Saf-T-Hammer = Nothing New = Same Old S&W

[Quartus]

but I hope you will also agree that it's not the only thing that needs to be done.

What did you ever read from anyone who supports the boycott that would hint to any sane person that we believe that boycotting S&W is the only thing we should do to preserve our right to bear arms?





If we could take a poll I think you'd find that those who boycott are at the top of the heap for activism.

 

[JayCee]

Ye Gods, man, what posts have you been reading?

My humble apologies. I don't get to spend as much time as I'd like reading posts on TFL. However, virtually all the posts I've read take the "pro-boycott" position. I'd like to read some of the thoughts of the antis, but really haven't searched for them much.

By the way, since you're curious about my club, I'm really not complaining that I don't see many people there. It gives me a greater opportunity to shoot unimpeded. Many times when I go out there, there's no one else there at all. However, it doesn't alter the fact that most of the membership is older, male and white.

The observations in my earlier post are my personal observations, and I don't presume that they mirror the experiences of anyone else. I still contend that it's going to be tough on us gun owners to weather the storm of political correctness that's come over us.

Regards,
JayCee

 

[JayCee]

What did you ever read from anyone who supports the boycott that would hint to any sane person that we believe that boycotting S&W is the only thing we should do to preserve our right to bear arms?

Okay, what have you done lately, other than holding yourself back from buying one of those execrable Smith & Wesson products?

 

[C.R.Sam]

The office staff of one of my state senators recognizes me by voice. When the election hoopla was runnin full tilt, my postage costs exceeded my utilities. I hassle the elected royalty at every chance.....town on up. I talk to people wherever I find them. I work with non shooters and wannabe shooters.

In my local area there will be a marksmanship training series for JUNIORS. Free for juniors from age 10-18. It will run every saturday for the next nine weeks. It made the front page of the local paper.

I introduce the clerk from the local stop n rob to shooting.

The boycott is very important but it is only one of many things that require attention.

Freedom doesn't come cheap.

I don't do enough

Many here do far more than me.

Sam

 

[Quartus]

One thing that I notice about the anti-boycott folks that seems to be consistent: You ask them a straightforward question and they never answer it.


Tell you what, Jaycee, you answer my questions, and I'll answer yours.

 

[JayCee]

I'm basically a letter writer. I write my elected officials about all sorts of things, Second Amendment issues being only one of the topics. When the lawsuit against the gun manufacturers was in its genesis, I wrote both politicians and the NRA expressing my outrage. I have also written on peripheral issues. For instance, I believe the US should adopt a variant of the English system of civil justice, that is, if I prevail in a lawsuit you filed against me, you pay my costs and attorneys' fees. If a system such as this had been in place, S&W might have had more of an incentive to fight on, since vindication would have meant that they would recover a good chunk of their expenditures.

I also try to keep up with the latest scholarship on the Second Amendment. As you are no doubt aware, there is a case pending in the 5th Circuit that could finally determine whether the Second Amendment provides for a collective right or an individual right to keep and bear arms. Since the US Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on the issue, this case could be critically important. Many scholars have weighed in on this issue, and it's enlightening to read and study their theories.

I enjoy baiting anti-gun columnists. Whenever I read an anti-gun column in the newspaper, I try to respond to the author using facts gleaned from my studies. Just recently, I wrote Jacquelyn Mitchard for improperly quoting some statistics in one of her diatribes against handguns. She had quoted Michael Bellesiles' flawed research on guns in early US history, and I wanted her to know that Mr. Bellesiles' work has been quite thoroughly debunked by most authorities.

Many people, I'm sure, do more than me. But every little bit helps.

JayCee

 

[C.R.Sam]

In civil suits it is not uncommon for the prevailing party to be awarded additionaly for costs incurred.

One key is to demand costs on the initial response to the suit. And then again during the closing arguments.

Been there.

Sam

 

[Quartus]

Still waiting for the answers to my questions.

 

[Bottom Gun]

Just because Ruger sold us out years ago and because he did things differently than S&W doesn't make what Bill Ruger did right. He still sold us out. I've refrained from buying his bullet sprayers ever since I found out what he did.
I will continue to do so as I will with S&W as well. They are both birds of a feather in my opinion.
The facts can be spun or sugar coated in various ways, but they remain the facts. Fact is, BOTH Ruger and S&W sold us out. I, for one, will have to see some kind of change coupled with a public apology before either one of these sellouts see another dime from me.
Just one man's opinion.

 

[JayCee]

In civil suits it is not uncommon for the prevailing party to be awarded additionaly for costs incurred.

Court costs, maybe. Attorneys' fees, not unless the court determines the suit is frivolous or a statute allows the recovery of attorneys' fees.

 

[JayCee]

Still waiting for the answers to my questions.

I'm sorry, I guess I lost track of what your questions were.

 

[JohnKSa]

THE GUN BUSINESS IS IN SERIOUS TROUBLE. Why? BECAUSE IT’S BECOMING SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE TO ENGAGE IN SHOOTING SPORTS! Gun owners are ostracized by the media. Hunting, which accounts for a large portion of the gun business, has declined significantly. The number of federally licensed firearms dealers has plummeted. Government regulation is increasing. Expect to see more bankruptcies in the gun trade as fewer and fewer people buy guns. And you want to put a gun manufacturer out of business?????

The industry as a whole will remain strong because gun owners haven't stopped buying guns--they have stopped buying s&w guns. The dollars NOT spent on s&w products will strengthen the other companies who have shown themselves more respectful of the American consumer's rights. Furthermore, tooling, facilities and employees of s&w will be dispersed (probably at a bargain) among the remaining gun makers in the event of s&w's bankruptcy.

The argument from the quote above is paramount to suggesting that weeding a vegetable garden will weaken the entire garden. The gun industry isn't a single body that could be weakened by an "amputation". It is composed of many individual entities (companies), each of which will benefit and grow stronger to some extent when competition is removed. Just as surrounding trees and saplings in a forest grow more quickly when a large tree dies.

 

[Quartus]

Furthermore, tooling, facilities and employees of s&w will be dispersed (probably at a bargain) among the remaining gun makers in the event of s&w's bankruptcy.

Or be bought at liquidation prices by someone who will stand up to the antis, kill the agreement, and begin producing great revolvers again. And maybe START producing great autos!


Jaycee, I've asked a few, but I'll settle for the last one. What, in any post by a supporter of the boycott, suggested to your mind that we think boycotting S&W is the only thing we should do?


And, while I'm at it, I'll add another: Who said S&W products were "execrable"?

 

[J.T.King]

You know, I told myself I wouldnt respond to this thread....

But I was wrong!

Jaycee... I get where you are coming from and for the most part I agree with you. Except for two things.

Look, if we dont vote, we are nothing in the society. If we vote, but dont talk to other people about our views we are one in a hundred million or so. If we influence other people (such as your responses to anti-gun columns and letters to representatives) then our power is expanded.

I COMPLETELY agree that the biggest threat to guns is that they will become socially unacceptable. Just like tobacco. And believe you me, should guns ever be as socially unacceptable as tobacco is now, I dont care how much precedence there is, there WILL be a "gun settlement" and we will all foot the bill in inaccesibility to firearms and/or substantially increased prices.

Now on to what I disagree with...

First off, the MOST important aspect in preventing guns from being seen as socially unacceptable is to be KNOWN to have guns. I assume that you are an intelligent, contientious person or you would not have hung in here so long on this thread. This would, IMHO, make you an IDEAL candidate for making a social stand. If your kid has relationships that are SO important that you are afraid to risk them with people that hate guns, WHAT DO YOU THINK HIS VIEWS ARE GOING TO BE??? It is generally accepted that the primary socialization of children happens through their peers. Assuming your kid's friend adopts his parents righteous indignation about firearms, your kid is going to at best be confused and at worst think of dad as a backwards hick (no offense intended).

Number two... back to voting... As a consumer who buys firearms we have the BIGGEST vote in how the companies that we buy from do business. Its our choice. With the exception of government contracts (and I know its a big exception) *WE* determine whether it is appropriate that S&W stay in business. Its that simple.

Now does the loss of an American icon mean that our RKBA is in better shape? Not necessarily. I disagree with those that think making an example of S&W will win the day. But without sending a STRONG message to the OTHER gun manufacturers that this type of collusion with anti-gun forces in the government is unacceptable, we WILL lose RKBA.

Contrary to what many on this board profess, RKBA is NOT currently protected by much more than inertia. Our fight is to keep that inertia on our side. Boycotting S&W is the only way I, as the consumer, can impact S&W. I own an S&W revolver. I didnt sell it, but I wont buy another until they deal with the mess that they are in. I still buy guns, so the industry will not suffer the loss of my dollar, and I make sure to ask everyone I see in a gun store what they think about the S&W agreement. I ask every owner of a gun store and a range about it. And if they seem non-commital or act like it doesnt matter, I try and gently convince them that it does matter, even to average joe like me.

So consider this post SUPPORT for your logic, just not with your conclusions on policy.

And consider this a gentle suggestion that you continue buying Sig (great guns!), leaving S&W for antoher day, and as a boost to your self image in saying, its not only OK to stand out in society as a gun owner, but also your duty as a believer.

JT

as usual, IMHO, FWIW, YMMV, and all that...

 

[JayCee]

What, in any post by a supporter of the boycott, suggested to your mind that we think boycotting S&W is the only thing we should do?

Nothing. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, since I clearly don't think that.

As to the use of the word "execrable", mea culpa. I should have said "products made by that execrable Smith & Wesson..."

 

[JayCee]

JT, thanks for your thought-provoking post.

The problem I have with the boycott (or at least my perception of it) is that it seems to single out only one of the parties to the agreement for censure. In fact, if I had to assess blame in this matter, I would have to assign 75% of the fault to the government and the remaining 25% to Smith & Wesson. Why?

The government (I'm using this term to collectively include all the municipal, state and federal government entities that were included as plaintiffs) brought this suit. They did it in clear contravention of any legislative intent. This is the same tactic that was used in the tobacco legislation. Legislation by lawsuit extorted vast sums of money out of tobacco producers, who legally manufactured and sold a legal product, in return for the goverment's nod that they could stay in business. Perhaps more importantly for this discussion, the settlement agreement that Big Tobacco signed had them agreeing to curbs on advertising that would clearly be unconstitutional if imposed by the legislature. Other than a few libertarians, no one really raised a voice against this settlement, so the government for all practical purposes got away with a significant infringment of our First Amendment rights. That set the stage for the legal shakedown of the gun industry.

Unlike the tobacco industry, there are no "Big Guns" in the firearms industry. Gunmaking doesn't bring in much in the way of profits. Gun manufacturers slide in and out of bankruptcy on almost a daily basis. Therefore, fighting a government-initiated lawsuit financed by our tax dollars is a much bigger burden for the likes of S&W. Defendants in lawsuits routinely settle cases just to stop the bleeding caused by the monumental volumes of cash needed to fund an adequate defense.

Do I agree with what Smith & Wesson did? No. Ed Schultz made the decision unilaterally, and now S&W's customers and employees have to live with it. Gunmakers have been winning these suits in trial, and S&W should have held out a little longer. However, other gunmakers are still involved in on-going lawsuits that may tie up their resources for years to come.

The government must be sent a clear message that they cannot thwart the will of the people by attempting to obtain through litigation what they can't by the legislative process. Will the boycott do this? It'll help. But the government will try this tactic again, since it's been proven to work successfully. What I've been attempting to do is point out that boycotting S&W is but one front in the battle. If that's all that's done, I don't think much will be accomplished other than to put a major gun manufacturer out of business. If our elected representatives get the message that we won't tolerate this kind of end run around our constitutional rights, then we really will strike a blow for freedom!

Regards,
JayCee

 

[C.R.Sam]

Boycotting SnW is but one ot the things being done by most.

I find it hard to believe that Ed Schultz acted alone. Otherwise why didn't Tompkins fire him instead of transferring him to another of their companies.......a profitable one at that. No, I think Tompkins likes Ed and insured that he would be with them after they unloaded Smith.

Sam

 

[JayCee]

I find it hard to believe that Ed Schultz acted alone.

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal about this around the time the agreement was signed. I don't remember all the details, but apparently, he started shmoozing with a couple of the negotiators from HUD, going to barbecues with them, and apparently getting cozier with them than he should have been, given the circumstances. They apparently convinced him to change his ways, and the rest is history. Of course, he may well have been acting on orders from his corporate higher-ups, who were obviously interested in selling the company. If he's still with Tompkins, that's probably the reason. I don't believe anyone in S&W's management had much say in the decision.

 

[Willy]

JohnKSa,
Excellent point. I was going to add that myself.
Also, remember that at the time that Smith and Wesson signed, Glock was all lined up to do the same thing. S&W signed, the excrement hit the fan, and Glock quietly walked away from signing.

 

[JayCee]

The industry as a whole will remain strong because gun owners haven't stopped buying guns--they have stopped buying s&w guns. The dollars NOT spent on s&w products will strengthen the other companies who have shown themselves more respectful of the American consumer's rights. Furthermore, tooling, facilities and employees of s&w will be dispersed (probably at a bargain) among the remaining gun makers in the event of s&w's bankruptcy.

I honestly have my doubts about that. Everything I’ve read indicates that, at least in the case of handguns, demand has dropped significantly. This has been attributed to a number of factors: drop in the crime rate, fewer first time gun buyers, market saturation, reductions in the number of licensed dealers, more stringent rules for buyers, public disgust over school and workplace shootings. I find myself buying a lot more used guns than I ever have previously, since it’s hard to wear out a good quality handgun. I’ve also sold a lot of guns I just wasn’t shooting much. These guns will probably be circulating around long after I’m gone! That’s the “problem” with guns from a manufacturer’s point of view. Unlike most durable goods, they really don't wear out. Therefore, to stay in business, gun manufacturers must continue to innovate: new materials of construction, new calibers, etc. Witness how popular the .40S&W (sorry about that!) has become. It filled a need and people (myself included) went out and bought one. The handgun industry’s only real hope of salvation is to attract more first time buyers by offering increasingly innovative products. It can't continue to sell to the same old people and expect to prosper.