I think what Airman is trying to say is that this man wasn’t exactly doing the gun-rights crowd any favours. It’s bad PR to have someone with a criminal past at the head of your organization, and when you’re a gun manufacturer, the last thing you want is to prove the anti-gun crowd right when they say; “The only people who want/care about guns are criminals!”
I know that he served his time and yadda yadda, but being a convict is still considered to be a smear.
Yup, looks like they’re aiming for an easy shot of ass-covering PR, so Minder has to take the bullet for them.
All right, that makes a lot more sense. I was obviously unable to follow your mental shortcut. So if he had been Chairman of the Board of, say, AT&T, you’d be fine with that?
How is this any different than what I said?
I don’t know – Enron? Tyco? Arthur Anderson? The recent mutual funds scandal? I think S&W made a wise decision to hire an exec who was only interested in petty larceny.
I guess I’m in the “hey, he did his time and made something of himself” camp. Although I am thinking that it must be hard to hide a 15 year gap in your vita.
I agree that as far as perceptions go, this guy was in the wrong job. But your suggestion that a person never be able to hold a job that would allow them to associate with the instrument of that crime? That just won’t work. This guy could get a gun anywhere and go down the bad road again. A person who steals will always have a chance to steal, no matter what job they take. A person who punches someone out will always have the opportunity to repeat that crime. The crime was committed, the sentence was served, and that’s that (with the exception of child molesters, which usually don’t rehabilitate).
It’s not. I was just too distracted to preview because I was smooching my wifey. :smack: Sowwy.
Spookily, I almost included the phrase “hot-button issue”, but cut it at the last moment (right about when The Missus was approaching with her kissy-face on).
How is this any different than what I said?
Sure. That would be fine.
My computer is messing with me - now I post after you reply. 
Please see post #27, Mr. Doublepost. 
I’ll see you 27 and raise you 30!
[Honest, the server or whatever seems to be acting up more than usual today]
Doors, you usually are more logical than this. Was he chairman of a major corporation when he commited his crime? No. Was the crime a function of his position as chairman of said company? No. So all of your analogies are horseshit.
As a former 5150 patient, I am of the uderstanding that, by Federal law, I am considered, for life, ineligible to legally possess a firearm. I was under the impression that such ineligibility also applies to convicted felons.
Am I wrong about this? If I am correct, I wonder what the heck Mr. Minder was thinking, to seek and accept a position that would so intimately connect him with the manufacture and distribution of products that he is legally banned from possessing.
If I’m incorrect, of course, I would appreciate anyone who could explain where my misconceptions are rooted.
This is too clever and wickedly funny to just pass by unremarked upon. I’m still giggling.
Me too – great one-liner!
Daniel
One can get firearms rights restored. I have no idea if Minder did or not. http://www.firearmslawcenter.org/content/california.asp says that even 5150s can petition the court for firearm rights restoration. I am assuming that 5150 doesn’t meet the Federal mental prohibition and is just a California thing. 
Smith & Wesson was bought out a few years ago, from a British conglomerate, by an Arizona-based company called Saf-T-Hammer.
STH then hired and installed this man for his skills as a CEO, to run and operate the company. As CEO, he basically has absolutely nothing to do with the actual production of the firearms, he’s doing whatever the CEOs do in their paper-shuffling and middle-mamager delegation.
He probably never touched a gun, or at best, probably only handled a prototype or new production model on rare occasions. The law prohibits a felon from owning a firearm, there’s no law against him working for a company that makes them, or being allowed to handle them. (If that were the case, somebody ought to have arrested ol’ G. Gordon Liddy for all those calendars where he’s posing like a schmuck with a handgun.)
However, not disclosing a felony criminal record is reason enough for S&W to fire him (to say nothing of the PR nightmare.)
And Kaylasdad99: I’m told that there is a way you can ‘petition’ to regain your rights. I don’t know any details, but I understand it involves some typical legal red tape, and after completion, you may again own a firearm. I understand the aforementioned G. Gordon did so (and previously, all the guns in the house were owned by his wife, not him.)
Too slow on the post button.
Cite??? suggest you look at the data the US department of Justice released late last year specifically.
on the OP - I sorta understand what Airman is attempting to get at, but frankly I don’t have any problem w/ the guy serving in the capacity that he did. And I’m generally a ‘guns = eeeeeww’ person.
While I agree a standard ‘rule’ about length of time isn’t the answer (for example, I still wouldnt’ want Charlie Manson out and about even tho it’s been decades since he was last convicted), certainly this man has demonstrated that doing something stupid when you’re young doesn’t mean you can never learn.
and I absolutely agree w/Steelerphan - once a person has been released, they will find a way to support themselves - if not legally through a job, illegally again. So it’s to all of our benefit if companies would consider hiring convicted folks (keeping in mind that I am not suggesting that we require day cares to hire convicted molesters, banks to hire thieves as tellers etc. so please save the straw for your barn, thanks just the same).