Replies

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?

Nowhere did a JUDGE say that.

S&W said that.

HUD said "we just won't enforce it right now." They have NOT said "we're throwing it out."

Boston decided to drop its suits because the other players were saying "millions for defense, not one penny for tribute," and S&W asked Boston for the same treatment, and BOSTON agreed to do so.

No judge issued a ruling.

This ain't over yet, not by a long shot.

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?

Geez, Dead... there were two, count 'em, TWO agreements inked by S&W. In the second column of that .pdf, a bit past halfway down, Robert L. Scott is quoted thus:

"...To go on, now that the HUD agreement has been abandoned by the Bush Administration and the consent decree with Boston has been vacated, we are able to move forward in a positive manner..."

Rumors of the HUD agreement's death have been greatly exaggerated.