[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5196-5197]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                             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

[[Page 5197]]

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 
     its 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.

                          ____________________