(October 2005) That was one of the section headings in Smith & Wesson’s latest annual report, just out. In it they wrote:
The settlement agreement dated March 17, 2000 between us, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and HUD has not been formally rescinded. …
If enforced, these restrictions contained in the HUD Settlement could substantially impair our ability to compete, particularly since none
of our competitors are subject to such restrictions. … [We] are still seeking to recover fully from the consumer boycott [which resulted
from our signing the agreement.]
The 2000 date mentioned above follows an exchange in Baltimore between Parris Glendening and Bill Clinton when the President learned of the Governor’s problems enacting an omnibus gun control package. At the time, Whitehouse officials were negotiating in secret with Smith & Wesson, trying to get the company to ‘voluntarily’ adopt limits Clinton could not impose via Congress. After learning the Maryland bill was blocked, Clinton ordered a key concession be made to Smith & Wesson conditioned upon closing the deal immediately. Within hours, Glendening announced modified state legislation, ostensibly modeled on the new S&W deal, saying it was “reasonable” since “this is what industry already supports” (meaning, S&W had just signed.) This removed some of legislators’ cover for opposing the bill, allowing it to advance. It was one of several key battles along the way to enactment of the Gun Safety Act of 2000.
Perhaps unwittingly, S&W was instrumental in helping implement ballistic fingerprinting restrictions, the ban on guns lacking an ‘integrated mechanical safety device’ and more. Ever since, many gun owners – including your Tripwire editor – have boycotted the company. S&W’s latest annual report confirms they’ve noticed.
Consumers have many reasons for spending our money at one company over another. The late Bill Ruger stupidly invited restrictions on magazine capacity years ago. Colt regularly danced the BATF tune. Beretta helped us oppose the Gun Violence Act in 1996 – but only until it got a better deal. (Its silence was later rewarded by special legal status in the ‘Beretta Bill.’ Business interests should not be confused with liberty interests.) In most cases where a company plays ball with anti-gunners, the hit to our interests is taken and then it is over. Not so Smith & Wesson. The deal it made – agreeing to certain business practices and product features dictated by anti-gunners – remains in effect, as they just confirmed. S&W is on a leash held by gun-grabbing bureaucrats, and as such is an anti-gun media frenzy waiting to come off the shelf any time some administration needs more hype to push a bill into law. All a gun grabbing official need do is start asking questions about why industry is out of line with what it is on record saying it supported, then demand broader legislative restrictions ‘since voluntary agreements obviously aren’t working.’ (Why don’t you see Ted Kennedy or Chuckles Schumer demanding S&W adhere to its agreement? They don’t need it now, since a gun ban isn’t close to passing. They’ll save this bullet for when it can put them over the top in Congress. Timing is everything in politics.)
So never mind the fact that S&W remains blithely unconcerned about helping clean up the mess they enabled here. The company is a wounded animal that must be put down before it hurts us again. When bureaucrats decide to make a big deal out of enforcing the S&W agreement – as they will – it will be at the political moment we can least afford. Better for the company to die now than wait for Sarah Brady’s ilk to activate its agreement at a time of their choosing, when it will hurt the rest of the industry – and our rights. S&W’s report confirms the boycott is working. Stay the course.
Well, what handgun could you buy if not a S&W? Browning’s Hipower 9mm is a nice product. Oh wait – you can’t buy a Browning in Maryland, they don’t ship the gun with shell cases for ballistic fingerprinting. (The law is still in place even if the system isn’t used.) Okay, so how about a big bore Encore target pistol? Oops. The administration fought against accepting an Encore’s safeties as ‘integrated mechanical safety devices’, or IMSDs, and none of their ‘legality locks’ fit it. So much for buying one of those. Obviously we still have legislative mess to clean up, but remember, IMSD’s weren’t supposed to be a barrier, and the reason is wrapped up in the S&W story:
Remember “smart guns”? Glendening wanted to ban sale of all handguns except those containing a computer gizmo that would only discharge for an authorized user (i.e., a smart gun.) When his legislation got in trouble, he abandoned smart guns in favor of a mandate that handguns have safeties, making it sound like language in the S&W deal. He called them “integrated mechanical safety devices” and their only purpose was to save face – the Governor’s lobbyist simply made up this term so it wouldn’t look like locks were gone altogether. That was it. Liberals gnashed their teeth – after all, they wanted a smart gun mandate, knowing such guns didn’t exist (nor do they today), meaning the law would effectively be a total handgun ban. So after the bill became law, they contrived an elaborate IMSD definition as if different than gun safeties and locks, intending to let Kathleen Kennedy – the presumptive next governor – ban handguns anyway, saying existing guns don’t include the ficticious mechanical gizmos they simply made up. Funny thing, though: Kennedy didn’t win office. Enforcement of IMSD restrictions started on Bob Ehrlich’s watch. Handgun sales should have been handled according to the letter of the gun lock safety law, yet the administration turned it into a real restriction: Ehrlich adopted the Kennedy IMSD definition, swallowing her story hook, line and sinker. Conclusion: An empty provision that became law only as a face-saving measure was needlessly turned into a real gun restriction by a Republican administration duped by the left wing. Liberals may rue not owning the governor’s office, but they still chuckle that Ehrlich’s people do their work for them by fighting hard to enforce gun restrictions in excess of what law demands.