Hmm turns out EVERYTHING gun advocates said about the Armatix iP1 was right!
Yep the gun is not that smart, and not that safe. Of course the NRA will always be the boogie man and a straw man:
Weinberg said that if opposition to the New Jersey law is stopping smart guns from being sold, she will seek to have it changed – if the NRA agrees to stop standing in the way of smart gun technology.
“If, in fact, the NRA will make a public commitment to not stand in the way of the manufacture, distribution or sale of any gun that is limited by technology to the use of only its owner,” Weinberg said, “then I will ask the New Jersey legislature to amend the law.”
Weinberg said she was taking the position in an attempt to meet smart gun opponents “right on their own ground,” since “whatever goalposts they set for you, they move them.”
Oh the IRONY! The NRA, or the National Shooting Sports Foundation has never “Stood in the Way” of so-called smart guns, or “smart gun technology”, what the gun rights activists and shooting industry has stood in the way has been laws that MANDATE such-and-such technology be the only guns sold. Nobody has an issue with anybody developing ANY gun or technology, what they stand for is the FREEDOM to CHOOSE which gun suits them best.
It wasn’t that long ago when you think about it that gun makers were still making guns that could discharge if dropped while in a loaded condition. While some states have laws mandating all guns sold (at least new ones) are drop-safe, that is not a law in the majority of states. Still despite that there are very VERY few guns being made today that are NOT drop safe. Why? Well the technology is proven, and reliable, so people EXPECT it of their gun.
Now by New Jersey’s standards (being that ONLY the owner of the gun may be able to fire it) that is a gun I would never stand behind. I like to take new shooters to the range, and let people try out my guns. By nature MOST of the guns I’ve ever fired didn’t belong to me, and I had to learn to shoot back in my newbie days.
My daughter will always live in a house with guns. Now that she’s at an age where she doesn’t understand what is safe and what is dangerous we keep our bathrooms shuttered, and cabinets in her reach with dangerous items such as cleaning chemicals or breakable stuff, or sharp objects all have child locks. The same goes for the guns. If a gun is not on my person it’s locked up. This is NOT because of how the laws read, but because it is the best idea.
Still when she’s old enough to safely learn how to handle firearms she will learn them. This also isn’t about guns, she’ll learn how to use the stove, how to safely handle a knife, and how to properly operate a fire extinguisher.
You can’t learn to drive a car without getting behind the wheel any more than you can learn how to safely operate a gun without getting behind the trigger. So yeah New Jersey’s idea of a “Smart Gun” is pretty stupid if you ask me.
Just the same as their reasons for not repealing a stupid law. Then again I don’t think their reasons for these laws is particularly honest to start with.
I read a “New York Times” piece about the Armatix maybe a year ago. Not being that savvy, I didn’t get the controversy until more than halfway through. I do recall thinking something like: Why would anyone want a “two-piece” firearm with an “enabling device” physically separate from the firearm? Wouldn’t that pose a mess of issues on its own? Why is a legislature so aggressively making itself vulnerable to technological fixes for problems that may not be clearly defined, will drive up consumer costs, and is likely to open the door to other political mischief?
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong. Imagine all firearms retrofitted with “smart” technology. Does anybody doubt that criminals will find a way to counter “smart” technology to turn stolen weapons into “dumb” guns again? What happens when criminals own only “dumb” guns, while law-abiding citizens own only “smart” guns? Will a “dumb” gun offer an as yet unknown tactical advantage over a “smart” gun?
Are “smart” devices actually a technological way of restricting property rights? How about GPS installation?