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.