http://www.allsouthwest.com/columnists/bward.html S&W Agreement the Product of Extortion By Bob Ward Host of the Texas Journal Radio Show KIXL 970AM Austin Editor of The Texas Journal Print Publication AllSouthwest News Columnist Email Bob The media are still buzzing about the so-called agreement between Smith & Wesson gun manufacturers and the Federal government with some state and local governments in the mix. Of course it's not really an agreement unless you consider the arrangement a mouse works out with a cat to be an agreement. But it calls itself an agreement and the final clause states it is enforceable as a court order and a contract. The media have repeated the line that S&W has agreed to install child safety locks on their guns. They may be reporting just that much because the government press releases emphasized that but there's a lot besides trigger locks in this document. For example, S&W is compelled to develop "authorized user technology," that's some kind of gadgetry that will prevent anyone but the gun's owner from firing it. And the agreement is very specific about this. S&W has to devote two percent of its firearms revenue to this project. That's two percent of the gross, right off the top. Expenses, taxes and profits, if any, come out of what's left. And they have 36 months to make this part of the design of all its guns. How do you make guns recognize their owner? One way is a keypad on the grip and a number sequence only the gun owner knows. But more sophisticated and more ominous methods have been proposed. One is placing a transponder in the gun that will recognize a signal from a ring or bracelet the owner wears. It might be compared to the gadget that a lot of new cars come with that enable you to lock and unlock the doors from a distance. You don't have to point the gadget in the direction of the car and the signal will even penetrate brick walls. But Americans ought to be cautious about accepting that, in fact they should be so cautious they should resist it. A transponder designed to satisfy a government mandate can be made to respond to a signal emitted by the government as well as the gun owner. We should not forget about the "clipper chip" that the Administration wanted computer manufacturers to install in their computers. It would have allowed the government to read everyone's e-mail, faxes and other forms of electronic communication. It never happened but the government didn't have the computer makers' signature on a binding agreement so Smith & Wesson may not be in a position to say no. So your gun may recognize you, but there is also the prospect of trucks from the Bureau of Alcohol, tobacco and Firearms roaming the streets emitting a signal that disables every gun the neighborhood. Or the transmitter might be located on the top of a pole, right next to the surveillance camera. In addition to spending two percent of its revenue on "smart gun" technology, S&W has to spend another one percent on an "education trust fund." There is no indication of who will control this fund or how it will be spend. It may open up whole new vistas of patronage as politicians arrange jobs for supporters drilling little kids in reciting anti-gun slogans. One part of this "agreement" attacks a fundamental freedom the right to take a political position and support a political candidate. The agreement compels the company to support legislation aimed a reducing the misuse of guns and promoting smart gun technology. The pact is silent on what form this support must take so presumably that is left to the government to decide when the need rises. It could be an obligation to produce, or at least pay for, ads and public service announcements urging the public to support a bill in Congress or possibly a candidate who favors restrictive gun legislation. Nothing in the agreement rules out requiring the company to donate to the campaign of a candidate chosen by the government. This requirement raises the question and doesn't answer it of the residual rights of individuals associated with the company. Would the president of the company, of the chairman of the board, or any of the top executives be free to state publicly their opposition to a bill or a candidate the government has instructed the company to support? Could an employee of S&W write a letter to the editor or call a talk show or display a bumper sticker or yard sign expressing an opinion contrary to what has been ordered by the government? Could an S&W employee donate to the campaign of a candidate who has promised to oppose legislation the government has commanded the company to support? Did the government lawyers who drafted this document just not think of all these things or did they just conclude there's nothing wrong with abolishing the first amendment rights of people who work for a company that makes guns? A part of this measure that hasn't received much press notice has the net effect of nationalizing S&W creates a Oversight Commission to supervise the operations of the company. This commission includes one member chosen by the BATF, one by the state, two by the city and the county, and one by the company. One of the duties of this Oversight Commission is to monitor the behavior of companies doing business with S&W and force S&W to cut off distributors and dealers who fail to meet certain conditions. This may be the most important provision in this agreement the effect it has on businesses who did not sign it and are not a party to the agreement. One of the things a dealer or distributor of S&W products must do it put their employees through and ATF certifies training course. There is not mention of who is to pay for this training or who does the employee's job while he's getting trained by ATF. Also, a dealer handling S&W products may be sell a gun to someone has not passed a certifies safety course. The contract does not say who has to certify the course. In addition, a dealer my not deliver to a buyer more than one handgun in a two week period. If a customer buys two guns, the retailer may only deliver one and must report the sale to ATF and wait 14 days to deliver the second gun. The dealer must agree not to sell any large capacity magazines or what the agreement calls "semi-automatic assault weapons," and he must not allow a person under 18 to be in his store unless accompanied by an adult. A dealer must wait "as long as necessary" for a Brady check, a provision that renders moot all the debate in Congress about whether the check must be completed in 48, 72 or 24 hours. Whatever the statute might say, the dealer who handles S&W products must agree to wait however long ATF wants to take. Then there is the gun show provision. A dealer must agree not to sell any gun at a gun show unless all the sales by all the sellers at the show include a Brady-type background check. A dealer may decide it just isn't worth jumping over all these hurdles and through all these hoops just for the privilege of selling S&W guns. After all, there are plenty of other brands to sell. If dealers do arrive at this judgment, they may find themselves in court answering an anti-trust accusation by the attorneys-generals of several states. The bright spot is that Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.) Has introduced language into appropriation bills that will defund the Oversight Commission and deny funds for any future lawsuits aimed at extorting similar agreements from other companies. Initially, Hostettler had only 16 colleagues signing a letter he was circulating in support of his measure. Within a few days that grew to 60 House members or both parties. Maybe our congressmen are a weary as the rest of us at the Administration's practice of legislating by threat of a crippling lawsuit. It's called extortion. Extortion is a crime and our Federal government is doing it. -- ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- ________________________________________________________ 1stUp.com - Free the Web® Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html <A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
