New York State Gun Control Laws

SMITH & WESSON SAFETY REFORM DEAL New York Gun Control Conflict Smith & Wesson Agrees to Key Safety Reforms Smith & Wesson Agrees to Key Safety Reforms Under mounting pressure from municipalities across the U.S., the Massachusetts gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson agreed to a number of key safety reforms (Daor, 2000). This agreement was believed to be a move by the gun maker to head off lawsuits by states and cities.

This turned out to be the case when New York's Attorney General Elliot Spitzer filed suit against the gun manufacturers Glock, Sturm-Ruger, Colt, Beretta, Taurus, Bryco, and Intratec for violation of the state's anti-nuisance law (New York Attorney General Press Office, 2000). This essay will examine the deal reached between Smith & Wesson and why the New York Attorney General (AG) declined to sue this company.

The New York AG's Allegations The lawsuit filed in a NY court by AG Spitzer had three broad goals: (1) to eliminate gun models that fuel criminal enterprises, (2) stop distribution to dealers who violate the law, and (3) create a self-monitoring system intended to prevent distribution of guns to bad dealers and criminals (New York Attorney General Press Office, 2000).

The safety changes that Smith & Wesson agreed to included incorporating trigger locks on all handguns, increasing the size of gun grips to make it harder for children to handle, increasing the tension on triggers to prevent children from being able to pull them, adding a hidden serial number to deter criminals, develop technology that would restrict use to the owner, and to stop selling guns to bad dealers or dealers at gun shows who do not conduct background checks (Dao, 2000).

These safety and distribution changes fulfilled the reforms AG Spitzer was seeking and he therefore dropped Smith & Wesson from the lawsuit against gun manufacturers. A number of other cities and states across the country mirrored Spitzer's response. Negotiations The entire revenue generated each year by gun makers is only around $1.5 billion dollars, so lawsuits from 30 government plaintiffs seeking monetary damages could easily wipe out the industry if successful (Dao, 2000).

When faced with the magnitude of the potential liability claims, the gun manufacturer Colt decided to stop manufacturing guns for the retail market. However, Smith & Wesson was responsible for supplying close to 20% of the handgun market and could not walk away without causing significant damage to their bottom line. In the end, Smith & Wesson decided to side with states and municipalities seeking to childproof handguns and curb the illegal trade in guns.

The agreement was viewed by some as a new path towards greater restrictions on guns, representing an end-run around congressional gun control gridlock (Dao, 2000). Spearheaded by the Clinton administration and Andrew Cuomo, then secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, implementation of the reforms that Smith & Wesson agreed to will be monitored by the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. This agreement stripped Smith & Wesson from the list of defendants in 15 of the 30 lawsuits filed by several cities and the states of New York and Connecticut.

Reactions by the Primary Stakeholders Smith & Wesson's signing of the agreement was viewed as a capitulation by the other gun manufacturers, who almost uniformly vowed to continue the fight against stricter gun control laws (Dao, 2000). The president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the largest gun maker trade association, predicted that Smith & Wesson would be the lone deserter. In contrast, the National Rifle Association, the largest organization representing gun owners in America, chose not to comment on the day the agreement was announced.

While gun makers, gun owners, and their lobbying organizations have vowed to boycott Smith & Wesson handguns, AG Spitzer countered this proposal by suggesting that states and large cities purchase firearms only from manufacturers who conform to the policy goals contained within the agreement (Dao, 2000). This is not an empty threat, since law enforcement personnel and agencies are responsible for 25% of all handgun purchases in the U.S. A bit surprisingly, some gun control advocates were not overly thrilled with the agreement (Dao, 2000).

Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center suggested that enforcing the background check provision of the agreement is next to impossible. Rand also mentioned a loophole that would permit Smith & Wesson to avoid incorporating technology preventing use by anyone other than the owner, by marketing a firearm as a collector's item. A Temple University.