2009 - Traditional handguns illegal in NJ


PDA






bjbarron
February 5, 2005, 12:10 AM
This is the latest update (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-11/njio-nsg110404.php) on Smart Gun technology in New Jersey.

For you lucky enough not to live here...

In December of 2002, New Jersey became the first state to pass legislation specifying that three years after it is determined that personalized handguns are available for retail sale, dealers and manufacturers will not be able to sell, assign or transfer any handgun legally unless it is personalized. We're still on target with a delivery date of January, 2006, for a commercial-ready prototype of a smart gun," said Donald H. Sebastian, PhD, vice president for research and development at NJIT and professor of mechanical engineering.

Oh yes, a very smart gun. A gun sooooo smart that it takes several seconds to boot up, and only works 90% of the time. A gun so very cool that law enforcement, security companies, and anyone else who can get an exemption aren't required to use it.

My understanding of out-of-state sales and purchases is that the sale or purchase of a firearm is legal only if that sale or purchase would be legal in your home state.

For example, I can go to a show in Pennsylvania and buy a long gun, because it is legal for me to buy a long gun in New Jersey. I can buy a handgun in Pennsylvania if it is shipped to an FFL dealer in New Jersey and I have the proper paperwork. With the advent of the new laws, I will no longer be able to buy or sell a traditional handgun anywhere in the country as long as I am a resident of New Jersey...because the purchase or sale of a handgun would be illegal in Jersey.

I'll be out of here by then. I am hoping that when the time comes there will be legal challenges to this law...

If you enjoyed reading about "2009 - Traditional handguns illegal in NJ" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dbl0Kevin
February 5, 2005, 12:28 AM
Greeeeeeeeat. This is gonna be a mess. :banghead:

carebear
February 5, 2005, 12:39 AM
Is the NJIT a federally licensed handgun manufacturer? Does it have a business license to sell handguns in NJ or anywhere else?

If not, they can "invent and patent" all they want. As I read it, the law specifically says "available for retail sale."

Until a licensed gun manufacturer goes through the hoops to license the technology from NJIT and produce an actual firing handgun that meets federal regulations for sale to the general public, the "day of infamy" won't ever come.

Stebalo
February 5, 2005, 12:44 AM
NJIT is the New Jersey Institute of Technology. They have been funded by the state to the tune of several million dollars to develop the technology. Corzine has secured further millions in federal funding to NJIT for development.

If no manufacturer chooses to bring such a product to market, we could be safe. But once one breaks, they all do. I'd like to say that any manufacturer who develops and sells such a gun in the NJ market here will for ever and ever lose my business. However, the business reality is no one wants their competitor to have a locked up monopoly on any market, so they'll go in on it too.

It disgusts me.

Stebalo
February 5, 2005, 12:56 AM
Here is a recent article about the technology and a bit about NJIT and the players involved

http://www.findbiometrics.com/Pages/feature%20articles/smart-gun-works.html

Guy B. Meredith
February 5, 2005, 12:57 AM
So when is someone going to demonstrate that the SG does not work? Or are you just going to wait until you can bring a faulty product suit against the state?

artherd
February 5, 2005, 02:05 AM
Wait a second here, did NJIT just commit a federal crime by building a gun for sale withought a FFL?

Air,Land&Sea
February 5, 2005, 06:38 AM
The buying public ultimately drives business so it's likely up to us to see how things pan out and to respond accordingly. Taurus, for example, is already on my "do not ever buy" list and I would buy a gun from any company who publicly opposes smart gun technology.

WT
February 5, 2005, 09:24 AM
This is old news but Colt, Beretta, and S&W have also been funding NJIT's research. No big deal.

If a person wants a standard firearm, full auto AK-47 or M-16, there are plenty of sellers available on any streetcorner in Newark.

Nathaniel Firethorn
February 5, 2005, 09:39 AM
BTW, Dbl0Kevin, your fellow LEOs might also be interested in knowing that this law WILL apply to their off-duty weapons. Jim Florio is making sure of that. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=106583&highlight=florio)

There was a news article a couple of months back that the NJ assault-weapon ban is vaguely worded wrt police and Florio wants it enforced off-duty so that it doesn't create two classes of citizens. He said that that was his original intent when he created the assault weapons ban.

The same would apply to "smart" guns, I'd think.

Please spread the word. ;)

Cheers,
- pdmoderator

Dbl0Kevin
February 5, 2005, 03:35 PM
Oh I'll be spreadin you don't have to worry about that. Guess I better buy all the handguns I want in the not too distant future since as of right now (knock on wood) this only applies to purchasing handguns not owning or carrying them. :fire: :banghead:

Standing Wolf
February 5, 2005, 05:12 PM
http://www.yellowtruck.com

Nathaniel Firethorn
February 5, 2005, 08:57 PM
:rolleyes:

- pdmoderator

LAR-15
February 5, 2005, 09:00 PM
I thought the law forced the NJ state police to adopt smart guns as soon as they hit the market.

geekWithA.45
February 5, 2005, 10:50 PM
Nope.

The police and other agents of the state are specifically exempt.

Harry Tuttle
February 6, 2005, 12:24 AM
What is a "smart" or "personalized" gun?

The concept behind the "smart" or "personalized" gun is to design and market a firearm which prevents anyone but an "authorized user" from firing it. Proponents of personalized guns, also called "safe" guns or "childproof" guns, argue that such technology would prevent the misuse of firearms by children and teens while rendering stolen weapons useless. The most zealous devotees of the smart gun idea present it as a virtual panacea for many categories of gun injury and death in America.

How are personalized guns supposed to work?

The very existence and feasibility of the smart gun is speculative at best. The Violence Policy Center is aware of no working, reliable model of a personalized gun such as its advocates envision. Certainly, none is actually in everyday use today.

There are as many ideas for potential personalization technology as there are people promoting the smart gun. Colt's Manufacturing Company is researching a radio transponder worn by the authorized user to activate the gun. Colt has previously announced its intention to have an early prototype of this smart gun ready for testing in the fall of 1998. Even with this timetable, it would be years before a manufacturer could make such technology available to the general public—if they ever can.

Other personalization concepts being promoted by smart gun advocates include weapons that would recognize the fingerprint or hand size of an authorized user.

How would personalization technology apply to the guns Americans already own?

Americans now own 192 million firearms, including 65 million handguns. None, of course, are personalized. One of the shortcomings of smart gun technology is that it has no impact on firearms already in circulation. Advocates of the smart gun often make claims about its potential benefits as if all guns would be personalized as soon as any were personalized.

In fact, we can expect that smart gun owners would almost always own non-personalized firearms as well. According to survey data from Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use, published in 1997 by the Police Foundation, only one quarter of American adults owns a gun. Nearly three quarters of these gun owners have two or more guns, however, and over two thirds of handgun owners also own at least one rifle. In other words, most households that have guns in them would have non-personalized guns in them, unless typical gun owners disposed of all of their other firearms.

Even if gun owners did exchange all their currently owned handguns for personalized guns, they might simply be trading one lethal problem for another. The Guns in America survey finds that more than three quarters of handguns now possessed by private individuals hold fewer than 10 rounds of ammunition—reflecting the fact that most of these handguns are revolvers. Handguns produced today are primarily pistols with 10-round magazines. Gun owners who "trade up" to smart guns would generally get a pistol of higher caliber and capacity. Therefore, the introduction of personalized guns could greatly increase the lethality of the country's privately held gun stock.

What effect would personalized guns have on suicide?

Suicide is the leading cause of firearm-related death in America (18,503 incidents in 1995). Gun owners can, of course, commit suicide using their own firearms, whether they are personalized or not. Perhaps for this reason, smart gun advocates focus particularly on teenage suicide, often using numbers suggesting that personalized guns would thwart every firearm suicide death of an American age 19 or under. This optimistic assertion fails to take into account the reality of gun use and possession by teenagers and young adults.

Many young people own guns themselves or have access to guns with parental permission. A 1998 New York Times national poll of 13- to 17-year-olds found that 15 percent owned their own gun. Obviously these teenagers are "authorized" gun users—as are many more who are granted access to their parents' guns—and personalized guns would make no difference if they attempted suicide. Older teenagers, who are most likely to have access to guns with parental approval, also account for the vast majority of teen suicides; 87 percent of suicides in the under-19 age group are committed by those between 15 and 19 years old.

What effect would personalized guns have on homicides?

It would be a fairly unusual murder that is committed by a perpetrator using someone else's gun. Homicides occur most frequently between people who know one another—often spouses, intimate acquaintances, or other family members—typically as the result of an argument. Particularly in these scenarios, there is no reason to assume that assailants would not be using their own guns, personalized or not.

What effect would personalized guns have on fatal unintentional injuries?

Smart gun advocates commonly claim the technology could stop virtually all fatalities stemming from unintentional injuries. They particularly focus on deaths of children, although they are a small portion of overall fatalities in this category. Of the 1,225 fatal cases in 1995, 181 were deaths of children under the age of 15—which could be more effectively prevented by the use of existing technology.

As for the adult deaths, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association ("Unintentional, Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries: A Preventable Public Health Burden," June 12, 1996) found that the most common activity associated with unintentional discharges is the cleaning of a gun, and the second most common circumstance is hunting. In both of these activities, the "authorized user" would be in control of the firearm. Obviously, personalization would make no difference in such situations.

What effect would personalization have on the criminal black market for guns?

Many advocates claim that personalized guns would strike a serious blow to the criminal black market for guns. This promise fails to take into account the way smart gun technology would work in practice. Manufacturers, including Colt, repeatedly emphasize that personalization technology would allow for multiple users or a series of users. This means the technology would do nothing whatsoever to stop "straw purchases" of guns—sales to a front man who then transfers the weapons on the black market to criminals or others banned from firearm possession. The straw purchaser would, of course, know the procedures necessary to "authorize" these illegal users or any other purchaser.

What effect would personalization have on the theft of firearms?

While a personalized gun may be less likely to be stolen, it is highly optimistic to assume that thieves will stop attempting to steal any of the millions of guns already owned by Americans on the off-chance they may come across a personalized gun. This is especially true since Colt promises that its personalized gun "will look like any other handgun."

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/smartgun.htm

carebear
February 6, 2005, 07:11 AM
Go VPC, get your groove on.....

:D

The enemy of my enemy.... (on this topic)

Art Eatman
February 6, 2005, 12:18 PM
Looks to me like the deal ought to be to raise a fuss about the police exemption.

We're already asking, "If smart guns are Good Things, why don't the police use them?", right?

We're already talking about two classes of people, so get as much publicity as possible about "WHY the difference?"

If the police are exempt, is it not because of the reliability issue? Point out the hypocrisy of the idea that the police need reliability but a citizen does not.

The government is trying to have it both ways: Citizens must be limited to Smart Guns because of safety, but police are exempted because the guns are unsafe as to actual utility for protection.

Art

kel
February 7, 2005, 10:32 AM
They did it in the people's republic of MA, and they can do it there. Guns deemed unsafe are unavailable for civilian purchase, but LE can have the in MA. Total BS. Anything and everything of the safety of the children... right?

GEM
February 7, 2005, 12:22 PM
The laws should stipulate that on duty LEOs must use them and also that Secret Service must use them. :) That would take care of it.

The idea for the gun came from three propositions:

1. To avoid retention failure shootings of cops.
2. Gun companies also have data that indicate if a 'safe' gun existed more household than currently have guns would be them.
3. The company that came up with one first might get all the LEO business
It won't work. In some parts of the country you have to wear gloves. Oops. As far as NJIT, they are ripping off the government by getting grants. Typical academia.

It won't work anyway.

flatrock
February 7, 2005, 12:43 PM
What I have against Smart Guns is expense and reliability.

If they could make a 100% reliable smart gun for the same price as a traditional gun, then I'd have no problem with having the extra features a smart gun provides.

However in reality it's going to be less than 100% reliable in recognizing an authorized user. It's also adding complexity that will reduce overall reliability as well.

It will of course cost more, which unconstitutionally places gun ownership out of reach for poorer Americans.

Really young children getting access to a parent's loaded gun is a serious problem, but it's a quantitatively small problem. Smart guns are likely to cause more problems than they solve. Problems that may very well result in fatalities as well.

As for suicides. It doesn't take a gun to take your own life, and banning guns has not been shown as an effective way of reducing suicide rates.

At the age where someone is likely to contemplate suicide, they are also likely to be able to get around the smart guns ability to prevent them from using it.

To be of practical use, these guns need to be able to be reset so that they will be able to be reprogrammed. That method will become common knowledge on the internet even before the guns hit the market.

A smart gun would likely prevent someone from grabbing your gun and shooting you with it immediately, but not keep them from being able to use it after tinkering with it for a while.

This might provide a real benefit to police and people who must carry their guns openly. If it can be made reliable maybe it will prove useful. However, legislating it is foolish.

The smart gun technology cannot provide the benefits that it's proponents in the legislature claim. The NJ law needs reviewed and either overturned by the courts, or removed by the legislature.

Sam Adams
February 7, 2005, 02:26 PM
I couldn't care less if the smartguns cost $5 and were proven to be 100% reliable - I don't want one. You see, in order for it to be "smart" it must have a chip. That chip will almost certainly, whether "they" tell us or not (and "not" is far more likely), have the ability to receive radio signals. Tell me that you won't have a situation in a few years when the police get called to an apartment complex for a domestic disturbance or an armed robbery, and the police will turn off every single "smart" gun within a 1/2 mile radius of the place in order to protect themselves, and turn them back on after the incident is over. Tell me that later on the state police won't turn off all "smart" guns and "forget" to turn them back on. Tell me that some criminals won't figure out a way to do the same thing.

I don't want my personal protection and protection from tyranny being subject to the ability of some person or agency being able to shut my handgun off - because then all that I have is a very expensive rock.

Another factor is this: what if someone attacking you shoots or otherwise renders useless your normal gun hand or arm - how are you going to protect yourself with your other arm? How is your spouse going to pick up your gun, or catch it when you've thrown it to her, and shoot the SOB who's invaded your home and is ready to rape her and kidnap or kill your kids?

The police have an exemption for 2 reasons - the first is reliability, the 2nd is that they don't want to end up in a gunfight where the criminals have turned off the cops' firearms, and they end up with only their guns in their hands (as in http://www.moviesounds.com/fmj/myrifle.wav ).

Dmack_901
February 7, 2005, 04:36 PM
Odds are that these "smart" guns will have a tiny secret radio reciever that will deactivate the gun at any time the government sees fit. Sadly, the idea is perfectly plausible.

SIGarmed
February 7, 2005, 04:48 PM
This is just another way to disarm the citizen because they can't do it outright. They're pretty much getting around the Constitution.

This below I don't buy. A gang member that knows of another gang member? A drug dealer that knows anther drug dealer? I really hate how they try and paint gun owners as the source of problems.

What effect would personalized guns have on homicides?

It would be a fairly unusual murder that is committed by a perpetrator using someone else's gun. Homicides occur most frequently between people who know one another—often spouses, intimate acquaintances, or other family members—typically as the result of an argument. Particularly in these scenarios, there is no reason to assume that assailants would not be using their own guns, personalized or not.

KAR120C
February 7, 2005, 05:07 PM
Other posts have already hit the nail on the head, several times:

Cops get shot with their own guns all the time, far more often than permit holders. A SG should be ideal for them, yet they don't want them. Why? Obviously they don't trust them. So neither do we. Speeking as an electrical engineer, neither do I.

I love these people who ignore weather in their designs. We actually had some parkways here in Minnesota designed by a firm from California. Seems they neglected to allow enough clearance for snow plows to get through. My first thought about this auto-electronic-fingerprint B.S. was ... "will it work at -30 F when I'm wearing gloves?" Or better yet, even if I'm willing to bare hand it, will the battery have any voltage left at that temp?

As Bugs would say... "what a bunch-a maroons!"

P95Carry
February 7, 2005, 05:22 PM
I about despair of the logic - rather, the lack of it. Apart from anything else, there are enough ''dumb guns'' out there to keep the crooks supplied until we are all worm fodder. So once again ... BOHICA all legal citizen gun owners.

All the arguments against have been covered - but will this stem the lunacy? Nah - course it won't. :(

Guy B. Meredith
February 7, 2005, 06:52 PM
READ MY SIGNATURE! ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD LET ELECTRONICS GET IN HIS/HER WAY.

Whew! Had to get that off my chest. I get very frustrated that people can't see the obvious.

jnojr
February 7, 2005, 07:07 PM
I couldn't care less if the smartguns cost $5 and were proven to be 100% reliable - I don't want one. You see, in order for it to be "smart" it must have a chip. That chip will almost certainly, whether "they" tell us or not (and "not" is far more likely), have the ability to receive radio signals.

That's a ridiculous, paranoid statement. No personal offesne intended.

There are lots of things with chips that have no ability whatsoever to receive or send "radio signals". In order for these "smart guns" to be able to receive commands, they would have to have an antenna, power source, a chip capable of recognizing the commands, and the ability to implement them.

If I lived in NJ, and it was 2009, and I had to buy and carry a "smart gun", and it had these "features", I'd have an electronics geek cut out the antenna and shield the nub against receiving anything. There's nothing in the law saying I couldn't do that. Once my electronics geek knew how to do it, he could charge $50 a pop or something, and get rich deactivating that "feature".

Yes, it is theoretically possible that they could build such "features" into guns, but I really doubt it with todays technology. And once they did, they would have to mandate the use of that technology. And then worry about all the people (like criminals!) who disale it anyway. And then there's always the fact that any halway-competent machinist can crank out "dumb" firearms all day long, until steel stock is a "controlled substance".

jnojr
February 7, 2005, 07:11 PM
In December of 2002, New Jersey became the first state to pass legislation specifying that three years after it is determined that personalized handguns are available for retail sale, dealers and manufacturers will not be able to sell, assign or transfer any handgun legally unless it is personalized.

On first reading, I thought "No problem... get every FFL in New Jersey to enter into a compact to not offer these guns." But, second time through, I parsed "available for retail sale" to mean "if it exists, and could potentially be bought by a dealer to offer for sale".

Well, if this does go through, 4 years out to be enough to move out of New Jersey. Virginia isn't too far away :)

Nathaniel Firethorn
February 9, 2005, 01:05 PM
jnojr, I'm just waiting for the day when some bright EE figures out that Metalstorm's magic smart-gun ammo can be fired full auto with about $1.39 worth of cheap 7400-series chips.* And no grip recognition needed.

- pdmoderator

* Assuming it can be fired at all, of course.

Third_Rail
February 9, 2005, 01:09 PM
Shhhhh.... Keep that one quiet. :D


I thought that very thing when I first heard of Remington's (it was them, I think...) electronically primed ammunition for a hunting rifle.

I REALLY hope e-primed ammo catches on. So much more in terms of fun can be done with it...

If you enjoyed reading about "2009 - Traditional handguns illegal in NJ" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!