TSA handgun contract draws ire of firearms makers.

GovExec.com ^ | July 16,2003 | Richard H.P, Sia

[heckler]

Through a series of missteps, the Transportation Security Administration has run afoul of the world's leading gun manufacturers in an attempt to award a three-year, $5 million contract for the semiautomatic handguns it plans to give commercial airline pilots to defend their cockpits.

The agency drew the heaviest fire after it appeared to bow to pressure from the office of Rep. J. D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., to drop a possible deal with the Austrian gunmaker Glock and focus instead on buying guns from venerable Smith & Wesson, an American-owned firm based in Hayworth's district.

[Shooter 2.5]

Ah, so I did.

I didn't realize that was you.

Sorry.

[El Laton Caliente]

"Id bet that some of you were the ones ignoring the boycott anyway."

Wrong, I've never owned a Smith...

Haven't bought a new Ruger since the high cap ban...

[Dead Corpse]

I read the link.

Then you need reading comprehension classes. Or did you miss the whole part where they describe how they got a judge to voidn both the HUD agreement and the Boston agreement under an "impracticability" legallity?

[ASA Vet]

Take the daughter and wife with you to the range.

[Poohbah]

I'm a Eucharistic Minister. Not enough time to clean the piece (Father Steve's homilies are quick and to the point), wash my hands, and get up to the altar in time for the final Eucharistic doxology.

[frostbit]

I would agree, but remember that this is a gov't agency. Most decisions have to include maintenance and spare parts for the weapons, and they don't want to have to stock a hundred different types.

We have a pretty good middle-of-the-road system. We are issued one brand, but also have a list of other authorized "Personally Owned Weapons" that the agent can buy on their own. Once it's blessed and approved, upkeep is the agency's responsibility, not the individual. Seems to work pretty well. As you said, some people just aren't comfortable with the one-size-fits-all choice of weapon.

[rangerwife]

That's what my husband has (USP) in .45. He swears by it too. He competed with it in IDPA matches when he was stationed at Ft. Benning, no modifications. He always did pretty good too, won a few or placed pretty high. Whenever someone asks him about handguns and which is the best, he always recommends that one. Since he's been on recruiting duty, he hasn't even had time to go out to the range, much less compete anymore. He misses it big time.

[FreedomPoster]

>>No amount of extra safety features will prevent stupidity, as evidenced by numerous AD's with ALL weapon types.

Great post, and I agree wholeheartedly with it, which you'll see from an earlier post on the thread. I do want to comment on your statement above.

The use of the term "Accidental Discharge" when discussing a firearms incident is common usage, but is really a misnomer. In my mind, almost every incident so described is really a "Negiligent Discharge", and should be so identified.

My $.02

[RogueIsland]

When the trigger is pulled, the weapon fires. Just like a revolver.

Stock revolvers have longer and heavier trigger pulls than a Glock by a considerable margin. That actually does make a big difference. Sorry, but the Glock is less forgiving of carelessness than most other action types. That doesn't make it a bad action type, but it does make it one that must be respected. Why Glockophiles always feel the need to deny the obvious when the obvious in no way implies any actual defect in the weapon is beyond me.

[Servant of the Nine]

There was no way for them to get out of the agreement. Its presently "unenforced".

That is not true.
This company is not the old Smith & Wesson. Safe-T-Hammer bought the assets of the old company, and the rights to the name, but they did not aquire the corporation itself, and thus are not subject to any agreements made by the former Smith & Wesson Company.
The old Smith & Wesson Co. no longer exists, and The new company has renamed itself Smith & Wesson.

This is a fairly common way of buying the assets old companies that have many contingent liabilities, without aquiring the liabilities.

So9

[hattend]

Why not give the pilots a voucher and let them buy their own handgun from a maker of their choice.

[Poohbah]

Or did you miss the whole part where they describe how they got a judge to voidn both the HUD agreement and the Boston agreement under an "impracticability" legallity?

Yeah, I missed that--because it's not in there.

What was that about reading comprehension classes again?

[Joe Brower]

"My next purchase will be a Sig, probably in .40."

Try out the mid-sized frame P229. I've put almost 5,000 rounds through mine without a single failure of any type. Highly recommended.

[crazykatz]

Are Barettas made in the USA now? I was more concerned about that angle?

[Space Wrangler]

Safe-T-Hammer has publicly stated that they will not abide by any terms in the contract, and the gov't, under Ashcroft, has agreed not to push it. It's kind of an 'agree to disagree' kind of thing. The crux of the matter is that the people who entered into the contract got what they deserved because of the contract, and the company has been saved by a pro-2A investor(s). The contract is dead, and while it may still legally exist, the company has vowed to fight it, and the gov't has agreed to abandon it. It will do nothing for us to ruin S&W. And I respectfully disagree with you. No way is any gun company going to capitulate to anti-gunners like S&W did. They fare much better relying on their customers than turning against them. The S&W debacle has become the textbook case for the industry in how NOT to run your business. With lawsuits by municipalities getting thrown out of court like yesterday's trash left and right, the gun industry now knows, without a doubt, that backbone is the way to go. Stand up and fight, and don't sign deals with the devil.

[society-by-contract]

PUBLIC NOTICE: henceforward, I shall be calling the cartridge formerly known as ".40 S&W" by a new name -- ".40 Liberty" -- to disassociate one of the greatest implements of self-defense ever conceived from the cowardly corporation doing its best to eradicate the very concept of self-defense, and to remind everybody to boycott that corporation and interdict its sales to all government agencies.
-- L. Neil Smith

Smith and Wesson Must Die:

http://www.lneilsmith.com/smithandwessonmustdie.html

[Dead Corpse]

Spank...

...We spent a lot of time and effort of explaining to them why it can’t work and why it was going to do no good for them. It was not going to make anything any safer on the streets, it was not going to control any firearms—because it was unenforceable. There is a legal term: “impracticability.” Which means, I think, “realistically impossible.”This agreement was realistically impossible to implement and enforce if Smith & Wesson was going to continue as an operating entity.
ST: So how did you get to where you are today, no HUD agreement, no Boston consent decree?
Scott: As noted the new administration in Washington has informed us it has no interest in pursuing any aspect of the HUD agreement. I believe they have a realistic approach to addressing issues related to firearms and crime. They do not believe in blackmailing a legal industry that manufactures and distributes a legal product in compliance with a host of federal, state and local laws.
ST: And what about Boston?
Scott: We had a number of discussions with Boston over the impracticality of the consent decree and its impact on S&W.When Boston dropped its suit against the other manufacturers we asked to receive the same consideration. Like others in the industry we are willing to address issues and solutions that are practical and in everyone’s interest. Boston had found that working with the industry was more productive than expensive litigation. In our case they did ask the judge to vacate the consent decree and allow us to pursue the same positive course of action as other manufacturers.We are very appreciative of the cooperation and understanding we received from the plaintiffs’ representatives while we worked our way through the difficult issues with Boston.

Need another reading lesson Pooh?

[Dead Corpse]

The contract is dead, and while it may still legally exist

Judge threw it out along with the Boston Lawsuite.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"I thought the S&W boycott was over..."

Here's the reasoning. This type of boycott does not end without the death of the offender. Here's why. The offending owners who sell out our liberties for some government (taxpayer) largess will do so again if they know that if they get mailed by such a boycott, they can always sell to another entity, and still get substantial value. That is because if we are weak, and don't follow through, the potential buyers will pay more for a company if they believe they will have our patronage back again. This price inflation benefits those who sold us out.

Thus, never buy another S&W product. Ever. (Until the GOA or NRA puts together a consortium to buy up the bankrupt bones of the company.)

(I confess to having accepted a used S&W at a gun show in trade for some other goods earlier this year.)

[spunkets]

"Why not give the pilots a voucher and let them buy their own handgun from a maker of their choice."

I must be missing something here. Why aren't the pilots buying their own guns?