Cemeterys Gun Blob 165 Posted May 2, 2014 I would post the link but I don't know how. Google " Sen Weinberg + armatix" and there is a Washington Post story that quotes Sen Weinberg's letter to the AG from back in Feb. so it's NOT a rumor. This was when the CA shop had them for sale. She was one of the co sponsor of the bill from 10 years ago so she wants this law enforced. Here is said article...... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/02/19/for-chris-christie-a-smart-gun-problem/ The N.J. law requires the state attorney general to certify that the gun is for sale, whether it meets the definition under the law, and to notify the governor and legislature. 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. And we all know that there is no smart gun for sale anywhere in the US at this time. So no, no three year clock has started ticking down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shawnmoore81 623 Posted May 2, 2014 Said they won't stock it now Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan_G 0 Posted May 2, 2014 I stopped by there today. They are the nicest people I've met at a gun shop. Andy apologized for anything he may have done to us and spoke with me for a bit. I also bought a shirt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kaiser7 33 Posted May 2, 2014 Personally, I think that people were right to get upset. HOWEVER, I cannot condone anyone who threatened violence, or were even exceedingly abrasive towards the man. I believe that people should have said something to the effect of "Good day, I saw you were going to sell this pistol, which would trigger a law which would outlaw all standard pistols in NJ. I hope that you will choose not to stock this item, as you seem to be a dedicated 2A supporter, and I'm certain you wouldn't want to strip NJ gun owners of their rights. I also fear that the bad publicity may cause your business harm, as people may not want to support you thinking you support anti-gun legislation. Please reconsider stocking this pistol. Thanks, and have a good day"I mean, at first I was pretty pissed, and I'm not even a guy who's really into handguns (preferring rifles). However, should I want a dumb-gun at some point before I can leave this state, I would like the ability to get it. But when I saw people were threatening him, and just being dicks about the whole thing, I was appalled. We shouldn't attack our own, or even antis like that, as it reflects poorly on us, and makes gun owners out like all the stereotypes. It plays into the anti's hands. Andy seems like a decent guy, and I don't think he meant any harm. The firearm community could, and should have urged him not to stock this firearm in a better way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deerpark 83 Posted May 2, 2014 Stop constantly mentioning this? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
checko 180 Posted May 2, 2014 Stop constantly mentioning this? You think they'll forget if we don't talk about it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deerpark 83 Posted May 2, 2014 You think they'll forget if we don't talk about it? Hopefully. Theyre not that bright. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SmartAss 11 Posted May 2, 2014 I hate to give him any ideas but what if Bloombooger gets one of his fellow communists to open a gun shop and starts selling these - that would activate the law, correct? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deerpark 83 Posted May 2, 2014 I hate to give him any ideas but what if Bloombooger gets one of his fellow communists to open a gun shop and starts selling these - that would activate the law, correct? Shaddup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
High Exposure 5,634 Posted May 3, 2014 Does this pistol actually meet the State's definition of a "Personalized Handgun"? dd. "Personalized handgun" means a handgun which incorporates within its design, and as part of its original manufacture, technology which automatically limits its operational use and which cannot be readily deactivated, so that it may only be fired by an authorized or recognized user. The technology limiting the handgun's operational use may include, but not be limited to: radio frequency tagging, touch memory, remote control, fingerprint, magnetic encoding and other automatic user identification systems utilizing biometric, mechanical or electronic systems. No make or model of a handgun shall be deemed to be a "personalized handgun" unless the Attorney General has determined, through testing or other reasonable means, that the handgun meets any reliability standards that the manufacturer may require for its commercially available handguns that are not personalized or, if the manufacturer has no such reliability standards, the handgun meets the reliability standards generally used in the industry for commercially available handguns.I can think of at least a half dozen ways that this thing can be fired by persons that are not authorized to do so. Based in the definition above, a "smart gun" is not automatically a "personalized handgun" in and of itself and in my opinion, which is worth what you pay for it, the firearm in question while being "smart" has not qualified itself as "personalized". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dutchman 1 Posted May 3, 2014 Thanks to the free states, we may be off the hook (and I know its effing msnbc) http://www.msnbc.com/all/democrat-we-will-reverse-smart-gun-law Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
checko 180 Posted May 3, 2014 Hopefully. Theyre not that bright. Weinberg didn't forget. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManWithBeard 2 Posted May 3, 2014 Thanks to the free states, we may be off the hook (and I know its effing msnbc) http://www.msnbc.com/all/democrat-we-will-reverse-smart-gun-law The state of New Jersey may be "of the hook", but that doesn't mean that they won't try to push it harder at the federal level. They won't stop until they get what they want. Simple as that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ogfarmer 138 Posted May 3, 2014 are you kidding me with weinbergs nra deal, they are acting like wolves in sheeps clothing. believe me it will not be good if the nra backs down in order to reverse our bill, whats to stop them from creating a new bill at drop of a dime here or anyother state Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted May 3, 2014 Yeah right, she will introduce a bill and the kill it in comitee and say she held her end of the bargain. The good news is that I think she realizes that is not enforceable post heller common use clause. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nikos 31 Posted May 3, 2014 Yeah right, she will introduce a bill and the kill it in comitee and say she held her end of the bargain. The good news is that I think she realizes that is not enforceable post heller common use clause. If this law goes into effect, wouldn't that be an antitrust issue as the law essentially would grant a monopoly to Armatix? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ddc2003 0 Posted May 3, 2014 I think a lot of us are forgetting the fact that somebody someday will sell this gun. Whether this guy sells smart guns doesn't really matter. As long as the gun exists, someone will be willing to sell it. It's a losing fight. All your emails and calls to this small business owner is a complete waste of time. If you really want to make a difference, go volunteer for a pro gun candidate who will repeal the 3 year law. Don't know one? Then be the candidate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,256 Posted May 3, 2014 I hate to give him any ideas but what if Bloombooger gets one of his fellow communists to open a gun shop and starts selling these - that would activate the law, correct? I pointed out in a discussion with some antis about this that armatix could be selling them if they want to. FFLs aren't expensive, and a small investment could get them a distributor network in place. There's a reason they aren't doing that. There's also a reason it got put on the approved registry in CA despite not meeting the current criteria. That's because nobody is interested in the business of selling it, they are only interested in the politics of selling it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted May 3, 2014 If this law goes into effect, wouldn't that be an antitrust issue as the law essentially would grant a monopoly to Armatix? You'd think so. That's why I'm not sure they actually really want this to kick in. Between the antitrust issue and the common use thing this going to court could actually hurt their long term goals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silverado427 10,552 Posted May 3, 2014 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/03/maryland-gun-dealer-drops-plans-to-sell-smart-guns-after-backlash/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/threats-against-maryland-gun-dealer-raise-doubts-about-future-of-smart-guns/2014/05/02/8a4f7482-d227-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted May 3, 2014 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/03/maryland-gun-dealer-drops-plans-to-sell-smart-guns-after-backlash/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/threats-against-maryland-gun-dealer-raise-doubts-about-future-of-smart-guns/2014/05/02/8a4f7482-d227-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html Once again we don't do ourselves any favors... Death threats? Really? There are some Internet Rangers who need to grow up and see the reality of their actions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OchoBlue 3 Posted May 3, 2014 I would think the NRA won't accept Weinsten's "deal". Are we going to give up more rights at just the threat / promise of legislation now? Like the antis - we need to not give an inch. Is this "deal" any better than the one to define in VERY LIMITED instances what acceptable deviation is for the 10 rd mag limit? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted May 3, 2014 I think a lot of us are forgetting the fact that somebody someday will sell this gun. Whether this guy sells smart guns doesn't really matter. As long as the gun exists, someone will be willing to sell it. It's a losing fight. All your emails and calls to this small business owner is a complete waste of time. If you really want to make a difference, go volunteer for a pro gun candidate who will repeal the 3 year law. Don't know one? Then be the candidate. All my reps are pro gun. You guys have work to do. I will gladly donate money to help pro gun candidates get elected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted May 3, 2014 Once again we don't do ourselves any favors... Death threats? Really? There are some Internet Rangers who need to grow up and see the reality of their actions. I think death threats were dramatic. Another article said someone said "you will get what's coming" which he interpreted as a death threat. I don't think there were any actual death threats. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n4p226r 105 Posted May 3, 2014 I would think the NRA won't accept Weinsten's "deal". Are we going to give up more rights at just the threat / promise of legislation now? Like the antis - we need to not give an inch. Is this "deal" any better than the one to define in VERY LIMITED instances what acceptable deviation is for the 10 rd mag limit? I'd say its a good deal for now at least. Since this gun will eventually be sold, why not kill the law and let it be sold. We know the fight is coming. When the gun is finally sold and fails miserably and the market talks, then maybe we dissuade other companies from trying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kaiser7 33 Posted May 3, 2014 I think death threats were dramatic. Another article said someone said "you will get what's coming" which he interpreted as a death threat. I don't think there were any actual death threats. It's a lesson that shouldn't be lost on NJ gun owners though. People don't communicate their ideas clearly--much like our legislature makes laws that are murky and up to interpretation. If people were referring to his business not doing well by saying, "You will get what's coming", they should have said, "You will lose my business, and your sales will definitely hurt from this decision". I don't know if it's because my mom is anal about proper language usage, or because I have a lot of lawyers in my family, but I do know that using proper language to communicate ideas clearly is key. And the people that said such vague things are idiots for not being clearer as to their meaning. I'd say its a good deal for now at least. Since this gun will eventually be sold, why not kill the law and let it be sold. We know the fight is coming. When the gun is finally sold and fails miserably and the market talks, then maybe we dissuade other companies from trying It can be preemptive though. Armatix can't survive forever without generating revenue. I'm not sure what their business model is--perhaps they have other revenue streams. But I think their idea is that they want to push this technology simply because no other gun makers will touch it. They're trying to utilize political force to gain a lion's share of the market. All monopolies have existed due to some favorable treatment from the government, whether intentional or not. Assuming smartguns are their only revenue stream (or potential revenue stream), they cannot last forever. Eventually their starting capitol will dry up, and investors will be wary of buying stock, as they can't generate a profit. I believe the same thing happened to Metal Storm, they were touted to be the next hotness for a while, but being unable to get the technology to take off, and get it in stores, they ran out of capital, investors stopped putting money into the company, and they withered away. As long as companies don't stock their product, they'll be doomed, and probably much sooner than if they fail to sell once on shelves. Telling investors you have a new product that might do well in the market will generate some capital, but if you can't even get it sold, they'll quickly lose interest. If it gets on shelves, but sales figures are low, they can claim that they just need money to better market it or whatever, which can prolong the amount of time people are willing to invest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted May 3, 2014 Did you just say "anal", and "proper language usage" in the same sentence? Not that I disagree with your points. You're right that we need to be crystal clear in intent. Media, and pols look to contort everything they can. Why give them easy layups. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManWithBeard 2 Posted May 3, 2014 Armatix is a Germany based company. Germany has a country wide law stating that once the technology is acceptable, the only gun you can buy is a "smart gun" and all other guns must be retrofitted to acceptable standards. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BCeagle 12 Posted May 4, 2014 Question about being sold in NJ. Does this mean if the law went into affect, I could still buy a handgun from Buds and have my NJ FFL do the transfer? Does the sale take place in NJ or KY? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSD1026 48 Posted May 4, 2014 transfer is in NJ.. Buds gun shop will not be on the P2P anywhere.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites