answer.
Last edited:
Silver Bullet
New member
(Aside, in low tones) "Well, Tonto, we're not needed here any more ..."
This is absolutely my last post on this subject.
I would like to know whether there is any firm data indicating whether the boycott has had the desired result. Everyone seems to think it’s having some effect, but I haven’t seen any statistics on whether S&W is hurting, and, if they are, whether there is any intent on their part to repudiate the agreement. Also, what is the status of the other defendants in the lawsuit? They didn’t sign the agreement, so is the lawsuit proceeding against them? Just curious.
One more thing. Our cherished Second Amendment is hardly a masterpiece of clarity. The opening clause (“A well-regulated militia…”) has caused Second Amendment scholars to pull their hair out, and has given some commentators (Dennis Henigan of HCI is one of the foremost of these) an opening to argue that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. The right, they claim, is collective in nature, and applies only in to membership in an “organized” militia, i.e., the National Guard. While most authorities on the Second Amendment believe this interpretation to be incorrect, I am not unmindful that a future US Supreme Court may uphold such an interpretation. That’s why it’s so important that you make your voice heard. Boycott Smith & Wesson if you truly believe it will make a difference, but remember that boycotting is essentially a passive activity. I'm urging you to get actively involved: study the scholarship on the Second Amendment, join the NRA and similar organizations, vent to your elected representatives, take an active role in upholding your Second Amendment rights!
That said, I’m signing off.
I would like to know whether there is any firm data indicating whether the boycott has had the desired result. Everyone seems to think it’s having some effect, but I haven’t seen any statistics on whether S&W is hurting, and, if they are, whether there is any intent on their part to repudiate the agreement. Also, what is the status of the other defendants in the lawsuit? They didn’t sign the agreement, so is the lawsuit proceeding against them? Just curious.
One more thing. Our cherished Second Amendment is hardly a masterpiece of clarity. The opening clause (“A well-regulated militia…”) has caused Second Amendment scholars to pull their hair out, and has given some commentators (Dennis Henigan of HCI is one of the foremost of these) an opening to argue that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. The right, they claim, is collective in nature, and applies only in to membership in an “organized” militia, i.e., the National Guard. While most authorities on the Second Amendment believe this interpretation to be incorrect, I am not unmindful that a future US Supreme Court may uphold such an interpretation. That’s why it’s so important that you make your voice heard. Boycott Smith & Wesson if you truly believe it will make a difference, but remember that boycotting is essentially a passive activity. I'm urging you to get actively involved: study the scholarship on the Second Amendment, join the NRA and similar organizations, vent to your elected representatives, take an active role in upholding your Second Amendment rights!
That said, I’m signing off.
Well, on another forum I managed to get myself in a 'discussion' with some soccer Moms who happen to be home shcoolers. This might seem to be a bit of an oxymoron, but I've learned there are such things as liberal homs schoolers. Utah seems to be full of them. (And they are as venemous as a barrel of coral snakes!)
One of them actually asked me to prove that there's a problem in education today.
Can you imagine that? What a question! Who doesn't know that our government schools are turning out illiterate, innumerate, feel good idiots? And that the teaching profession in America is the laughing stock of the world?
Is the boycott having any effect? Did you notice the fact that their sales are, um, down a bit? And that they recently got sold for pennies on the dollar? (That's why a tiny company like Safty Hammer was able to buy them.)
Do you suppose that other manufacturers havn't noticed? Or that politicians haven't noticed? (That's one aspect of this that is often overlooked.)
Has the boycott been effective? Is the Pope Polish?
One of them actually asked me to prove that there's a problem in education today.
Can you imagine that? What a question! Who doesn't know that our government schools are turning out illiterate, innumerate, feel good idiots? And that the teaching profession in America is the laughing stock of the world?
Is the boycott having any effect? Did you notice the fact that their sales are, um, down a bit? And that they recently got sold for pennies on the dollar? (That's why a tiny company like Safty Hammer was able to buy them.)
Do you suppose that other manufacturers havn't noticed? Or that politicians haven't noticed? (That's one aspect of this that is often overlooked.)
Has the boycott been effective? Is the Pope Polish?