45Doll 5,848 Posted May 13, 2015 I'll believe it when I see it. But apparently they're thinking about it. I mean Democrats. http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/05/nj_lawmakers_may_scrap_controversial_smart_gun_law.html#incart_river Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark_anthony_78 0 Posted May 13, 2015 Where's Admiral Ackbar when you need him? "Mossbacher believes the smart gun technology is so superior that most consumers would eventually to embrace it the same way that they did airbags and anti-lock brakes on cars. But instead of arguing for mandating the smart gun's use, he says he wants the state's largest purchasers of firearms to reach that decision on their own." Just try buying a car without ABS, air bags, traction control, TPMS, etc. now... even if you don't prefer the "superior" technology. Once the first smart gun is sold, they'll retro-actively put this ban back in place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T Bill 649 Posted May 13, 2015 Back door attempt to get the legislation going for smart gun. Once sales are offered watch what happens. Do not trust Greenwald or Weinberg, the confiscate queen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parker 213 Posted May 13, 2015 Seems Armatix just ousted their European CEO. http://www.examiner.com/article/documents-point-to-smart-gun-developer-s-ouster-at-armatix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,134 Posted May 13, 2015 Back door attempt to get the legislation going for smart gun. Once sales are offered watch what happens. Do not trust Greenwald or Weinberg, the confiscate queen. Excactly! cant wait to see how leo and military react to the trade show offering this smart crap...... oh and I like how CC said the demorats have hampered his ability to expand 2A rights lol, must have missed his press release of fixes ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,125 Posted May 13, 2015 Once the first smart gun is sold, they'll retro-actively put this ban back in place. Looks like we're all thinking alike about this. They realize that their law is having the unintended consequence of blocking the development of smart gun technology, so they're willing to table it for the time being in order to eventually get what they want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
revenger 472 Posted May 13, 2015 also add a line in the law that makes the manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer and legislature 100% liable for any malfunction that may occur and an accessory to any crime that may be perpetrated against any citizen who may be injured while trying to use one of these things to protect ones self. than see how fast they try to develop one of these things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan 177 Posted May 13, 2015 It's a complete and utter trap. They'll scrap it for now, make deals with other nanny state's legislators to not enact tough smart gun laws. Instead they will enact laws that promote smart guns to be sold in stores, like tax credits or rebates. Pro gun civil rights folks will rejoice and life goes on. After there are a half dozen makers of smart guns being sold in stores... boom the wave of smart gun control laws will come forth similar to the one on the books now, except there will already be smart guns being sold in gun shops around the country. Sure it will take 10-15 years to happen, but the anti's are in it now for the long term investment potential.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin125 4,772 Posted May 14, 2015 Sure it will take 10-15 years to happen, but the anti's are in it now for the long term investment potential.... So should we be.... also add a line in the law that makes the manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer and legislature 100% liable for any malfunction that may occur and an accessory to any crime that may be perpetrated against any citizen who may be injured while trying to use one of these things to protect ones self. than see how fast they try to develop one of these things. Don't need a new law for that. Just like you don't need a new law to sue Beechcraft for getting killed after flying your plane into a thunderstorm. Or should I say...your estate doesn't need a law... You'll likely be dead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njpilot 671 Posted October 23, 2015 Well, looks like the inventor is looking to build a 9mm version and has police interest. Article say weinberg is supposed to decide on Mon if they will drop the mandate. They probably drop it to get the guns in stores and sold, then pass a new mandate which the next governor will sign, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/renewed-push-for-smart-guns-could-trigger-a-new-furor-over-the-technology/2015/10/21/156451a4-7813-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T Bill 649 Posted October 23, 2015 Hey Armatix, has it gotten cheaper to "donate" to the NJ electorate campaigns than wait out "possible" smart gun owners? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted October 23, 2015 If these guns are so reliable and hack proof, then Weinburg should have no problem with law abiding citizens carrying them with CCW, right ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,259 Posted October 23, 2015 i don't give a shit WHAT they say. proof is in the pudding. put this in trial with every police force within the state, including the state pd. let them run these things for a good 10 years. that'd be long enough to gather good accurate data on the reliability of these things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,125 Posted October 23, 2015 i don't give a shit WHAT they say. proof is in the pudding. put this in trial with every police force within the state, including the state pd. let them run these things for a good 10 years. that'd be long enough to gather good accurate data on the reliability of these things. Amen to that! I was talking with some anti-gun people recently, and some of them felt that "smart gun" technology was going to go a long way toward preventing accidents and suicides. Reliability and cost issues did to seem to concern them. And one would need to be incredibly naive not to see through Weinberg's plan to suspend the law until the technology has obtained a firm foothold, and then to turn around and mandate it. I really can't see the concept ever gaining traction based solely on market demand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,134 Posted October 23, 2015 If these guns are so reliable and hack proof, then Weinburg should have no problem with law abiding citizens carrying them with CCW, right ? or any leos assigned as their security/bodyguards Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,259 Posted October 23, 2015 or any leos assigned as their security/bodyguards yes, add that to my desire to see them tested by police agencies first. also, i should clarify.......i don't have anything against police, as i think you all know..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
10X 3,278 Posted October 23, 2015 I'll be willing to concede that the technology is reliable when the Secret Service detail protecting the POTUS Starts using it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brucin 918 Posted October 24, 2015 It's based on technology which in my 30 plus years of dealing with it will on occasion fail. If it fails when you need it you'll never need it again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites