Smith and Wesson Agreement is Dead???

[Gonzo_308]

I'm not sure what to think of this http://www.masslive.com/business/unionnews/index.ssf?/business/pstories/biz512sn.html

and would like some clarification from persons more in the know.

Article says City of Boston has dropped the sgreement but it says it in a round about way. Does anyone know more about this issue? If Boston dropped it does that mean the Federales will drop it too? Is it safe to get a Specialty shop 3" model 19 yet?

Tell me? Inquiring minds want to know

 

[MuzzleBlast]

It is not currently being enforced, but it is still in place. If another socialist gets elected president, it might be enforced. S&W still cannot be forgiven.

 

[bastiat]

They're halfway there. They need to kill the HUD agreement while there's a friendly administration in office. It was discussed about a month or so ago:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109365

 

[buzz_knox]

No. It's dormant but can be enforced whenever HUD chooses.

 

[Will Beararms]

I agree they cannot be forgiven. We must continue the work of handgun control by putting all American handgun makers out of business. That way only foreign makers will exist and when the next socialist government comes in, they can threaten the foreign makers with the loss of MIL SPEC/LEO business if unless they quit selling to the public. I am sure that all of those foreign companies that exist in nations where the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right will decide to forfeit all MIL SPEC/LEO sales for the public's ability to have handguns. Right?

Any shooter on this forum who smokes American tobacco products yet boycotts Smith and Wesson is a hypocrite plain and simple. There's no difference in what happened with the tobacco farmers and Smith and Wesson.

Smith was already hurting and the Clintons singled them out for an attack versus going after Beretta or Glock. Smith Officials were told by Tompkins PLC to either sign the agreement or the company would be liquidated immediatley. The Red Coats wanted to the HUD agreement signed in the hopes that stock prices would surge with the promise of the FED LEO business. Maybye the next time the Brits get into a war they can get their guns from another source but that's another topic for another time.

We must put Ruger out of business as well. That way there will be no quality reasonably priced firearms on the market and we can further diminish the number of law-abiding gun owners in the U. S. since weapons will be to expensive. Gee you don't think the foreigners would raise prices if competition was reduced do ya?

Nevermind about the loss of jobs. Look how great NAFTA has been to the average family? Look at all those promised jobs Congress has delivered on? It's high time we honored those WWII vets who put their lives and livelihoods on the line by rewarding Communist Countries and the Grandsons of the Axis Powers by going forward with putting American companies out of business. Isn't it great to know that our Military handguns are made by the Grandchildren of those who slaughtered out Grandfathers? Wow then we will have Kahr with their well thought out market introduction plans and top flight quality control sysytems. Not. After all, spending $600.00 on a handgun and then having to send it back for work build patience which builds character. Right?

We'll show em won't we!

 

[C.R.Sam]

Dead ?
NO.
Awaiting the slightest change in the white house. Personnel or thinking.

Sam

 

[bastiat]

Will, that argument has been shot down so many times before that it must be a cast member of 'the evil dead'.

1. Other gun makers were pressured to sign. They all faced the same lawsuits, the same pressure. Only S&W caved. FWIH (I believe it was mike irwin) some were considering signing, but once they saw what happened to S&W, they decided not to.

2. If S&W goes out of business, it's a good thing. The agreement dies. The patents and tooling are valuable property that can be sold, minus the baggage of the agreement. A new owner can make the pistols without being under the agreement.

3. If S&W goes out of business, that won't mean there won't be any fewer guns sold. If there is a vacuum, it will be filled. Someone will see a potential for profit and take the chance. The anti's won't win, capitalism will.

4. Yes, the former communist and axis powers are making a lot of guns sold in the US. The empasis on FORMER. Know what that means? We won, communism lost, and they're now making products to suit our whims. If you take that as defeat, I'm not sure what victory is.

5. Tobacco farmers weren't sued. They get government subsidies to grow tobacco. The makers were sued, and they had to settle. The big difference is that gun makers hadn't been telling the public for years that guns weren't capable of being used to kill. The tobacco companies played that game and it backfired.

6. The other gun companies and ammo makers banded together instead of surrendering. They've won almost every case, with the couple that have survived are being appealed. They've received exemption from being sued through state legislatures- they fought for what's right, they didn't cave and get preferential treatment.

You raise a lot of bogeyman arguments but dance around the actual issue: S&W signed a horrible agreement that would have eroded our gun rights if adopted by all manufacturers. The current ownership is still bound by the agreement and hasn't had it recinded yet. By purchasing from them, we only benefit the anti-gun groups whose agenda was forwarded by the agreement. By boycotting them, we give them a negative financial incentive to get rid of the agreement.

 

[riverdog]

I believe the current owners of S&W are doing their best to get out from under the yoke of the agreement. If they in fact have beaten the odds and are out of both the Boston and HUD agreements, that's a good thing.

What I don't like and what keeps me from buying a new S&W is that awful integral lock mechanism. I don't want it on any firearm I own.

 

[BigG]

Love my Model 52 .38 Master...

No. Not! Never! Rant - Rave - Snarl! Um, what was the question?

 

[Selfdfenz]

Its still inforce.
Smith has a much more forgiving adminsitartion in place.
They could very easily work a new deal with the Bush administration that kills this argeement and it would satnd in court.
Have they?

No.

The sooner S&W is out of business the better.
BTW...the tobacco companies made a deal with the devil to stay in business. It passed on all the costs to the consumer they were hooked and were a captive audience so to speak.
Its worked so far but in the long run I bet high enough taxes will kill the industry.
IF the gun makers were successful in doing the same your $500 SA 45 might cost $5000 and a box of tax laden 22s might cost $50. At that point the shooting sports will be dead. Sorry its just a fact that few could support the interst or would want to.

Big tobacco and S&W both s*&k because they shafted their customers.

The last three pistols I purchased were made in foreign countries. I bought them because they were exactly what I wanted, hade great quality and at a great price .....and that's all the justification I needed. The last American made firearms I purchased was a Remington 597 an it is a mediocre product at best.
S-

 

[buzz_knox]

I believe the current owners of S&W are doing their best to get out from under the yoke of the agreement. If they in fact have beaten the odds and are out of both the Boston and HUD agreements, that's a good thing.

Actually, the new owners publicly ratified the HUD agreement by stating that they would abide by it.

 

[Sundance]

Well,

Let's see...

We are trying to put Colt out of business because they quit making almost all of their guns.

We are trying to put S&W out of business because they made a deal with the devil.

We are trying to put Ruger out of business because Bill said we shouldn't own hicap mags.

We don't want to buy Taurus revolvers because they lock themselves.

We don't want to buy Kimber 1911s because the new "II" safety is unreliable.

We need to avoid Glocks because they Kaboom.

We need to avoid Berettas because they will break apart when fired.

To hell with Remington because their quality control is down.

Don't buy a Kahr because you are supporting the Moonies.

Springfield M1A receivers suck because they are made out of powdered metal and not as strong as GI receivers.

Do we still like HK and Winchester?

I have trouble keeping score anymore...

Which gun company do we hate today...

How about tomorrow...

 

[bastiat]

>We are trying to put Colt out of business because they quit making almost all of their guns.

Stupid move on their part. However, it doesn't keep me from buying any other company's guns.

>We are trying to put S&W out of business because they made a deal with the devil.

They deserve it - they brought it on themselves. Unless you want to defend the points of the agreement - which everyone else has refused to do.

>We are trying to put Ruger out of business because Bill said we shouldn't own hicap mags.

Yep, I am. Maybe I'll buy a ruger someday, if the company admits they made a mistake and they work to make sure the 94 ban gets thrown out.

>We don't want to buy Taurus revolvers because they lock themselves.

I can buy some loctite and disable the lock altogether. But if I don't do it, only I am affected.

>We don't want to buy Kimber 1911s because the new "II" safety is unreliable.

not being a kimber follower, I don't know about this issue. If it's unreliable, it doesn't affect someone else who doesn't own a kimber.

>We need to avoid Glocks because they Kaboom.

only 40's. I avoid them because they feel like a 2x4 in my hand. If they kb, the only people that will really affect are the customers, and the company.

>We need to avoid Berettas because they will break apart when fired.

I guess that is more urban legend than actual fact. Again, the only potential harm is the customer and the company.

>To hell with Remington because their quality control is down.

That only harms remington and their customers

>Don't buy a Kahr because you are supporting the Moonies.

I plan to buy a kahr, and I don't know why I should be afraid of 'moonies', even though justin kahr's only apparent ties are that of blood.

>Springfield M1A receivers suck because they are made out of powdered metal and not as strong as GI receivers.

Having some experience with powdered/sintered metals but not the m1a issue, that sounds like it's a problem with the production process rather than the sintering issue itself. However, even if they do have a problem, it doesn't affect me if I don't own one of their guns

Your argument isn't consistent. What S&W and ruger did affect all gun owners. S&W's agreement could have affected all of their dealers in a very bad way. Ruger affected us all. The other companies made bad decision or experienced problems that affect them and their customer.

If I want to avoid their problems, I can. I don't need to buy their products. If I want to avoid what ruger did, I can't. I'm bound by the high-cap sellout, the seed of which he planted to save his own butt. If other gunmakers didn't see how S&W was slammed by the boycott, they could have signed onto the agreement as well. And then we would all be affected. We wouldn't be able to escape it by just buying from another manufacturer.

 

[Sundance]

Um OK...

Apparently someone has no eye for sarcasm...

And someone has missed the point...

And not to mention any names, but it is...yes...you guessed it...bastiat!

My point is, all anybody does on here is bitch about which gun sucks, or which gun company sucks, or how my gun is better than yours, or my caliber is better than yours. This is unproductive behavior.

Putting one of the world's oldest firearms manufacturers out of business is unproductive to our cause as well.

I am sure Slick Willy will be laughing in his recliner the day S&W closes its doors. He will say to himself...see I turned them against each other and made them destroy themselves.

 

[bastiat]

I do have an eye for sarcasm, and I spotted it immediately. However, your sarcasm was meant to make a point against the S&W boycott. I just pointed out that you used false logic to make an illegitimate argument.

My point is, all anybody does on here is bitch about which gun sucks, or which gun company sucks, or how my gun is better than yours, or my caliber is better than yours. This is unproductive behavior.

Yes, and this is what people have been doing for thousands of years about cars, football teams, table saws, etc. etc. etc... It's called conversation and debate. Human beings engage in it because they find it intellectually stimulating and a pleasant diversion. Doing so doesn't hurt any cause - if done well it actually sharpens our ability to debate when really needed against anti's.

Putting one of the world's oldest firearms manufacturers out of business is unproductive to our cause as well.

I am sure Slick Willy will be laughing in his recliner the day S&W closes its doors. He will say to himself...see I turned them against each other and made them destroy themselves.

The agreement S&W signed would have furthered the anti's goals much more effectively than any legislations in the past few decades - and accomplished it all without going through the legislative process. Would allowing this to happen have helped our cause in any way? In fact, supporting a company that helps the anti's cause is not just unproductive behavior, it's counterproductive.

 

[bastiat]

BTW, if anyone wants to defend the actual agreement that was signed (which would be a first), I invite you to do so. Here's how the agreement would have benefited all of us:

All guns must have internal locking devices
All guns must have Authorized User Technology ('smart' guns)
All guns must have a DA trigger pull of 10 lbs or more
All guns must have a barrel length of 3", unless it meets some set performance specs
All pistols cannot have a combined length and height of less than 10"
All pistols must have a manual safety
All new guns cannot accept pre-ban high cap magazines.
All guns will be ballistically fingerprinted

All dealers can no longer sell government defined 'assault weapons'.
All dealers can no longer sell pre-ban high capacity magazines.
All dealers can no longer sell at gun shows that allow private sales
All dealers can only show a customer one gun at a time. Comparing two similar guns side by side not allowed.
All dealers must store their guns in fireproof vaults after hours

All buyers must complete a certified training course
All buyers must wait 14 days between buying handguns
All buyers will contribute via their purchase to a fund to educate the public about the dangers of guns.

I'll be waiting, but I've learned not to expect an answer

 

[Modifiedbrowning]

Sundance, disregarding the sarcasm, check out Walther. Great firearms!

 

[Standing Wolf]

If Smith & Wesson's new owners haven't repudiated the company's deal with the Snopes Clinton-Liar Gore régime, it's not going to get a dime's worth of my money, since I don't do business with anti-Second Amendment bigots.

 

[Will Beararms]

The fact is Smith and Wesson is not abiding by the agreement. Tell me what dealers must have training courses completed? Tell me what dealers that carry Smith have gotten rid of their assault-style rifles? Tell me when the news came out that Smith would no longer make 2" barrels?

Ashcroft pushes through the redefinition of the 2nd or excuse me, the correct defintion actually. Smith continues to abate the muny pacts and then the stage is set to repudiate the agreement in a manner so that the company is not destroyed in the process.

Does anyone here think the new owners thought they would be able to survive without getting away from the HUD. I bet some of those in Smith and Wesson upper management feel the same way we do about the HUD.

 

[bastiat]

Then let them do it now. It's true that it's not being enforced during this administration, but unless it's killed now, during a friendly administration, the next administration (hillary?) could revive the agreement in a heartbeat.