GT Reports

S & W Under the Gun

Gun rights news is filling the headlines as never before. One of the hottest debates feeding those headlines is the controversial Smith & Wesson 60-point agreement forged with gun control forces to make big changes in the way it does business.

Smith & Wesson broke ranks with the rest of the firearms industry to separately sign an agreement with the federal government and many of the cities seeking to hold gunmakers liable for criminal use of their products.

The agreement, in which Smith & Wesson makes a long list of promises, would take the company out of the storm of government lawsuits now assaulting most gun manufacturers, and many distributors and dealers.

Reaction has been strong. One distributor terminated business with the giant gun maker, several gun-rights groups have called for a boycott, and other manufacturers that had considered joining the deal have repudiated it.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) said the agreement was made “for selfish ends” to get out of the lawsuits, and that Smith & Wesson had “violated a trust with their consumers and with the entire domestic firearms industry.”

NSSF, the world’s largest firearms trade organization, noted that the industry has been in intense confidential discussions among themselves and government officials for more than a year.

ROBERT DELFAY, president and chief executive officer of NSSF, said, “We are confident that no other major manufacturers will desert this coordinated effort in favor of their own individual deal.”

DELFAY was critical of Smith & Wesson’s defection from the rest of the industry.

“Smith & Wesson has taken a list of suggestions and initiatives that have been discussed confidential industry talks and run off and cut their own deal with the CLINTON administration and a list of anti-gun government officials.” Smith & Wesson did not notify or consult with the rest of the industry before making its one-sided agreement, said DELFAY.

Smith & Wesson defended its agreement in a news release, saying the company’s actions “are about insuring the viability of Smith & Wesson as an ongoing business entity in the face of the crippling cost of litigation.”

The release asserted that the company’s agreement “will not sacrifice the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.”

NSSF’s DELFAY did not agree: “There is no doubt that the Administration will use the Smith & Wesson agreement for its own gun control agenda. That agenda is not in the interest of the firearms industry, firearms owners or, ultimately, the American public.”

DELFAY was specific: “Smith & Wesson has agreed to a laundry list of actions and concessions, some of which are already law, some of which all major handgun manufacturers are already doing and some which Smith & Wesson has no power or authority to deliver.”

For example, Smith & Wesson has agreed that “No sale can be made until the buyer passes a background check.” Not only is this already federal law, but Smith & Wesson has no authority to enforce such a provision.

Smith & Wesson also agreed that it will include locking devices with all hand-

guns shipped. DELFAY said, “Many leading manufacturers have been including free locking devices with their firearms for many years, and currently some 95 percent of all firearms are shipped with free locking devices.”

DELFAY noted with irony that Smith & Wesson’s military firearms were exempted from the safety features of the agreement. It gives the absurd appearance that they will sell unsafe firearms to the armed services.

But that’s politics. And bad politics is what some newspaper editors saw when the agreement was announced.

The Arizona Republic’s lead editorial recently said, “The agreement was the result of government coercion, some say bullying, and legal threats. This is fine if you believe in gun control by any means necessary. It should unsettle anyone who wants public policy set by the traditional legislative processes....

“‘Others are willing to sacrifice our company, our employees and our customers for their principles,’ went the company line. ‘We will not allow this to happen when we can make choices to prevent it.’

“So, Smith & Wesson says it will change the way it designs, distributes and markets its products.

“It will develop so-called ‘smart gun’ technology to prevent unauthorized use of handguns. It will sell external and internal locking devices with its new guns. It will adhere to a code of conduct regarding, among other things, gun show sales, inventory control and multiple handgun sales. And it won’t market guns to appeal to juveniles and criminals.

“The negotiated settlement achieved with relative ease what rarely gets done in Congress and many state legislatures.

“Gun control proposals make lawmakers sweat bullets. They always bring about fierce fighting with little or no result. The current stalemate in Congress over proposed gun control legislation proves the point.

“We won, we’re told by government negotiators. We now have promises from one gun manufacturer that might reduce gun violence and improve safety.

“But what did we lose?

“Government bullying, although effective in this case, is not the way to do the people’s business.”

Browning, distributor of the Winchester brand rifle, refused to sign the agreement, saying, “After careful review of the agreement signed by Smith & Wesson, we have determined that we cannot sign any similar agreement.”

Glock and Taurus also repudiated the agreement after considering whether to join in with Smith & Wesson.

RSR Group, the Florida-based wholesaler that’s canceling its Smith & Wesson business, is urging the gun maker to reopen negotiations, and include other levels in the industry in any talks.

RSR has five distribution centers throughout the U.S., and is one of the leading Smith & Wesson distributors, shipping to more than 20,000 dealers, said spokesperson BEATRIZ ATORRESAGASTI.

The fundamental point at issue in this divisive controversy is the label of “gun violence,” which misdirects attention away from the criminals who do the shooting.

Browning noted, “We believe it is wrong, as a matter of law, to hold any manufacturer of a legal and non-defective product liable for the misuse of that product.”

CAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS BE TRUSTED WITH GUNS?

A federal prosecutor who was hired to help with a crackdown on gun law violations at one time carried a concealed weapon without a permit.

DAVE CONNER, once head of the general crimes unit of the U.S. attorney’s Denver, Colorado, office, recently rejoined the staff to work on the Project Exile gun crime program. For a year and a half while he worked there earlier, he carried a loaded .45-caliber pistol to the office every day.

That stopped when it accidentally discharged in December 1994.

CONNER had no permit for the gun, which he carried in his briefcase after receiving threat resulting from a high-profile murder case involving the killing of a witness and a friend, and the wounding of a third man.

“This is probably the most embarrassing, humiliating thing that has happened to me in my adult life,” CONNER said.

Federal law prohibits carrying a firearm into a federal building, which can carry a penalty of up to a year in jail. Colorado law prohibits carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. And it is illegal in Denver to carry a loaded weapon.

CONNER was not prosecuted, but he was investigated, reprimanded, demoted and then quit in May 1996, when he took a job with the federal public defender.

He’s baaaack!

JERSEY MAYOR ACCUSED OF MIXING GUNS AND DRUGS

The mayor of Camden, New Jersey, is MILTON MILAN. Shortly after he was sworn in, he told his bodyguard to retrieve a semi-automatic firearm rifle illegally sold to the reputed leader of a multimillion-dollar drug ring.

So said an FBI informant recently in U.S. District Court.

The paid informant, JUAN MARQUEZ, 36, of Camden, said he was present in mid-July 1997 when PIERRE ROBINSON, a Camden detective working as MILAN’s bodyguard, arrived at JR’s Custom Auto Parts in East Camden to get the weapon that ROBINSON had sold to JOSE LUIS “J.R.” RIVERA the year before.

MARQUEZ told the court, “MILTON had told him [ROBINSON] to get in touch with J.R. and get that Uzi that he had sold to J.R. Just in case they raided or something, they wouldn’t find it in the premises and be able to link that to anyone.”

Last year ROBINSON pleaded guilty to illegally selling the weapon.

Federal authorities have been investigating corruption in Camden and the MILAN administration for several months. Last August, MILAN’s home and City Hall office were raided by the FBI.

MILAN was City Council president from 1996 until he was sworn in as mayor July 1, 1997.

MARQUEZ also testified that MILAN had tipped off drug dealers of impending police raids after he was elected in May 1997.

MILAN has said that he was not involved with the drug organization. He has not been charged with any crime.

MILAN’s attorney, CARLOS. A. MARTIR, Jr, said MARQUEZ’s testimony did not implicate MILAN in any wrongdoing. He said there was no evidence that MILAN had tipped off any drug dealers about raids.

ROBINSON, who was removed as MILAN’s bodyguard, pleaded guilty in Camden County Superior Court last year, testifying that he gave the Tec-9 firearm to RIVERA in June 1996 in exchange for a $450 deposit and was supposed to get a total of $800. He told the judge that he went to get the gun from RIVERA after realizing it was illegal to sell such a weapon.

To make matters worse for the mayor, a convicted drug dealer testified that he had bought cocaine from MILTON MILAN in the 1980s and that MILAN sold $20 bags of cocaine in Camden before he was elected mayor.

WILSON “CHILL WILL” TORRES also said in U.S. District Court that he had paid MILAN $50 for bogus pay stubs to show a parole officer that he had a job as required when he got out of jail on drug charges in 1988. The stubs showed that TORRES was working at a construction company MILAN owned, but he was not working there.

THE MILLION MOM MARCH HAS ONE LESS MOM

The big anti-gun event at Washington, D.C.’s National Mall scheduled for Mother’s Day should be renamed “The 999,999 Mom March.”

Colorado’s state march leader KATHLEEN HOPKINS has been fired over “philosophical differences” with the national headquarters. What kind of philosophy got her fired?

HOPKINS took the bold step of encouraging a champion trapshooter, SHARI LeGATE, president of the Colorado Women’s Shooting Sports Foundation, to set up a booth at the march.

LeGATE would hand out safety information and free gun-locking devices.

Oh, no! That won’t do! That might make people think guns can be handled safely! And ROSIE O’DONNELL might not show up! (She’s scheduled to emcee.)

The real reason for HOPKINS’s firing came out: LeGATE’s foundation is the women’s link to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the public relations arm of the firearms industry. And HOPKINS owns a shotgun herself.

HOPKINS was replaced by AMY SODNICAR, who asked, “At a MADD rally, would they let people funded by Seagram’s come and talk?” comparing the march to Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

There’s the “philosophical” nub of the issue. MADD is against drunk driving, not against drinking.

But the Million Mom March is not about gun safety. They don’t want gun safety. They want gun bans.

ORIGINATOR OF MOM MARCH HAS TIES TO HILLARY CLINTON

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, who says she plans to join the “Million Mom March” for gun control, has links to its organizer.

DONNA DEES-THOMASES, originator of the event, is a sister-in-law of SUSAN THOMASES, a longtime friend of the first lady.

DEES-THOMASES insisted that despite her sister-in-law’s connection to the White House, the march is about child safety, not politics. “I used to date RUSH LIMBAUGH,” she said. “And I voted for ROSS PEROT.”

HILLARY has not been asked to speak at the march.

However, Rep. CAROLYN McCARTHY (D-NY), whose husband was killed and son was injured in a shooting on the Long Island Railroad in 1932, will speak at the march, along with other anti-gun advocates.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES DISAVOWS MILLION MOM MARCH SPONSORSHIP

The website of the Million Mom March contains a page called “Our Mission,” and clear as day on the left side is a list of Sponsors.

It begins with Oxygen.com, then Guess, then StrideRite,Inc., and then Northwest Airlines.

Somebody got that last part wrong.

Northwest Airlines said it knew nothing of the event and isn’t a sponsor.

KEVIN HOESE is manager of sponsorships at Northwest Airlines. He is the only person (other than his direct top management) authorized to sponsor events on behalf of the company.

In response to complaints from numerous gun-rights supporters, HOESE wrote, “I wasn’t aware of the existence of this event until you folks sent us e-mails. I have left a message at the phone number listed on their website and asked them to immediately quit telling people that Northwest is a sponsor of their event. Northwest does not sponsor political events that address specific issues that are not directly related to our business. I have also asked the organization to tell me who at Northwest authorized the sponsorship so that I can advise them against doing so again in the future.

Thank you for your past business, and for bringing this matter to our attention.”

That was decisive action.

GUNS AND THE LAW

The Chicago Trial. The so-called “federal crackdown on illegal gun sales,” which appears to be linked to the CLINTON/GORE anti-gun agenda, has fizzled again.

A federal jury recently acquitted a Chicago-area gun shop and a sales clerk of illegally selling two guns to undercover Chicago police officers.

The same case left another jury deadlock two months earlier and a mistrial was declared.

It was the first of several cases to go to trial in the Chicago area for illegal gun sales. Operators of five suburban gun shops were charged last summer in a national campaign of lawsuits and police sting operations designed to bankrupt firearms manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers.

The Illinois campaign, dubbed Project Surefire, was sparked by the murder of Chicago Police Officer MICHAEL CERIALE.

It led to intense investigation of suburban gun shops, on the theory that suburban guns were being sold to disqualified buyers who took them into high-crime urban Chicago.

The case against Universal Firearms Ltd., which owns Bell’s Gun and Sport Shop, and sales clerk DEAN CERETTI, 29, of Libertyville, Illinois, was obviously trumped up from the start.

In December, prosecutors had to dismiss charges against a third defendant, another sales clerk, and dropped three of six counts against Bell’s.

During the first trial, U.S. District Judge JAMES HOLDERMAN threw out two of the three remaining counts against both Bell’s and Ceretti.

The jury in the second trial took only 20 minutes to acquit both defendants.

SUPREME COURT SAYS GUN TIP CAN’T JUSTIFY SEARCH

In a recent landmark decision, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the police may not stop and frisk someone solely based on an anonymous tip that the person was carrying a gun.

The nation’s highest court refused to create an exception for firearms and weapons from the usual requirements governing police searches and seizures of evidence under the U.S. Constitution.

Justice RUTH BADER GINSBERG wrote in the court’s opinion, “We hold only that something more than a bare-boned anonymous tip must be shown to justify a firearm frisk.”

The case stemmed from an anonymous tip in 1995 to Miami, Florida, police that several young black males were standing at a bus stop in front of a pawn shop and that the one wearing a plaid shirt had a concealed firearm.

Officer CARMEN ANDERSON and another officer went to the bus stop. The three males were engaged in no suspicious or illegal conduct.

ANDERSON immediately went up to the one with the plaid shirt, frisked him, and found a gun in his left pants pocket. The Florida Supreme Court suppressed the gun evidence for lack of reasonable suspicion.

LEAA SUES RENO

The Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) is accusing Attorney General JANET RENO of violating the Brady Law by illegally keeping records on firearms transactions generated by the National Instant Check System (NICS).

LEAA Executive director JAMES J. FOTIS said his organization was filing the lawsuit “to stop this blatant violation of federal law.”

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act states that, “No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may...use the system established under this section for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transaction or dispositions, except with respect to persons prohibited....”

FOTIS said that the Department of Justice is forcing law enforcement agents to violate federal law pertaining to the proper implementation and use of data collected by the FBI’s NICS system. The group anticipates court action within 60 days.

HANDGUN CONTROL INC. LIES

The office of Maryland Governor PARRIS N. GLENDENING forwarded inaccurate information from Handgun Control Inc. to state legislators, doubling federal statistics on 1997 gun deaths in Maryland.

The inflated figures were taken from Handgun Control Inc.’s website and sent by a GLENDENING legislative staffer to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman SHEILA HIXSON.

While HCI claimed that its figures came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics, the HCI website listed a total of 1,408 firearms deaths for Maryland, which is almost double the 710 Maryland firearm deaths that the CDC reported.

DOUGLAS WEIL, HCI’s research director claimed that the erroneous information was generated inadvertently during a change of personnel in HCI’s research staff.

GLENDENING spokesman MIKE MORRILL said the governor and his staff had been saying that about 700 people die in Maryland every year from firearms. They got the number from Maryland State Police, but it closely matches the CDC number. The erroneous HCI information went from the governor’s office in response to a committee request, but the staffer was unaware the numbers he had pulled from HCI’s website were wrong.

HCI removed the erroneous information from its website on March 2, about an hour after Yale University professor and gun-rights advocate JOHN LOTT notified them of the discrepancy. However, the corrected page does not warn of the previous error, and HCI seems to have done little to correct false impressions.

HCI’s WEILL claimed that the erroneous data had been posted for no more than 2 days before being removed. However, the letter Gov. GLENDENING’s office sent to the committee with the HCI errors was dated Feb. 21, ten days, not two days.

Can you trust anything HCI says?

GUNS AROUND THE GLOBE

UNITED NATIONS — Twenty political figures from around the world — including U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein — have urged the creation of a new U.N. Register on Small Arms.

Their proposal would require governments to declare their production, stockpiles and transfers of handguns, rifles and machine guns, and to mark all small arms and make a commitment not to export or import any that are unmarked.

The proposal also calls for an international code of conduct that would set clear standards on eligibility for arms sales and existing export controls to be strengthened and enforced.

FRANCE — French Interior Minister JEAN-PIERRE CHEVENMENT said he plans to assemble a special committee to look at the impact of various gun-control laws in other nations.

CHEVENMENT pointed to statistics that show more than 20 percent of French households have at least one firearm. In addition, half of the estimated 1,000 murders committed each year in France involve firearms.

Anyone who has read French writers knows to expect bizarre leaps of thought, but what does French crime have to do with CHEVENMENT’s study of gun control in other nations? Is France planning to ban guns in other countries?

JAPAN — Military police are investigating a possible cover-up in the case of an officer suspected of giving civilians unauthorized access to firearms. Colonel YASUNOBU HIDESHIMA, 53, of Japan’s Ground Self-Defense Force, was arrested for allowing three friends to fire rifles at a military firing range in 1994. Japan’s Firearms and Sword Possession Control Law bars civilians from firing weapons belonging to the military. Superiors did not inform police of the incident.

GERMANY — A 16-year-old shot the director of his boarding school after being suspended for “rebellious behavior,” then turned the gun on himself. The student had been sent home for failing a drug test, then returned to shoot the director and himself. Both were hospitalized with life-threatening head wounds.

GUN NEWS TICKER: SHORT TAKES ON GUNS

• Sen. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT) has introduced a bill in the Senate that would ban lawsuits against firearms manufacturers whose weapons are later used in crimes. He argued that it would protect companies like Smith & Wesson, which agreed under White House pressure to a long list of concessions.

• Sen. ROBERT BYRD (D-WV) has begun to use the Smith & Wesson agreement (Page 1 top story) as a political weapon. He said, “If Smith & Wesson can see the wisdom of balancing public safety with private ownership rights, why can this Congress not do the same?”

• Virginia’s General Assembly approved a measure that would ban local governments from suing gun makers and distributors for the costs of criminals shooting people. Some 29 cities and counties have filed such lawsuits. Fourteen states have adopted similar anti-lawsuit measures.

• Colt’s Manufacturing Co., the top U.S. developer of the “smart gun” technology being promoted by some gun control advocates, has scaled back the project because of financial problems. The problems include the high cost of defending lawsuits by cities and counties seeking money from gun makers for the acts of criminals. Industry analyst GEORGE ROCKWELL said making a fires-every-time “smart gun” is “a virtually impossible assignment.”

• Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc. recently renewed its offer to immediately share its patented gun safety device for use by Smith & Wesson rather than the two-year delay to install internal locking mechanisms that Smith & Wesson promised in its agreement with federal, state, and local governments. Taurus first offered the system to Smith & Wesson a year ago but no action was taken.

• The U.S. House of Representatives recently voted 218-205 to urge House-Senate negotiators to meet within two weeks. Last year the Senate voted for 72-hour background checks on gun show sales, but the House rejected that provision and the gun control bill has been stalled ever since. The 218-205 vote is symbolic, having no power to order negotiators back to the table. The White House cheered the vote, saying it revealed a crack in the gun lobby’s armor.

• New York Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER has prohibited the New York State Department of Law from buying firearms from companies that will not sign a code of conduct to require trigger locks and to change marketing practices claimed to result in guns being used in crimes. SPITZER has written to state and local governments across the country asking that they do the same.

• The Democratic National Committee (DNC) used an appearance by presidential candidate GEORGE W. BUSH on CNN’s Larry King Live to vilify him for supporting gun rights. DNC National Chair JOE ANDREW asked BUSH if he could “name one issue on which you and the National Rifle Association disagree.” BUSH answered that he would not treat the gun rights issue as President CLINTON has, but would address issues for results.

• Virginia has approved a state constitutional amendment that would guarantee the right of Virginians to hunt and fish. The state’s voters will be asked to approve the amendment, passed 24 to 16 by the Senate, despite opposition from the Washington, D.C. suburbs, where critics claimed it could undermine gun restrictions in force in their area.

• Colorado Gov. BILL OWENS recently signed a new gun control law, saying it would prevent most criminals and juveniles from buying firearms illegally. The law restores the authority of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to conduct criminal background checks on people attempting to buy guns from federally licensed firearms dealers. The state’s background check program is more rigorous than the FBI’s.

• The House Appropriations Committee is poised to cut the funding of a CLINTON/GORE gun buyback program. Republicans on the committee want to rescind $700,000 from an emergency bill, money that the Department of Housing and Urban Development is using to purchase guns turned in at public housing projects. The money was intended for an anti-drug program, and the committee sees no legal authority for gun turn-ins.

DON’T TELL MOMMY

Every now and then something truly bizarre crops up in the gun rights debate.

Not long ago something truly bizarre cropped up in England.

It’s all the more bizarre because it involved one of the Queen’s lawyers.

Follow this closely, now.

ARTHUR FARRER is a retired partner in the Queen’s firm of solicitors. (The Brits call general lawyers “solicitors.” Trial lawyers are “barristers.”)

Mr. FARRER lives in Finchingfield, Essex, and has held a certificate for a .22 rifle since 1961 and a shotgun license since 1968. He kept the firearms in a locked cabinet on his estate, as prescribed by law.

Mr. FARRER’s right to keep the firearms was taken away by police who discovered that he had told his 81-year-old mother where to find the key to his gun cabinet.

What?

Keep going.

Mr. FARRER took the matter to court.

Mr. FARRER’s counsel, Mr. RICHARD BECKETT, argued that the rules ignored “the real world” to expect gun owners to keep confidential the location of keys from their closest kin.

Mr. BECKETT also argued that Mr. FARRER had only told his mother where to find the key in case of an emergency, such as a fire or to help the police in the exercise of their duties.

The police never showed any evidence that his mother ever handled the guns or “expressed any interest in them whatsoever.”

Mr. FARRER lost anyway. Three Appeal Court judges agreed with police and stripped Mr. FARRER of his firearms certificate because he told his elderly mother where he kept the key to his gun safe.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord BINGHAM, ruled that Mr. FARRER had breached the 1989 Firearms Act in failing to keep a secret from his mother.

That’s gun rights in the United Kingdom.

Where your right to own a gun is subject to the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” principle.

It’s almost as crazy as some of the gun control programs coming from the CLINTON/GORE administration.