S&Ws Agreement?

[Daedalus]

First off, let me say that I am young and new to the firearms scene. I've been on TFL for some time and a lot of people say things like "Smiths are great, but only buy a pre-agreement one". Up till this day I have avoid buying new Smith handguns. But I really don't know why?

So, would someone care to explain the "Agreement" so I can make my own educated decision instead of following the herd.

[IronFlea]

I second that. I have heard the ups and naughties of S&W.

I really love wheel guns and go S&W with the ultimate bias. I love their revolvers.

But I am not sure what I am looking for in the "pre-agreement" thing.


The Gun Range

[dZ]

here is the agreement:
http://liquid2k.com/zox/SMITH.pdf
nice parts:

d. Make no sales at gun shows unless all sales by any seller at
the gun show are conducted only upon completion of a
background check.

(1) Display cases shall be locked at all times except when
removing a single firearm to show a customer, and
customers shall handle firearms only under the direct
supervision of an employee;

h. Not sell ammunition magazines that are able to accept more
than 10 rounds regardless of the date of manufacture, nor
sell any semi-automatic assault weapon as defined in 18
U.S.C. 921(a)(30) regardless of the date of manufacture,
provide safety locks and warnings with firearms, as
specified in Section 1 above, and sell only firearms that
comport with the design criteria of this Agreement.

n. Require all employees to pass a comprehensive written
exam, which shall be developed by the manufacturers in
consultation with ATF and approved by the Oversight
Commission, on the material covered in the training before
being allowed to sell or handle firearms. Any employee
who fails to pass the exam shall be prohibited from selling
or handling firearms on behalf of the distributor or dealer.
The annual certification discussed in II.A.1.m above, will
include certification that all employees have passed the
exam.

r. Transfer firearms only:
(1) To individuals who have demonstrated that they can
safely handle and store firearms through completion of
a certified firearms safety training course or by having
a certified firearms safety examination.

2. Not market any firearm in a way that would make the firearm
particularly appealing to juveniles or criminals, such as advertising
a firearm as “fingerprint resistant.”

continues...

[buzz_knox]

The agreement was basically HUD's attempt to bypass Congress and enact HCI "wet dream" legislation on removing the protections firearms receive from being regulated by the Consumer Products Safety Commission.

[SkySlash]

It's a wonder with that agreement that they haven't gone out of business...

It seems impossible to even create a handgun with some of the requirements that POS agreement has in it.

I'm surprised they ddin't make them etch "Warning, you are holding a gun" into the side of every firearm...

-SS :barf:

[USGuns]

What IS the current status of the S&W agreement with the new ownership?

a) Are they abiding by it to the letter?
b) Are they working fervently with their attorneys to declare it null and void?
c) Is it still in effect legally but S&W is, for all intents and purposes, ignoring it?

[Daedalus]

Ok, I read the agreement and had some questions.

Who wrote up the agreement?

Who has signed the agreement saying that they will abide by it?

[buzz_knox]

HUD wrote the agreement (I won't even try to guess who collaborated in it). S&W signed up as the only manufacturer, with a few states, some municipalities, and HUD signing up on the other side. S&W later signed a nearly identical agreement with Boston.

I believe that S&W signed up without their attorney's consent and against advice of counsel, because that firm dropped S&W immediately upon the agreement's execution. Very interesting.

[Daedalus]

Who's HUD?

[Marko Kloos]

HUD is the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. Its secretary under Clinton used to be the enlightened anti-gun zealot Andrew Cuomo.

[buzz_knox]

HUD=Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. They are the Federal department charged, among other things, with overseeing public housing projects. They sued various manufacturers to recoup the costs of firearms violence in the projects (i.e. increased security).

[Lionheart]

Lendsringer,
RE "enlightened anti-gun zealot Andrew Cuomo"
I LIKE it.
I think I'm going to start applying the title EAGZ to Cuomo's ilk. EAGZ Sarah Brady. EAGZ Chuckie Schumer. EAGZ Jon Corzine. etc. etc. etc.

[Daedalus]

Ok, this may be a stupid question (actually its a very stupid question), but someones gotta ask them.

Why would anyone want to sign the agreement?

What kind of benefit is S&W getting from letting the HUD have influence over the compaines decisions? Are they trying to make a point? Are they trying to set some standards?

I'm still confused. But thanks for all of your answers.

[dZ]

Here is two reasons to sign:

1. The undersigned state, city, and county parties to the Agreement dismiss the
manufacturer parties to the Agreement with prejudice from lawsuits specified in
Appendix A subject to any consent orders entered pursuant to paragraph VIII; and

2. The undersigned state, city and federal parties to the Agreement agree to refrain from
filing suit against the manufacturer parties to the Agreement on an equivalent cause of
action.

S&W also wants to be the most favorite provider of sidearms to State & Federal government agencies

[Mike Irwin]

There's a very simple reason why S&W signed the deal. An attempt to further their profits and make the company more attractive to potential buyers.

Like the rest of the firearms industry, S&W was facing a significant burden of lawsuits filed by cities and the threats by HUD to sue the industry.

HUD made a number of offers to S&W, including relief from the lawsuits and preference in future Federal contracts. S&W saw that it could significantly ease its legal burden while picking up scads of Federal contracts.

Only, there were a couple of problems with that, problems that have made S&W's decision to sign the agreement a financial nightmare for the company:

1. S&W apparently didn't realize that HUD had absolutely no authority to act for the entire Federal governemnt regarding contract procurement. Several months after the agreement was signed, Congress effectively negated this promise when it banned S&W from receiving any preference in Federal contracts.

2. S&W apparently didn't realize that the Feds had absolutely NO sway with about 99% of the entities that were suing the company, the individual cities. HUD never filed its threatened lawsuit against the industry, so that was another hollow promise.

Since S&W signed the agreement nearly 2 years ago, the courts have acted on many of the lawsuits that were facing the industry, tossing the majority of them out.

3. What S&W REALLY screwed up on was the reaction of gunowners. After the terms of the agreement became know, S&W's business dropped by over 50%, and has remained significantly depressed.

The financial situation was so bad that last year the annual company summer furlough was 2 months instead of the traditional 1 month, and something like 125 works were permanently laid off.

Contrary to the claims of some of the S&W apologists that are out there, who desperately want you to believe that if you're not buying new S&W products YOU'RE forcing good people out of work, the only people to blame for those lost jobs are S&W's top management -- the people who signed the agreement, -- and the Clinton administration that offered it.

S&W tried to get a leg up on the competition by selling out your rights to the Government. They failed because the government couldn't, or wouldn't follow through on what it promised (gee, what a surprise), and lots of American gunowners recognized this agreement for what it was, a dangerous assault on YOUR rights.

You're probably going to hear a lot of static from people who say that the agreement is dead, that it's not being enforced so we don't have to worry about it, etc.

To them I say BULLS***. They're LYING. They may be telling you what they personally believe, but it's still a lie.

The agreement is DORMANT, but NOT dead. Until it is formally revoked by both S&W and the government, it remains a viable, legal agreement between two parties.

While the Bush administration may see no reason to enforce the agreement, how long do you think it would take for someone like Al Gore or John McCain to mandate STRICT compliance with this agreement?

Not long. If anyone else tells you otherwise, they're either lying or living in a fantasy land.

George W. Bush's election bought gunowners breathing room. Nothing more. If the agreement is not repudiated, it WILL come back to haunt all of us.

There are a few very simple steps that you can take to show your displeasure about this agreement.

1. Write your Congressmen, asking that the government formally drop the agreement.

2. Write S&W. Tell them to quit dragging their feet and work toward repudiation of the agreement. Let them know that you won't purchase a new S&W firearm or S&W-branded products until that is done.

3. Don't buy new S&W products. Purchasing a new S&W product is supporting those who would sell your rights for a few hollow promises.

4. Don't buy guns or equipment from dealers who persist in carrying new S&W firearms, and be sure to let them know why.

5. Purchase firearms ONLY from dealers who refuse to deal in traitor's bargain firearms. The most effective way to get S&W to move from their end is to put pressure on their dealers.

A good example of such a dealer can be found here:

Virginia Arms, Manassas, Virginia

I drive an extra 20 miles to get to this shop, but as far as I'm concerned, it's worth every bit of it.

6. Don't fall for sob stories about how you're being a cruel bastard to the honest, hardworking S&W employees who didn't have any part in this agreement.

Quite frankly, they can find other jobs. Being laid off sucks, I know that first hand. But it wasn't the end of my life. I got another job, and I'm doing just fine. They can do the same thing.

What none of us can get, though, are more rights. Once a right is damaged or gone, it's pretty much gone for good.

If fighting for my rights means that every one of S&W's employees is put out of a job, so be it. They are, quite frankly, acceptable losses for the preservation of a fundamental Constitutional right guaranteed to us by men who were one hell of a lot wiser than the S&W management that signed this agreement in the first place.

7. Let your gun owning/buying friends know about this. An educated guy buyer, who cares about his rights, is the most potent friend your rights can have.

An uneducated guy buyer, or one who simply doesn't care, is the most potent enemy your rights will ever face.

Quite frankly, the choice is yours about what kind of legacy you wish to pass on to your children and to future gun owners.

It can be a legacy of personal apathy and increasing governemnt interference in fundamental Constitutional rights that the Founding Fathers left to law-abiding gunowners, or it can be one of saying enough is enough, this is the line I draw, this is where I make my stand.

But whatever choice you make, choose wisely. Far more people than just you have a stake in it.

[Daedalus]

On a side note. Hows the service / selection / prices at Virginia Arms? I've been going to Shooters Paradise (Woodbridge, VA) to window shop, and they have a lot of unpurchased S&Ws. They've been sitting in the cases a long time. The people there are nice and treat me well, but I am curious what Virginia Arms is like. Thanks.

[Mike Irwin]

It's small, meaning that the selection is kind of limited, but they'll order in what you want.

And their politics are right.

What more could you ask for?

[Robert the41MagFan]

You're probably going to hear a lot of static from people who say that the agreement is
dead, that it's not being enforced so we don't have to worry about it, etc.

To them I say BULLS***. They're LYING. They may be telling you what they personally
believe, but it's still a lie.

The agreement is DORMANT, but NOT dead. Until it is formally revoked by both S&W and
the government, it remains a viable, legal agreement between two parties.

Every legal professional that has publicly commented on this issue disagree with that statement.

I'll put my money with the legal experts instead of the armchair kind.

Robert

[bastiat]

Every legal professional that has publicly commented on this issue disagree with that statement.

I'll put my money with the legal experts instead of the armchair kind.

Robert

Got any links to cite for that? I mean, any links by legal experts that aren't either:

A) S&W supporters
B) Listed under 'AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOK Law firm' in the yellow pages?

[AR-10]

Yes, I'd like to see a link to back up that assertion as well.

Why do you insist that the passage of time or the neglect of a Republican administration to enforce a contract signed between two parties suddenly makes that legally binding contract null and void?

What do you base this assertion on? Heresay? Wishfull thinking?

Smith and Wesson has not made any move publicly to get out from under this burden. The only public comments they have made in regard to the agreement is that they intend to abide by it. They're so comfy with the situation that they won't even aknowledge that it's costing them business.

At best they are spineless weasels who are hoping and praying that the majority of their customers are dullards who's lust for shiny toys will eventually over-ride their desire to live in a free society.

At worst they are blood drinking devil spawn.

The truth is probably somewhere in between.

[Mike Irwin]

OK, Robert.

Believe an attorney, believe a politician.

Want to buy a bridge?

Obviously NRA's attorneys don't hold the same opinion that your attorneys do.

And guess what, until it does go to court, or an administration does start pushing it, it is just an opinion.

Are you willing to take that chance, though?

Or is it just easier to be complacent, and believe that everything will work out for the best?

[C.R.Sam]

Since the new owners, Safe-T Hammer, have publicly stated that they will honor and abide by all agreements entered into by the previous owners......

And since Safe-T Hammer has NOT publicly stated that they will attempt to rescind the agreements in question......

It seems that the agreements are indeed alive and well. Just waiting for a government more favorable to the antis to be implemented in full force.

Amongst other things; purchase of a new S&W product directly funds smart gun research and firearms restrictions in general.

Purchase of a new S&W product is a slap in the face of the manufacturers who had the gall to refuse to sign on with Smith.

Do you want a smart gun that cannot be fired by your wife, partner or backup when you are in need, or you are not there to protect them ?

Before making a decision, please carefully read the complete text of the first agreement. The onerous parts are too numerous to list here.http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp...l&ID=31&1=View

[SW9M]

I just recently rid myself of the last pre-Klinton&Wesson product that I had. I will most likely change my login name accordingly. They (K&W) just sent me a catalog of their new non-firearm products. (K&W really expanded their non-firearm product line. Must of had something to do with all those p!ssed off gun owners.) They have some really cool stuff, but that K&W logo makes that really cool stuff look like an old, unpopular car with a bad case of cancer.

There are products on the market that are just as good, if not better than K&W and doesn't have the political baggage with it.

By the way, I'm saving their new catalog for kindling in my fireplace.

I really dig my new Llama Micromax and my wifes new Tauras 38 special. I now carry the Micromax instead of the SW9M. (Of course the SW9M is hard to carry since I don't have it anymore. )

[Robert the41MagFan]

Mike although the NRA has the agreement on its web site and has done most of the barking during the boycott, there stance since Saf-T-Hammer has taken over is neutral. Same view I have. Call and ask for yourself.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The problem is not the agreement itself, but rather mechanical points within the agreement and how other manufactures deal with them and deal with the imposing litigation. Whether we like it or not, the points of this agreement are here to stay. Boycotting just one company and ignoring the rest is the equivalent of being concerned about ants in your home and the elephants are running through your living room.

Unfortunately the impact of the agreement is being felt throughout the industry and it will soon spiral out of control with one company trying to out do the other in order to lessen the burden of litigation.

According to the Wall Street Journal and other tidbits from other legal professional like Georgetown University professor Paul Rothstein, state that if neither side enforces their demands of the agreement, it mutes the impact. Time in essence dilutes enforcement. To this day neither side has delivered! In five years under what pretense does the government force implementation? Government promised exclusive contract and omission from litigation and it did none of the above. Smith & Wesson promised to follow the mechanics of the agreement and to this day remain one of the most defiant in the industry.

Look, all I am saying is this thing is cooked. The fixation on this agreement at this point is causing more harm than good. Future agreement WILL have teeth to them, save your energies for those.

I'm sure that there will be plenty of fighting and fireworks in the near future! Lets fight those. All of us together.

Robert

[Gus~]

Smith&Who...