Another "Smart Gun" Bill, but what about Manufacturers Liabilities?

[44 AMP]

There is nothing stopping the market from taking smart guns to heart. Other than our concerns about their reliability, our personal opinions of what is cost effective, and the actual cost (see cost-effective).

And really, the market is, and has always been doing that. If it worked, if people wanted it, and were willing to pay for it, we would have them already. At this point in time, we have ONE gun being marketed.

(for what seem to me to be waay too much money) Only time will tell if that gun (without govt support) will remain on the market. Personally, I don't think that particular one will last long, but I have been wrong before...just not often...

My problem is with non-gun owners dictating through the law what we should, and should not be able to own, simply because they think its a good idea. (of course, I feel that way about all the gun control laws, nothing new there...)

About the NJ law that says "after 3 years all guns sold will have to be smart guns...", has anyone looked to see if the NJ police get a pass on that?

Usually the police get exemptions from gun control laws, but sometimes the antis "goof up" and don't exempt the cops. Lautenberg anyone?

If the NJ police don't have an exemption already written into that law, I say fight like hell to keep one from being added! Force them ALL (if possible) to live under the same rules as the rest of us. Ensure if you can that everyone has to live with both the intended and unintended consequences.

If they can't get special dispensation from the law, the police might just turn out to be a big ally in getting it overturned.

I doubt the chiefs would be much help, I'm sure they would work hard for an exemption, but the rank & file might be more on our side. It's their butts, too.

[KyJim]

I have to disagree with KyJim about the scope of liability under a products theory,

I think that somewhere in these threads I disavowed any expertise on products liability. I have some rather dim recollections about it from law school more than a few years ago.

[Spats McGee]

I'm not paying extra money for a gizmo that may or may not work, can quite likely be shut off with a remote control. Maybe my tinfoil hat is too tight today, but I can't see any reason that the gov't wouldn't start trying to figure out ways to disable these so-called "smart" guns.

Fingerprints -- What if I'm a bricklayer or pineapple picker whose fingerprints are worn or gone?

More importantly, what happens if my wife needs (& I do mean needs) my gun when I'm not home?

[Frank Ettin]

I agree that a "smart" gun is a "dumb" idea. I really hope it doesn't go anywhere.

[skizzums]

sorry to beat a dead horse again, but i was reading an article about the company that makes the armatrix trying to aquire funds to purchase remington outdoors,http://www.pagunblog.com/2014/03/11/...-on-remington/, after further searchng, it appears the only gun store in california to offer the smart gun has backtracked and says that they do not and have not ever sold the Armatrix iP1

heres a link to the article
http://www.guns.com/2014/03/08/oak-t...maker-armatix/

the best thing from this article is
The National Shooting Sports Foundation conducted a national scientific poll of more than 1,200 Americans in October 2013 on smart guns. The results found that roughly three-quarters stated they would not buy a smart gun, would not trust the reliability of one, and that the government should not mandate such technology.

they do not say, gun owners were polled, just that 1200 americans were polled, wish it went into the polling data, but still sounds like a WIN

[Tom Servo]

it appears the only gun store in california to offer the smart gun has backtracked and says that they do not and have not ever sold the Armatrix iP1

Heck, if it was reasonably priced, I might sell one. It's a unique design.

That said, I would certainly oppose any legislative attempt to make its features a requirement for other guns.

[KyJim]

Heck, if it was reasonably priced, I might sell one. It's a unique design.

Stay out of New Jersey then because that would kick in that stupid law mandating sales of only smart guns and you might not be well received in the state.

[TDL]

I have acquaintances who work in gun control advocacy. Half a dozen on the Hill and one in major organization.

I have yet to hear them discuss this smart safety gun tech without mandates, and the "benefit" of a strategy of raising costs to gun owners, forcing registration and safety inspections.

In regards to RFID, I eschew conspiracy theories, but for all we know some of these crazies could suggest requiring gun owners to have the chips implanted. Tin foil hat stuff?

Considerer the guy who was just floating a bid on Freedom group seems to be this guy:
http://www.wired.com/2009/12/positive_id/

VeriChip and its former owner Applied Digital have been drawing fire since 2004, when the FDA approved the rice-sized injectable RFID for human use. While the company primarily pushed the chip as part of a system to index medical records — a kind of subcutaneous MedAlert bracelet — Richard Sullivan, then-CEO of Applied Digital, had a penchant for wantonly confirming every nightmare of cybernetic social control.
After 9/11, it was Sullivan who announced the VeriChip would be perfect as a universal ID to distinguish safe people from the dangerous ones.

[emphasis mine]

[44 AMP]

the VeriChip would be perfect as a universal ID to distinguish safe people from the dangerous ones.

Fully agree. People who get the chip are the dangerous ones. Dangerously stupid.