View Poll Results: Do you continue to boycott S+W?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, because of the Clinton Deal

    10 29.41%
  • Forgive and forget. I was boycotting but stoppped

    6 17.65%
  • I never boycotted S+W

    13 38.24%
  • I don't buy S+W but for other reasons

    5 14.71%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: S+W Boycott

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    The boycott was apparently very effective in the beginning. Since then, the company has been bought out, but the deal made with Clinton has not been canceled. I myself have decided not to buy S+W products and will continue not to.

    What's everyone else think?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Nampa, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    I voted yes, but there are other reasons. They also don't have a product thatgets my attention.I would rather save money on a revolver and buy a Taurusand the M&P pistol isn't for me. Lets also not forget the Sigma.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    NW Indiana, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    I was boycotting... however I did by a like new (but still used) S&W 642 about a year and half ago... figured it wasn't new so it wasn't directly benefitting them...

    I also just plunked down for a 5.45x39 AR upper being distributted by them for the AR. Mostly because they are the only ones doing it and I'm not waiting until someone else does it....

    Considering those are the only two s&w's in my collection, one that was used and the other is technically just distributed by s&w but made by talos, I've done pretty good by avoiding them IMO, especially considering how tiny a fraction they make of my collection.

    I wouldn't forget their betrayal.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    I am still not buying a S&W. When I bought my last revolver, my needs were best served by eithera S&W or a Taurus and true to my word I bought a Taurus.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Sad thing is that if you boycotted every gun maker that had screwed the American gunowner one way or another you would probably have to make your own firearms.

    And at this point it seems that we have failed to bring S&W to its knees. Not to mention no one is really pushing the effort, VCDL included. As it is I can't even adequately explain the reason to boycott S&W. So I'm giving it up.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    I hadn't heard of the S&W boycott until I purchased my main carry firearm, my SW99. I really wasn't active in thepolitical side of gunsuntil I started carrying. I then heard about some sort of agreements and training that people were required to go through in order to buy a S&W, or something. I was confused, because when I bought my SW99 I proved no training and agreed to nothing. I actually own two S&W (ish) Handguns: a Walther PPK/s, and an SW99. The SW99 was actually purchased under initial reluctanceas I was looking for a Walther P99.

    I still don't know exactly what this boycott was/is all about. I do know that S&W makes some great firearms. I wont be boycotting them unless I see good reason to.

    EDIT: http://www.gunowners.org/a032100.htm

    K so I read that. How much of this is still in effect?


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Didn't know I was supposed to be boycotting them.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    I work in an official S&W dealer shop and none of these things have ever come down the pipe from Smith, ATF, or any presidential administration. I consider this to be GOA hyperbole. The only applicable clause is that we don't allow unescorted minors in the gun shop, but that has nothing to do with this supposed "deal." I'm not aware of any other gun shops having implemented these "requirements" either.

    Insofar as this is nonsense anyway, I have not and do not propose to boycott Smith.

    -ljp

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    It's my understanding that none of the parts of the deal have been enforced because Bush took office right after Clinton and didn't enforce it, but there's nothing stopping a future administration from doing so.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Never owned a smith anyhow... Always bought a Ruger if I wanted a wheelgun. And I already have a .22 so don't need an AR... :P And none of their autoloaders hold my attention. Guess their product line just doesn't do it for me.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    For those not familiar with what caused all this, this page gives a contemporary overview of S&W's deal with HUD. Long story very short, back in the late '90s when cities were suing gun manufacturers, S&W made an agreement with HUD and Boston making a ton of concessions on gun designs and a lot of other things that would have far reaching effects, even on other manufacturers to make the lawsuits go away. Here's another 2 part overview on nationalreview that may be a little more succinct.

    In spring/summer '01, S&W was bought in an asset purchase. The above contracts did not have language binding on "successors and/or assigns". No terms of the contract have ever been enforced by the gov't. Many legal types think they are now unenforcable due to laches, ie the failure of the gov't to enforce it's legal rights under the contract in 8+ years. My understanding is that the current owner of S&W does not approve of the agreements, does not expect them to ever be enforced, and if enforced intends to fight them under the 2 above legal principles.

    In other words, the people who made these terrible deals (S&W was owned by an English company - go figure) are gone. The contracts are likely unenforcable now regardless. Different people own and run the company now. So, there is nothing left to boycott except the memory of the former owners and management team.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    Deepdiver, excellent post.

    Thanks for that information. I had never heard that the deal may be unenforceable now. That changes my opinion considerably. I will wait and see what happens when we get a Dem president.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    That is interesting, and if true there really is no good reason to continue the boycott.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Prophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    I concur...though i have never been a fan of smith and wesson to begin with. But maybe i'll take a closer look.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    I came to the same conclusion as Deepdiver before I bought my S&W 642 Airweight with a crimson laser grip. It was, IMHO, a fantastic choice as aBUG, intended to be kept inan ankle holster.

    The possibility that S&W could come up short in court has kept me from sending the registration card back to S&W.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    201

    Post imported post

    I don't like their new stuff with the transfer bars and internal locks - so "other."

    I'm ok with their older equipment.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I guessmy only thought on the "deal" is that although possibly or even likely unenforceable, what really counts is whether thecircumstances thatdefined the negotiatingpositions of thetwo sidesstill substantially exist.

    Rhetorically speaking, is Smith & Wesson still in the same position where they can stretched over a barrel and forced to newly concede many, most, or some of what the earlierowners did? Is the other side stronger or weaker in their position? Is Smith stronger or weakerin their position?

    Although I've never had muchopinion on Smith products one way or another, it seems to me, on the surface, that if we want Smith to prevail should there be more shenanigans by the other side, we need to do everything we can to improve the atmosphere for 2A generally, and support Smith by giving them a fair chance to earn our business. The stronger they are financially, the better they'll be able to sustain the legal costs of any shenanigans.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Florida, USA
    Posts
    184

    Post imported post

    keep up the boycott, to teach the others. Bill Ruger when he was alive sold us out on the assault weapons. I won't buy those products either

    S&W Walther PPK/S copies are JUNK, step up to the plate be a real man and get REAL WALTHER,

    all S&W semi-auto handguns are junk. IMHO

    sprat


  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    sprat wrote:
    keep up the boycott, to teach the others. Bill Ruger when he was alive sold us out on the assault weapons. I won't buy those products either

    S&W Walther PPK/S copies are JUNK, step up to the plate be a real man and get REAL WALTHER,

    all S&W semi-auto handguns are junk. IMHO

    sprat
    So because I own a S&W Walther PPK/s, I'm not a real man? That's good to know. Oh, and all S&W autos are junk, too. Even the two that I own, that have never failed to fire or cycle. Ever. I really don't know which of your comments make you look more unintelligent. Of course then we have to take into account your lack of proper grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure.

    How about this, why don't you back up your statements? I'm curious what proof you have that S&W autos are junk, and I'm REALLY curious how you're gonna prove that I'm not a real man....

  20. #20
    Regular Member Custodian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Capital City of Oaks - Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    sprat wrote:
    keep up the boycott, to teach the others. Bill Ruger when he was alive sold us out on the assault weapons. I won't buy those products either

    S&W Walther PPK/S copies are JUNK, step up to the plate be a real man and get REAL WALTHER,

    all S&W semi-auto handguns are junk. IMHO

    sprat
    From your post, one could conceive... That your talkin' out ya mouth but you not sayin' nothin'.

    So, let's recap.

    You mean to say the thousands of law enforcement agencies (NCDOC included) that have switched over to the new semi-auto S&W M&Ps had no idea what they were getting into? Even with years of firing, armoring and on-the-job with range time usage that the average person will never get? And that the hundreds of rounds without failure since I've bought one (M&P40) is just some sort of a fluke? And the fact that its going to be my duty weapon on the outside of a prison, is horrible fate and that I should be counting my blessings and saying my prayers when I strap that bad boy on?

    Man, you straight out of a comic book. Break up your hatred. C'mon, now, break it up, son.
    Subsisto tutus. Subsisto secundus emendatio.

    Tyrants come in all shapes and sizes, as do those who do their bidding. Anyone who tells you that the threat of tyranny is long over, is either a fool, an enemy, or BOTH.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    sprat wrote:
    keep up the boycott, to teach the others.
    If the owners and managers who made the deal were still the owners and managers I would agree. However, punishing new ownership and management which, by all accounts I have read and based on their behavior are on our side, with a boycott of the previous regmine's acts seems to me to be misguided at best. There are numerous businesses and organizations that have lost their way, so to speak, and have redeemed themselves under new ownership/management. I have read nothing of S&W since the 2001 purchase to indicate that the company intends to tread down the former path. Unless there is some proof that S&W has or intends to reprieve the acts of previous ownership/managment I think a continued boycott is merely vindictive and malicious at this point.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    sprat wrote:
    keep up the boycott, to teach the others.
    If the owners and managers who made the deal were still the owners and managers I would agree. However, punishing new ownership and management which, by all accounts I have read and based on their behavior are on our side, with a boycott of the previous regmine's acts seems to me to be misguided at best. There are numerous businesses and organizations that have lost their way, so to speak, and have redeemed themselves under new ownership/management. I have read nothing of S&W since the 2001 purchase to indicate that the company intends to tread down the former path. Unless there is some proof that S&W has or intends to reprieve the acts of previous ownership/managment I think a continued boycott is merely vindictive and malicious at this point.
    I think Sprat has a point. It should be a long and hard road for S+W to get back their good name. There should be long-lasting consequences. Otherwise, other manufacturers will think it will quickly blow over if they do the same thing. Even under new management, because the deal is still technically in place, I am much more hesitant to buy an S+W. I've actually passed up S+W's because of the deal.

    The day that the deal gets officialy rescinded is the day I go out and buy an S+W.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    sprat wrote:
    keep up the boycott, to teach the others.
    If the owners and managers who made the deal were still the owners and managers I would agree. However, punishing new ownership and management which, by all accounts I have read and based on their behavior are on our side, with a boycott of the previous regmine's acts seems to me to be misguided at best. There are numerous businesses and organizations that have lost their way, so to speak, and have redeemed themselves under new ownership/management. I have read nothing of S&W since the 2001 purchase to indicate that the company intends to tread down the former path. Unless there is some proof that S&W has or intends to reprieve the acts of previous ownership/managment I think a continued boycott is merely vindictive and malicious at this point.
    I think Sprat has a point. It should be a long and hard road for S+W to get back their good name. There should be long-lasting consequences. Otherwise, other manufacturers will think it will quickly blow over if they do the same thing. Even under new management, because the deal is still technically in place, I am much more hesitant to buy an S+W. I've actually passed up S+W's because of the deal.

    The day that the deal gets officialy rescinded is the day I go out and buy an S+W.
    S&W cannot recind the deal. In my earlier post I discussed the current S&W's position that it is non-enforcable, that it has never been enforced and that if DOJ or HUD try to enforce it S&W has legal grounds to fight it. This is 7 years later with new management. Seven years is a long time for most businesses.

    I was seeing someone I cared about very deeply who had trust issues from a prior relationship. Despite my never giving her a shred of reason to doubt me, as freely admitted by her, she still went off on "I don't know that I can trust you" rants. I finally asked her at what point will she trust me. What could I do? How long do I have to "prove" my faithfulness before you trust me? She said, "I don't know." I told her that "I don't know" was too long and I can't live that way and left the relationship.

    This is a similar concept. The original betrayers are no longer involved. S&W's current owners and management have been faithful to us and our cause. So how long? How long before they are forgiven for the prior sins of others no longer involved? How much longer do they have to be faithful to us before the boycotters let it go?

    *For the record, I don't have a dog in this fight beyond hating to see us "eat our own" - the only S&W I have has been in my family nearly 100 years and I am not planning to buy one in the near future.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    It was one of Jr Bush's first things when he got elected for his first term. He nullified it saying that it was unenforcible and unconstitutional. The company was owned by a British (surprise, surprise) company at the time the deal was struck. The president of the company at the time made the deal without consulting any of the other management team which caused a lot of them to leave. One was the current president. I say why blame the whole company and its workers who need jobs to feed their families for what one already overly rich jerk did? That jerk, by the way is no longer with S&W and has not been since an American company bought it.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    ArmedTiger wrote:
    It was one of Jr Bush's first things when he got elected for his first term. He nullified it saying that it was unenforcible and unconstitutional.
    Can you post a cite for that? I've never heard that.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •