Effective immediately Colt's Mfg Inc is accepting no new orders for virtually their entire handgun line with the exception of the Single Action Army revolvers and a few custom-type .45s.

This message came from Thomas H Kilby VP of Marketing and Sales at Colt.

-- ct vronsky (vronsky@anna.lit), October 05, 1999

Answers

The BASTARDS!!!

Hey gang...Y'all with the Colt-Made AR's better stock up on parts for your M-16/Ar-15/M-4's. You know that thats included with that.

Fascist!!!

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), October 05, 1999.

FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY:

AR-15 Drop-In Autosears
By James H. Jeffries, III
http://www.ar15.com/legal/di as.asp

Given the wide range of semiautomatic firearms on the market and the ingenuity of the American gun culture, it was sometimes difficult technically to identify those specific items which constituted a conversion part or kit. However, apart from the technical identity problem, it was clear that such items were registerable machineguns in and of themselves. (If the semiautomatic receiver had to be permanently modified to accept the conversion part(s), then BATF took the position that the registered sear had to be permanently married to the receiver -- otherwise when you removed the conversion part from the weapon you ended up with two machineguns, a machinegun frame or receiver and a machinegun conversion part, one of which was unregistered.)

One of the most popular conversions has always been from the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle to the fully-automatic M16. This is done either by the simple insertion of a "lightning link" over the bolt, which by simulating the M16 sear permits only full-automatic fire, or by the installation of five M16 parts (bolt carrier, selector, trigger, disconnector and hammer) and the addition of a 15 piece of steel called a "drop-in autosear" which delays the fall of the hammer sufficiently to cycle the weapon automatically. (Actually, most knowledgeable shooters can get an AR-15 with M16 parts to cycle more than once on a single trigger pull without the addition of the drop-in sear the so-called soft primer or "slam-fire" problem -- but this is neither safe nor reliable without the addition of the drop-in sear. Essentially, all six parts are needed to convert the AR-15, but many after-market AR-15s have M16 parts in them, often without the knowledge
of the owner, simply because of the ready availability of M16 parts. Rather than decree the entire combination of six parts a machinegun conversion kit (as, for example, was done with the M1/M2 U.S. Carbine conversion kit), BATF finally, in November 1981, ruled that the drop-in autosear was the registerable part (BATF Ruling 81-4, 1981-3 ATFB 78). For arcane reasons related to the legal retroactivity of tax matters, however, only autosears manufactured after
November 1, 1981, were required to be registered. Thus, under the metaphysics of the National Firearms Act, two identical pieces of steel manufactured a day apart now had two different legal statuses. One was a legally regulated machinegun required to be registered with BATF; the other remained an innocuous 15 piece of steel.

The fact that two physically identical autosears can have a different legal identity has given rise to a very dangerous situation in the Title II firearms community. Possessing an unregistered post-November 1981 autosear is possession of an unregistered machinegun. Possession of a pre-November 1981 autosear is simply possession of a 15 piece of steel unless you also possess an AR-15 with M16 parts. Then you are also in possession of an unregistered machinegun.

In short, the only AR-15 autosears worth $120 are those which were registered with BATF before the May 19, 1986, ban on further production of privately owned machineguns (18 U.S.C. section 922(o)). Any other autosears are not only worthless commercially, but will constitute possession of an unregistered machinegun if found (by a jury) to have been manufactured after November 1, 1981. Assuming you had no incriminating AR-15 with the tell-tale M16 parts, how would you prove your autosear was one of the pre-November 1981 curiosities? By a "letter of authentication" supplied by a merchant engaged in a patently illegal solicitation? Right. I am unaware of any forensic test which can establish that the date of production of an autosear was prior to November of 1981. But a BATF toolmark examiner could easily establish that it was milled on a specific machine which did not exist in 1981. Keep in mind also that even if you had irrefutable proof of the pre-1981 provenance of your sear, the only thing that keeps it from being an unregistered machinegun is a unilateral (and not very logical) 1981 ruling by BATF which it could revoke tomorrow. In other words, you are not legally protected by a statute or a Treasury Regulation, but rather by an internal ruling by BATF which does not have the force of law and which can be changed in a heartbeat.

There can be only one reason for possessing one of these unregistered autosears, and BATF knows what that reason is. This is not a theoretical discussion. BATF investigates these cases vigorously and the Department of Justice prosecutes them with equal vigor. Avoid these overpriced paperweights if you value your freedom.

About the author: The author is a retired U.S. Department of Justice lawyer and a retired colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve practicing firearms law in Greensboro, NC. He is a 1959 graduate of the University of Kentucky and a 1962 graduate of the UK College of Law, where he was Note Editor of the Kentucky Law Journal.

Sincerely,
Stan Faryna

Got 14 days of preps? If not, get started now. Click here.

Click here and check out the TB2000 preparation forum.

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), October 05, 1999.

Allegedly, Colt took this action in response to a lawsuit. It was part of an out of court settlement. Rumors abound, but supposedly, S&W, Beretta, Ruger and several other companies are contemplating similar decisions.

-- chairborne commando (what-me-worry@armageddon.com), October 05, 1999.

Well I guess that makes up my mind for me , it's a Kahr MK9 instead of that new Colt Pony 9mm. But one question, where is Colt going to sell enough guns to make up the loss of the American comercial market ?

-- George in Ne.Pa. (grc0702@aol.com), October 05, 1999.

Well, looks like booze is next, then beef, pork, chicken, then your SUV's. Only those in control will be able to partake of those taboos. Keep your guns oiled and loaded. Get AMMO and LOTS of it!

-- see it coming (seeitcoming@seeitcomingg.xcom), October 05, 1999.

Get ammo now. You know the next big tax will be on ammo. Easy to put the little federal tax stickers on. (just like cigarettes) Look for ammo prices to double or triple in the next few years. Get your handguns now while you still can. I am going to buy a hand loading machine this week and a few thousand rounds worth of supplies for it. Just like the smokers who roll their own, I guess we better get used to loading our own. Sam Colt must be rolling in his grave today.

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), October 05, 1999.

Anyone got a link on Colt's announcement? I can't find it on any of the newswires...

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), October 05, 1999.

They can't repeal the 2nd Amendment rights, they know it, so they will just keep finding ways to keep you from exersizing those rights. By allowing people to sue gun manufacturers, the same way they allowed people to sue cigarette manufacturers. And by taxing excessively and allowing the states to tax excessively on top of that. It's infuriating.

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), October 05, 1999.

There was a thread about this a couple of days ago. It had a link to a WSJ article regarding this decision. I am also looking for more information on this. I know several lawsuits were started over the past few months against several gun makers. This method of gun control really sucks. I am going to go buy several more pistols in the next several days.

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), October 05, 1999.

According to the letter they faxed their distributors...

they are discontinuing: python anaconda all 1991s pocket 9 det spec

they will still sell model Ps (SAA peacemakers) cowboy custom shop autos XS series (colt officer conc. carry .45) match target rifles (ARs) colt light rifle

all with 6% increase

they will focus on classic guns and not me too guns

-- Ct Vronsky (vronsky@anna.lit), October 06, 1999.

I've searched WSJ and found no reference. Does ANYBODY have a link to this very important story?

-- Paul Hepperla (paulhep@terracom.net), October 06, 1999.

I did a revised search and found the story Here!

It is from a Sept. 29, 1999 edition of the WSJ. The article follows:

Colt's Restructuring Cuts Role of Consumer Handguns By PAUL M. BARRETT Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Colt's Manufacturing Co., the storied gun maker, is restructuring in a way that will shrink significantly its role in producing handguns for the consumer market. The restructuring stems from several causes, but in one sense it is the most drastic response so far by a major gun maker to the wave of municipal litigation pending against the firearm industry. Lawsuits filed by 27 cities and counties across the country specifically target the sort of handguns that Colt's is planning to move away from. Internal company documents show Colt's, West Hartford, Conn., is in the process of spinning off into a separate company its controversial project aimed at producing a high-tech "smart gun" that can only be fired by an authorized user. The documents also indicate the remaining core business will be focused more narrowly on production of military small arms, an area that Colt's has emphasized heavily over the past two years. New York financiers Donald Zilkha and John Rigas, who control the manufacturer, have used Colt's as a vehicle to acquire other makers of small military arms, and the restructuring appears to be another step in that direction. In fact, there are rumors in the gun business that Colt's is close to a new acquisition of a rival, but those rumors couldn't be confirmed. While immediate plans for the company's well-known lines of consumer handguns aren't clear from the documents that were reviewed, the documents do show that litigation against the gun industry has been a major concern to Colt's owners. Messrs. Zilkha and Rigas have indicated in the past that they would consider getting out of consumer handgun manufacturing as a way of trying to minimize their exposure to the municipal lawsuits. Messrs. Zilkha and Rigas didn't return telephone messages. Steven Sliwa, chief executive of Colt's, said he is going to head the new high-tech spinoff, which is known as iColt. Retired Gen. William Keys, a Colt's board member, will take over the remaining core Colt's business, focusing on military small arms. "Gen. Keys and I are looking forward to working together on the two ventures and taking Colt's into the 21st century," Mr. Sliwa said. Among major gun makers, Colt's has been among the most determined to send signals that it wants to resolve the municipal litigation without a protracted and expensive court fight. But a quick settlement of the suits doesn't appear to be part of the restructuring plan, and lawyers representing Colt's are continuing to try to get those suits dismissed. The commercial handgun segment of Colt's business produces about 30% of revenue but a larger share of profit, because margins are greater in that segment than in military sales, the company documents show. Nevertheless, Messrs. Zilkha and Rigas are said to see the commercial handgun market as too risky to remain a major part of the overall business. The company has struggled financially for more than 15 years, seeing itself surpassed by more nimble competitors in markets ranging from law enforcement to military rifles. A Zilkha-led group bought the company while it was in bankruptcy-court proceedings in 1994 and since then, Colt's has won back some important U.S. military contracts for its M-16 family of rifles, among other weapons. In December 1998, Colt's also completed its acquisition of Saco Defense Corp., a smaller maker of military arms, and remains in the hunt for another acquisition in the area. In 1998, Colt's and Saco had combined revenue of about $136 million and operating profit of $13.4 million, said a person familiar with both companies' results. One risk the restructuring creates is a negative reaction from activist gun owners, who could perceive a withdrawal from the consumer handgun market as another indication of Colt's bending to gun-control proponents. Gun owners in New Jersey, California and other states mounted a boycott of Colt's products last year, partly in response to the company's development of the smart gun, which also was seen as a manifestation of weakness in response to gun foes. On the other hand, by spinning off iColt, Colt's may be able to distance itself from the smart-gun controversy. The smart gun is an effort to use microprocessor technology to prevent the misuse of guns by children, thieves or other unauthorized users. Colt's has developed a prototype handgun that can fire only when the trigger is pulled by someone wearing a wristband that emits a coded radio signal that is received by a computer microchip in the gun's handle. Still unreliable as recently as this spring, when it was demonstrated for The Wall Street Journal, the smart gun is ultimately seen as a product that would appeal to middle-class consumers who wouldn't otherwise buy a gun because of safety concerns. Several other major gun companies, including Smith & Wesson Corp., a unit of Britain's Tomkins PLC, are scrambling to perfect smart-gun models, but it remains to be seen whether the idea will succeed commercially and whether pro-gun activists will punish companies that identify themselves with the smart gun.

-- Paul Hepperla (paulhep@terracom.net), October 06, 1999.

This time with formatting...:

Colt's Restructuring Cuts
Role of Consumer Handguns

By PAUL M. BARRETT
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Colt's Manufacturing Co., the storied gun maker, is restructuring in a way that will shrink significantly its role in producing handguns for the consumer market.

The restructuring stems from several causes, but in one sense it is the most drastic response so far by a major gun maker to the wave of municipal litigation pending against the firearm industry. Lawsuits filed by 27 cities and counties across the country specifically target the sort of handguns that Colt's is planning to move away from.

Internal company documents show Colt's, West Hartford, Conn., is in the process of spinning off into a separate company its controversial project aimed at producing a high-tech "smart gun" that can only be fired by an authorized user.

The documents also indicate the remaining core business will be focused more narrowly on production of military small arms, an area that Colt's has emphasized heavily over the past two years. New York financiers Donald Zilkha and John Rigas, who control the manufacturer, have used Colt's as a vehicle to acquire other makers of small military arms, and the restructuring appears to be another step in that direction. In fact, there are rumors in the gun business that Colt's is close to a new acquisition of a rival, but those rumors couldn't be confirmed.

While immediate plans for the company's well-known lines of consumer handguns aren't clear from the documents that were reviewed, the documents do show that litigation against the gun industry has been a major concern to Colt's owners. Messrs. Zilkha and Rigas have indicated in the past that they would consider getting out of consumer handgun manufacturing as a way of trying to minimize their exposure to the municipal lawsuits.

Messrs. Zilkha and Rigas didn't return telephone messages.

Steven Sliwa, chief executive of Colt's, said he is going to head the new high-tech spinoff, which is known as iColt. Retired Gen. William Keys, a Colt's board member, will take over the remaining core Colt's business, focusing on military small arms.

"Gen. Keys and I are looking forward to working together on the two ventures and taking Colt's into the 21st century," Mr. Sliwa said.

Among major gun makers, Colt's has been among the most determined to send signals that it wants to resolve the municipal litigation without a protracted and expensive court fight. But a quick settlement of the suits doesn't appear to be part of the restructuring plan, and lawyers representing Colt's are continuing to try to get those suits dismissed.

The commercial handgun segment of Colt's business produces about 30% of revenue but a larger share of profit, because margins are greater in that segment than in military sales, the company documents show. Nevertheless, Messrs. Zilkha and Rigas are said to see the commercial handgun market as too risky to remain a major part of the overall business.

The company has struggled financially for more than 15 years, seeing itself surpassed by more nimble competitors in markets ranging from law enforcement to military rifles. A Zilkha-led group bought the company while it was in bankruptcy-court proceedings in 1994 and since then, Colt's has won back some important U.S. military contracts for its M-16 family of rifles, among other weapons. In December 1998, Colt's also completed its acquisition of Saco Defense Corp., a smaller maker of military arms, and remains in the hunt for another acquisition in the area.

In 1998, Colt's and Saco had combined revenue of about $136 million and operating profit of $13.4 million, said a person familiar with both companies' results.

One risk the restructuring creates is a negative reaction from activist gun owners, who could perceive a withdrawal from the consumer handgun market as another indication of Colt's bending to gun-control proponents. Gun owners in New Jersey, California and other states mounted a boycott of Colt's products last year, partly in response to the company's development of the smart gun, which also was seen as a manifestation of weakness in response to gun foes.

On the other hand, by spinning off iColt, Colt's may be able to distance itself from the smart-gun controversy.

The smart gun is an effort to use microprocessor technology to prevent the misuse of guns by children, thieves or other unauthorized users. Colt's has developed a prototype handgun that can fire only when the trigger is pulled by someone wearing a wristband that emits a coded radio signal that is received by a computer microchip in the gun's handle. Still unreliable as recently as this spring, when it was demonstrated for The Wall Street Journal, the smart gun is ultimately seen as a product that would appeal to middle-class consumers who wouldn't otherwise buy a gun because of safety concerns.

Several other major gun companies, including Smith & Wesson Corp., a unit of Britain's Tomkins PLC, are scrambling to perfect smart-gun models, but it remains to be seen whether the idea will succeed commercially and whether pro-gun activists will punish companies that identify themselves with the smart gun.

-- Paul Hepperla (paulhep@terracom.net), October 06, 1999.