The pro boycott of S&W e-mail Ms. Metaksa
quotes in her article at

http://frontpagemag.com/archives/guest_column/metaksa/

metaksa10-24-00.htm originated with me.

Now America’s gun owners have to complete the
job and reduce the value of the S&W carcuss to it’s
bones (the value of used machinery). The “company”
and it’s trade name must have ZERO value, none
whatsoever, in order for these businessmen to get the
message. Then, when some other gun manufacturer is
faced with an anti-gun deal whe balance will be
between using all your assets to fight (with some
chance of winning) or losing all your assets at the
bankruptcy sale (with NO CHANCE your customers will
EVER return no matter how low you price your
products).

I’m a corporate lawyer so I know what I’m about
to speak.

Ed Schultz, S&W’s former CEO, said essentially
the following when he announced to sell-out: “These
gun nuts will be mad for a while but then they’ll
come back. We’ll lose a few bucks in the near term
but we’ll make it up when they start buying again.
It’s a temporary cost we can absorb.”

That is what they teach in business school.
Make decisions on the bottom line. If the present
value of the future earnings (as a result of the
decision to sell-out) is greater than the costs (in
this case greatly discounted because S&W expects its
short-term sales loss to end when gun owners start
buying S&W products again), go with that decision.

The only way we gun owners, as customers, can
change that equation is to eliminate the discount
(based on the historical “fact” that we’ll come back)
and make the loss CATASTROPHIC becuase it is TOTAL
(no sales at all) and PERMANENT (we never again buy a
new S&W product). A successful “no purchases at
all, ever” boycott reduces the value of the business
to zero. No one will buy the company or its
trademarks. The English parent company will lose
it’s entire investment in S&W. Just punishment for
them.

But, most importantly, EVERY other investor in a
firearms manufacturer knows WHY it happened. They
will ALL know that resistence (however much it costs)
always has a greater value than capitulation (which
will cost them their ENTIRE investment). Every CEO,
COO, and CFO will know it too.

And, the trial lawyers will know that they have
a full scale battle on their hands. There wiil be
no “quick buck” from a settlement and no ultimate
recovery if they win over a company bleed to death by
the litigation.

Sarah Brady and Mayor Rindell [the Democrat
party's reelection leader] may be in it on principle
but I can assure you the trial lawyers are in it for
the MONEY. If the plaintiff’s can’t “show me the
money,” the trial lawyers will be gone.

So a successful boycott – one which destroys
S&W’s total investment value by reducing sales to
ZERO – works both ways. It tells the businessmen in
the industry that the only viable strategy is TOTAL
RESISTANCE up to the full value of the company. It
tells the trial lawyers (whose money is behind this)
that there is no golden goose, only a valueless
plucked & starved chicken.

About the S&W employees… . The economy is
booming, the sooner they quit working for S&W, the
easier it will be to find as good or better a job
somewhere else. Connecticut has unemployment
insurance to cushion the fall for those who choose
not to look for a new job while the economy is
booming anf S&W is failing. And their Union, which
is supporting the very administration that took their
jobs, ought to help it’s members out of the jam it’s
policies put them in.

CONTINUE THE S&W BOYCOTT UNTIL THE COMPANY IS
WORTH ZERO. VALUELESS BECAUSE IT HAS NO CURRENT
SALES AND WILL HAVE NO FUTURE SALES. ZERO. THAT
WILL BECOME A “CASE STUDY” IN EVERY BUSINESS SCHOOL
AND EVERY BUSINESSMAN WILL LEARN THE COST OF SELLING-
OUT THE CONSTITUTION. ONLY YOU CAN TEACH THAT LESSON!

******************************************************
**********************
Professor Joseph Olson Hamline University
School of Law
tel. (651) 523-2142 St. Paul,
Minnesota 55104-1235
fax. (651) 523-2236
<[email protected]>