Mr. Marshall, I hope this question is within the parameters of 2nd amendment related topics -

Can anyone confirm for me that Glock and Beretta both rejected the stipulations of the previous administration's policies?
According to what I've read and heard, Ruger went along with them and S&W was very publicly in concert with it all, (although according to their spokesperson, that was under S&W's previous ownership - now that they're back under American ownership, their company stance has changed. But I guess the infamous "agreement" is still in place).

I'm proud to support manufacturers who support the 2nd amandment, so I'd appreiciate any info, (private messages are OK, too), on this.

I prefer to stay with American-made products, and I have no intention on selling my old S&Ws and Rugers. However, I want to know where my prioities should lie. (Taurus also supposedly told the antis to go jump in the lake, too)?

Thanks in advance.

I thought the previous administration of S&W was the only gun company aligned with the Clinton adminstration.... we may never know all the answers, especially after the backlash against S&W. Certainly none of the other gun makers would admit to any such thing..... hopefully they all learned their lesson!

It's true that S&W did ally with Clinton in the infamous agreement. It's also true, however, that the company is under new, American ownership. The pro-Clinton S&W regime was a French company -- go figure. The new American leadership insists emphatically that they will not uphold the Clinton agreement.

As far as Ruger is concerned, it is true that Bill Ruger made many public statements supporting certain gun control legislation. I have several friends who refused to buy Ruger products before Bill died; they are still reconsidering now that he's gone. As far as I know there was never any formal agreement between Ruger and Clinton, such as there was with S&W.

Hope that answers your question!

Bill Ruger wrote a letter to the governer of California urging him to sign the legislation that became the assault weapon ban. He told the governer that he didn't know why any citizen should have a semiautomatic rifle with a magazine larger than 7 rounds.

Interestingly, this put the Colt AR-15 type rifles out of the market (without changes) and made Ruger's Mini 14 one of the only legal military-type rifles available in California. Brilliant marketing, but he sold out gun owners.

I only wish I had known all this before I bought any Ruger firearms.

Believe the former S&W owners were English. There is a French connection, however, with the former Winchester.

With the global trend of merging domestic and foreign assets, it would be difficult not to find offshore investment in just about all the firearm industry companies.

How much this affects company policy and marketing endeavours would be a matter of conjecture, The S&W case was very blatent in kowtowing to both the Clinton administration and to Baltimore's advocy group. After seeing this fine old company disappearing down the tubes with customer rebellion, the rest of the industry decided to hold a united front in rejecting the outlandish demands of these govermental agencies. As ol' T.R. would say "Bully for Them!"

Ruger never supported the Clinton's stringent anti-gun efforts, other than the "Assault Weapons Ban", which as pointed out, feathered his nest rather nicely.

Expect a big push this summer to reinstate the AWB by the Democrats and all other bleeding liberals.

I've both heard and received a reply from an S&W spokesperson that the "agreement" is a thing of the past.

If Mr. Ruger's tactics were actually marketing ploys, hopefully the company is beyond that sort of thing now?

Anyway, thanks for the info. Please keep it coming.

There was an interview with Glock's President/founder on 60 Minutes last year or year before and he was pushing/supporting the smart gun technology. Though I can't remember exact quotes, I came away with a sinking feeling that Glock was on the verge of selling out the wishes of civilian consumers in lieu of highly profitable government contracts, mcuh in the same way S&W did.

Let's all hope they've come to their collective senses and agree to remain unanamous in opposing present and future restrictive gun controls.

S&W's new owners quietly went to the feds and states and informed them they would no longer comply with the agreements or understandings made by the former owner. That got them back on my good side. Prior, I was one of the staunchest critics of their lackey toadying to the anti's.

What struck me about the Glock/60 minutes feature was Glock's ready willingness to supply the fired casings for "fingerprinting" of firearms, which has proven to be a financial and scientific boondoggle in tracking firearms.

OK - that answers the Glock question. (As I've said, I immeasurably prefer to stay with American made AND OWNED companies.

Anybody know anything about Beretta's or Taurus's policies pertaining to magazine capacities or the "assault weapon" ban?