Bill Would Force Gun Dealers to Sell Smart Guns

Armatrix's smart gun

The Armatrix iP1 Pistol.  (Photo: Armatrix)

Quite honestly, I don’t have a problem with “smart guns” or “biometric guns,” firearms that only operate when activated by an authorized user. We live in a free society, if there is a demand for smart guns, then by all means entrepreneurs, engineers and manufacturers should meet that demand. In reality, the same could be said for self-driving automobiles or any other emerging technology, if there is a demand, then the market should fulfill it. Unfortunately there is little in the gun world that isn’t seized by the gun grabbers and manipulated to take away your guns. This week the battle against mandatory smart gun technology heated up, and it is paving the way for a requirement that all gun dealers in the US carry at least one biometric gun in their inventory.

With respect to smart guns, though, there is a big problem. Well, there are actually two big problems: 1. Early testing with smart and biometric prototypes indicated that there are issues with reliability, i.e. the gun doesn’t fire every time the authorized user wants it to. 2. The government.

Arguably, as smart gun and biometric technology are refined, problem number one will be solved. Several companies have come to SHOT Show in the past several years, advertising that they have figured out how to make smartguns 100% reliable in a self defense situation, but after testing, the technology is nowhere near as foolproof as they claim. Armatix’s iP1 pistol, is one of them, a smart gun that requires a radio-frequency-emitting watch to operate. Sure, it’s prohibitively expensive at $1,800, but from the looks of things it is rather reliable — so long as you remember to where your watch! The watch/ring/band RFID concept has been tried before, and it’s really a joke. What about a year later when you can buy RFID gun jammers on Ebay?

Again, I don’t have a problem with Armatix’s iP1 pistol. It’s definitely not something I’d buy (for obvious reasons: cost, and I’m not wearing a watch 24/7), but maybe it appeals to some of you. And I’m not going to tell you not to buy it because who am I to tell you how to exercise your Second Amendment rights? The problem is that when such a gun comes into the market, regardless of the price and the function, anti-gun legislators will grab onto it and say hey, we want only these kinds of guns in our state. Take away all the other guns that don’t comply with this standard!

But speaking of telling you how to exercise your right to keep and bear arms, there are some amongst us who believe it is within their power to do just that, to dictate and define what hardware we can and cannot possess, own, carry, etc. I’m, of course, referring to the government, problem number two.

This week in New Jersey there was new push to force the public to purchase only smart guns. A bill was passed back in 2002 that required all Garden State FFLs or gun shop owners to sell only smart guns after they’ve been on the market for three years. Now the same geniuses who helped fight for the untenable law are angling to repeal it and replace it with yet another stupid smart gun law.

Weinberg

State Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg.

“The whole problem with the mandate was that it forced buyers in New Jersey to buy a smart gun,” explains gun-control activist Ralph Fascitelli in an interview with Mother Jones. “This new law forces gun dealers to offer a smart gun, but still provides a choice for gun owners to buy whatever they want.”

State Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) is leading this effort. On Thursday, she introduced a bill that, if passed, would require New Jersey gun dealers to carry at least one smart gun model on their store shelves. Not as onerous as the law on the books now (which hasn’t really taken effect because of all the issues with smart gun technology). So it is more of a clever way to get around the principle complaint from the NRA. It would pave the way to bringing smartgun tech to the market, which opens up a whole beehive of new legislative options for the gun banners. From the Mother Jones article:

The chill on smart guns in the United States is to some degree the unintended consequence of a 2002 New Jersey law that would phase out the sale of conventional guns in that state; the law requires New Jersey gun dealers to sell only smart guns once they become available in retail stores anywhere else in the country. The law was intended to spur the market for the technologically innovative weapons, whose backers believe they could enhance safety and help reduce certain types of gun violence, such as attacks with stolen firearms and the all too common accidental shootings deaths of children. But the law badly backfired by becoming fodder for gun-rights activists, who argued that smart guns are part of a government plot to track and ultimately ban all guns.

Like myself, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade organization, believes the whole smart gun debate is really an issue for the free market to decide and not government officials.

“The firearms industry is not opposed to the development or marketing of user-authorized (“smart gun”) technology, but we continue to oppose any form of government mandate, including telling a retailer to stock a product in the attempt to create demand that we frankly do not yet see,” said the NSSF in a statement to GunsAmerica.

“If a safe and reliable product can be developed and marketed that consumers then want to purchase, then retailers can make the decision to sell it. Let the marketplace decide,” the statement continued. “The government’s involvement is not needed and, in fact, is counterproductive since this initiative in general is being promoted by political officeholders with records of advocating more restrictions on law-abiding citizens.”

Results from an NSSF Poll on smart guns.  The poll conducted Oct. 7-8 has a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percent. Respondents self-identified as 25 percent Democrat, 23 percent Republican and 52 percent independent. As to ethnicity, 70 percent of respondents said they were Caucasian, 14 percent African-American, 9 percent Hispanic; and 7 percent, other. As to age, 17 percent of respondents said they were 18-30; 28 percent, 31-45; 33 percent 46-60; and 21 percent, 60 or older.  (Photo: NSSF)

Results from an NSSF Poll on smart guns. The poll conducted Oct. 7-8, 2013, has a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percent. Respondents self-identified as 25 percent Democrat, 23 percent Republican and 52 percent independent. As to ethnicity, 70 percent of respondents said they were Caucasian, 14 percent African-American, 9 percent Hispanic; and 7 percent, other. As to age, 17 percent of respondents said they were 18-30; 28 percent, 31-45; 33 percent 46-60; and 21 percent, 60 or older. (Photo: NSSF)

With that said, there are some questions one has to ask: What makes the government of New Jersey think it has the right to tell gun dealers what they can and cannot sell in their stores? More fundamentally, why is the government foisting smart guns into the marketplace?

The answer to the first question is, well, the government doesn’t respect the U.S. Constitution and the rights of small businesses. The answer to the second question is a little harder to pin down, but if I had to guess I think it’s because the government sees smart guns as a way to increase the digital footprint of gun owners. Technology is great, but there is a downside in that it creates another way for the surveillance state to track and record our daily lives. Sure, the government already knows who we are, where we live, what we do, but if they have a way to determine what guns we have, what the technological vulnerabilities of those guns are, etc., then the government is better poised to deal with us should it need to. Maybe I’m being a bit overly Orwellian in my speculation, but in the wake of the Snowden disclosures on the NSA I’m not so sure what I’m suggesting is too far afield.

In any event, we’ll keep you posted on the progress of this poorly conceived bill.

{ 98 comments… add one }
  • Steve November 11, 2015, 3:36 pm

    RFID receivers can be made inoperable from remote distances. What happens if someone in Government throws a master switch in his/hers city, and then “ZAP”, all of these so called “smart” guns would cease to operate? INSTANT GUN CONTROL!!!

    The same libtards who can’t tell the difference between a magazine and a clip would eventually forget about the countless millions of non-RFID handguns in existence. Just think, our 1911’s and other semi-auto loaders would multiply in value, no matter their make, model or condition. You should also keep several thousands of rounds in storage. A couple boxes of ammo would soon be worth the value of the gun. This is since the SG’s would more or likely be in some odd caliber that no other firearms could use. The Government is likely already planning to ban all other types of handgun ammo, and then the unprepared would be in in a world of hurt.

    Some of these SG’s are already be available. However, equipping the masses is currently a fantasy. Let’s hope and pray that industry keeps it that way.

  • Jay November 11, 2015, 6:23 am

    Ooh the liberal mind set is always good for a laugh even though they are serious! The anti-gun crowd seems to think that weapons have a mind of their own and act and react without human intervention! Therefore such titles as “Gun Control” “Gun Lobby”, “Gun Rights”, “Assault Weapon”, “Smart Guns” the list goes on! When the liberals/government just cant jump in and put laws on the books, they go about changing peoples mindset with heir constant barrage of coined words and phrases, all use and except them not even realizing what is going on! Get smart people, the greatest challenge today is doing away with these word ploys and putting out the Truth!

  • mike woods November 9, 2015, 8:02 pm

    The only thing a “smart gun” would be useful as would be as a paper weight.

  • vic November 8, 2015, 2:53 pm

    “No Problem” …Other than they will not work as advertised.. .. “No Problem” with exponentially increasing the likely hood of a failure to fire when compared to properly designed firearms. (Adding complexity. adding an electro/mechanical aspect to a firearm will increases the points for potential failure..in the real world .

    Now for grins..
    Anyone with a decent electronics back ground can cobble up a number of methods to render a “Stupid Gun ” inert (Unable to be fired) from varying distances without physically touching it.. Oh and to put a little icing on that one.. The owner is unlikely to even know they did it… till they need the firearm. I will not bother to mention.. well I guess I will. It would not be difficult to program into the electronic circuity of the firearm instructions to render itself inert either based upon either the number of rounds fired.. number of rounds fired withing a certain period of time, rate of fire or on a specific date. (No need to restrict magazines…” No one needs to fire more than X number of rounds. blah blah bahhh.”

    “Smart Gun” Just more Un-American, anti-Second Amendment ..Charlie Romeo Alpha Papa disguised as “reasonable measures”

    Vic

    • gman November 9, 2015, 11:19 am

      “Anyone with a decent electronics back ground can cobble up a number of methods to render a “Stupid Gun ” inert (Unable to be fired) from varying distances without physically touching it.”

      it would be even more fun to make it fire remotely!

      just what we need – guns that the owner doesn’t control.

  • Gunfflint November 8, 2015, 9:21 am

    The Government Illuminati Can shove any gun legislation it wants. It knows it’s days are numbered & will resort to any gun laws/confiscation it can get. Push comes to shove it’s time to take our Country back.

  • jb November 7, 2015, 3:25 pm

    The problem I see is that Someone may buy one of the so called “smart guns” and just leave it laying around and god forbid a child gets hold of it and it malfunctions and goes off? I think these will appeal to non “gun guys” who may not practice the basic firearm rues of safety.

  • Greg Olsen November 7, 2015, 2:40 pm

    I would hate to be in a split second situation regarding my life and not quite hold the gun correctly so it would fire!

  • BRASS November 7, 2015, 1:44 pm

    I absolutely disagree. Once government is allowed to FORCE dealers to sell firearms requiring some form of tech based positive ID, it is a short route to requiring all guns have it.
    I don’t want anyone to die because they could not employ a firearm to save their own or someone else’s life due to either the failure of the technology or being locked out due to not being the ID’d user.
    There are more proven, recorded, honest incidents that have already happened where one person has had to use a firearm not his own to save their own or someone else’s life, then can be reported.
    This is a trojan horse, a camels nose under the tent for eventual elimination of firearms. Always remember, the anti-gunners, the liberals real agenda is about control — of you — by them (big government) — and nothing else.

  • Archangel November 6, 2015, 10:56 pm

    And when they want to confiscate them, they can jam the whole neighborhood and just scoop them up without anyone being able to stop them as THEIR guns will work.

  • Shecky November 6, 2015, 10:09 pm

    Hey, not sure, but I think I’ve been buying smart guns and inheriting others. They are all different calibers and makes, got a bunch of hand guns,rifles and shot guns…yep, I’m pretty sure, no I’m positive they are all smart guns! See, you know how I know this? It’s because not one of these guns has ever gone off at the wrong time, never killed a person (a few deer, elk and lots of birds) for that matter never even wounded anyone. They have convinced a few from doing what might have been wrong at the time (shown but never discharged), so yes I’d say very smart. Hey government, all you STUPID POLITICIANS and anti gunners…we already have smart guns, there’s just some really stupid people out there and that won’t stop them from doing stupid things.

    Oh, and by the way… I’ll keep all my guns you can’t hit a button to disarm. Pretty smart huh?

    • Greg Olsen November 7, 2015, 2:42 pm

      Now that is my kind of smart gun, the one that waits for the smart law abiding user to guide it!

  • DonM November 6, 2015, 9:36 pm

    This is clearly an example of why members of congress or the senate that support garbage like this should be institutionalized in order to protect their constituents from their vast stupidity, or lack of respect for our constitution.. New Jersey already has a defacto gun ban in effect, how can these people be subjected to any gun violence? Oh that’s right, criminals don’t give a crap about gun laws of any form. I think it is time that the real Americans demand that the fake Americans leave our country immediately.

  • DonM November 6, 2015, 8:07 pm

    This is clearly an example of why members of congress or the senate that support garbage like this should be institutionalized in order to protect their constituents from their vast stupidity. New Jersey already has a defacto gun ban in effect, how can these people be subjected to any gun violence? Oh that’s right, criminals don’t give a crap about gun laws of any form. I think it is time that the real Americans demand that the fake Americans leave our country immediately.

  • Dave November 6, 2015, 7:09 pm

    Again, the goal is NOT smart guns or anything safety related. They MUST get YOUR guns. All this stuff is just ways to inch closer to that goal. YOU, the average good citizen, armed, are a direct threat to them and their agenda. Crime they secretly want and applaud because it helps them get your guns. Always keep that in mind when reading these distractions.

  • Rich November 6, 2015, 5:54 pm

    Great idea. Be ready to adopt after all leos, political security teams and military are required to use them and test them for a few years. No exceptions.

  • Al Joy November 6, 2015, 5:27 pm

    Sounds like a great idea.
    Maybe we can then get a law passed that everyone has to own an electric smart car that gets 100 miles to the gallon and can only be purchased new because there are no old ones.
    Maybe a law that requires all “old” guns be retrofitted with the smart tech.
    Perhaps this could be imposed as a “Tax” like affordable health insurance.
    Maybe it could be a law affecting only the law abiding as the criminals would not pay any attention to it.
    Sounds like it would be easier to just confiscate all the guns like Australia.

  • hoochbear November 6, 2015, 5:27 pm

    Let those in office who champion smart guns be required to carry an ‘inert’ smartgun where ever they go, subject to laws, for 6 months before they can vote on the bill. And they must pay a $100 fee for possessing it, and if not returned, $1,000 for failing to return it. Odds on that after about 7 days it will be either relegated to use as someone else’s paperweight (doubtful) or they will throw it away And after their current term of office, they leave under extreme prejudice. Replaced by the voters with a reasonable, responsible person.

  • Kevin JK November 6, 2015, 4:22 pm

    Perhaps Congress could pass a bill mandating that the Secret Service be the testing organization for smart guns. If they don’t work and the president is taken out…then we’ll know not to support them. I’m sure the Emperor would be fine with that.

  • Leonard S. Feinman November 6, 2015, 3:55 pm

    So, I have this “smart” computer. Instead of turning it on and typing my password, I swipe my finger over a slot and it remembers me. Or not. Sometimes it takes several efforts to realize it is my fingerprint, so, I am left waiting. Then I try again. No dice. So, now I enter my password, and viola! It works.

    So, the speed it has in getting me on line is one thing. I can wait for it. I have to wait for it. I have no choice, because the first time I try, and it does not work, I only need a few more minutes to make it work.

    If this is what I have to look forward to with a gun, I will use a speargun instead. Or a bow and arrow. This is a retrograde idea at best. I prefer a revolver to a pistol because I believe I will not be in a war with it. That’s my bedside gun, a .357, while my wife has a .38. Now, if the SHTF, we have other guns, but we have to practice more, and I mainly use them for sports like target shooting. My first choice is to keep it simple. (In all fairness, I did downsize from a .44 magnum to a .41magnum, and now I am at .357).

  • scott November 6, 2015, 2:04 pm

    Slippin’ down the slope!

  • RageFury November 6, 2015, 1:42 pm

    The only reason they want these is to institute a backdoor shutoff command. What would have happened at the Bundy ranch if the citizens were armed with these Dumb guns vs the BLM fascists? Thanks, but no thanks. This would make the 2nd pointless.

  • John November 6, 2015, 1:31 pm

    I have over 40 years as an engineer, so from my perspective, and being a combat veteran “Smart Guns” will result in people experiencing there firearm “Unable to Fire” or “The Other Guy Shot My Gun, that’s not supposed to happen”! Electrical equipment are too sensitive to unexpected changes if taken too close to high voltage equipment, solar storms, programming error’s, water immersion, and the list goes on. At some point they will fail, and your life or the life of others may be risk as a result. Unlike all mechanical operating equipment that can slowly reveal a problem that can be easily fixed, electrical operating equipment ‘do not let the user know well in advance there a problem with an i.c.’, even one that’s been potted to prevent moisture from causing a problem. The cost of replacing the electric components, potted or not, will be expensive!

  • VoiceofReality November 6, 2015, 1:12 pm

    Question is when was the last time a gun dealer went rampant on their customers? What’s the point?

  • VoiceofReality November 6, 2015, 1:08 pm

    A dealer has a house full of guns and if a “smart” gun is required. He’s screwed. ONE_ They don’t work with sweaty hands or bloody hands. TWO- they don’t work with gloves( commonly used when showing a gun. THREE- they don’t work unless you hold the gun just right. FOUR- smart guns will kill dealers because perps know all this.

    The only smart gun I know of is the one I own. That’s smart.

  • sunburn November 6, 2015, 12:29 pm

    Any legislation to force Smart guns on the general population shall also include the stipulation that all security forces for the government must be equipped with the Smart Gun technology for the defense of all government officials no exception.

  • Bob November 6, 2015, 12:24 pm

    They can shove ALL there gun control and there stupid smart guns up there you know whats. I will decide what I will use Not the government or some libtard politician. If they don’t like it tough shit. it’s past time that we told these politicians that We The People will no longer comply with there stupid anti-gun, illegal gun control laws !

  • George November 6, 2015, 12:15 pm

    I think it’s a bad idea for government to mandate that dealers carry at least one smart gun in stock for sale. It reeks of potential abuse by creating an artificial demand and supply, a marketplace for a business which might otherwise have no market or money.Now if the gov’t wants to subsidise some SG shops for a short time to see if they do have a place in the self sustaining real world market. Why not I’m all for it. I’m sure that somebody(s) will find reasons to pick that apart too. Oh well, haters gonna hate.
    Where I DO take issue with the author and SG critics is when the mount the high horse of “quality concerns” and how the dealers would be forced to carry a firearm of potentially questionable reliability. Give me a break! I have a few words for you, Jimenez/Jennings, Vulcan, Cobra, Llama. Almost every single dealer that I’ve been into carries some kind of junk gun so that they can chase the last possible dollar. Let’s not paint businessmen as some kinds of patriots or modern knights and noblemen just because they sell firearms. They are humans just like the rest of us. Some incredibly good, most just above average, and some out and out scoundrels. All are in business to make money and ideals tend to run a close second (at best) when survival is on the line. So they sell junk guns because it helps with the bottom line and because they can. So let’s not muddy up the waters with the lofty notion of white hats just wanting to keep the town safe Li’l missy.

  • L Cavendish November 6, 2015, 12:07 pm

    OK….so they can have one smart gun for display/sale…never have to sell a single one…just have to offer the option…right?
    Yeah…as soon as the secret service goes over to this technology 100%…then we can talk about it. Until then…go pound sand.
    Anything with electronics can be hacked/disabled.

  • David November 6, 2015, 11:49 am

    As a retired police office I once sat through a presentation about these guns, but the presenters argument fell apart when I made two points.
    1. These guns do not work with gloves commonly in used by police officers.
    2. Can they work in the 1.1 seconds it took me to draw, fire, and hit with my fire shot.

    • Paul November 6, 2015, 12:01 pm

      David,
      I think that the whole smart gun thing is Bullsh*t, but we bring it on ourselves by being careless with our guns. This is NOT driven by Socialists, tyrants, or idiots, but by people afraid of the carnage that is unique to America. Think of it this way – when my sons were little, I had to be responsible for them, and I often controlled what they did. When they showed that they could be responsible adults, I stopped regulating their behavior. The anti-gun folks aren’t monsters, they are scared,, and we compound that by threatening them.

      • david November 6, 2015, 1:25 pm

        Paul
        You missed my point these guns can get their users killed because they do not work 100% of the time. The gun owner is already required to keep their weapon stored safely!

        • George November 6, 2015, 7:44 pm

          Right, NOT. It’s not like any conventional firearms dealer would ever sell a Jimenez/Jennings or a Cobra. or any other pos junker that is in just about every dealers show case. They must have them as nails. As in it’s nailed to the floor and never goes out the door. Silly me they only have them to manipulate someone into the store for a great sale price so the salesman can step ’em up to a more reliable and more expensive model.
          Then why are so many of them are out in public? Somebody must be selling them.
          From a proud owner of Smith & Wesson, Para, Kahr, Ruger, Mossberg and a couple of old Remingtons

  • Paul November 6, 2015, 11:20 am

    I am not a “guns everywhere” kind of guy, but I own guns. The problem with this is simple. I don’t want to have to pay well over $1000 for a target pistol and most control laws are one size fits all. On the other hand, we (gun owners) have brought this on ourselves by refusing to demand that gun owners be responsible, and by protecting even idiots who shoot a stranger in a movie theater because he threw popcorn. If we “policed” our own, we wouldn’t have the general public policing us.
    When a dangerous psycho in Florida can approach a stranger, threaten him, and then kill him because he tries to defend himself (a right btw that we all cherish for ourselves) we become our own worst enemies. As ye sow, so shall ye reap!

    • Boba Fett November 6, 2015, 5:46 pm

      “If we “policed” our own, we wouldn’t have the general public policing us.”

      Yes we would. Remember that gun control isn’t about controlling guns or saving lives; it’s about controlling people. Those who seek control over the people will always have 1) a “common sense” reason to assert control, and 2) an astonishingly large swath of the population eager to gobble up that “common sense” rhetoric because the “safety” message appeals so strongly to so many peoples’ overwhelming sense of righteousness.
      It makes no difference whether we’re policing our own. No matter how well-behaved and responsible the gun owners of this country are, no matter how low the gun-related murder rates get, people in power do NOT like to have their power challenged. An armed (and educated) populace will always be a threat to those who profit from the injustices of the status quo, and thus, will always be demonized by their mouthpieces in the media. Heck, look at gun violence over the last 20 years. It’s been plummeting, yet the mainstream media is still incessantly pumping peoples’ heads full of sad, tear-jerking gun violence stories. Why? Because these fucking assholes won’t be satisfied until we’re a bunch of spineless, malleable pacifists.

      (note to the moderator: please let that profanity at the end slide- it’s an accurate description of those people and you know it.)

  • Geary November 6, 2015, 11:17 am

    See 2nd Amendment. Specifically the part that says ….
    …..Congress will make no law…..

    • Paul November 6, 2015, 11:55 am

      You misquoted:
      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
      I suspect that defending against a tyrannical government was a major reason for this law. I’m pretty sure it was NOT so that I could go to Florida, buy 40 guns and then go peddle them in DC or NYC. Just sayin, ya know?

      • RageFury November 6, 2015, 1:44 pm

        He may have misquoted, but he was not wrong in the point. “Shall not be infringed” equates to “Congress shall make no law”…

    • Boba Fett November 6, 2015, 2:35 pm

      “Congress shall make no law…” is the beginning of the 1st Amendment, not the 2nd. That aside, I do appreciate any attempt to defend the Bill of Rights.

  • Bobk90 November 6, 2015, 11:16 am

    When are my fellow Americans going to realize that Anti-Gun Politicians are the “Domestic Enemies” as described in the Oaths that Public Officials & the Military take? They should be Treated as such and are WORSE than TERRORIST!!!
    Long Live the Republic!!!

  • Kevin November 6, 2015, 11:07 am

    The agenda is pretty simple here and very transparent for those that have a brain and some sense:

    1. Only authorized user can use the gun. If you wanna sell it, chances are you will at some point have to go through a dealer for the buyer to complete a mandatory background check. Once cleared the gun will be re-authorized for the new buyer. The battle cry for this will be child safety and making stolen guns/straw buyers useless and that we will all be safer.

    2. Tracking. It is not a stretch to envision the same type of technology used to spy on us now, in our Smart Phones, ported over to these Smart guns. The guns can broadcast or remember their location, time of discharge and number of rounds fired. a simple compass app and tilt sensors, like in phones could tell us the direction and angle the gun was fired towards. The benefit to the consumer would be the integration of a “Coaching App” that could help make you a better shooter. The benefit to the government would be to help solve crimes, justify self-defense for those involved in shootings, etc.

    Having the ability to know where every gun is located would help recover lost or stolen guns and aid in locating anyone in possession of a firearm.

    3. The U.S. Military has discussed using similar technology to make to it easier to prosecute soldiers for “crimes” committed on the battle field. They want to track number of shots fired, time of discharge and direction, etc. Of course this will only be used to help “Clear” innocent soldiers of “wrong doing”.

    The JAG Corps would like nothing better than to make every soldier 100% accountable for every single bullet they fire, period. In a firefight, a bullet hits a kid, welcome to a murder charge. Anything that makes waging war harder for democracies (only) will be welcome by this group of people.

    Since this will discourage individuals from actually participating in combat as the personal risks from your own side, not to mention enemy action are so great, this will ease the introduction of drone fighters/robots to replace men in combat roles.

    The generals and politicians love the idea of a 100% drone force. Military personnel costs, salaries, benefits, medical and retirement costs eat up the majority of budgets. Plus, no one is going to cry if the “dead” drones start coming home in pine boxes. The flip side is trusting life and death decision making to machines, even if made 100% fool proof is not compatible with liberty and morality.

    4. Protecting the “Good Guys”. Policemen and Military personnel who risk their lives to protect the state and further the interest of the body politic (not “The People”). Any technology that can save the lives of these people is worth considering. Therefore at some point all of these Smart Guns will need to incorporate an “Off Switch”, that can either be activated in wide areas where police/military activity is taking place or simply render the gun inoperative if pointed in the direct of someone deemed to be “protected” by the guns software.

    5. This is just the beginning of a very, very long game plan to render the population 100% compliant. Liberals, socialists and would-be tyrants have exhibited incredible patience implementing their agenda. The first U.S. Federal Gun Control was enacted in 1934 and is still on the books. Incrementally they have expanded these acts through legislation and regulation, as well as doing similar things at the state level. These people are dedicated and their actions are coordinated. Failure enacting legislation and/or of the claimed benefits of enacted legislation does not dissuade them from moving forward with their agenda.

    6. Worst care scenario, all your guns are turned-off and not turned back-on. A well armed robot army is used to keep the “peace” and enforce the agenda of their masters. In comparison to this outcome, I will take some dead kids, police officers, moms and dads; bad guys with guns and a few mass shootings, as the the price of liberty. Just as I accept large numbers of dead, killed in cars each year as a price of convenience of the car over the horse.

    Just like, trigger locks, safe storage, gun registration, mandatory safety classes, etc. The Smart Gun praddle will be with us for a long time. After all it is for “The Children” and if it only “Saves One Life” it will all be worth it.

    Never Give in to Tyranny, Never!!!!

    • Paul November 6, 2015, 11:27 am

      Isn’t the fact that any nit wit on the street can threaten me with a weapon (gun, sword, knife, or even fists) tyranny? The deeper problem is that we are not a very civilized society. As long as we think of gun control types a “gun grabbers” socialists, idiots, etc there will never be a dialogue that can find a solution. Is not the NRA stance of “no regulation, anywhere, ever” just as unsupportable as the other side’s position? I have been threatened with fists here in Washington DC over right of way, walking in a clearly marked crosswalk. Do we want that guy to be armed?

      • Kevin November 6, 2015, 7:14 pm

        Hi Paul, I live in Arizona, a Constitutional Carry State. If any nit wit on the street attempts to threaten me (or my neighbors) with a weapon (gun, sword, knife, or even fists), they will find themselves dead in short order. We have criminals like everyone does. The difference is that any attack on a person is likely to involve deadly force. Therefore there are very few scenarios that will cause a criminal to risk it all in an attack on a possibly armed stranger.

        Most murders are committed by people who know the victim. Crimes of passion or opportunity will always be with us. A gun is just a tool and any victim who is killed doesn’t care what tool is used.

        When we refer to “Tyranny” in the United States, we are usually discussing the prospect that an oppressive or unjustly severe government will emerge, from the government we agreed to when the Constitution was established. Our Constitution is a contract between the government and the people, (the governed) who have freely devolved certain duties and responsibilities to the government. All rights not enumerated in the Constitution belong to the states or the people.

        The ability to resist government oppression by force of arms, is our right, if any government seeks to impose a formal tyranny. The 2nd Amendment guarantees that Americans will always have the tools to preserve their liberty.

        All people have a right to life and have the right to defend themselves from those who would threaten their life. Without “life”, all of your other rights are meaningless. Any government that denies people the ability and/or means to effectively defend themselves is a tyrannical government.

        The situation you describe in DC, will never happen (maybe once – bang!!!) in an armed and free society. Unfortunately, liberal politicians want us all to become DC, Philly, Chicago and Detroit, beholden on our master for protection. I vote NO.

  • Peanut November 6, 2015, 11:06 am

    So here’s a thought – guy walking down the street with his wife/girlfriend. They get attacked, and before the guy can fire his smart gun at the badguy, he gets incapacitated. The wife/girlfriend picks up the smaryt gun, but because it is not assimilated with her, it’s useless. If stupid people think a “smart gun” is the answer to our crime problem in this country, they probably shouldn’t own a gun anyway.

  • Athanasios1 November 6, 2015, 10:57 am

    When will New Jersey pass a law that requires citizens to only elect “Smart Politicians”?

  • Chad J. November 6, 2015, 10:42 am

    What is WRONG with these brainless morons?! Along with law enforcement officers, secret service people, capitol police, armored car personnel, jewelry couriers and diamond merchants, etc. gun dealers need firearms that are as close to 100% reliable as possible. Making them carry weapons that may fail to perform due to high-humidity, battery failure, being accidentally dropped, electromagnetic surges/pulses, etc. is INANE. That would leave them at the mercy of any crook that decided to waltz into their gun shops, hold them up, and then be free to take off with as many guns as the crook(s) desired. I’m of the firm belief that before any political hack is allowed to run for office, he/she should receive a psychiatric evaluation from at least (3) non-party-affiliated psychiatrists, who have been vetted themselves and undergone thorough psychiatric examinations themselves. Remember, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter was himself a psychiatrist!

  • david November 6, 2015, 10:40 am

    RFID jamming is a common technology already. I’ve seen instructions for building one into a ball cap that you can wear into a big-block store and shut down the RFID tags in the entire store. So why not just create that ball cap and you could shut down an entire SWAT team if they had those guns? Why wouldn’t some criminals do that? Criminals would.

    And a guy might build a more powerful unit into the weather vane on top of his home in case he’s ever the victim of a ‘wrong address’ SWAT. If you shut off the cops’ guns, they become sitting ducks. So I don’t know why any LEO would ever want smart guns anywhere. And I don’t want them either.

  • Kane November 6, 2015, 10:09 am

    Perhaps this technology could include a Breathalyzer test to determine if you are not legally intoxicated and maybe an activation and deactivation device that requires the Sheriff Departments approval. After all you can never be too safe.

  • Kane November 6, 2015, 10:06 am

    Perhaps this technology could include a Breathalyzer test to determine if you are not legally intoxicated and maybe an activation and deactivation device that requires the Sheriff Departments approval.

    • Boba Fett November 6, 2015, 2:15 pm

      Yes!!! The checkered grips could flip open to reveal a tiny keypad that you could use to text your local law enforcement agency to get on-the-spot permission to defend yourself. Then, after permission is granted, a little on-board camera automatically turns on so that the courts can later deliberate on whether you exercised your gun privileges humanely. Ya know, because safety.

  • Nathan Glass November 6, 2015, 9:51 am

    With wi-fi technology and satellites they could even shut down your SmartGun (it’s already doable with OnStar equipped cars.). This is convenient because they could make it a law that all firearms must have this technology, which ultimately is the government saying, “yes you have a right to bear arms, but we determine what kind you may have” (If you think they wouldn’t try such a law, they already tried that with assault rifles). Then they could declare martial law and use satellites to shut down all guns. Of course this is a “conspiracy-theory”, but it’s not a crazy,irrational paranoid one, because it is very well doable and I could see them doing that given the history of them attempting to ban AR-15’s and California already bans certain guns (where does it stop?). They could even say “we won’t take your gun as long as you have it digitally modified” to sway public resistance. But again, just like OnStar, why wouldn’t they be able to “deactivate” all these SmartGuns?

    • Chad J. November 6, 2015, 10:43 am

      EXCELLENT commentary/observation. I’m not as technologically-savvy as you and I never thought of THAT! Kudos!

  • Charles Ivie November 6, 2015, 9:42 am

    So far the “Smart Gun” technologies allow for an external agent to disable the firearm. A smart gun would be useless against an opponent that had the ability to prevent it from firing. Consider police armed with smart guns going up against a sophisticated gang equipped with jammers. Not a pretty sight.

  • Robert J. Lucas November 6, 2015, 9:31 am

    1,000,000 volt discharge into the smart electronics from a handheld stun gun will render this device inoperable. Solid state electronics in a firearm? Basic Firearm vs. Complicated Nightmare.

  • jakethepup November 6, 2015, 8:44 am

    I have no problem if someone wants to by a smart gun however the next step by the left is to allow only smart guns.

  • Jason brown November 6, 2015, 8:29 am

    Just what we all need, something else that can be tracked at all times, and as far as tech goes, my iphone 6s plus is problematic quite often. Why would we want a similar technology in a weapon that our lives could depend upon? What if i get get shot and my wife or son can’t fire my weapon? Chances are, we all get a bullet in the head. Look at the poor family in connecticut. The bastards hit the husband in the head with a baseball bat, raped and killed his wife and eleven year old daughter.

  • Eric Peter November 6, 2015, 7:51 am

    I have a very simple compromise on “smart guns”. I say smart guns should be mandatory for all local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement officers always face the risk of losing control of their firearm while detaining a perpetrator, right? Wouldn’t they would welcome the opportunity to have that risk nullified? Politicians would be able to report to their constituents that they are taking real, meaningful steps to reduce gun violence against police officers. That sounds like a win for everyone. After a minimum five year trial period, we would allow representatives of those agencies to comment on their reliability and effectiveness. Then we can begin the discussion of whether they should be imposed on the general public.

    • allblues November 6, 2015, 1:15 pm

      Other good candidates for beta testing would be #1 gun grabber Michael Bloomberg’s hired gun bodyguards.

  • jstert November 6, 2015, 7:51 am

    no smart guns for me. the last thing i want is anything that is inserted between me and my private and peaceable exercise of my constitutional rights. smart guns are a disgusting idea that only a fascist/communist could love.

  • BigC November 6, 2015, 7:31 am

    Hummm, maybe these politicians looking-out for our own good are invested in the “smart gun” makers!

  • Bisley November 6, 2015, 7:30 am

    It is not a legitimate function of government to determine what may, or must be sold. If anyone wants these things, and there is money to be made, someone will make them and sell them without being ordered to (and they would be made and sold, even though they were prohibited, as long as there was sufficient profit to be made).

    I wouldn’t take one as a gift — the more complicated anything becomes, the more possibilities of failure.

  • Mark November 6, 2015, 7:28 am

    On one hand it’s a great idea. On the other, this is going to jack up the price of firearms. I like the idea, other than I don’t think these biometric scanners will hold up in mud and water, and Of course they are going to add at least a thousand dollars. To this I say, “no thank you, sir. I am a responsible gun owner, and if my kids are undisciplined enough to take my firearms to school, then I will take responsibility for their actions, in a sense that I did not properly educate them.

  • Mark November 6, 2015, 7:27 am

    On one hand it’s a great idea. On the other, this is going to jack up the price of firearms. I like the idea, other than I don’t think these biometric scanners will hold up in mud and water, and Of course they are going to add at least a thousand dollars. To this I say, “no thank you, sir. I am a responsible gun owner, and if my kids are undisciplined enough to take my firearms to school, then I will take responsibility for their actions, in a sense that I did not properly educate them.

  • IP DAILY November 6, 2015, 7:22 am

    The unimaginative ideology of the Leftist Progressive Gun Grabbers, is only equaled by their persistence on serpsrating ordinary law biding citizenry from their guns. These elitists Leftist Progressives must be voted out of office, that is the only way to secure our 2nd Amendment rights. As with their nonstop attacks on marriage, redefining the man and a woman concept. Overturning more than 2,000 years of the very meaning. Two things the Leftist Progressives have is time and an agenda. They will not rest until they wrestle every gun out of our cold dead hands. So remember when you vote, vote pro-gun candidates, as we were shown by our supreme court and the marriage debate it only takes one activist judge to redefine the 2nd amendment meaning.

  • Chris Baker November 6, 2015, 7:18 am

    “but still provides a choice for gun owners to buy whatever they want.” Well Darn that pesky old freedom anyway. LOL Dude! That’s what this country is all about.

    “State Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg” I just knew that she was a democrat as soon as I saw the picture. She has the same sort of face and hand waving as Hillary Clinton.

    All humor aside, they can certainly regulate what a business can carry. They do it for the liquor industry, they do it for the pharmaceutical industry, they do it for the car industry, why wouldn’t they be able to do it for the gun/weapon industry? Actually, under the constitution and a strict adherence to it, they wouldn’t be able to do any of those things and we really need to stop them from continuing their tyrannical ways.

  • Vic P November 6, 2015, 7:11 am

    I guess my big question is: Are the Police and Military going to be required to use “smart guns”? Personally I don’t think so. The sole purpose of a gun is to fire when the trigger is pulled. Anything that interferes with 100% reliability is and should be a deal breaker.

    • Chris Baker November 6, 2015, 7:20 am

      So you are opposed to having manual safeties on guns too? Please think about what you’re saying before hitting the submit button.

      • saa1903 November 6, 2015, 8:37 am

        Many gun buyers prefer internal safeties. That why they make Glocks, Kahrs, and a plethora of other guns without manual safeties.

        Please think about what you’re saying before hitting the submit button.

      • 308Tom November 6, 2015, 9:02 am

        Manual operator manipulated “safeties” are merely a crutch for inept gun handlers. They are mechanical devices that can and do fail. The only real safety is between the shooter’s ears in controlling the trigger finger. Would you let someone point a loaded gun with the operator manipulated safety engaged at you and press on the trigger? I didn’t think so, I don’t trust them either.

      • DNS November 6, 2015, 11:39 am

        I own a few guns that have zero external safeties. This is how they came from the factory, not a modification I made. The main safety on a firearm sits between the ears of the user. Know what your talking about before posting.

  • Rollin Shultz November 6, 2015, 7:07 am

    I am all for any good idea that helps make handling guns safer, and though the fact they want to tie it to child safety, is a hook to get support from the typical non critical thinking voter, I can see the point. However, the government has NO right to control any product of any kind where the product in question has no effect on the health and prosperity of the general public. As always the free market should be the controlling mechanism and it should be up to the companies to do research on smart guns on their own, then when a smart gun can be manufactured that works as intended, w/o any significant change in the gun’s price or use, then it will gain ground as an acceptable practice.

    We must always be on guard and very watchful of how much influence the liberal mind has over us. The ultra left liberal minds have shown repeatedly, they do not share our values and sensibilities. We must remember, this isn’t just about guns, but about every area of our lives in which legislation could possibly interfere with the American way of life. If we don’t become seriously interested in banding together to create a united front against those who wish to rule over all through emotion, rather than common sense, we WILL lose.

    • Stargzer November 6, 2015, 6:25 pm

      Child Safety? That’s why the make locks and gun safes – solutions we already have, and that should be deployed if there are young children in or visiting the house!

      We also need to educate more child in gun safety. Shucks, I learned it at the Jellef Branch Boys Club in DC when I was a kid one summer — they had BB guns, and we had range safety training even though the target was only like 10 feet away, firing into a canvas backstop – always point down range, don’t fire until the word is given, stop when told to – simple, common sense rules. Not like the idiot who showed his 6-year-old where the gun was wrapped in pajamas so the kid went to get it to play with and killed his 2-year-old brother. It’s really, really, really hard to fix “stupid.”

  • WilliamDahl November 6, 2015, 7:07 am

    There should be a law that allows the idiots who vote for stupid laws like this to be held PERSONALLY responsible for any damages that occur because of it. If the device fails to allow the owner to defend himself and he gets killed, then the idiots who voted for this law should be liable for his death. Maybe with the chance of personally losing millions of dollars / everything they own, these idiots will be deterred from enacting stupid legislation like this.

  • John November 6, 2015, 6:47 am

    Not so Orwellian at all. If politicians were concerned about SAFETY we would all have suppressors to dampen ear damaging noise. And if they ACTUALLY thought smart guns were the way to go all the cops would be required to have one. (You know, lead by example…)

    And then we come to problem #3, we already have millions of guns in circulation, so if they want people to have smart guns, then somewhere down the road I can see a massive gun confiscation to get all the dumb guns. (Of course we all know that wouldn’t actually get all the guns, there would still be a black market.)

    And then another big problem, which the article pointed out, all the gun banners are sociopath liars…who constantly have to lie & twist figures to support their agenda. (I know we have a few on our side too, but it seems only fair since they have so many! LoL)

    • ExNuke November 27, 2015, 8:54 am

      Politicians ARE worried about Safety, their own safety, your’s isn’t important. Mexico’s corrupt politicians disarmed their peasants for the safety of the politicians and left running the country to the most violent of the criminals. Our corrupt politicians have the same goal for the same reasons, they don’t want to be stood against a wall and offered a last cigarette and blindfold.

  • doug November 6, 2015, 6:45 am

    there are devices that let police electronically stop vehicles now. I suppose the gov’t could do the same with mart guns. ;push a button and all the smart guns are paperweights.

    • Jimmy November 6, 2015, 4:03 pm

      This thought was my first take on this article as well. The government local or federal being able to disarm me remotely is pretty scary.

  • Michael Johnson November 6, 2015, 5:41 am

    I Agree with Will Drider. I say if our government wants to push them so bad, let’s start with:
    The pollititions body guards
    Our FBI, CIA and all federal “gun holders”
    Local police departments
    Dare say I our military ………
    and then let’s see how much they like the idea.
    I feel it should be a choice (a poor choice) and the pollititions should stay out of it.

  • Realist November 6, 2015, 5:24 am

    Gov’t should not compel private industry/Americans to buy anything; Obamacare is a prime example. I’m not against innovation and the like, but let the Market decide whether or not America is ready for this.

    As for me? I’m not going to risk my safety and my family’s for the sake of pacifying the Left. And what about Liability? What if the gun doesn’t work when needed and as a result someone is killed? There’s no Legal precedence thus any lawsuit would languish (for years) in court.

    Not for me, I’ll trust my own judgement and reflexes…

  • WillB November 6, 2015, 4:53 am

    Simple politics. A manufacturer (or a foreign country) or anyone with the money, can now buy a politician or a dozen of them. There is no limit on the sales price (thanks to Citizen’s United). And, it does not simply apply to national politics. You can shop local, buy local. There is a For Sale sign on every politician, the price merely depends on how despicable they are. This is just one example of how that plays out.

    • Mr James November 6, 2015, 11:55 pm

      Plain and simple. The difference between the letter A and the letter B, plain and simple. With the remaining letters in the alphabet we who use it, allow others and ourselves to manipulate simple differences, complicating with due diligence the very simple. I who surely believes in the goodness of Man, know well, the tragic losses I have suffered, due to our Alphabet. Try good peoples not to be misdirected by 24 more letters.

  • Dustin November 6, 2015, 4:35 am

    Ever take a gun apart? Inserting electronic gadgets into the mechanical only proves how easily it could be bypassed. I removed the series 80 BS from my 1911. I eliminated many sundry electronic bits from my car. I can completely redesign the internals of a gun. Open bolt subguns are easy to make from scratch… Anything that can be added can be removed, derp.

  • bob November 6, 2015, 4:08 am

    The only problem I have with a “smart” gun is this. What if I’m not home, and someone breaks into my house with my wife and kids there? Now that gun is about as useless as a heavy paper weight. Second, the Government has no right to MANDATE, that a seller of any merchandise sell a particular product. Once that camel nose is in the tent, it won’t be long before ALL GUNS will be mandated with smart technology, and this is BULLSHIT. Also I am never going to put my family’s life, or my life in jeopardy using any technology. that’s being developed today, and I’m not talking just about guns, I’m talking anything on the market that has a micro chip in it. Including my cars, guns, etc. Put a chip in it and now you have universal registration, GPS capability, shut down capability, etc.. I don’t trust this government, and not just he goatfuckers regime, ANY administration, not to misuse this technology.

    • Chris Baker November 6, 2015, 7:25 am

      No right to mandate? I give you the federal smog laws.

      • Kanaga November 6, 2015, 9:23 am

        CFL light bulbs are a result of government forcing businesses to sell a product that nobody wanted.

      • Kanaga November 6, 2015, 9:24 am

        CFL light bulbs are a result of government forcing businesses to sell a product that nobody wanted.

    • Running Man November 6, 2015, 9:46 am

      “No right to mandate anything…” our representatives don’t operate based on “rights” they operate based on feelings. Wasn’t every legal resident in America directed that they would buy or be given health insurance?

  • buurga November 6, 2015, 3:12 am

    Any bill for ‘smart guns’ should be accompanied by a rider allowing only smart politicians to vote on it.

    • johnQ November 6, 2015, 6:47 am

      Any bill for smart guns should be accompanied by drug testing for all the politicians writing it.

      • Chief November 6, 2015, 8:39 am

        Any bill for ‘smart guns’ should be accompanied by with a coupon for a free reliable gun for when the junk “sg’ fails.

  • Will Drider November 5, 2015, 1:16 pm

    I’m not a end of the World as we know it pessimist. However, there are many events that could kill a electronic smart gun (SG) when the need for a firearm may be at its highest. Obviously a EMP would kill a SG. Consider solar flares that disrupt radio frequency. There are also very high tech materials that when exploded/burned (think military aircraft crash) create hazardous materials that destroy electronics in the area and down wind. What about electronic jamming. R/C aircraft and drones (civ) are already moving to encryption to protect the asset and private companies have already produced a “anti drone gun” that disrupts the radio freq; could that also disrupt the SG RFID? What if your watch or ring arm is disabled. How long would it take to get the ring/watch from that arm in proximity to the SG?

    Finger print readers. That technology has been in use in security systems, computers and phones for some time now. Their problem then and still persisting today is that they don’t work first time every time under pristine conditions. Now add rain, dust/dirt, scratches on screen or finger and that poor pristine reliability tanks.

    What about a stolen SG? Would it be of no value to the criminals? Just like mags, gun stuff tends to be stored in close proximity so the entire system may be stolen. Say only the SG is stolen. Just like locked computers and smart phones, BGs will find a way to hack and access them. BGs already have the technology to record and clone the radio frequencies from your garage door opener and your code jumping car door lock system. The only thing precluding SG hacking is that very few SGs are in circulation.

    • The Original Brad November 6, 2015, 5:39 am

      Good comments Will. One other thing to add to your stolen SG scenario – I doubt they’d even have to hack it. If there’s a trigger and an linkage, they’ll find away to bypass the RFI system altogether. It might not look pretty, and who knows about reliability but when your getting held up at the bank, or on a street corner getting robbed, those factors go right out the window.

    • Joe McHugh November 6, 2015, 7:04 am

      My neighbor, “Bob”, laughs at all anti-gun legislation. He possesses a veritable arsenal of long guns, and I suspect that he has many hand guns that are not registered. “Bob”, has almost enough spare ammunition to re fight the WWII Normandy battle all over again. He said that his firearms could not be detected even with the use of a metal detector. Very few people know about this facet of “Bob” but he confides in me because he understands my political views.

      In fact “Bob” feels sorry for me because my wife will not allow a gun in the same house with the children. He told me that if the fecal matter hits the fan, he would loan me one of his guns and all of the ammunition I might want.

      “Bob” is a community leader, (not organizer like the Marxist-In-Chief), who appears to be the very model of a law-abiding citizen. But under that veneer of respectability lurks a person who dares to enforce his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. “Bob” doesn’t trust the government and he believes that the less the government bureaucrats know about him, the better.

      I’m pretty sure that there are a couple more “Bobs” in my neighborhood but I can’t be sure because they keep their private lives private. For some reason, I feel safer with the millions of “Bobs” in the country that don’t share the information that they have enforced their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They make me feel even safer when our “trusted” representatives in government seek to abuse out inherent rights, such as the ones in the Bill of Rights.

      Our kids are almost old enough to start earning their own way in life. I’m thinking of buying my own rifles and shotguns in private transactions. I respected my wife’s concerns about the safety of our kids, she can respect my desire to keep and bear arms after they leave home.

      • Citizen John November 6, 2015, 8:33 am

        Thank GOD for Joe’s neighbor, “Bob” and all the other Bobs out there !

      • Al Joy November 6, 2015, 5:42 pm

        Joe,
        It’s thinking like that that that creates criminals. Here in NY it is illegal to buy even a long gun without government approval. That’s right, even that old rusty single barrel shotgun, will put you in with the ranks of Americas top 10. There is no excuse for you to own a gun, just hire half a dozen body guards like the politicians and the celebrities and you’ll sleep like a baby, and that will allow you time to think up ideas to take the guns away from the remaining law abiding citizens.

    • CJ November 6, 2015, 8:29 am

      Thank GOD for Will’s neighbor !

    • Boba Fett November 6, 2015, 11:51 am

      One more important factor: Batteries. No electronic device can operate without an “Ein,” and no battery can hold its charge indefinitely. If this “smart” gun sits untouched for six months or a year, the battery will die, the device will not operate, and I f some thug crawls through your screen door, I doubt a New Jersey state congressman will be standing by to save you. I guess you could roll up a copy of Assembly Bill No. 700 and try to swat them away with it. Yeah, no thanks.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend