The Brady Campaign has filed a smart gun lawsuit

[2damnold4this]

It looks like the Brady Campaign has filed a lawsuit to force New Jersey's AG to issue a report on whether a viable smart gun is on the market in the US.

I don't know what will happen but it could mean that the New Jersey law requiring only smart guns be sold will be invoked.

[2ndsojourn]

"... but it could mean that the New Jersey law requiring only smart guns be sold will be invoked."

I don't count on any anti gun bill in NJ to get revoked. Too many anti districts in North Jersey outnumbering the more sensible districts in the southern half. Check out the makeup of the voting district map. It's almost like mob rule.

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/districts/njmap210.html

Also, yesterday, a bill limiting magazines to 10 rounds passed state legislature and is now on Gov. Christie's desk. I don't think he has an NRA 'A' rating so who knows what he'll do. I'm expecting the worst.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Invoked, not revoked.

[Tom Servo]

Moving this to Law & Civil Rights.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That may be a good thing as the law is so ridiculous as to force a backlash or repeal. But that is just a guess. We can see if Gov. Christie does whatever.

[1-DAB]

fine, make the NJ state police be the first to trade in their guns for these. and when the president stops by to visit, his secret service detail has to do likewise.

what's that? they aren't reliable enough? guess you should consider scraping that law then.

if they aren't good enough for law enforcement, they aren't good enough for me.

[tomrkba]

That may be a good thing as the law is so ridiculous as to force a backlash or repeal.

EXCELLENT! This will show the true intent of the law.

[JimDandy]

The law specifically exempts law enforcement.

I doubt the law would get struck down. Even by the Heller court. What you MIGHT see is a Peruta style ruling that "as applied" it doesn't pass muster, because the core of the right is self defense, and the only handgun on the market is 22LR in caliber.

[speedrrracer]

I doubt the law would get struck down. Even by the Heller court. What you MIGHT see is a Peruta style ruling that "as applied" it doesn't pass muster, because the core of the right is self defense, and the only handgun on the market is 22LR in caliber.

The handgun that Dick Heller wanted to keep in D.C. was a .22LR, so I don't see how some anti-2A Northeast court would say anything other than "...and even as the Heller decision shows us that the 2A only protects firearms in the home, it clearly only protects 22 caliber revolvers, therefore we find against the plaintiff..."

Anyways, this kind of case needs to come to a head. Rosters, smart guns -- we need a ruling on this crap. I think it infringes not just from a 2A perspective, but also from a commerce perspective.

[JimDandy]

I have a feeling today's versions of Mr. Miller's attorneys would have the money to go to court if it got that far to demonstrate in common use for lawful purposes - and what could be called the highest lawful purpose i.e. the self defense of those who enforce the laws - unilaterally use higher caliber firearms.

[g.willikers]

There's been a steady stream of articles in the Washington Post lately on this subject.
Surprisingly, not all have been as supportive as expected.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/newsse...t=Submit+Query

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting set of articles. I hit the pay wall though. Eugene makes reasonable points that a reliable gun would be attractive and a reasonable product for some. The problem is the mandate and maybe EMP. I suppose the latter would be a problem if fighting the MUTOs (from ?).

David points out that the real reason for the gun is not safety but to interfer with and eventually eliminate handgun ownership. He regards the mandate as not being acceptable under Heller. David knows much more about this than me but I could see it being acceptable under wily old Scalia's reasonable crappola. That certainly is showing up against us in many locales.

If a gun could work and not mandated, then it's a free market decision. The unintended consequence of increasing gun ownership would be funny. Gun stores might make a business out of re-keying used guns.

We will see.

[44 AMP]

I see the problem as the way the law is worded. Smart guns don't have to work, or be reliable, just SOLD somewhere in the US. Then 3 years after that date (determined by the NJ AG report - the one supposedly given every 6mo), the clock starts and when its up, all handguns sold in NJ have to be smart guns.

Doesn't this mean that previously owned (and legal) non-smart guns can no longer be sold? Not just new guns made in the traditional manner (non-smart), but all non-smart guns? (there goes your used market)

Right or wrong, it is the law in NJ, and I don't hold the Brady bunch in any less regard because they want that law enforced.

I don't think it's possible for me to hold them in less regard...but that's another matter...

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JimDandy

I have a feeling today's versions of Mr. Miller's attorneys would have the money to go to court if it got that far to demonstrate in common use for lawful purposes - and what could be called the highest lawful purpose i.e. the self defense of those who enforce the laws - unilaterally use higher caliber firearms.

Don't forget that the judges in both the New York challenge to the SAFE law and the Connecticut challenge to their new AWB both acknowledged that AR-15s are weapons in common use ... and decided it was okay to ban them anyway.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I read a book on judicial decision making - it's conclusion that was for the most part judges decide such issues on their own political beliefs and then look for precedents to support such.

So such things are and will be common. Antigun judges will take wily Old bird Scalia's words and use them for what they want.