Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

2009 - Traditional handguns illegal in NJ

Discussion in 'Legal' started by bjbarron, Feb 5, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bjbarron

    bjbarron Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    322
    Location:
    Jersey - *gag*
    This is the latest update 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.

     
  2. Dbl0Kevin

    Dbl0Kevin Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Messages:
    1,183
    Location:
    SC
    Greeeeeeeeat. This is gonna be a mess. :banghead:
     
  3. carebear

    carebear Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,373
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    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.
     
  4. Stebalo

    Stebalo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    312
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  5. Stebalo

    Stebalo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    312
    Location:
    Texas
  6. Guy B. Meredith

    Guy B. Meredith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,315
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    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?
     
  7. artherd

    artherd member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,518
    Location:
    An Elevated Position in the Bay Area, PRK
    Wait a second here, did NJIT just commit a federal crime by building a gun for sale withought a FFL?
     
  8. BADUNAME4

    BADUNAME4 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    450
    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.
     
  9. WT

    WT Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,985
    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.
     
  10. Nathaniel Firethorn

    Nathaniel Firethorn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,672
    Location:
    Exit 8A, Peoples' Republic of Corzinistan
    It'd apply to off-duty LEOs, too. So says Jim Florio.

    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.

    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
     
  11. Dbl0Kevin

    Dbl0Kevin Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Messages:
    1,183
    Location:
    SC
    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:
     
  12. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
  13. Nathaniel Firethorn

    Nathaniel Firethorn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,672
    Location:
    Exit 8A, Peoples' Republic of Corzinistan
    :rolleyes:

    - pdmoderator
     
  14. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    I thought the law forced the NJ state police to adopt smart guns as soon as they hit the market.
     
  15. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,056
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    Nope.

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

    Harry Tuttle Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,093
    http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/smartgun.htm
     
  17. carebear

    carebear Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,373
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    Go VPC, get your groove on.....

    :D

    The enemy of my enemy.... (on this topic)
     
  18. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    43,762
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    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
     
  19. kel

    kel Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    155
    It has already happened here

    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?
     
  20. GEM

    GEM Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,411
    Location:
    TX
    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.
     
  21. flatrock

    flatrock Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    612
    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.
     
  22. Sam Adams

    Sam Adams Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,035
    Location:
    South Texas
    Flatrock

    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 ).
     
  23. Dmack_901

    Dmack_901 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    361
    Location:
    FL
    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.
     
  24. SIGarmed

    SIGarmed Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    619
    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.

     
  25. KAR120C

    KAR120C Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    137
    Location:
    MN
    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!"
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page