Smart pistol offered for sale in California

They said "we wouldn't need a smart gun if we had smart voters!".

Click to expand...

That is one of the best lines, I've read in months if not years. A tip of my hat to whoever summed things up so well

I bet the NSA would love the ability to turn all our guns off for us.



......Oh no! They've probably seen this and are coming to get me now

I'm totally against this naive approach of RF technology to firearm function. But, if those states mandate this as soon as one is offered for commercial sale in the state (as in CA)
I'd say this technology must first be field tested by the police departments in CA, NY, NJ, etc. - see if the policeman's union will accept refitting all patrol officers with these weapons for 3 years and report back how well it goes..

Hopefully they don't have to use any firearms around any heavy industry/metal working facilities, because I KNOW numerous welders and plasma torches will completely jam up cell/WiFi/Xbee communications, and can even cause iphones to lockup and reboot.

If my gun needs a freaking battery to function, it had better fire pew pew laser beams of death.

This will likely be a flop commercially, but it will unfortunately have the effect of launching the imaginations of the antis into the stratosphere as they can point to this thing as "proof that the technology 'works'".

Who the hell would buy a $1900 .22 pistol when there's no freaking ammo for it!

I have firearms for a few reasons, hunt, recreational shooting, and most importantly, home/personal defense. i want my firearms to go bang every time i (or my wife) pulls the trigger. I don't want to worry if the battery will go dead, the watch/ring/pin/fingerprint/whatever is nearby/correct for the firearm to work. I don't need someone trying to sell me a "smart gun" and then controlling how it works - or if it works.

While this may be "out there", there is no reason why these RFID controlled guns can't be all turned off (by the govt/LEO) should they so desire.

Thank you, but no - I'll keep my old fashion firearms and leave the George Jetson firearms to the gun control groups.

Isn't the first rule of a gunfight is to have a gun...and it's companion watch?

New Jersey gun owners should be thrilled with this news as New Jersey passed a law in 2002 mandating that once such a gun becomes commercially available, ALL handguns sold in the state must incorporate the technology and how long before they extend this to long guns as well? Between "smart guns" and microstamping, it looks like NJ and California legislators are finding creative ways to eliminate the sale of handguns in their state. After all, the best gun control is when manufacturers simply leave the market when it is no longer financially feasible. A fact that I am sure has not escaped the anti's.

Ive seen several articles citing that it accurately identifies the watch/RFID 90% of the time.

Only 90% of the time...

I think it's okay for this to be offered for sale so long as it's not mandated. It's certainly not for everyone, but for people with young children in the house, just setting a gun on a nightstand isn't a good option. So for many people, the choice is (1) get into a safe while panicked and groggy in the middle of the night, or (2) wear a wristband while they sleep. I could certainly see some people choosing option two as their preferred choice.

I saw this article over at Military.com about a .22 caliber smart pistol being offered for sale in California for $1,399 and the accompanying watch (required to fire the pistol) for another $399. Okay, so assuming that this is such a great idea (which I/we highly doubt that it is), what are the implications for one to protect themselves 24x7 ... wear the watch 24x7? I couldn't see someone taking the watch off at night before going to bed only to have to put the watch back on in the middle of the night when someone is breaking in and protection is needed. This is really a bad idea!

Click to expand...

I wear a Fitbit Flex activity-tracker 24/7. If the device was like that--a rubberized band the size and shape of one of those "Livestrong" bracelets that used to be so popular--I wouldn't have a problem with wearing it 24/7.

Like I said, offering it is good, mandating it is not.

Personally, I think this is AWESOME! What a technological marvel! We should ALL have to be required to purchase and wear $400 watches to exercise ANY of our rights!

Want to be a journalist? Buy a $400 watch.

Want to attend a peaceful protest? Buy a $400 watch.

Want to attend a church of your choice? Buy a $400 watch.

Want to avoid unreasonable search and seizure? Buy a $400 watch.

Want to keep the government from quartering soldiers in your home during peace time? Buy a $400 watch.

Want to be a freeman and not a slave? Buy a $400 watch.

Want to vote? Buy a $400 watch.

Why does a "smart gun" need a manual safety?

climbnjump said:

It's actually even worse than that. The gun needs to be no more than 10 inches away from the watch.

If you have the watch on your right wrist and that arm gets injured in the fight, you will not be able to pick up and fire the pistol with your left hand if you can't keep your left hand within 10 inches of the watch.

You can also think of other situations where you might need to switch hands for tactical reasons - these would also render the pistol useless.

ETA:
Oh yeah, silly me... Just buy a $400 watch for each wrist. Problem solved!

Click to expand...

This is utterly moronic on another level, as well...namely the fact that the vast majority of people wear their wrist watch on their non-dominant wrist in the first place. There is no hard-line rule as to which wrist to wear one's watch on, but the non-dominant side is typical likely for a combination of reasons:

- Back in the "good old days", it was probably easier to wind this way.

- When doing work, especially heavy work, the watch is both more protected from damage on the non-dominant arm AND more convenient to use since the dominant arm may be in use doing something else.

Like many, I won't buy a S&W revolver with a lock on it. Magazine disconnect parts seem to fall out of pistols in my possession for any length of time.

. . . and you want me to buy what?

We shouldn't complain about a company offering something just because there's a risk that anti-second-amendment legislators might try to make it mandatory. We don't complain about revolvers because someone might argue "nobody needs a Glock because of revolvers." We don't complain about O/U shotguns because Joe Biden argues that's all people need for self-defense. We don't complain about companies selling gun safes because some legislator might try to make their use mandatory. So I don't see why we should be complaining about smart guns.

And even though they're not the right choice for most people here, there are some situations I think they're a great idea.

(1) Someone whose spouse or child has depression or another mental condition. If wife is manic-depressive, does that mean that husband should abandon firearms ownership entirely, when something like this could facilitate his ownership and use of firearms without creating the risk that she might hurt herself or others?

(2) One of the real risks in having armed security in schools is that there are students are guaranteed to try to take the gun off them. This risk is particularly high if the t teachers themselves are carrying, since they often have their back to students. Smartguns eliminate this risk.

(3) This dramatically increases the safety of night-stand storage of handguns by people with young children. Right now, I've got our gun-safe adjacent to my bed, but that still means I've got to unlock a gun safe if I wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of a forced entry. This arguably is a better solution.

If you don't want a smartgun, don't buy one. But I support the development of the technology, since people in these situations might want the technology and voluntarily choose to pay the price for it.

The problem with this pistol coming on the market now IS SPECIFICALLY that laws previously passed in CA and NJ have already stipulated that once a SMART gun is made commercially available for sale in those states, a countdown begins by which ALL new firearms sales are to incorporate that technology. Laws can be changed of course, but in the states where these ridiculous legislations made it through, well, your guess is as good as anyone's..

greenmtnguy said:

The problem with this pistol coming on the market now IS SPECIFICALLY that laws previously passed in CA and NJ have already stipulated that once a SMART gun is made commercially available for sale in those states, a countdown begins by which ALL new firearms sales are to incorporate that technology. Laws can be changed of course, but in the states where these ridiculous legislations made it through, well, your guess is as good as anyone's..

Click to expand...

So far, nothing has happened though. Which means that these laws can only be fought right now by voters trying to get people into office to change them. But once it DOES happen, like the advent of this particular pistol seems to foretell, THEN we have another avenue to pursue via the court system by a well constructed challenge as to it's constitutionality on several levels.

Should be a perfect solution when combined with this