ben english

The MagnaTrigger was and remains a proven, useful technology. It doesn't meet the legal definition of a smart gun but it provides much of the theoretical benefits without all the drawbacks. You can still get it from Tarnhelm Police Supply. See: http://www.tarnhelm.com/magna-trigger/gun/safety/magna1.html This technology nearly died out a while back when floppy disks were in use. The ring you had to wear would corrupt data on computer disks. Now that USB drives are the norm, that's no longer a problem.

Yeah, I seem to get that from the responses. In Texas, we have a part-time legislature. It meets for 144 days every 2 years. The oldest joke in Texas politics is that we'd be better off if they met for 2 days every 144 years. It kinda sounds like y'all need something similar. Back to the subject at hand, I still maintain that this particular firearm fails in multiple ways to meet the "smart gun" definition laid down in your law and therefore won't cause you any problems. I hope I'm right.

I don't mind at all. I like hearing another view; it helps me know when I've missed something. I agree. However, in this case, the pistol is also sold separately. It can be used by itself, without the watch. If you buy the watch, you then turn it into a "smart gun" by activating the rfid-based unlocking mechanism. It would be ridiculously disingenuous for the state of NJ to simply re-define terms and say that the definition of "handgun" now must also includes all the optional extras you can buy along with the handgun. Such a definition does violence to the plain-English meaning of the words used. I think you're probably right when it comes to the original intent of the people writing it. However, the wording completely lacks any reference to who is doing the deactivating. The law simply says that if a pistol CAN be readily deactivated, it doesn't meet the definition of "personalized handgun". I think that's good enough to argue that this pistol does not bring the NJ smart gun law into effect. I was unaware that the pistol required entering a pin. In that case there's (arguably) a method for authorization and recognition in place. I can't imagine, given the political climate being described to me, that your AG would then rely on this point to reject this particular pistol from triggering the law. However, there are still plenty of other reasons why this particular firearm does not meet the definition of a "personalized handgun" and, therefore, should not be a problem for NJ gun owners. Sorry, but that didn't occur to me. I doubt the big box stores would buy into this since it's such a bad product and, therefore, likely unprofitable. However, the notion of "fudd" gun shops intrigues me. I don't know of any of those in my area and there are over 30 dealers within an hour of me. Some aren't so smart; one was dumb enough to let Piers Morgan use his facilities for a hit piece on guns. None of them, though, are major sellouts. OK, I know one big dealer who comes close. He carries modern equipment but was slow to stock it. In the past, he has agitated for a ban on mail-order ammo sales and all gun shows, basically because he didn't want to have to change his business methods and keep up. His profits were being hurt by actually having to work for sales. However, that guy hasn't raised a peep in years. The backlash is too quick and severe for him to open his yap with the kind of self-serving garbage he's spewed in the distant past. He finally learned that lesson. I thought pretty much all dealers had learned a lesson about hanging together or hanging separately. Perhaps I'm wrong. Are "fudd" dealers a reality in NJ? Perhaps. But as I said, we're talking about it in Texas and I'm sure the same is true elsewhere. If one of our own did something that severely screwed over all the shooters in another state, they'd find their local customers *very* unhappy with them. I'm seeking more information but it appears that's what happened to the California dealer who was considering carrying this new pistol. Thanks very much for the additional viewpoint.

No offense taken. I was seeking a more-local perspective and you (and others) provided it. I genuinely appreciate that.

The text is here: P.L.2002, c.130 (S573 2R SCS) I joined this forum to take in y'alls thoughts on the situation. We're discussing it in a Texas-based forum and, believe me, our hearts go out to NJ gun owners. Y'all go through a lot. On that other forum, I posted this: ------------------------------------------------ The definition of a "personalized handgun" is: After reading that, I feel much better for our NJ brethren. This new handgun does not meet the NJ definition of "personalized handgun" and should not trigger the law. Why? Let me count the ways - The law requires This handgun does not incorporate the technology within its design. It incorporates the technology within the design of both the handgun and the watch, a combination not covered by simply "handgun". "A handgun and a watch" is NOT the same as "a handgun". The law requires This handgun does not meet that standard. Any RFID device can be remotely jammed, easily. The law requires This handgun does not meet that standard. There's nothing about the presence of the rfid watch that means the user is actually authorized. If you steal the watch and gun combo, you can use it; however, you're definitely not an authorized user. The law requires This handgun will not be called upon to meet this standard because there is no definition in the law for "recognized user". It seems clear from the context that the intent is for the handgun to recognize the legal owner. This handgun does not do that. It only recognizes the watch. A tortured definition of "recognized" could be employed to allow the coding inside the firearm to determine the standard of recognition but since that standard, by design, cannot be limited to any particular person, it clearly does not fulfill the intent of the law. Absent a clear definition of "recognized user", the entire concept of "personalized handgun" under NJ law simply collapses. The law requires that personalized handguns meet mechanical reliability standards vetted by the AG. To wit: This simple-sounding requirement opens an avenue to block enforcement forever. If what is and isn't legal is determined by an AG determination about (see below) mechanical reliability, then the process of AG testing is subject to challenge. Absent testing, the complete lack of definition of "reasonable means" opens yet another avenue for legal action to challenge enforcement. An active community of shooters who take the state to court could use this partial sentence to tie the matter up for years. The law requires that That standard is meaningless. It gives the manufacturer control over the legality of their product. They need simply lie and say "Yeah, it meets our standards. Sure." On the basis that no manufacturer should be given the authority to determine if their own product is legal in the state, I'm surprised this language made it into the statute. Even anti-gun legislators should be offended by the notion that their laws can be changed simply by what a manufacturer writes in their marketing materials. A successful court challenge to the triggering of this law via any personalized handgun approved via this avenue is highly likely to succeed. The wording is simply ridiculous. The law requires This handgun does not meet that standard because current commercially available handguns do not require you to carry another device with you to make them work; they do not fail to work in the absence of that separate device. Thus, this new firearm does not rise to the level of reliability required by this wording. Therefore, it does not trigger the law to come into effect. From a more practical approach, in another section the law requires that personalized handguns must be available at retail before the law goes into effect. Specifically, What dealer would attempt to screw over every other dealer in the state? What dealer would so completely alienate every current and potential handgun owner in the state? What dealer in another state would be so oblivious to their actions that they'd be willing to terribly (perhaps mortally) damage all the dealers in NJ? The first dealer to accept delivery of a pistol that triggers the activation of this law would instantly become a pariah in the gun community. They would surely go out of business. Can anybody point me to more info about the dealer in California who was thinking about taking delivery? I'd like to know the full story there. Just how crazy was/is that FFL holder? ------------------------------------- To my reckoning, this gun won't activate the NJ law. At least, that's the way I read it. However, y'all have to deal with the lawmakers and enforcers in your state. I don't. So, I'm just spitballing this thing. I'd be interested in your perspectives on the way I read the statute. Do any of you who are so much closer to the situation than I am have a different take on it?