[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 45 (Tuesday, April 11, 2000)]
[House]
[Page H2017]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0945
SMITH & WESSON
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Granger). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, last week I spoke regarding the coerced
agreement between the Federal Government and the firearms manufacturer
Smith & Wesson. I would like to continue my discussion this morning by
highlighting a few more quotes from those who participated in this
coercion through litigation. I would like to emphasize that these are
not statements that this country should be proud of, and these are not
statements one will find in an official press release.
John Coale, one of the trial lawyers involved in the lawsuits against
firearm manufacturers was quoted in The Washington Post as saying ``the
legal fees alone are enough to bankrupt your industry.''
Regarding this agreement, the New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
reportedly said to another firearms manufacturer, Glock, Incorporated,
``If you do not sign, your bankruptcy lawyers will be knocking at your
door.''
On April 2, Mr. Shultz, CEO of Smith & Wesson was interviewed on the
ABC news show, This Week, regarding the agreement that was reached with
the Federal Government on gun control proposals.
Twice, my colleagues, in this interview, he referred to the
``survival'' of his company as a primary reason behind his settlement.
In fact, in announcing this agreement, Smith & Wesson stated ``these
actions are about insuring the viability of Smith & Wesson as an
ongoing business entity in the face of crippling costs of litigation.''
Speaking of crippling litigation, last week's edition of National
Review reported that Colt firearms manufacturer chose to cease
producing firearms for civilian purchase because of the ruinous
lawsuits. And this is a company that was voluntarily pioneering smart
gun technology and had recently received a $50,000 grant to develop
smart guns. Here was a company working towards a common goal of the gun
control advocates, but that did not matter. Those same advocates and
their trial lawyers continued to pursue this costly litigation against
Colt into a fait accompli.
Finally, an op-ed in today's Washington Post by Tom Cannon further
characterized the agreement with Smith & Wesson. He stated ``this
agreement is a legally binding contract, not just between Smith &
Wesson and the government, but also between the manufacturer and every
wholesaler, retailer and private customer of Smith & Wesson's product,
even though these parties were not consulted, advised or asked for
their consent.''
Mr. Cannon goes on to say that a preferential purchase of Smith &
Wesson firearms would be a purchase that requires the voluntary
surrender of the rights of choice association and privacy.
Madam Speaker, I ask that Mr. Cannon's op-ed be made a part of the
Record.
[From the Washington Post, Apr. 11, 2000]
(By Tom Cannon)
If you follow the gun issue at all, you're aware that last
month Smith & Wesson, one of the oldest American gun
manufacturers, signed a deal with several government entities
at all levels. The primary purpose of this deal was to
release Smith & Wesson from the lawsuits being filed against
gun manufacturers seeking to hold them responsible for the
criminal misuse of their products by unrelated third parties.
Among other things, this agreement is a legally binding
contract not just between Smith & Wesson and the government
but also between the manufacturer and every wholesaler,
retailer and private customer of Smith & Wesson products--
even though these parties were not consulted, advised or
asked for their consent. Any wholesaler or retailer who
wishes to continue carrying Smith & Wesson products will be
required to agree to the terms of this contract, and force is
customers to do likewise. My primary objection is that the
last time I checked, I had not granted Smith & Wesson power
of attorney.
In immediate response to this ``unholy alliance'' between a
once-respected company and the government, gun owners from
all over the country, myself included, contacted their local
gun stores and begged them to discontinue carrying Smith &
Wesson products. The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun
Owners sent a letter to every S&W dealer in Michigan, asking
on behalf of our thousands of members that they drop the
line. Across the country, thousands if not millions of us
pledged not to patronize a business that sold Smith & Wesson
products under the terms of this new agreement.
Whether because of this market pressure or because of the
onerous terms of the agreement itself, many dealers have
decided to drop the Smith & Wesson line. As a free market
economy, it seemed our work was done; our dollars had spoken
for themselves. We would provide a harsh object lesson for
the manufacturers about the attitudes of the market.
But shortly after the Smith & Wesson agreement was
announced, several of the same government entities that
signed the deal announced investigations of S&W's competitors
for alleged violations of antitrust laws. In short, the
message seems to be: ``You will buy Smith & Wesson.''
Personally, I find this even more insidious than the original
lawsuits that brought on this foolishness. In gangster movies
this would be called a ``protection racket.'' It brings to
mind the bus boycott in Montgomery, Ala., during the civil
rights movement, and the local government's reaction to it.
There is nothing to prevent Smith & Wesson from opening its
own retail stores in every gun-buying market or from
franchising its retail licenses, unless of course you count
the fact that they won't sell many firearms to the
traditional gun-buying public. A friend of mine, a collector
whose passion is Smith & Wesson revolvers and who reportedly
has ``more Smiths than Smith,'' says he is done buying new
Smith & Wesson products. Their days in this market are
probably numbered.
Can Smith & Wesson survive? Sure, it could limp along on
government contracts, or get some other kind of help from its
new best friends. After all, our government has propped up
thousands of businesses over the years long after they should
have succumbed to market pressure and closed up shop.
Or anti-gun groups such as Handgun Control Inc., with their
incessant claims of support from suburban ``soccer moms,''
could create a new market by encouraging these moms to buy
Smith & Wesson in support of their so-called ``dedication to
safety.'' Handgun Control Inc. has already posted articles on
its web site praising Smith & Wesson for its actions, so it's
really only a half-step farther to promote Smith & Wesson's
products to its audience.
And that could just be the icing on the cake. More people
would own guns, thus being able to defend themselves against
crime, and traditional gun owners like me would split our
sides laughing at the ironic spectacle of HCI shilling for
S&W.
If the soccer moms want guns who purchase requires the
voluntary surrender of the rights of choice, association and
privacy, then let the soccer moms buy them.
The writer is on the board of directors of the Michigan
Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners.
Madam Speaker, I think these are the kinds of quotes that should send
chills through the spine of every American. In essence, a precedent has
been set which has the government lawyers and private lawyers
conspiring, conspiring to coerce private industry into adopting public
policy changes through the threat of abusive litigation. The option?
Adopt our proposals or you will go bankrupt.
Madam Speaker, this is not a way to run a Republic. We should
confront this threat to our constitution immediately and stop any
future attempts at coercive litigation by our government.
Every Member of Congress, regardless of political philosophy, should
be concerned with this type of action. Any future executive branch
could circumvent Congress anytime it disagrees with our policy. As
elected officials, we are sworn to uphold the constitution. We should
not condone coercive litigation to circumvent the legislative function
of the Congress. This is not a political issue. This is a
Constitutional issue.
Madam Speaker, I have introduced a resolution disapproving of the
executive branch using litigation in a coercive manner to circumvent
the legislative function of the Congress. I urge every one of my
colleagues to cosponsor and defend the constitutional authority of
Congress, its right to make national policy here in the House of
Representatives.
____________________