Smart Guns may get another chance as politicians pledge to repeal Smart Gun Law

[usmarine0352_2005]

It appears that the New Jersey politicians who made smart gun ownership mandatory if a working smart gun ever made it to the market are considering repealing that law. They've said that they plan on making an announcement this coming Monday.


I'm all for smart guns. Will I ever own one? No. Why would I own something that could hamper a perfectly reliable self-defense weapon. I don't want batteries, or computers, or locks on my guns.

It's like making a smart sword, only with the correct fingerprint can you draw the sword from it's sheath. The sword has worked with 100% reliability for hundreds of years, why add a feature that could make it unreliable?


Why am I for them? Because if someone who wasn't going to be a gun owner decides to be one because they can have a smart gun, then great. It's 1 more person who takes full responsibility for their own safety and safety of their family.


Like I said, is the smart gun for me? No. But it might make some new responsible gun owners.



What worries me? That once they've been on the market for awhile cities, states, and even the federal government start making it mandatory.


Think it can't happen? Well, seatbelts became mandatory in cars, helments became mandatory on motorcycles, etc, etc........



Also, they are talking about making cops use them. I can tell you that most cops would never want them on their guns while some would. And a lot of new cops who don't know better and/or don't know about guns would gladly have them on their guns also.


Once cops have them, the general public would start saying, "See, the cops trust them. Now we should make it mandatory for everyone to have them."




What are your thoughts?




http://www.pressherald.com/2015/10/22/smart-gun-proponents-ready-to-reload/

Smart gun proponents ready to reload

The U.S. gun industry fiercely opposes Ernst Mauch's gun that fires only for authorized users.

BY MICHAEL S. ROSENWALDTHE WASHINGTON POST

Updated October 22

After vehement protests helped block the nation’s first smart gun from entering the marketplace, proponents of the technology are gearing up for another fight, intent on capitalizing on renewed interest in gun safety following a spate of high-profile shootings. Ernst Mauch, the renowned German firearms engineer who designed the gun but left its manufacturer, is in the United States this week exploring starting a company to build another smart gun, perhaps with one of his previous competitors.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in New Jersey are considering doing away with a controversial law mandating that all firearms sold in the state be smart guns if one were sold anywhere in the United States. Gun industry groups, particularly the National Rifle Association, fiercely oppose the law. An announcement about the mandate is expected Monday.

 

[xxjumbojimboxx]

Think it can't happen? Well, seatbelts became mandatory in cars, helments became mandatory on motorcycles, etc, etc........

Well neither of these things are enforced on the federal level... That said.. My thoughts are that there is no way I would own one... But then again.. Many said theyd never own a glock (lol i dont) but we all know how that turned out. If the folks pushing for this type of legislation were smart, theyd make it cool and trendy. Instead of jamming it down throats. Good thing the anti gunners aint smart huh?

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Maybe not smart but they are getting some bad anti-gun laws passed. We just lost to appeals court cases (I believe) this week pertaining to modern sporting rifles/black rifles, and standard capacity magazines.

 

[TomJ]

My iPhone has a fingerprint scanner which I use to unlock it. It often takes 2 to 3 tries for it to work. Technology is not flawless, and I certainly don't want to count on it to use my gun if it becomes necessary.

 

[Bigdog57]

I want my guns rock stupid and reliable...... I will do the thinking for them. Nuff said.

 

[chipcom]

If smart guns are good for the goose, they are good for the gander...meaning law enforcement, military and government in general. But of course there are perfectly valid, common-sense reasons why none of those entities want "smart guns" for themselves...which is why I don't want one myself. Example...in a fight your firearm is damaged and your partner is down...but you can't use his firearm because only he can use it. Hey, I guess you can do what they did in the B movies and throw the darned gun at the bad guys, right?

If someone else wants such an animal, fine...Barnum applies.

 

[yugorpk]

I got into a short lived debate in Pinterest with an Anti the other day. He/She wanted smart guns. I did not and spelled out my reasons. It still wanted them because "we want to track where you people with guns are" .

 

[GAF]

Why not just let the marketplace decide if we will have smart guns ?

 

[chipcom]

I got into a short lived debate in Pinterest with an Anti the other day. He/She wanted smart guns. I did not and spelled out my reasons. It still wanted them because "we want to track where you people with guns are" .

I wonder how it would feel if those of us with guns wanted to track where they are?

 

[bannockburn]

Let's leave Smart technology to the phones, computers, and other electronic devices that use it. I prefer to have my guns designed and built with the KISS Principle in mind.

 

[chipcom]

Why not just let the marketplace decide if we will have smart guns ?

the government will never allow such a thing...they can't help but attempt to regulate the markets to achieve their desired results.

 

[GEM]

Smart guns are just fine if they are just part of the free market.

It was the mandate programs that makes them unwanted to the gun community.

The gun industry found that there was a group of folks who don't have guns that would buy them if they had a smart gun option. They also thought cops would buy them to solve the retention problems of about 30% of cops being shot with their own guns.

This was picked up by antigunners who figured out that smart guns might increase the actual number of guns out there. They want NO guns.

But there isn't workable tech yet. That might be solvable and ok for a free market.

Make it a law and forget it.

 

[FAS1]

People choose every day between smart (bio-metric) storage and dumb (mechanical) storage for their quick access needs. Probably more choose bio-metric these days even with all the potential problems.

Especially young people that don't know a world without electronic gizmos permanently attached to their hand all day long. They don't even think twice about having to swipe or scan multiple times to access their iPhone. They haven't really understood the full consequences of squeezing a trigger when your life depends on it and nothing happening.

This makes it easy to market a smart gun once that law is changed and the anti-gun people know it. One small step at a time since they have failed to just ram it down our throats.

 

[Sunray]

"...politicians who made smart gun ownership mandatory..." That mean they think an inanimate object is or can be smarter than the human(with the absolute best electro/mechanical computer possible in its head) holding it?
A 'smart gun' is right up there with serial numbers on bullets for being a stupid TV/movie Scifi inspired idea.

 

[gbran]

I have no problem with smart guns for people to buy if they want to. But, no gov't subsidies or requirements. BTW, I can't think I'd ever want one for myself.
Let the free market work.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

Think it can't happen? Well, seatbelts became mandatory in cars, helments became mandatory on motorcycles, etc, etc........

Seat belts are required in automobiles as part of the basic safety equipment by the federal government, but their use is a state-by-state requirement. The use of motorcycle helmets is by individual state law.

As an example, the State of New Mexico requires the use of seatbelts (you can be ticketed for not wearing seatbelts) but, the use of a motorcycle helmet is at the discretion of the rider. There is no law in NM requiring the use of a motorcycle helmet - and there is no federal law requiring the use of a helmet when riding a motorcycle.

Smart gun technology is (for lack of a better metaphor) a solution in search of a problem.

 

[barnbwt]

"Seat belts are required in automobiles as part of the basic safety equipment by the federal government, but their use is a state-by-state requirement. The use of motorcycle helmets is by individual state law."\

And yet, oddly --not that I'm particularly in favor or anything-- aren't eyes/ears for sportsman not typically mandated by law in most places? Seems like an area the busybodies would have stuck their noses by now

"Smart gun technology is (for lack of a better metaphor) a solution in search of a problem."
Common phrase used by folks with no eye for either solutions or problems, in my experience. Electronic triggers have the capacity to have any response characteristic (1, 2, 3, 200 stages, at any weight, over any distance) thus completely mooting the archaic 'trigger job.' Accelerometers can tell you not only when you flinch, but how much the movement threw off your shot & in which direction.

And lastly, before we denounce it out of hand (which we only do specifically because of that stupid NJ law, which in typical statist fashion, has done more to harm the desired result than anything), I fully believe that it is not only possible but inevitable that electronic safety systems will prove to be useful if not superior in certain situations; simply because electronics opens so many doors to design solutions. Far too many to simply claim all are without benefit (I do believe there was a certain time that retention holsters were viewed with skepticism, as was polymer in handguns, as was polymer in holsters)

Honestly? If these NJ fools realize their grandstanding law passed in the name of 'doing something' decades ago is now singlehandedly stymieing electronic gun safety technology development, and wish to remedy this unintended consequence, then good on them. It's the closest thing to an intelligent decision on guns (or likely anything) they've had in ages.

TCB

 

[Caliper_Mi]

Even if they repeal it, there's nothing stopping them from passing it again in the future once someone produces a "smart" gun.

 

[Speedo66]

What will happen is when the company who will make them lobbies for it, i.e., gets the best national level politician money can buy, things will start going downhill fast. As in a federal law requiring it's use in all new guns.

Amazing how politicians never admit they do things for money, but somehow those who give it to them get what they want. Funny how that works.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

*SIGH*

Once again, 'smart guns' have limited use--basically preventing very young children from using them. As long as the ring that activates it is not on Mommy's jewelry table along with the gun. I am not good with this temptation to be negligent.

Other than that, the 'smart' can be permanently circumvented in all designs I've seen (National Institute of Justice Research Report, A Review of Gun Safety Technologies, June 2013). And it doesn't take a genius. Expect instructions all over the internet once one is on the market and opened up.

 

[George Dickel]

My computer modem every once in a while will act up and have to be re-booted, my computer sometimes locks up and needs to be restarted, my cell phone won't work like it is supposed occasionally. I had a car with climate control and the simple computer that controlled it would sometimes quit and I would have to pull the fuse to re-set it. I don't know how many times the internet won't connect me to a web site for what ever reason and I have to try again and sometimes again.

Do you really think I want to trust my life to a so called smart gun? Unlike my computer, phone or car my gun needs to be like a Zippo cigarette lighter, lights first time every time. Trust electronics? Please!

 

[barnbwt]

What will happen is when the company who will make them lobbies for it, i.e., gets the best national level politician money can buy, things will start going downhill fast. As in a federal law requiring it's use in all new guns.

1) The law only passed since the tech did not exist (do nothing feelgood at its finest without consequence)
2) There is not a single law requiring a single safety feature on any gun made today, at the federal level (ironic given the AWB)

Given these facts, why would such unprecedented and sweeping legislation get passed now that the tech is extant, along with immediate consequences of mandating it? Keep in mind that the arrival of the tech seems to in fact mean they cannot mandate it, which is why the repeal was sought.

TCB

 

[Devonai]

It seems to me that somebody in NJ finally read and understood the Heller decision.

 

[FAS1]

It seems to me that somebody in NJ finally read and understood the Heller decision.

Now that's funny I'm sure she has had an epiphany and is now not wanting to infringe on anyone's 2A rights.

New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, the principle sponsor of the law, is expected to soon announce a compromise that will still mandate that New Jersey gun dealers carry smart guns—but along with and not instead of traditional firearms.

When The Daily Beast Is Promoting It, You Should Be Cautious

One step at a time folks.

 

[Devonai]

I meant insofar as Heller protects arms in the common use, which a smart gun clearly is not.