| ||||
|
Arts & Entertainment Books Comics Health & Body Media Mothers Who Think  NewsPeople Politics2000 Technology - Free Software Travel & Food  Columnists
Current Click here to read the latest stories from the wires. - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - Also Today For a full list of today's Salon News stories, go to the
News home page. - - - - - - - - - - - - Search Salon - - - - - - - - - - - - Recently in Salon News
Pilgrimage and public relations
Throwing eggs at "Mr. Democracy"
P is for Prozac
Will Taiwan's president-elect defuse tension with China?
Templegate - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Much ado about nothing | page 1, 2
Similarly, Smith & Wesson has agreed to release its guns to purchasers only if they have completed a background check -- a check already required by law. Smith & Wesson dealers, the settlement states, will not sell any assault weapons, but again, such weapons are already banned by federal law. Most critical, the Smith & Wesson settlement does virtually nothing to interfere with the gun maker's distribution of weapons. It was the issue of distribution and marketing that led to last year's unprecedented verdict in Brooklyn -- specifically, the oversupply of guns to Southern states with lax gun regulations, where they could easily be purchased in bulk to supply the criminal market in Northern cities. A similar charge -- oversupply to loosely monitored suburbs -- lies behind Chicago's suit against the gun industry. The White House settlement will do nothing to interfere with that marketing pattern. Instead, Smith & Wesson dealers have agreed to what is being called a "modified one-gun-a-month" system. Purchasers of multiple guns can take only one weapon home with them immediately, but the rest of the wheelbarrow, no matter how many guns it contains, can be trundled out the store 14 days later. Under the agreement, multiple-gun sales have to be reported to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, but that reporting requirement, too, has been written into law since the 1970s. Equally important is what is not in the agreement. "Smith & Wesson has to do nothing new to supervise distributors," says attorney Barnes. There is mention of a generalized "code of conduct" for dealers, but few specifics. Most dangerous, Smith & Wesson can still distribute its guns through kitchen-table, back-of-the-truck dealers -- rather than storefront retailers -- who hold half of all federal firearms-sales licenses but who are almost impossible for the government to effectively monitor. "This is a deal, like the master settlement in the tobacco suits, which protects corporate executives rather than the public," says one furious gun-control lobbyist. At the same time, the deal represents a research-and-development bonanza for Smith & Wesson. The Wall Street Journal reported that in return for signing the settlement, the company will get $3 million in federal assistance to develop so-called smart guns that can distinguish authorized users. Given the clear benefits to Smith & Wesson, the only wonder is that the gun industry is so wedded to its no-deal orthodoxy that word of the deal still managed to produce a panic. Wednesday, Glock and Browning announced they were taking a pass on the deal. Glock executives balked at the provision calling for an oversight
commission, made up of local, state and federal officials, who would supervise the gun manufacturer. "The commission is an absurd concept," Paul Jannuzzo, vice president and general counsel of Glock in Smyrna, Ga., a unit of Glock GmbH of Austria, told the Associated Press. "It's overly broad. It's more powerful than
any regulatory agency." Earlier this week, normally voluble executives at respected gun companies like Colt and Sturm, Ruger were trapped in hurried conference calls and rushing to industry strategy meetings. But the gun lobby's disarray is more a product of its own long-simmering implosion than of this settlement, White House gloating notwithstanding. The gun industry's infighting began in earnest last year, after the relatively moderate president of the American Shooting Sports Council caused an uproar by holding informal talks with some of the cities contemplating lawsuits. And the NRA barely survived its last convention. Handgun Control's Henigan insists that the settlement, with all its weaknesses, is "a floor, not a ceiling," and represented an attainable victory. But like the NAACP, some of the cities suing the firearms industry want nothing of it. Chicago has reportedly already rejected the settlement out of hand. So has Cleveland, where just last week a federal judge ruled that the city's negligence suit can move to trial. At least half a dozen of the cities suing the firearms industry are likely to reject the White House deal outright, despite the considerable leverage HUD holds over municipal governments. In the end, the Smith & Wesson settlement may represent not a victory but an immense lost opportunity. After decades of gun-control efforts that blamed gun consumers, last year's Brooklyn lawsuit represented the leading edge of a new effort to hold corporations accountable for the design and distribution of weapons. Cuomo's gun deal looks suspiciously like political intrusion rather than politics of substance. And while the Democrats may capitalize on the settlement in the fall elections, in the longer run this settlement leaves in its wake a gun-control movement nearly as fractured and chaotic as the gun lobby itself.
- - - - - - - - - - - - Sound off - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Search Salon | |||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
