Gun Hub Forums banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
SW Presidency..

Dean,

I just read your page on the latest from S&W.

I have a simple question;
Would Ford ever hire a person who doesn't own a car?

Why would any firearms company hire a president who doesn't own a firearm?

I shouldn't be surprised, my local gun club in Mass. has people who run for the BoD who aren't shooters.
I just don't understand why they run or why anyone would vote for them.

Mike Yarosh
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,935 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Re: SW Presidency..

Mike said:
Would Ford ever hire a person who doesn't own a car?
The greatest choreographer and Ballet Master in the world couldn't dance a two-step if his tights were ablaze.
Why would any firearms company hire a president who doesn't own a firearm?
As I pointed out, obviously neither S&W nor Saf-T-Hammer even vetted Minder or, grand irony here, had him fill out a Form 4473 and undergo a NICS check.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,804 Posts
Dean, you know I've been in the "S&W Must Die" crowd from the day they signed the HUD agreement. It seems like they're trying to commit suicide and take the industry down with them. :argh:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,935 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Sam said:
The story's growing legs.
Interesting story… be a lot "leggier" if The Detroit News was less interested in blowing smoke up its own butt.

The greater details from "back then" are fine, but the only reason that story's there is typical media whoring.

I have no problem with Minder's being S&W's parent Chairman… if the guy rehab'd himself, that, as someone else observed somewhere, is the Liberal's dream. "Hey!, the penal system works!"

My problem is that he never disclosed the skeleton in his closet when they offered him the position on the Board, however long ago that was, and S&W never properly vetted him.

It's a "firestorm in a coffee mug" the firearms industry doesn't need, especially at this point!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,804 Posts
DeanSpeir said:
I have no problem with Minder's being S&W's parent Chairman… if the guy rehab'd himself, that, as someone else observed somewhere, is the Liberal's dream. "Hey!, the penal system works!"

My problem is that he never disclosed the skeleton in his closet when they offered him the position on the Board, however long ago that was, and S&W never properly vetted him.
Think how much stink there would be if Harlan Carter was on S&W's board. :roll:

My personal views are Waaay out in right field. If you can't trust a person with a ballot or a bullet, why in the Hell did you let him outa jail in the the first place? :soap:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Is anybody really surprised?

I mean c'mon...for my first few years in the Navy, we had a commander-in-chief who never even thought about serving in the military. Talk about somebody with no "weapons experience" having control of a major arsenal!!!

Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
973 Posts
When I read the initial report here, I hoped against hope that it was another internet hoax.

Perhaps an ATF investigation into whether there has been a violation of the prohibitation against a felon possessing firearms might get the Board's attention.

Also, on Harlon Carter, wasn't his conviction overturned on appeal, and charges were eventually dropped?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,804 Posts
Well, Minder resigned yesterday. Damage is done.

Speaking of damage, S1805 is being loaded with amendments. we may well see the AWB tacked on yet...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,055 Posts
I'm with Dean here. The damage was done with his failure to disclose. The worst part now is that it took him so long to do the right thing.

I had an opportunity to sit down with Roy Cuny who is S&W's new President and CEO. I found him to be a very smart guy and the business plan he is pursuing sounds exactly right. IMO a lot of the recent blunders (bicycles and gift catalogs for example) were instigated in AZ with little regard for the company's core business.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,055 Posts
This just in from a S&W press release:

"James Minder, who formerly served as Chairman of the Board, will remain as an independent director. While recognizing the very serious mistakes in his early life, the board believes that Mr. Minder has led an exemplary life for 35 years and has provided tremendous services to the community, including contributing positively to Michigan families for three decades through the founding and management of his very successful child welfare organization. Based on this, and other successful business experience, the board believes he should and can continue to provide invaluable input to Smith & Wesson within both strategic planning and the ongoing drive toward operational excellence. "
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,055 Posts
Nobody seems to have asked whether or not he has had his civil rights restored, but even so I don't think the law views "handling" in the same way as "posession". Counselor?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
855 Posts
I'd have to check to be sure, but I think even temporary possession (like handling) is barred. As an example, a press release a few days ago from the US Attorney in Massachusetts touted a conviction for a prohibited person who rented a handgun in a shooting range. Even that temporary possession was enough to send him to Club Fed.

The larger point here, of course, is that this episode shows a lack of due diligence on the part of the company in letting somebody with a background as a violent felon get so high in the company, especially considering the current political climate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
973 Posts
"Possession" is a pretty broad concept under the federal statutes. It basically means to exercise dominion or control over a firearm. Physically holding one would likely be enough to at least get an indictment, if not a conviction. The government does not have to prove the defendant had actual possession. Felons have been convicted of unlawful possession when the firearm was under a car seat, in a closet, etc.

Under the federal statute, the firearm must have been in interstate commerce. Perhaps the federal law wouldn't apply to a firearm before it was shipped from its state of origin, so maybe he could handle a new one on the factory floor.

As to having his civil rights restored, good question. I would have thought S&W would have mentioned this when the story first came to light. But as a public relations problem, I don't think it matters.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,055 Posts
I still think it would be a real stretch (or incredibly chickensh**) to attempt to proseute on the grounds of merely touching and while I agree that statutes are broad I think most judges would laugh that one out of court.

Under the car seat is entirely different and you're absolutely right there. We routinely prosecute- and convict- for posession of various controlled substances that are in the suspect's car. They always scream that it is someone else's junk, but it's "their" car. End of argument. The same would surely apply to a firearm since it is under their control.

Yesterday this was big news on NPR and the reporter who broke the story was playing hero. It also made 30 sec. on network news last night. The reporter also revealed that he began looking into it based upon a tip phoned in to the paper.

I certainly believe he should have revealed the conviction but don't think having him as a director violated any law. Apparently S&W does too (and I bet they had a herd of lawyers look at it).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,804 Posts
Charlie Petty said:
I still think it would be a real stretch (or incredibly chickensh**) to attempt to proseute on the grounds of merely touching and while I agree that statutes are broad I think most judges would laugh that one out of court.
CP, I've read a couple of news stories where a felon was convicted of "possession" just because he was in a deer camp were others did have a rifle. Can't say it it was urban legend or not, but that is in line with some of the BS BATF has pulled in the past at gun shows.

CP said:
I certainly believe he should have revealed the conviction but don't think having him as a director violated any law. Apparently S&W does too (and I bet they had a herd of lawyers look at it).
No argument from me on the legality of it. Just poor judgement on Minder's part not making certain that S&W knew. He came from the parent company, Safty-Trigger, and had lead a upstanding life for the last 30 years. :soap: This brings me to a rant, if you can't trust 'em with either a ballot or a bullet, what the Hell are they doing back on the street? I'm of the mind that full restitution of rights should be given as it was the first 150 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
973 Posts
Charlie Petty said:
I still think it would be a real stretch (or incredibly chickensh**) to attempt to proseute on the grounds of merely touching and while I agree that statutes are broad I think most judges would laugh that one out of court.
Don't underestimate the ability of some prosecutors to stretch the legal baloney to the limit. I'm aware of a federal prosecution involving possession of a single cartridge (possession of ammunition is also prohibited for felons).

Most US Attorneys have enough serious crime to keep them busy, without seeing just how far they can to go to find a federal offense.
 

·
Site Founder
Joined
·
4,081 Posts
If he had received a Certificate of Relief from Disabilities from either the court he was convicted or State Board of Parole, then possession of a firearm would no longer be restricted. But even so it wouldn’t change the view from the media.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top