Smith & Wesson's settlement with New York on gun safety reforms

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.

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 law professor, David Kairys, would have felt better about the agreement if Smith & Wesson had been forced to turn over records believed to hold insights into disreputable marketing strategies.

Conclusions

Rarely does a gun manufacturer capitulate when pressured by advocates of gun control. The agreement signed between Smith & Wesson and the state of New York represented a truly remarkable event in the long history of conflict between gun owners, gun makers, and gun control advocates. While there may be problems with oversight and implementation of the agreement, the recognition by Smith & Wesson of the need to change gun designs and distribution policies represented a significant victory for advocates of gun control and victims of gun violence. The conflict between Smith & Wesson and the state of New York was thus resolved successfully, pending successful implementation of the agreement.