« liberalism and law school faculties | Main | Maybe NYPD needs some marksmanship training.... »
Clinton archives on gun manufacturer settlement demands
I was just researching in the Clinton Presidential Library archives, and came across this. The cover sheet is my summary, the rest is a fax from "Deputy Secretary" (of what, is unstated) to Clinton's Domestic Policy Council, relating to settlement terms to demand in the lawsuits against gun manufacturers (which were then being brought by New York, some other jurisdictions, and private plaintiffs, and held the risk of bankrupting the industry.
It lists demands which would have achieved most of the antigun legislative objectives, without the work of getting Congress to agree. One gun a month, gun registration, eliminate non-inventory small FFLs, no guns capable of taking greater than ten round magazines, no sales of greater than ten round magazines, no juveniles allowed on gun dealer premises without a parent or guardian, gun manufacturers to finance a fund to propagandize on the dangers of guns, etc., etc.. And all without asking Congress to pass legislation.
17 Comments | Leave a comment
Remember Andrew Cuomo when he was heading up HUD and the banning of firearms as a condition of leaving in projects, and other stuff like that. That was just the beginning and it resulted in the garbage that he imposed in New York. And Deblasio is even worse.
I can't download this pdf for some reason.
The main victim of Cuomo and HUD was Smith & Wesson, which is why it was coerced into signing the infamous consent decree in 2000. S&W was fighting 29 lawsuits, and its legal bills alone promised to bankrupt the company, absent any adverse judgments. In addition, its owner, the British plumbing manufacturer, told S&W to sign the decree or it would be shut down. When you're being blackmailed by the Government, who do you complain to?
That's why I never understood the vitriol directed toward S&W at the time, and the residual hatred for the company.
Thanks for the information, David. Those were indeed perilous times.
Seems Democrats don't change much - always looking for a way around the democratic process.
There was also the attempt to force the NRA to give its membership list so cities could sue or impose an extra tax in order to pay for medical expenses related to crimes committed by ared criminals. I remember that one because the Mayor of Miami was one of the morons.
The reason for the vitriol Old 1811, was to prevent the other manufacturers from following suit and hence allowing the Clinton administration to side-step the legislative process and get what he wanted through the civil courts instead of going to Congress. Remember that his efforts to pass yet more gun control were stymied by a Republican majority in Congress, which happened at least in part due to him shepherding the Brady Law and Assault Weapons Ban through the then Democratic Party controlled Congress.
It was as much "Pour l'encouragement des autres" as it was anything else. Don't piss off your customers, or at the very best you'll be a much, much smaller shop dependent on government contracts.
Mr. Twist:
I see your point, but no other manufacturer was put in the position that S&W was in at the time. No other company had 29 lawsuits pending against it and the Federal government blackmailing it. I'm not justifying S&W's actions, I'm just saying they're understandable. It's easy to have principles in good times, and much harder when they will kill you.
I was shocked at the conditions of the consent decree at the time, but that was the only way the company could survive.
And the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed and signed as a direct result of S&W's ordeal, so some good did in fact come from it.
Well, look at what happened: S&W almost went under, but it was bought at a fire sale price and the new owners repudiated the agreement.
In other words, the boycott *WORKED*.
More importantly, no other manufacturer wanted anything to do with the agreement. They saw the reaction of the gun buying public, and didn't want to face their wrath. Signing the agreement was clearly the worst option. And as you said, we got the PLCAA out of it, so there is a bonus.
But if Smith and Wesson had to die, then so be it. What was it Benjamin Franklin said? "We must all hang together, or we will most assuredly hang separately".
The PDF is worth reading. I hope this gets around more. her administration would push for the same or worse.
RE: 29 lawsuits against S & W. That is what these federal liberal ba$tards do. Cause you so much legal expense that you will capitulate in the legal battle. They use the taxpayer money against you because they know their actions won't hold water. The leaders of these anti American groups are mostly crooked politicians on the take and connected. The voters in America are too stupid to realize they are being taken for a ride. Remember the DEMOCRATS NEW NAME IS THE "COMMUNIST PARTY OF AMERICA." Every one of them is a member.
That document was the most disgusting act of political bullying that I've ever seen.
I saved it and bookmarked it. Just in case I ever become so senile that I consider voting for a Democrat. It will remind me why I don't (even if Hillary wasn't enough cause not to vote Democrat).
One of Governments job is to protect its citizens exercising the police powers of the people, so when the gov becomes an abject failure in the performance of its duty sue the snot out of the manufacturers and use their money to tell us in a third grade manor how to behave. And csgv calls gun owners insurrectionist.
The Fax number was used in the office of Tanya Martin Oubre Pekel was a Miami native who served as an associate director of Education and Policy Planning in the White House as part of President Bill Clinton’s administration.
It was a vast left wing conspiracy...
I would like to see an article addressing the illegality of these acts.
These acts are all seditions and treasons. Why? Because the Constitution is a framework for government while the Bills of Rights are the Laws that the framework stands upon.
All governments are founded upon supreme laws. The Bills of Rights are the rights that define a democratic republic. They cannot be amended nor altered without destroying the form of government.
Read that once more please.
The Constitution only exists because the Bill of Rights exists. Not the other way round. The people voted down the Constitution repeatedly because it was a description of government without restrictions upon it's powers. These laws are reserved to the people themselves. They define that the people are the source of power.
To advocate the underhanded overthrow of the Bill of Rights, in any form, is to advocate the overthrow of the government by the people.
The prime thing to grasp here is that Supreme Laws define the type of government. This is true of all governments.
These are treason's designed to steal the power of the people by self appointed rulers whom would rather be royalty than public servants.
Our political leaders on both sides should themselves be well aware of what I have just said.
Neither side is immune. We need a new political party which represents the people.
This understanding of the nature of law in relation to governments is missing from virtually all discussion and needs to be spread as widely as possible before these public enemies destroy our last safety and put us all at their mercy.
Where there is no surprise here. Typical left wing crap, screw the constitution.