I am sure that lots of you saw the 60 Minutes story last night about smart guns. Before we all get into a tizzy about that broadcast, I hope someone can help educate us all by providing the exact language from New Jersey law that would supposedly mandate smart guns only, once they become available anywhere. Also, is it true that California or any other states have such a law?
60 Minutes and New Jersey smart gun law
- Thread starter cjwils
- Start date
The devil is in the details !!!
Be Safe !!!
Me too and anytime a talking head wants to introduce "any" new gun law, you find that the devil is in the details. The report states that these are now available but not manufactured in the states. If someone wants to own one, I'm all for it but when it turns into a mandate, that is a different story. ...
Be Safe !!!
2ndsojourn
New member
Let's see if this link works.
http://smartgunlaws.org/personalized-owner-authorized-firearms-in-new-jersey/
I too watched that 60 Minutes segment. Hopefully, enough dealers became aware of the backlash the guy in MD got when he tried to sell them, that no dealer will touch it, making them not available.
Now though, since that law didn't work, the idiot legislator is willing to sponsor a bill repealing it if dealers will voluntarily offer them for sale. Well, what about all the kitchen table FFL's that only do transfers? Yes, the devil's always in the details. Oh...check the part of the law that exempts police from complying.
Edit: I found the NJ statute covering this.
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2002/Bills/PL02/130_.HTM
http://smartgunlaws.org/personalized-owner-authorized-firearms-in-new-jersey/
I too watched that 60 Minutes segment. Hopefully, enough dealers became aware of the backlash the guy in MD got when he tried to sell them, that no dealer will touch it, making them not available.
Now though, since that law didn't work, the idiot legislator is willing to sponsor a bill repealing it if dealers will voluntarily offer them for sale. Well, what about all the kitchen table FFL's that only do transfers? Yes, the devil's always in the details. Oh...check the part of the law that exempts police from complying.
Edit: I found the NJ statute covering this.
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2002/Bills/PL02/130_.HTM
kilimanjaro
New member
It was balanced only to the extent that it included information about the technology not currently being produced. The thrust of the program was that the only thing preventing this technology from being required nationwide, right now, is the lack of a law requiring it and that the folks who tried to introduce it got death threats.
Look for state initiatives for this mandate, the electorate is being conditioned.
Since when does 60 Minutes spend the couple of million dollars to produce something like this without an agenda behind it?
Look for state initiatives for this mandate, the electorate is being conditioned.
Since when does 60 Minutes spend the couple of million dollars to produce something like this without an agenda behind it?
I didn't see the 60 minutes segment, don't watch that drivel any more...
I did see an MSN article on the web, WARNING (the actual word they used) people about the "smart gun investor". Apparently there is a fellow who either is, or is willing to drop a bunch of cash into smart gun tech.
He's a tech investor, and thinks there is nothing tech cannot solve.
The "Warning" was entirely about him, and "warned" us all that only 1/3 of his investments made money, 1/3 broke even for him, and 1/3 actually lost him his money. THAT is what MSNBC is warning us about!!!
The catch of "smart gun" tech is the fact that it doesn't work (Currently) for anything bigger than a .22RF, and its isn't perfected magic.
Few today remember the tremendous FAILURE rate of our early computers and high tech stuff. Applied to guns, a tech failure isn't just aggravating, it is potentially fatal.
Note how POLICE are very, very much against THEM being forced to use smart gun tech, and several of the laws specifically exempt them from it.
Personally, I think the Police ought to be the test bed. IF it can survive and function properly in police use, THEN, I might consider it for personal use, but NEVER as a legal requirement.
The slippery slope, already outlined in some of the laws, is once "smart guns" are here, "dumb" guns become illegal.
You and I don't want that. Police don't want that (for themselves, at any rate), the only people who want it are self seeking politicians and people who stand to profit from the tech.
Note that like the microstamping idea, the tech is essentially proprietary, and who ever gets it to market with a law requiring it be the only thing sold will essentially "have a license to print money".
Also, like microstamping, its effect on reducing crime will be squat, as I see it.
I did see an MSN article on the web, WARNING (the actual word they used) people about the "smart gun investor". Apparently there is a fellow who either is, or is willing to drop a bunch of cash into smart gun tech.
He's a tech investor, and thinks there is nothing tech cannot solve.
The "Warning" was entirely about him, and "warned" us all that only 1/3 of his investments made money, 1/3 broke even for him, and 1/3 actually lost him his money. THAT is what MSNBC is warning us about!!!
The catch of "smart gun" tech is the fact that it doesn't work (Currently) for anything bigger than a .22RF, and its isn't perfected magic.
Few today remember the tremendous FAILURE rate of our early computers and high tech stuff. Applied to guns, a tech failure isn't just aggravating, it is potentially fatal.
Note how POLICE are very, very much against THEM being forced to use smart gun tech, and several of the laws specifically exempt them from it.
Personally, I think the Police ought to be the test bed. IF it can survive and function properly in police use, THEN, I might consider it for personal use, but NEVER as a legal requirement.
The slippery slope, already outlined in some of the laws, is once "smart guns" are here, "dumb" guns become illegal.
You and I don't want that. Police don't want that (for themselves, at any rate), the only people who want it are self seeking politicians and people who stand to profit from the tech.
Note that like the microstamping idea, the tech is essentially proprietary, and who ever gets it to market with a law requiring it be the only thing sold will essentially "have a license to print money".
Also, like microstamping, its effect on reducing crime will be squat, as I see it.
Well, like I said, balanced . . . for a news story. It wasn't the complete Diane Sawyer screed we saw a few years ago. I can tell they were pushing for smart guns. At least they got voices from the opposition like NSSF and didn't do clever editing or gotcha questions to make them look stupid.
The author of the NJ bill was very much in la-la land. She thought it was the NRA's fault the bill didn't work, implying that the bill was still popular with people (didn't seem like it). They also wanted (and still want) to force dealers to sell smart guns with regular guns. When are they gonna learn to quit screwing with the free market?
They said the reason for the S&W boycott was because of their willing to try smart guns. I don't know the details of that, but, I don't think that was the main reason.
The only viable market for smart guns would be some casuals with family members who are too damn careless and lazy. But that's nothing proper safety can't replace from the get-go.
And an active shooter could use his smart gun to commit a massacre.
EDIT: Same Senator shows her real agenda.
The author of the NJ bill was very much in la-la land. She thought it was the NRA's fault the bill didn't work, implying that the bill was still popular with people (didn't seem like it). They also wanted (and still want) to force dealers to sell smart guns with regular guns. When are they gonna learn to quit screwing with the free market?
They said the reason for the S&W boycott was because of their willing to try smart guns. I don't know the details of that, but, I don't think that was the main reason.
The only viable market for smart guns would be some casuals with family members who are too damn careless and lazy. But that's nothing proper safety can't replace from the get-go.
And an active shooter could use his smart gun to commit a massacre.
EDIT: Same Senator shows her real agenda.
Last edited:
I think this is what he was talking about and S&W felt quite a bit of backlash from gun owners in those years.
http://www.businessinsider.com/smith-and-wesson-almost-went-out-of-business-trying-to-do-the-right-thing-2013-1
The information below shows that smart guns were indeed part of the agreement.
"Smart guns. Two percent of annual firearms revenues will be dedicated to the development of authorized user technology that can limit a gun’s use to its proper owner. Authorized user technology will be included in all new firearm models within 36 months.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000317_2.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/smith-and-wesson-almost-went-out-of-business-trying-to-do-the-right-thing-2013-1
The information below shows that smart guns were indeed part of the agreement.
"Smart guns. Two percent of annual firearms revenues will be dedicated to the development of authorized user technology that can limit a gun’s use to its proper owner. Authorized user technology will be included in all new firearm models within 36 months.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000317_2.html
I beg you pardon, one and all, I had forgotten that smart gun tech was on the Clinton's wish list.
However, I will hold to the point that it wasn't the smart gun research provision that enraged gun buyers. Smart gun tech was still years in the future. What upset us was the things that were being required NOW (as of the agreement).
Sales restrictions taken to what was felt were foolish extremes, built in locks, and other design features mandated, and other things.
S&W, via the British holding company who owned them at the time, was the ONLY US gunmaker to agree to the deal.
Rumors flew in quantity, some saying the Clinton's would give S&W preference on gun contracts (not something within their legal authority to do) and some said S&W would be exempted from the pending lawsuits against gunmakers by big city mayors. A lot was said, some true, some not.
The fact that S&W was the only American gun maker to take the deal was seen as a betrayal by a lot of people. SO, they boycotted S&W. Sales tanked. Their stock tanked, and the Brit company sold S&W for a LOSS.
Yes, Virginia, the free market does work, if it is allowed to do so....
However, I will hold to the point that it wasn't the smart gun research provision that enraged gun buyers. Smart gun tech was still years in the future. What upset us was the things that were being required NOW (as of the agreement).
Sales restrictions taken to what was felt were foolish extremes, built in locks, and other design features mandated, and other things.
S&W, via the British holding company who owned them at the time, was the ONLY US gunmaker to agree to the deal.
Rumors flew in quantity, some saying the Clinton's would give S&W preference on gun contracts (not something within their legal authority to do) and some said S&W would be exempted from the pending lawsuits against gunmakers by big city mayors. A lot was said, some true, some not.
The fact that S&W was the only American gun maker to take the deal was seen as a betrayal by a lot of people. SO, they boycotted S&W. Sales tanked. Their stock tanked, and the Brit company sold S&W for a LOSS.
Yes, Virginia, the free market does work, if it is allowed to do so....
kilimanjaro
New member
I think California does.
Unless there's a law I don't know about, California doesn't require "smart guns." They do require that guns stamp a unique identifier on spent casings. The concept, known as "ballistic fingerprinting," was proven a miserable failure when it was tried in Maryland. It continues to do no good whatsoever in New York.
This isn't about making guns safer: it's about making guns harder to own.
This isn't about making guns safer: it's about making guns harder to own.
According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, California attempted to enact a law similar to NJ's but it didn't pass. Maryland requires that a report be prepared every year on the status of personalized firearm technology, but it doesn't appear to say what's done with that information. Massachusetts, which requires that guns be sold with locks, would consider working personalized gun technology to be the equivalent of a lock, but the State Police have not approved any such technology. No other states appear to have anything in place.
I understood that the State Senator (or whatever they are called in NJ) is working to repeal her current law on smart gun technology and replacing it with a new law making it manditory for all gun dealers to stock and keep in inventory smart guns. So much for the 3 year clause.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Granted that smart gun tech isn't there yet and mandates are unacceptable, I thought of this interesting take.
So let's say they work reasonably (and are not mandated). Gun folks should say:
If the Dads and Moms at Aurora had smart guns, it wouldn't have happened. If the faculty and students of age at VT had smart guns, they could have protected themselves.
Support the shall issue carry of smart guns in NJ, NY and other states that have strict laws against shall issue carry!
Why did I think of this? Back in the smart gun frenzy, most companies tried to develop them. Smith, Colt and Taurus were on board. Taurus funded research. The reasons were they thought they could displace Glock in the law market. Also, market research found that there was a new population of folks who would buy guns if they were smart guns (to protect kids, useless if stolen, etc.) . Some antigun folks thus opposed smart guns as they would increase guns in the general population.
However, since they don't work and the mandate threat has killed them, it's a moot point. But I thought it would be fun to say!
Smart guns save lives. Carry a smart gun! It's smart to defend yourself from a Lanza or Holmes or Cho!
Then have Hillary come out against smart guns that she is in favor of.
So let's say they work reasonably (and are not mandated). Gun folks should say:
If the Dads and Moms at Aurora had smart guns, it wouldn't have happened. If the faculty and students of age at VT had smart guns, they could have protected themselves.
Support the shall issue carry of smart guns in NJ, NY and other states that have strict laws against shall issue carry!
Why did I think of this? Back in the smart gun frenzy, most companies tried to develop them. Smith, Colt and Taurus were on board. Taurus funded research. The reasons were they thought they could displace Glock in the law market. Also, market research found that there was a new population of folks who would buy guns if they were smart guns (to protect kids, useless if stolen, etc.) . Some antigun folks thus opposed smart guns as they would increase guns in the general population.
However, since they don't work and the mandate threat has killed them, it's a moot point. But I thought it would be fun to say!
Smart guns save lives. Carry a smart gun! It's smart to defend yourself from a Lanza or Holmes or Cho!
Then have Hillary come out against smart guns that she is in favor of.
62coltnavy
New member
"Unless there's a law I don't know about, California doesn't require "smart guns." They do require that guns stamp a unique identifier on spent casings. The concept, known as "ballistic fingerprinting," was proven a miserable failure when it was tried in Maryland. It continues to do no good whatsoever in New York."
Yes and no, Tom. California does not have a smart gun law, that is true, but what you have that is inaccurate is the manner in which the microstamping law operates. It is not ballistic fingerprinting as used in Maryland and NY, as those programs merely stored a fired casing for later microscoping comparison to crime scene casings. California is quite different. Under the California law, "compliant" firearms must physically stamp a unique identifier onto each casing as the gun is fired--and in two locations. There was a pilot technology on which the patent was waived that stamps an identifier on the primer only, but not on any other part of the casing, based on which the California Attorney General, Kamala Harris, declared that the technology to microstamp was "generally available", and ordered all manufacturers wishing to add any new or materially changed pistols (not revolvers) to the roster to incorporate the technology into their products. No manufacturer uses this tech, and it has never been shown to work outside of a laboratory. And, according to a Federal District Court decision, since appealed, the available technology does not fulfill the statutory requirement, and therefore could not be applied. Because of the appeal, and an injunction issued by the Court of Appeals, the law stands. Briefing is complete, but it is indeterminate as to when argument will be held or a decision issued. Meanwhile, no new model pistols can be offered for sale in the State. Which, ultimately, is the result Ms. Harris, who hopes to replace Barbara Boxer as the next California US Senator, desired.
Yes and no, Tom. California does not have a smart gun law, that is true, but what you have that is inaccurate is the manner in which the microstamping law operates. It is not ballistic fingerprinting as used in Maryland and NY, as those programs merely stored a fired casing for later microscoping comparison to crime scene casings. California is quite different. Under the California law, "compliant" firearms must physically stamp a unique identifier onto each casing as the gun is fired--and in two locations. There was a pilot technology on which the patent was waived that stamps an identifier on the primer only, but not on any other part of the casing, based on which the California Attorney General, Kamala Harris, declared that the technology to microstamp was "generally available", and ordered all manufacturers wishing to add any new or materially changed pistols (not revolvers) to the roster to incorporate the technology into their products. No manufacturer uses this tech, and it has never been shown to work outside of a laboratory. And, according to a Federal District Court decision, since appealed, the available technology does not fulfill the statutory requirement, and therefore could not be applied. Because of the appeal, and an injunction issued by the Court of Appeals, the law stands. Briefing is complete, but it is indeterminate as to when argument will be held or a decision issued. Meanwhile, no new model pistols can be offered for sale in the State. Which, ultimately, is the result Ms. Harris, who hopes to replace Barbara Boxer as the next California US Senator, desired.
62coltnavy
New member
A couple of relevant facts:
1. Yes, the NJ law mandated smart guns whenever one became available anywhere in the US. The Armatix, claimed to be a smart gun that fulfilled the requirements of the law, was to be sold in Oakland, California and Maryland; both store owners received threats.
2. the NJ Attorney General subsequently determined that the Armatix did not actually comply with all of ther requirements of the law.
3. The NRA tested the Armatix and found the technology to be wanting, and the gun itself, apart from the smart technology, unreliable.
4. Armatix filed for bankruptcy in Germany sometime ago, and the guns are not available anywhere. The designer of the gun was recently n the US seeking to drum up financial support for a new company, convinced as is he of the brilliance of his design.
In short, the NJ law is moot. And despite a claim by Mother Jones that such guns are "readily available" in Europe, either Armatix was the only producer or no one wants to try to tap the US market.
1. Yes, the NJ law mandated smart guns whenever one became available anywhere in the US. The Armatix, claimed to be a smart gun that fulfilled the requirements of the law, was to be sold in Oakland, California and Maryland; both store owners received threats.
2. the NJ Attorney General subsequently determined that the Armatix did not actually comply with all of ther requirements of the law.
3. The NRA tested the Armatix and found the technology to be wanting, and the gun itself, apart from the smart technology, unreliable.
4. Armatix filed for bankruptcy in Germany sometime ago, and the guns are not available anywhere. The designer of the gun was recently n the US seeking to drum up financial support for a new company, convinced as is he of the brilliance of his design.
In short, the NJ law is moot. And despite a claim by Mother Jones that such guns are "readily available" in Europe, either Armatix was the only producer or no one wants to try to tap the US market.