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

I have to disagree with KyJim about the scope of liability under a products theory, As a general rule, products liability is also called "strict liability in tort." The practical effect of this title is that negligence need not be demonstrated. Instead, the plaintiff's burden is merely to demonstrate the existence of a manufacturing or design defect that caused harm. Design defect can be shown either by demonstration of an error in the plan or specification or by showing that the product failed to perform as a reasonable consumer would expect. A loaded gun that does not fire when the trigger is pulled would fail the latter test. Then the burden shifts to the manufacturer to show the "reasonableness" of its design. That gets pretty technical, so we'll skip that part. Is it possible to defense a products liability claim? sure. Is it difficult? Yup.
 
It would seem that the effect of the law will be to ban the sale of any handgun in NJ other than "safe" handguns, leading to an immediate ordered cessation of all future sales or transfers by NJ based FFLs other than this .22 pistol. I assume a lawsuit will be filed the same day.
 
I'd say government-covered liability is about the only thing that could bring the guns to market. Concerns of lawsuits due to ND/criminals stealing the guns is one thing. The concern I would have is lawsuits over the security features failing.

Imagine junior gets his hand on the SmartGun. This gun is designed only to fire by using a finger print scanner embedded in the stock. Pappa was careful; he chainges the batteries monthly, he practiced the right grip in all conditions to make sure he could always instantly unlock it. To make sure nothing bad would happen he never programmed Junior's finger print into the gun. Junior then uses jello and silly putty (or if he can't cook, simple scotch tape) to make a replica of Pappas finger print, fires up the gun and puts one through his foot. Massive lawsuit.

Lets say the gun maker comes out with the SmarterGun. This gun uses the RFID bracelet idea, it only works if a special bracelet is worn and Papa makes sure it's on him even when he showers. Junior, not the smartest boy, finds the gun again, pulls the gun apart to see how it works, notes the little solenoid that moves a bit of metal back and forth to block the hammer or allow the sear to travel. Using a piece of paperclip to hold the solenoid in the "make gun go bang" position Junior can now shoot off his other foot. Second massive lawsuit.

These are much more likely (and news cycle friendly) liabilities than the "lets sue the gunmakers for making a gun that anyone can sell". It's the self driving car conundrum, no one wants to make a car that can drive by it's self, even if it is 1000 times safer than a regular car if it fails in our litigious societies the rare cases it does fail more or less guarantee that the manufacturer gets a whopping lawsuit and attention grabbing headlines.

If I did have $1300 to burn, I would buy the Armatix iP1 just to see how easily it would be to bypass the smart band. I'm guessing there's three simple ways: Bit of metal or plastic in the right place to disable the disconnect mechanism, simple solder bridge or wire to make sure the current to the disconnect control is always on and directly hacking the radio signal. Hollywoodesque but a real possibility given things like this in the wild.

Random thought: This is pure Hollywood terror plot, but lets say RFID-locked guns become mandatory at a police department. Tech savvy criminals may start carrying powerful radio jammers that work at the same spectrum the RFID signal. Not a likely attack but it would be tempting to bring the jammer to the next SHOT show or press junket demonstrating the gun, sitting in the back and randomly activating it.
 
everyone keeps talking finger-prints, arent these new smart guns just like smart car keys? using a rfid chip on your person to unlock the gun? it doesnt take away the problem of hacking and batteries, but i dont believe quality of fingerprints is a problem

my biggst concern is the expectation of having your current dumb guns retro-fitted with smart-keys, is that even possible? and if so, it wouuld obviously be very easy to restore the gun to its previous configurations, so i dont think it would do anything to keep stolen guns off the streets

sorry, i did exactly what the op asked not to do and talk about the reliability of the tech
 
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...:rolleyes:

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.
 
I have to disagree with KyJim about the scope of liability under a products theory,
Click to expand...
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. :)
 
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?
 
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/smart-gun-company-makes-a-move-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-tree-gun-club-denies-anything-smart-gun-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
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Heck, if it was reasonably priced, I might sell one. It's a unique design.
Click to expand...
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. :)
 
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.
Click to expand...
[emphasis mine]
 
the VeriChip would be perfect as a universal ID to distinguish safe people from the dangerous ones.
Click to expand...

Fully agree. People who get the chip are the dangerous ones. Dangerously stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top