Weinberg writes the AG to activate the smart gun law

[ben english 0]

While you've opened the window and seen a glimpse of what goes on in NJ, you have (no offense) NO CONCEPT of the utter disdain NJ's politicians have for the tax payer.  This situation, in fact, stretches across ALL political parties in NJ.

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

[djg0770 481]

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

 

I wish we didn't have to explain it.  I wish logic prevailed.  I wish... I wish... (clicks heels of hunting boots together three times) I wish I wasn't in NJ anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Damn.  Didn't work.

[Underdog 1,593]

I wish we didn't have to explain it.  I wish logic prevailed.  I wish... I wish... (clicks heels of hunting boots together three times) I wish I wasn't in NJ anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Damn.  Didn't work.

 

 

Ya might need to change the batteries in your ruby slippers.

[Parker 213]

Ben,

 

Our friend Respect2A has hit the nail on the head.  This is NJ where a 17 round tube fed semi auto 22 rifle is banned as an assault weapon.  This is NJ where a law about blackjacks and brass knuckles had a reference to a "slungshot" which some genius in the legislature changed to "slingshot" thinking it was a typo now making 10 yr old boys felons.  This is NJ where we EXPECT our politicians to be corrupt, where running away with money is no big deal but clogging traffic to a bridge for 2 days is enough to get a full Senate investigation.

 

This is NJ, if you're old enough, you'll understand my reference to Bizzaro World where everything is backwards.  Here, the criminals are not prosecuted for gun violations, only the law abiding citizens.  That CT thing where hundreds of thousands refused to register weapons?  Here in NJ, they'd crack open the registration forms at the State Police and start breaking down doors.  But it's perfectly fine to let the gangs and criminals run wild in Camden, Newark, Paterson, and many other "inner cities" in this cesspool of civilization.

 

While you've opened the window and seen a glimpse of what goes on in NJ, you have (no offense) NO CONCEPT of the utter disdain NJ's politicians have for the tax payer.  This situation, in fact, stretches across ALL political parties in NJ.

 

Logic died long ago in NJ.  Highest taxes, nearly the highest car insurance, most densely populated state, worst gun laws...

+1

 

I'm clicking my L.L. Bean MHS's in anticipation of departure down the road.

[TooBigToFit 2]

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.

 

Hey there, thanks for stopping by. If you don't mind, I'm gonna throw in my thoughts about your analysis. Some of it might be tinged with the pessimistic knowledge of NJ gun laws, but overall I'm trying to look at it from an engineering/technical writing point of view.

 

 

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".

 

 

While we all think this is true by common sense interpretation of the law, it's often the case that in the view of the law, an object can be considered a collection of individual parts. That is, in this case, the watch AND the gun are an assembly of parts as a whole considered to be a handgun system. The fact that it functions as a watch is a secondary feature to the design.

 

 

 

This handgun does not meet that standard. Any RFID device can be remotely jammed, easily.

 

 

 

If I'm not mistaken, your mentioning of RFID jamming is in respect to an RFID jammer preventing the gun from firing. Although this is true (and one of the sucky parts of smart guns), I don't think this is what the law is talking about when it says "cannot be readily deactivated." It is talking about the smart gun technology as a whole. That is, in accordance to the law, you should not be able to turn your smart gun into a "dumb gun" readily or easily. An RFID jammer will not turn it into a dumb gun. The closest thing that technology can do to invalidating this part of the law is cloning the RFID info and placing a tag near the gun such that the gun thinks that it is always authenticated (but the smart gun technology itself is still active). It does bring up the question though, of how easy it is to turn this smart gun into a dumb gun. Somewhere along the lines, there's something that you can reverse engineer. The question is how easily that is done.

 

 

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 anauthorized user.

 

 

The gun requires you to enter a PIN into the watch. A pin is a method of authorizing users.

 

 

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.

 

 

See above for info about needing a PIN. In absence of a written standard of recognized user, I think it would be fair to say that a PIN would be a legally acceptable standard.

 

I agree with most of the rest of your post, with a few exceptions.

 

 

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?

 

 

You gotta remember, there's a varying degree of pro-gun sentiments that people (and dealers) can have. I don't see a truly pro gun dealer carrying this, but I can see a big box store (say Walmart), or a "fudd/you-don't-need-10-rounds-to-kill-a-deer" gun shop carrying it. As for dealers in other states, I'd reckon a lot don't even know about our smart gun situations. They have enough to worry about with their own state and federal laws.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but that's a look at the law from an electrical engineer's standpoint. Doesn't look pretty, I know, but there's light at the end of the tunnel. There's plenty of legal ammo to attack this law, but going through the court system can be a painful and dangerous route.

[ryan_j 0]

We should all write the legislature and cite this study from the violence policy center, as to why smart guns aren't effective.

 

 

Smart Gun 2013.pdf

[Shawnmoore81 623]

Maybe we should write them and request the activate the 2nd amendment.

[ben english 0]

I don't mind at all.  I like hearing another view; it helps me know when I've missed something.

 

...an object can be considered a collection of individual parts.
 

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.

 

If I'm not mistaken, your mentioning of RFID jamming is in respect to an RFID jammer preventing the gun from firing. Although this is true (and one of the sucky parts of smart guns), I don't think this is what the law is talking about when it says "cannot be readily deactivated."

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.

 

A pin is a method of authorizing users.
 

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.

 

...there's a varying degree of pro-gun sentiments that people (and dealers) can have. I don't see a truly pro gun dealer carrying this, but I can see a big box store (say Walmart), or a "fudd/you-don't-need-10-rounds-to-kill-a-deer" gun shop carrying it.
 

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?

 

As for dealers in other states, I'd reckon a lot don't even know about our smart gun situations. They have enough to worry about with their own state and federal laws.

 

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.

[MrSurfboard 1]

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?

Great post, however this is NJ we are talking about. No doubt our left leaning NJ Supreme Court would uphold every aspect of this law. 

[Bully 749]

Just a quick article on why this could be VERY dangerous and truly signal the beginning of the end of 2A.

 

http://www.alloutdoor.com/2014/02/19/smart-guns-nullify-amendment/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2014-02-25&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter

 

 

C

[chris327 30]

Chris, did you just get that email too? funny i see that post and check my email and its there.

[Midwest 28]

Did anyone see this??? Federal Smart Gun Law Proposal

 

Proposed Federal Gun Legislation SB2068

Legislation Overview

Title: Handgun Trigger Safety Act of 2014

Subject:

Description: Handgun Trigger Safety Act of 2014

Session: 113th Congress

Last Action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Last Action Date: February 27, 2014

Link: NA

Sponsors

Note: the first sponsor listed is normally the primary sponsor. If a sponsor's name is a hyperlink you can click on it to 'follow the money'.

2 sponsors: Markey, Edward J.; Warren, Elizabeth

 

 

 

https://amgoa.org/gun-law-texts/United-States//2014/SB2068-Introduced-2014-03-04.pdf

 

"

[ryan_j 0]

Yeah that's Ed Markey's proposal. He wants an enhanced version of the NJ law at the federal level.

[ryan_j 0]

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?

 

 

Hi Ben,

 

Welcome! 

 

First off I must say I really appreciate that our Texas brethren are sticking up for us. 

 

As for the law, sometimes it really doesn't matter what the law says. All it takes is the AG or a judge to figure out something and then suddenly we have a longstanding regulation.

 

The proof of this is the carry permit law. We require "justifiable need" to obtain a carry permit. Nobody defined what it was. A few court cases are heard, then all of a sudden we have a definition. Just poof out of thin air.

 

That said, with Christie at the helm, I don't think it will be activated. He may be an Obama hugger and a RINO but he's not stupid. He knows gun control is the kiss of death for him. 

[Michael2013 56]

There are no smart guns on sale anymore: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/07/california-firearms-shop-backs-away-from-smart-gun-after-backlash/?intcmp=obnetwork

[n4p226r 105]

There are no smart guns on sale anymore: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/07/california-firearms-shop-backs-away-from-smart-gun-after-backlash/?intcmp=obnetwork

Nothing stopping an anti gunner from opening an ffl to sell only these though.

 

The problem isn't that the gun is for sale. I could care less about the technology being explored. The problem is politicians using this technology as a gun ban

[Michael2013 56]

Nothing stopping an anti gunner from opening an ffl to sell only these though.

They'll be out of business. Unless getting some very special support.

 

The problem isn't that the gun is for sale. I could care less about the technology being explored. The problem is politicians using this technology as a gun ban

So true...

[Nikos 31]

 

If I'm not mistaken, your mentioning of RFID jamming is in respect to an RFID jammer preventing the gun from firing. Although this is true (and one of the sucky parts of smart guns), I don't think this is what the law is talking about when it says "cannot be readily deactivated." It is talking about the smart gun technology as a whole. That is, in accordance to the law, you should not be able to turn your smart gun into a "dumb gun" readily or easily. An RFID jammer will not turn it into a dumb gun. The closest thing that technology can do to invalidating this part of the law is cloning the RFID info and placing a tag near the gun such that the gun thinks that it is always authenticated (but the smart gun technology itself is still active). It does bring up the question though, of how easy it is to turn this smart gun into a dumb gun. Somewhere along the lines, there's something that you can reverse engineer. The question is how easily that is done.

 

It would be in our best interest not to refer to conventional, dependable firearms as "dumb guns" since that would fortify the anti's propaganda machine. The "dumb guns" moniker should be used exclusively when referring to the political "smart guns". 

[BCeagle 12]

Its actually a great idea, if any guns store sells this gun, they should be boycotted.  Dont buy a target, dont buy a single bullet.

[Sota 1,191]

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 had to pull that particular segment out to comment. This is NJ... they will do the exact opposite of what is right, true, proper, morally defensible, and even remotely intelligent. NJ is the state most in need of rule .308 being enacted with extreme prejudice.

[junkmanted 54]

I guess if they criminalize all of us, we won't have anything to lose.

If your going to be a criminal be a good one 

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

I still have never received an answer to my original question. Is this (Weinberg formally contacting the AG) just speculation based on the Washington Times article, or did she absolutely contact him to implement the "Smart Gun" law. If the latter, I have seen nothing in the press - and this would definitely have had a press release, probably from Weinberg's office.

 

The store owner featured in the article now claims he never "carried" them in the store and is trying to distance himself, as much as possible, from the whole issue. I can't believe that someone in his position couldn't foresee the negative backlash this caused him.

 

Soooo.... did she or didn't she?

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[jtd771 18]

I still have never received an answer to my original question. Is this (Weinberg formally contacting the AG) just speculation based on the Washington Times article, or did she absolutely contact him to implement the "Smart Gun" law. If the latter, I have seen nothing in the press - and this would definitely have had a press release, probably from Weinberg's office.

 

The store owner featured in the article now claims he never "carried" them in the store and is trying to distance himself, as much as possible, from the whole issue. I can't believe that someone in his position couldn't foresee the negative backlash this caused him.

 

Soooo.... did she or didn't she?

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

From the Washington Post's article on February 19, 2014:

"Meanwhile, the primary sponsor of the New Jersey law, Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg (D), sent a letter to Hoffman after she learned last month that a smart gun in California could be on sale soon. The Democrat reminded Hoffman of his responsibilities under the law.

“I expect your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to your reply,” Weinberg wrote.

She has not received a reply."

Assuming the Washington Post got their facts straight it looks like the letter was sent but I've not heard of a response yet.

[raz-0 1,259]

I still have never received an answer to my original question. Is this (Weinberg formally contacting the AG) just speculation based on the Washington Times article, or did she absolutely contact him to implement the "Smart Gun" law. If the latter, I have seen nothing in the press - and this would definitely have had a press release, probably from Weinberg's office.

 

The store owner featured in the article now claims he never "carried" them in the store and is trying to distance himself, as much as possible, from the whole issue. I can't believe that someone in his position couldn't foresee the negative backlash this caused him.

 

Soooo.... did she or didn't she?

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

I can't believe it either. Given that the manufacturer posted pictures of him stocking it, he's SOL. He might as well find a new line of work unless he has lots of sweet juicy LEO contracts. 

 

As for is it real or isn't it, I don't know. 

 

As for will it pass muster with the law? One can only speculate, so I will. 

 

We have had the gun with an enabling accessory model for some time.

 

1) They did not pass muster back then, someone would have to take responsibility for a change in this direction. 

 

2) There have been a number of LEO gorups reviewing the technology, this specific method was branded as unacceptable whereas things like the grip pressure biometric were labeled as "we'll have to see" more or less. That leaves them in a position of justifying why this is not a flawed approach to the problem whereas with a new unevaluated approach, they would say we've got the new solution and it must be awesome. 

 

3) The law pre-dates heller. Anyone telling her anything other than "we have to wait for a center fire version in a reasonable cartridge" would be a moron. You have a clear right to defense int he home by SCOTUS, and limiting people to this gun, both price wise and caliber wise. 

 

IMO RF isn't going to cut it primarily because it has to be an FCC approved device. Which means that as a retail product, it pretty much has to accept all sorts of interference. Which means that it has to ship with a failure state looming over it. This means it either fails functional or fails non-functional. I'm pretty sure your average firearm will function in the presence of a buttload of FCC compliant RF which means it won't pass the sniff test of functioning as well as another gun. 

 

In general, without electric primers in play, I don't see ANY gun that functions in anything resembling a traditional manner passing the test once it hits market. It'll simply be too easy to bypass. In the end, you will have a mechanical part you can either wedge in place or block, or you will be able to take the smarts out of the circuit and bridge a power supply via a switch in the correct off/on state. I do not think this will pass the "not readily deactivated" requirement of the law. 

 

Also, IMO you won't be seeing anything less "Awesome" and integrated than the grip recognition technology. No pins, no fobs. Why? Because it would require lots of career politicians to either explain why they waited so long, or to accept having the finger be pointed at them for same by a newbie. They NEVER hold themselves accountable for jack. SO....

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

raz-o:

 

That is a concise and logical analysis, which is why it probably means nothing in NJ where politicians legislate things about which they know nothing. Hell it's not just NJ, It's most politicians - remember, "...you have to pass it before you find out what's in it..."? All in all a very well thought out response.

 

I remember a personalization device that used to be advertised in the back of the NRA magazines probably 50 years ago. It was for S&W revolvers and it employed a magnetic ring the user had to wear. IIRC, the magnet in the ring pulled a mainspring blocking device out of the way to allow the firearm to function normally. I believe that you had to cut the grip frame for the install. Not sure how long they lasted, but their ads never grew larger about postage stamp size.

 

I hope that you're right Matt, but in NJ it's a crap shoot.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Respect2A 0]

One of my "favorite" things with this is that LEO's won't be using it. It's not practical enough for them, or for the bodyguards who protect these lawmakers, but it's good enough for us. That in itself shows what these people think of us the general public. We can't be trusted and literally aren't worth the powder to blow ourselves to hell in their eyes.

[Bt Doctur 188]

So, as I read the bill I am guilty of "possession, manufacturing, sale, electronic modifications,electronic manufacturing  and sale of RFUD jamming equipment,manufacturing dumb guns, etc,etc,etc

Thank You very much Mr.Mackey and Ms Warren.

Now if both of you stupid people would READ YOUR OWN BILL, it states that 45 law enforcement persons lost their lives from their own weapon.
Don`t you think this reason alone would be grounds for all law enforcement to use this new technology first.

Can you people even explain your thinking process?

[raz-0 1,259]

raz-o:

 

That is a concise and logical analysis, which is why it probably means nothing in NJ where politicians legislate things about which they know nothing. Hell it's not just NJ, It's most politicians - remember, "...you have to pass it before you find out what's in it..."? All in all a very well thought out response.

 

I remember a personalization device that used to be advertised in the back of the NRA magazines probably 50 years ago. It was for S&W revolvers and it employed a magnetic ring the user had to wear. IIRC, the magnet in the ring pulled a mainspring blocking device out of the way to allow the firearm to function normally. I believe that you had to cut the grip frame for the install. Not sure how long they lasted, but their ads never grew larger about postage stamp size.

 

I hope that you're right Matt, but in NJ it's a crap shoot.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

And my argument isn't about logic other than playing politics. If it just required a vote where a bunch of them could jump into the water without checking how deep it was as a group, I'm sure we'd be there already. AS I see it, the problem is someone will have to put their butt on the line to make it happen. Even if you get a dem gov with a disposable AG appointment, they have to rely on the circuit court to put their kiesters on the line ignoring the heller decision almost verbatim. Our ciruit is kind of awful, but I don't think they are quite that far out of whack.. yet. 

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

OMG, battling the antis is like playing Space Invaders.  They just keep coming at us!

(Anyone old enough to get that reference?)

[ryan_j 0]

OMG, battling the antis is like playing Space Invaders.  They just keep coming at us!

(Anyone old enough to get that reference?)

 

Yes, I got it...