It is disappointing, though not really surprising, that Smith Wesson would try to retreat from some parts of its deal with the Clinton administration to change the way it designs, distributes and markets guns. The companys embrace of a sensible menu of safety restrictions in exchange for ending threatened lawsuits against it brought fierce criticism and financial pressure from other firearms manufacturers, distributors and gun dealers. But Smith Wesson cannot change the clear meaning of the legal settlement simply by posting implausible clarifications on its Web site.

One contested provision would require Smith Wesson dealers not to sell firearms at gun shows unless all sales by any seller are subjected to a full federal background check of the purchaser. In its clarification, Smith Wesson said the provision covered only firearms sold by licensed dealers, not used weapons sold at gun shows by private citizens. That creative reading would render the provision meaningless, since licensed dealers are already required to conduct background checks. It is private sales at gun shows that are currently exempt.

A second contested provision aims to stop bulk purchases by traffickers by limiting Smith and Wesson dealers to selling only one gun per customer on a given day, and by requiring that purchasers wait 14 days before picking up guns they order on subsequent days. On its Web site, Smith Wesson said the limit on bulk sales applied only to Smith Wesson guns and that dealers could sell multiple guns to smith & wesson governor an individual if they had been made by someone else.

Clinton administration officials, while voicing sympathy for the pressures on the gun maker, insist they will enforce the agreement as written. That is exactly the right tack. Instead of retreating, the administration needs to exert pressure on other industry players to agree to similar terms.

By appearing to renege on its agreement, Smith Wesson only hurts itself. Dozens of localities that buy guns have signed onto the campaign to protect the company from retaliatory efforts by giving a preference to Smith Wesson and other manufacturers that adhere to the deals principles. But Smith Wesson is unlikely to reap that benefit unless it honors its side of the bargain.