ProTact by Haartz

Smith & Wesson CEO Issues Statement on Anti-Gun Rhetoric

Smith & Wesson President & CEO Mark Smith issued the following statement:

“A number of politicians and their lobbying partners in the media have recently sought to disparage Smith & Wesson. Some have had the audacity to suggest that after they have vilified, undermined and defunded law enforcement for years, supported prosecutors who refuse to hold criminals accountable for their actions, overseen the decay of our country’s mental health infrastructure, and generally promoted a culture of lawlessness, Smith & Wesson and other firearm manufacturers are somehow responsible for the crime wave that has predictably resulted from these destructive policies. But they are the ones to blame for the surge in violence and lawlessness, and they seek to avoid any responsibility for the crisis of violence they have created by attempting to shift the blame to Smith & Wesson, other firearm manufacturers and law-abiding gun owners.

It is no surprise that the cities suffering most from violent crime are the very same cities that have promoted irresponsible, soft-on-crime policies that often treat criminals as victims and victims as criminals. Many of these same cities also maintain the strictest gun laws in the nation. But rather than confront the failure of their policies, certain politicians have sought more laws restricting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, while simultaneously continuing to undermine our institutions of law and order. And to suppress the truth, some now seek to prohibit firearm manufacturers and supporters of the 2nd Amendment from advertising products in a manner designed to remind law-abiding citizens that they have a Constitutional right to bear arms in defense of themselves and their families.

To be clear, a Smith & Wesson firearm has never broken into a home; a Smith & Wesson firearm has never assaulted a woman out for a late-night run in the city; a Smith & Wesson firearm has never carjacked an unsuspecting driver stopped at a traffic light.

Instead, Smith & Wesson provides these citizens with the means to protect themselves and their families.

We are proud of our 170-year history. We are proud of the commitment of our employees to making a quality product. We are proud to provide law-abiding citizens and law enforcement – our customers – with the tools to provide for their security and independence. We are proud of our responsible business practices.

We will continue to work alongside law enforcement, community leaders and lawmakers who are genuinely interested in creating safe neighborhoods. We will engage those who genuinely seek productive discussions, not a means of scoring political points. We will continue informing law-abiding citizens that they have a Constitutionally-protected right to defend themselves and their families. We will never back down in our defense of the 2nd Amendment.”

– Mark Smith, President & CEO

12 Responses to “Smith & Wesson CEO Issues Statement on Anti-Gun Rhetoric”

  1. Knownothing says:

    I think I may need to buy a Smith & Wesson now. Other industry CEOs should take note from him on how to address those who wish to disarm the public for idealogical and illiberal reasons.

  2. Chris says:

    Very well said.

  3. Joe R. says:

    Smith & Wesson’s juxtaposition with our government in this matter is not as stark as the juxtaposition between the average bona-fide U.S. Citizen and our government in the same matter.

    The 2nd Amendment is great, but it’s weak to base support of a thing, on that same thing. The 2nd Amendment can be amended with the Constitution per the Constitution’s Article 5.

    What cannot be repealed, or amended is The Declaration of Independence which (is why the Constitution was written [to get what we all demand of/by/for/and from each other under the Declaration of Independence]) states 2x in its flesh-language of Para. 2, that you are to replace your government “whenever” you deem necessary. One of those times it states that it is your “duty” to. No Way our Founders wrote that yet still intended for someone, who needed to replace their government, to have to ask their government for the means, or the PERMISSION to obtain the means, to do so.
    And there is no logical or legal argument that can be made to the contrary.

    Therefore the 2nd Amendment demands “Parity” of Arms with our government, and it is not our fault what that parity might entail.

    Further all “Rights”, unalienably endowed by our Creator (per the Declaration; The Constitution only uses the word “Right” 1 x and that is in Article 8 with respect to “Patents”), are essentially freedoms FROM government so therefore government (not the purveyor of rights) cannot also be the protector of rights. Therefore all rights are guaranteed by an armed society.

    And government can never be allowed to forget that it is merely comprised or our neighbors who needed a job, that the job they asked for was one of “service” to us, and that they do not “govern” us (as a people not self-governed are un-governable otherwise) they merely govern the machinations of “government”.

    • Bob says:

      You pick up arms against the government you become one of those domestic enemies mentioned in the Oath of Enlistment.

      • Joe R. says:

        Right. . . and the “government” [again, merely comprised of your neighbors who needed a job] compelling you [as a non-otherwise prohibited possessor] to lay down your arms makes that government (although no one is really compelled to have formulated a “good reason”) the ONLY domestic enemy mentioned in our Great Nation’s birth certificate, namely, The Declaration of Independence [and, while ratified by all the states, and every subsequent U.S. Citizen, is compulsory without an oath (that means it’ll cost you your pelt if you make us have to enforce it, or, GOD Help Us, write a new one, so Help me GOD)].

    • Duder19 says:

      The original amendments were intended to be unalienable/unamendable individual and states rights, as stated in the preamble to the bill of rights, that they are merely declaratory clauses. The anti-federalists declared what they wished to retain/ maintain when moving to a centralized government. Fast forward to 1833 the butchering of the BoR by the SCOTUS (through its assumed power) in Barron v. Baltimore, where it ruled that the BoR doesn’t apply to the states. They ruled that BoR only applies to the federal government; states are free to be mini dictatorships and limit those rights. Fast forward to the passing of the 14th amendment mandating the application of BoR in the states. The 14th isn’t solid as it was passed through coercion/at gunpoint, which is grounds for nullification. The preamble doesn’t cover it as being part of the original 10. The standing counterargument for the existence of the 14 is precedence and length of time. Either way, the bill of rights practiced in courts today is the bill of privileges that draws its application from the 14th. So, in theory, repeal the 14th, and the BoR no longer applies to the states. However, the federalist and anti-federalist papers clearly state that those individual rights enumerated in the BoR were never meant to be at the government’s discretion.

      • Joe R. says:

        Paragraph 2 of The Declaration of Independence (again, ratified by the original and subsequent states) says “Whenever ANY government” [emphasis mine], and therefore states cannot pick and choose which part of The Declaration it may espouse or find onerous to support.

        As far as “precedent” goes, a bona fide U.S. Citizen would have to spring from the womb fully-formed and armed-to-the-teeth to beat back all of the infringement on [his] rights that was foisted upon his great-great-great-great-great-grandfathers, but that does not relieve the burden of being correct and proper on the interim justice.

        “Stand feet shoulder-width in your largest foot gear and draw a chalk line around the soles of your shoes.
        The lines alone contain the hallowed ground upon which you are king, until, by you, I am made to move my feet.” J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012, Pg. 77

  4. Sasquatch says:

    Yeah, I might have a pick up a Shield after all.

  5. Czerta says:

    Daniel defense and ruger should take note

  6. Best article/statement I’ve read all month. Nice to hear a well thought honest response.

  7. David Spicer says:

    Amen Sir.
    Well said. Thank you for standing up and for great products.

  8. Alpha2 says:

    Good on him. We need more leaders in the industry, especially from major manufacturers, to stand up, fight back and not mince words. On a consumer level, reading this, definitely will make me consider buying a S&W in the future.