Plans to sell smart gun backfire

"Some like the Huffingtonpost are sensationalizing it and making it seem like "death threats" were the typical response."
Not just Huffpo, every article on the story I read. Incredibly disappointing, just like every article about Senator Leland Yee's international arms dealing refusing to use the T word (terrorism) and spinning the story as benign official corruption. For whatever reason, media management/spin/influence/propaganda or whatever you want to call it is by far the worst when guns are specifically the target of the story, and let's be honest, it is completely intentional. The stories I read made no mention of the huge consumer backlash against the storeowner, promised boycotts, etc. Just the few idiots they could find who said "I'll kill you" while drunk posting on an internet site

"I wonder if this shows some worry about whether the mandate would stand up in court"
Duh. And if they aren't careful, they'll get all 'safety feature' legislation struck down as well. Requiring all guns to use a technology that for all intents and purposes does not exist is incredibly easy to argue as being an effective ban on vast assortments of guns in 'common usage'. It would last as long as NY's 7-round idiocy. I've never heard of an anti (let alone a public official) offer a concession specifically to the NRA, for something as insignificant as their 'not standing in the way of technology' --whatever that means. I think she is both looking for a face-saving way to scrap a law that's about to piss off every single gun owner in the state, and being utterly disingenuous with the NRA/public at large.

TCB

They can't sell these to the public.

Some jerk (snicker) will buy one, take it apart, remove all the worthless junk, and put directions for how to do it up on YouTube.

Such a video might look an awful lot like it was done on my workbench.

Or is Weinberg just taking the opportunity to act reasonable

Click to expand...

Weinberg's record shows her to be an implacable enemy to gun rights, unlikely to ever waver on that goal. Any short term compromise she offers must be evaluated in terms of long term gains for her agenda.

Kind of disturbing to me. Maybe I'm way off base here, but its a free market. If there is a smart gun that has been developed, and someone wants to buy it, who do these people think they are to make death threats. Hopefully they are found and prosecuted. This kind of behavior makes all pro 2a people look bad.

Do I support the smart gun? No
Would I buy one? No

Do I support the free market and the freedom to run my business any way I legally want? Absolutely

I think sometimes people forget the fundamental freedoms the 2a was put in place to protect.

who do these people think they are to make death threats

Click to expand...

don't be silly

there are no death threats - just attention-seeking whining from gungrabbers

MAIG/MDA policy is to complain about death threats - but if you demand the police report # or evidence they shut up quick

I'd be very interested to see them on sale.

I'm not even remotely interested in paying $1,800 for the gun plus the watch, but I'd like to see how well it does sell and how long it takes for someone to defeat the technology.

I do note that the price has dropped quite a bit on those things - when it was first introduced in 2010, the Armatix gun retailed for around ten grand.

The only use I would see for a smart gun is corrections officer in population, or a judge's bailiff: any controlled situation where a gun can be snatched by an unauthorized person. But it would be nice to see proof that under stress the authorized user would not be blocked from defensive use because some glitch or sensitivity of the tech. I like low-tech solutions best: COs in population for whatever reason are best protected by perimeter guards with sniper rifles and shotguns, and a bailiff should have a good retention holster.

As far as making it mandatory for all civilian arms (a $1400 smart gun and $400 activator bracelet): a licensed machinegun manufacturer took one of those 1980s survivalist/weapons of the underground manuals and built one of the designs for a sten-type gun for about $50 in raw materials (he used tackwelds where the manual called for drilling and threading for screws and bolts and said an underground shop could turn them out cheaply). Tax legal alcohol enough, and people will accept moonshine and bootleg imports. In other words, these control schemes could result in an uncontrollable situation like that described in that John Brunner sci-fi novel where everyone was buying underworld weapons from the Gottschalk syndicate.

"MAIG/MDA policy is to complain about death threats - but if you demand the police report # or evidence they shut up quick"

I'd love to see numbers on cases reported to police (I'm sure they occasionally are if the threatener is unusually scary or specific) for the head of Mom's Demand Inaction (not Bloomberg since he has his fingers in at least five other pies pissing crazies off simultaneously) vs. Wayne LaPierre

Let's see, a bunch of folks who largely just want to be left alone by would-be infringers, or emotionally-driven folks* who largely seem to have very little appreciation or understanding of either the facts or principles at hand. Which side would tend to be more likely to make death threats when drunk..? Oh, but the anti's won't ever get guns to fulfill their threats, so we don't have to worry about them... ...right? But a gun owner who says something as vague as "you'll regret it" is likely seen as threatening mass murder simply because he possesses the means to do so (it's not like the anti can't possess those same means within a few hours if they wanted to, or anything )

*who also seem to have an unhealthy connotation of guns to murder; one of those 'thou doth protest too much' Fruedian tells

TCB

Kind of disturbing to me. Maybe I'm way off base here, but its a free market. If there is a smart gun that has been developed, and someone wants to buy it, who do these people think they are to make death threats. Hopefully they are found and prosecuted. This kind of behavior makes all pro 2a people look bad.

Click to expand...

My thoughts as well. I don't see any reason to campaign against a technology because of the fear it may be misused in the future. If manufacturers want to make personalized guns (better term than "smart gun") and people want to purchase them then they should be free to do so. I don't agree with making the technology mandatory. Which brings us to New Jersey..

I'm not surprised to see NJ politicians backpedaling on this law. It is one thing to promise to mandate a technology that hasn't been invented some time in the future. You get brownie points from your base and you can say you are trying to spur investment in the technology. It is a whole different thing to actually enforce that law and deal with the public backlash and cost of legal challenges. Even if the law is repealed, look to Weinberg to take credit of the law leading to the development of the technology and making the world a better place.

I also see a place in this for the NRA. They should take Weinberg up on her offer and promise to stop working against the development of personalized guns and promise not to threaten boycotts against gun manufacturers in exchange for a repeal of the mandate. The mandate is what drives all of the hysteria around personalized guns.

I also have no doubt that there were death threats involved. Gun owners have their share of nutjobs just like every other group. A couple are bound to get "brave" and make an anonymous calls.

thefish said:

Kind of disturbing to me. Maybe I'm way off base here, but its a free market. If there is a smart gun that has been developed, and someone wants to buy it, who do these people think they are to make death threats. Hopefully they are found and prosecuted. This kind of behavior makes all pro 2a people look bad.

Do I support the smart gun? No
Would I buy one? No

Do I support the free market and the freedom to run my business any way I legally want? Absolutely

I think sometimes people forget the fundamental freedoms the 2a was put in place to protect.

Click to expand...

The way of the antis MO is to fabricate a Reichstag fire, then blame it on the opposition.

The offering of this gun for sale has nothing to do with the free market. Laws in NJ and CA are explicitly triggered by the avalability of "smart guns," so offering them for sale cannot be divorced from the highly contentious legal/political issues.

This thread on Calguns discusses Armatix's apparent MO of creating an unwilling market through political influence. They (Armatix, politicos) would love nothing more than for the list of legal guns for Californians and New Jerseyans to purchase to be limited to one $1800 .22.

The abstract principle of buying such a product makes sense. However, it is well stated that a purpose in developing them was to piggy back on a mandate that would cause them to be the only guns sold. Many of the larger companies were in tune with that. They thought that they could get the jump on having a product. Colt and Taurus were deeply involved in such. In a way, it was like Bill Ruger defending the Mini-14 to the detriment of the AR platforms.

It was thought that police departments would flock to them and some states would ban older guns, causing a buying frenzy for the smart guns (if that was allowed).

Once the SCOTUS voids the gun law prohibitions for law abiding citizens (that is happening after the successful resolution of the Zombie Apocalypse - ), then if someone wants to market them - that's fine.

But given the tie of gun control - it's not a needed product. I do have a plan though to put chips in Twinkies so they explode if very overweight people in NJ eat them (can you say Governor?). That will save more lives than a smart gun mandate in that state.

"I don't see any reason to campaign against a technology because of the fear it may be misused in the future"
Well, perhaps if it wasn't being used in the present to create a captive market of unwilling customers . Or if the officials in charge of mandating aren't already pondering publicly how they can use it to control the owners;

-jammers creating 'gun free' zones
-automatic personal weapon deactivations in advance of police raids or getting put on a state-declared 'prohibited persons' list
-automatic 'retirement' of grandfathered weapons under future AWB statutes
-wide area deactivation protocols in the event of state-declared emergencies
-police carrying local jammers to 'keep them safe'

All these have been eagerly put forward by assorted anti's and state officials in the wake of this technology approaching affordability. So you can understand my reluctance to buy into the ostensible 'benign' nature of the smart gun concept. Very little demonstrable gain in safety or tactical advantage, and a whole wonderland of potential mischief.

TCB

barnbwt: All of that would be what I call misapplication of the technology and is a separate political issue from the technology itself.

You don't see people campaigning against trigger locks for handguns. Instead they campaign against mandatory "safe storage" laws that say trigger locks must be used at all times.

I'm not against the technology, per se, but what is currently being offered advances things very little, with massive risk potential; it just ain't worth it. If the guns came with true-blue electronic triggers (heretofore universally rejected as readily convertible to machine guns by the ATF) that could be programmed for different weights, break points, and stages, or could actively anticipate flinches, or any other number of useful applications of this tech, I'd be all for it. But that is not what is being offered, nor being developed. The technology being put forth at this time has but one purpose; to take advantage of an anti-competitive manufacturing regulation which was passed in the first place as a flagrant violation of civil rights, which Marylander's tolerated since 'it would never happen in their lifetimes' (we saw that same stupid attitude when 'invisible guns' were allowed to be banned for another ten years, recently. A lot can change in 10 years-- *cough* '94 AWB *cough*)

TCB

They can't sell these to the public.

Some jerk (snicker) will buy one, take it apart, remove all the worthless junk, and put directions for how to do it up on YouTube.

Such a video might look an awful lot like it was done on my workbench.

Click to expand...

Replace the part in bold with "show how it can be readily converted to full-auto" and you'd have my workbench.

To win the war:

He should sell the pistols.

The law should be tirggered.

The citizens who were previously living with their heads in the sand should wake up and understand that they *are* coming for you....


Outrage is a powerful political tool. Generate some and let the process work.

The outrage should NOT be directed at the gunshop owner, that's silly. The outrage has been earned by and should be directed at the politicians who have written a law that is simply... outrageous.


Sell the darned thing and let NJ become aware of what they have elected. It might be a tipping point for the RKBA there.


Willie

.

Imagine a world where the government can turn off all civilian owned guns.

"Death threats", gun laws, NJ.....

first, death threats are nothing to take lightly.
Doing security work, I've had EDPs(emotionally disturbed person) & gang members threaten to kill me. It's not a good feeling.

One unstable ex-con(6'08", 57 years old who served time for several felonies including murder) that I had a trespass warning issued, returned to the property saying he wanted to killed me. He had a wood chair leg & was serious.
The local PD arrested him & he's now in prison.
The fact that the New Jersey gun law had the 3 year provision is part of what started this mess for the FFL holder.
I, personally wouldn't have a problem with a US gun shop or dealer selling "smart guns" if the technology worked correctly & people wanted to buy them.
If a home owner or private citizen feels "safer" with a smart gun then so be it.
I'd add that in 2014, there would be a lot of problems I could see with a "smart gun". What if the RFID signal fails? What if the Li battery or power source wears out? What if your "finger-print" hand or shooting hand is wounded/injured. What if some clever computer geek/terrorist group could hack into the signals or remotely control the weapons(keeping you from firing them)?

As stated, the smart guns are hotly debated but I don't think it's wise or prudent for gun owners/2A supporters to ignore the over-zealous extremists who'd make death threats or start stalking people.

I'm working on a security detail now where some "followers" & people with extreme political views are now making bomb threats/protests.
Now, don't misconstrue my remarks, I'm all for supporting issues & civil political discourse but some issues like guns, the environment, religion, etc seem to draw those with severe problems who who fixate on these things or want to use the issue to act out their aggression(s).
Those, are not who I agree with, re: guns/gun ownership & these types shouldn't be encouraged or condoned.

I'll repost here my response from another message board (fairly left-leaning, and very pro-control in tone) with regard to this situation:

I'll accept for now the store owner's claim that he was threatened; but until the person making the threats is identified, I do not accept it as given that he's (?) a "gun nut (TM)."

I can easily see some gun control advocate/group making the (anonymous) threat as some kind of "false flag" operation, in order to paint their opposition in the worst light possible and garner support for "smart gun" mandates.

I do support Mr. Raymond's right to conduct his business in any lawfull manner he deems appropirate. If I could talk to him, I would politely, civilly, urge him to not sell these "smart guns" until such time as the various legislative mandates are repealed/reversed.

I would certainly not patronize his store for so much as a bottle of Hoppes #9 if he did proceed with selling these "smart guns."

I have nothing at all against "smart guns," but, given my particular situation, would not be interested in buying one, at least not for any time in the foreseeable future. But unless/until "smart gun" mandates are taken off the political chess-board, I'll boycott any gun store I know to be selling them.

Click to expand...

Massad Ayoob used a device manufactured by a Gunsmith for S&W revolvers several decades ago. It was a ring that, when worn on the gun hand, would allow the weapon to function. He thought it was a nice job, but it required a pair of rings if the shooter were injured in his/her gun hand. Called the Magna-Trigger.

I wonder if the current technology has taken that into consideration? According to the manufacturer, the watch and gun combo has a range of "up to 15"" from each other. Standing here, with a tape measure in my gun hand, it measures 24" with my other wrist held against my chest. If my gun hand were injured, It would be held against my chest for support, and to keep it out of the gunfire. Accordingly, the weapon wouldn't function if I extended my off-hand/arm fully.

Again, according to factory specs, the batteries are good for 5,000 rounds, OR one years storage. There is no nothing about how a combination of firing and storage would work out.

Then again, there are ZERO defensive caliber handguns available. The current price is still an MSRP of $1800.00.

The gun seems more designed to activate provisions in law, than to provide any actual advance in self-defense.

At least the ring idea was for defensive capable weaponry.

In the article I read describing the gun they also said that it was programmed to only be able to fire at 'approved targets' at a range.

lilguy said:

Imagine a world where the government can turn off all civilian owned guns

Click to expand...

Imagine a world where YOU can turn off the goobermint's guns.
Imagine the surprise if trying to turn off YOUR guns ddin't work, because you'd spoofed the thing into "always on" or simply removed the blocking junk.