-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- January 27, 2000 Marketplace Clinton Proposes New Some Grants While Threatening to Sue Gun Makers By PAUL M. BARRETT Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL President Clinton enthusiastically backs the current wave of municipal lawsuits against the gun industry. He's even threatened to organize a separate federal suit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from firearm companies. But at the same time, Mr. Clinton wants to give some of those manufacturers $10 million in federal grants to develop "smart guns," which are electronically wired so that only authorized users can fire a round. The president is expected to feature the proposed smart-gun grant during his State of the Union address Thursday night as part of his fiscal 2001 budget request, promoting the subsidy as a way to protect curious children and deter thieves. But some gun-control advocates think there's something strange about giving millions to companies from which the government says it wants to extract millions in damages. "It makes the lawsuits seem like a charade," says Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center, an advocacy group in Washington. The president's plan is also stirring concern inside the gun industry. Gun maker Sturm, Ruger & Co., of Southport, Conn., worries that gun-locking technology may lull adults into leaving weapons loaded and more accessible to children. Or the electronics might fail, rendering a gun useless in an emergency. The country's largest handgun manufacturer, Smith & Wesson Corp., of Springfield, Mass., is eager for the government's smart-gun money. It has hired grant-sniffing Washington lobbyists and recruited congressional supporters, such as Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Edward Kennedy, a liberal who doesn't usually consort with gun companies. Smith & Wesson thinks it can sell smart guns to wealthy suburbanites who haven't owned firearms before -- prompting Ms. Rand to wonder why the White House wants "to encourage people who are now reluctant to arm themselves to go out and buy guns." Another question is: Does the Clinton administration know how to pick the most promising manufacturers to support? In 1997, the Justice Department awarded $500,000 to Colt's Manufacturing Co. to stimulate the development of smart guns. White House budget documents issued this month refer approvingly to Colt's prototype pistol, which relies on a transponder worn on the user's wrist to signal a microprocessor in the gun handle to unlock the weapon. But late last year, Colt's folded its infant smart-gun spin-off, iColt, suspending its efforts on the technology. A Contradiction The company's controlling owner, New York investment group Zilkha & Co., attributed iColt's demise to the very municipal litigation encouraged by the White House. Potential punitive damages scared away needed outside investors, says John Rigas, a Zilkha partner. "There is a contradiction," he adds, "in that the Clinton administration and the cities that are suing us say they want safer technology, but the litigation discourages investors." The debate echoes a similar quandary about the cigarette industry, which has periodically worked on developing safer products. While some health advocates applaud any effort to reduce damage to smokers' lungs, others have argued that labeling a cigarette "safer" will diminish smokers' resolve to quit. Bruce Reed, the president's senior domestic policy adviser, acknowledges a certain tension inherent in the White House carrot-and-stick strategy on the smart-gun issue. But he says, "we want to promote the technology, one way or the other." The antigun suits filed by 29 cities and counties cite the industry's past failure to produce smart guns as one basis for seeking multimillion-dollar damages. Mr. Reed points out that President Clinton and most of the local officials who have sued say that rather than money awards, they would prefer an out-of-court settlement that changes gun-company practices. There have been some highly tentative settlement discussions, but little substantive progress. Significantly, most of the suits are being handled by private plaintiffs' lawyers who would be paid only if some money is squeezed out of the industry. The White House itself has threatened to organize a separate suit seeking to recover the huge costs of security at thousands of federally subsidized public housing projects where gun violence is a particular problem. Still another question about the proposed smart-gun grants is why federal money is needed at all. At the gun industry's main annual trade show last week in Las Vegas, several manufacturers -- including SIG Swiss Industrial Co. Holding Ltd. and Mossberg Group LLC -- promoted smart-gun models developed without a dime of federal money. The new technology will add several hundred dollars to the retail price tag, bringing the cost of a SIG pistol with an electromagnetic push-button lock, for example, to about $950. Both SIG and Mossberg Group promise to ship smart guns later this year. Mossberg Group chief executive Jonathan Mossberg says his iGun -- a shotgun electronically unlocked by a signal from a ring worn by the user -- has been extensively tested for use as a home-defense weapon. But the newly formed company nevertheless would try to grab a share of any federal money that is made available. 'Truly Personalized Gun' "We were the first to have a truly personalized gun," Mr. Mossberg claims, and a government subsidy would allow him to make refinements. Still, like Colt's, the other front-running smart-gun makers could stumble. Mossberg Group has a scant track record. Swiss-owned SIG is trying to sell its entire gun business, casting doubt on the future of its smart handgun. Many people in gun circles are looking to Smith & Wesson to see whether the smart-gun idea will work on a large scale. With roughly 25% of the handgun market, the company has a strong reputation among retail dealers who help shape consumer preferences. Smith & Wesson, owned by the British conglomerate Tomkins PLC, says it has spent $5 million of its own money over the past four years to develop what it claims is the most ambitious smart-gun prototype in existence. It is still two years away from retail sale, says Kevin Foley, the company's vice president for engineering. Without government support, Mr. Foley warns, the project may die. Asked why, since the company anticipates that there would be a high-end market for smart guns, Mr. Foley says, "There are limits on how much a company is going spend" on a product that "may or may not work in the end." Justice Department officials who would administer the smart-gun grants say they are excited by their preliminary look at Smith & Wesson's approach. Other companies are incorporating electronic locks into guns that still fire mechanically -- meaning that pulling the trigger causes a firing pin to hit the back of the ammunition cartridge, causing the explosion that propels the bullet. If the electronic wiring is pulled out -- by a mischievous or suicidal teenager, for example -- these guns might still function. The Smith & Wesson version is entirely electronic. The gun is equipped with a digital fingerprint scanner of the sort used on some computers, which must confirm that the user has been preauthorized. Pulling the trigger completes a circuit and causes the electronic ignition of the powder. If someone tampers with the electronics, the gun won't fire. Mr. Foley estimates that the company needs at least another $3 million to further miniaturize the fingerprint scanning device and do more testing. Toward that end, the company has hired the Washington lobbying firm Capitol Partners to marshal congressional support. The firm arranged a Jan. 14 letter from Sen. Kennedy and three other Democrats, urging President Clinton to favor the precise approach chosen by Smith & Wesson. Ironically, this type of politicking could doom smart-gun grants by linking the idea primarily to gun-control advocates, such as Messrs. Clinton and Kennedy. That's what happened last year, when a $4 million White House request for smart-gun funds died amid a broader campaign by the National Rifle Association and conservative Republicans to block any gun-control legislation backed by the White House. NRA President Charlton Heston maintains in the January issue of American Rifleman magazine that "for all practical purposes [smart gun] technology doesn't currently exist" and that the idea could actually be a first step toward a ban on traditional guns. Write to Paul M. Barrett at [EMAIL PROTECTED] ================================================================= Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day. ================================================================= <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
