Scott: The HUD agreement was with the Clinton Admin-istration. The Bush Administration has now gone on record saying it doesn’t intend to enforce it and doubts its legal standing.
It's not being litigated, so the issue of the BUSH administration doubting its legal standing is moot.
The agreement is STILL there, awaiting a liberal Democrat in the Oval Office to bring it back to life.
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?
Even so, how can you blame the new owners for what the old owners did? If a future Dem administration decides to enforce the old agreement, that would not be the fault of the new owners. As far as I am concerned the new S&W is an entirely different company than the one which surrendered to the Clinton scum.
I wouldn't have bought a Smith while it was owned by the UK company. I will now buy from S&W if I happen to need something it makes. The first centerfire handgun I owned was a GI surplus S&W 1917 .45acp revolver I bought in 1961. I have several other Smith revolvers which I have owned for many years. There has never been a finer sidearm made than the K and N frame Smiths IMHO, and I don't see any point in punishing myself or the new owners for something neither of us had any part in doing.