Is Gun Industry Gunning for Smith & Wesson?

Rather like the class snitch who returns to the schoolyard after tattling on his classmates, gunmaker Smith & Wesson appears to be feeling the effects of breaking ranks with its fellow firearms manufacturers. On March 17, the Massachusetts-based firm signed a historic agreement with state and federal government agencies in which the company agreed to implement several safety measures, including trigger locks, on its weapons. In exchange for Smith & Wesson's commitment, the government terminated many of the myriad lawsuits looming against the company. Initially, that compromise seemed to suit both parties: Smith & Wesson was assured a certain degree of protection against litigation, and government officials could point to a victory in its campaign against gun violence.

But now the government says it is having to act to prevent its prize pupil from being beaten up. Because of Smith & Wesson's actions, according to a report in Thursday's New York Times, gun distributors and wholesalers are excluding its products from their stores and shows, and have made it clear the company is unwelcome at shooting matches. The company's legal counsel, which counts other gun makers among its clients, announced it would no longer represent Smith & Wesson. In response to this apparent stonewall — which the gun industry says is not coordinated — the government has moved quickly, launching antitrust investigations against industry leaders.

While they may be comforted by this support, Smith & Wesson officials were probably taken aback by the alleged attack, says TIME correspondent Edward Barnes. "I think they were pretty surprised by it, and the government's speed of reaction indicates they weren't expecting such a strong rejoinder either." In the long run, says Barnes, the rest of the gun industry will probably fall in line with Smith & Wesson as they slowly acknowledge the turning tides. But in the meantime, it appears they're doing everything they can to make it clear that cozying up to the government may not be good for business.