Green Republican
New member
And how should they? And how should we?
How Will Manufacturers Respond to Smart Gun Technology?
- Thread starter Green Republican
- Start date
The latest tactic by those who oppose the individual interpretation of the second amendment is to file civil suits for a variety of charges, one of which is evil gun manufacturers MARKET their products in such a manner so as to incite untrained, unwashed, unauthorized (in their minds) "subjects" to do bad things.
I predict manufacturers will be forced into a two tier product array. Tier one will be products marketed to "approved individuals and agencies." Tier two will be products marketed to untrained, unwashed, and anauthorized "subjects." With existing technology that distinction will be difficult to maintain in a market. However, once something like "smart guns" show up, the ability to maintain separate tiers is greatly simplified.
I think it is quite possible in view of the current legal environment and barring tort reform we will see a move by gun control types to require smart gun technology to be required for tier two sales (the untrained, unwashed, and unauthorized "subjects"). Traditional technology would be available only to tier one types.
Take a look at the S&W agreement. I think it provides a convenient framework to implement such a plan. Another reason to demand the federal government vacate that agreement then lean on cities and states to do likewise. I know Bush can do it because Clintoon did going the other direction.
I predict manufacturers will be forced into a two tier product array. Tier one will be products marketed to "approved individuals and agencies." Tier two will be products marketed to untrained, unwashed, and anauthorized "subjects." With existing technology that distinction will be difficult to maintain in a market. However, once something like "smart guns" show up, the ability to maintain separate tiers is greatly simplified.
I think it is quite possible in view of the current legal environment and barring tort reform we will see a move by gun control types to require smart gun technology to be required for tier two sales (the untrained, unwashed, and unauthorized "subjects"). Traditional technology would be available only to tier one types.
Take a look at the S&W agreement. I think it provides a convenient framework to implement such a plan. Another reason to demand the federal government vacate that agreement then lean on cities and states to do likewise. I know Bush can do it because Clintoon did going the other direction.
LOL!
The dreaded "Blue Screen Of Death". In this case, XP = Xtra Prayers, since that's what you'll need to get yout butt out of a sling.
What really is maddening is that the politicians who voted in this piece of trash legislation have conveniently written in a 'hold harmless' that precludes their being sued, if one of these POS 'smart guns' fails to function.
Nice.
I see a storm on the horizon...
The dreaded "Blue Screen Of Death". In this case, XP = Xtra Prayers, since that's what you'll need to get yout butt out of a sling.
What really is maddening is that the politicians who voted in this piece of trash legislation have conveniently written in a 'hold harmless' that precludes their being sued, if one of these POS 'smart guns' fails to function.
Nice.
I see a storm on the horizon...
Preacherman
New member
Something else that I've wondered about, but that I haven't seen mentioned by all the left-wing liberal lunatics who are calling for "smart gun" technology...
It seems logical to conclude that "smart guns" will require some form of electronics - which means batteries, connections, computer chips, embedded code, etc. In the event that the sale of such weapons is mandated by law as the only means of self-defence available to consumers, what happens when one or more of these component elements fails at the crucial moment? It's bound to happen, you know - just look at the number of computers in modern motor vehicles, and what happens when one of them fails!
So, we have a citizen who has been obliged by law to buy one of these "smart weapons" (because no "dumb" weapons are allowed to be sold), and tries to use it to defend himself and his family, and it breaks down and doesn't stop the attack. He and/or his wife and/or his family have suffered injury or death as a result. They (or their survivors) will now sue the manufacturer of the weapon, the State that mandated its purchase (and excluded other weapons from consideration), and everyone in between, for the failure of this wonder technology to accomplish its intended purpose.
The only way to avoid this - and to induce the manufacturers to actually produce "smart" weapons, because they will absolutely refuse to do so without some form of legal protection - will be for the State to indemnify itself and the manufacturers, distributors and retailers of such weapons, against any liability if the weapon doesn't function as intended. This would mean that the State tells us what weapons we may use, but doesn't accept any responsibility for the consequences of its decrees... Can anyone say "Orwellian"???
It seems logical to conclude that "smart guns" will require some form of electronics - which means batteries, connections, computer chips, embedded code, etc. In the event that the sale of such weapons is mandated by law as the only means of self-defence available to consumers, what happens when one or more of these component elements fails at the crucial moment? It's bound to happen, you know - just look at the number of computers in modern motor vehicles, and what happens when one of them fails!
So, we have a citizen who has been obliged by law to buy one of these "smart weapons" (because no "dumb" weapons are allowed to be sold), and tries to use it to defend himself and his family, and it breaks down and doesn't stop the attack. He and/or his wife and/or his family have suffered injury or death as a result. They (or their survivors) will now sue the manufacturer of the weapon, the State that mandated its purchase (and excluded other weapons from consideration), and everyone in between, for the failure of this wonder technology to accomplish its intended purpose.
The only way to avoid this - and to induce the manufacturers to actually produce "smart" weapons, because they will absolutely refuse to do so without some form of legal protection - will be for the State to indemnify itself and the manufacturers, distributors and retailers of such weapons, against any liability if the weapon doesn't function as intended. This would mean that the State tells us what weapons we may use, but doesn't accept any responsibility for the consequences of its decrees... Can anyone say "Orwellian"???
Preacherman, it's even worse than you outline.
The "enlightened" Legislators in the "great" state of New Jersey did, in fact, indemnify themselves from suits. However, they did NOT hold the manufactuers harmless... they WANT there to be lawsuits against the "smart gun" manufacturers as the end game of total gun bans.
Ban various types of guns (full auto, assault rifle...)
Ban 'traditional' guns (anything that goes BANG)
Sue companies that make faulty smart guns to shut them down...
NO MORE GUNS.
The writing is on the wall. Watch your back... this legislation is coming to a State near you...
Bill Barrett
New member
Any gun manufacturer that implements a smart gun system, and thus causes the NJ ban to activate, should become the next S&W style boycot target.
shootist2121
New member
I strongly suggest the smart guns must under go massive testing under estreme conditions and must function for a minnimum 15,000 rounds with zero failure rate. and this should be legislated for acceptance of smart guns.
All other products produce in this country under go testing for safety and function. Let's get behind the criteria that the smart gun is to be judge by...If we set these standards
That will help slow down the stampede. Won't stop it though!
Waitone is right we have to stand up to the manufactures and say no. Where's the smart car key?
All other products produce in this country under go testing for safety and function. Let's get behind the criteria that the smart gun is to be judge by...If we set these standards
That will help slow down the stampede. Won't stop it though!
Waitone is right we have to stand up to the manufactures and say no. Where's the smart car key?
shootist2121
New member
Oops Sorry Firemedic..I meant to refer to you in my rant above as the author of the boycot.
Whatever! Hang the first one to rush their Smart (ass) Gun to market.
Wait a minute..Eletronic?..codes?...Might be a good market to get into fixing these things for the bad guys...Isn't that the way Proabition Started all those nice gin places..LOL
Whatever! Hang the first one to rush their Smart (ass) Gun to market.
Wait a minute..Eletronic?..codes?...Might be a good market to get into fixing these things for the bad guys...Isn't that the way Proabition Started all those nice gin places..LOL
Honestly, I don't see any of the major gun manufacturers responding to this legislation. My prediction is that some small company, or even a custom shop, will develop the technology at the private behest of the NJ state legislature. They AG will certify it, and then the company will suffer some economic malady and disappear.
Preacherman, it is rather ironic that in the first section of your post, you come to almost EXACTLY the same conclusion that the NJIT Personalized Weapon program (the one used by legislators to propose and promote this legislation) outlined in their last report. They stated that there were numerous liability issues that MUST be addressed before such concepts are legislated. It is one of the reasons why I am absolutely convinced beyond all doubt that NJ legislators are nothing more than gun banning fascists. They threw this study around every way they could as supporting their position, but didn't bother to address any of the points made by it, other than to cover their own asses!
Does anyone else think we're approaching the fourth box yet?
Preacherman, it is rather ironic that in the first section of your post, you come to almost EXACTLY the same conclusion that the NJIT Personalized Weapon program (the one used by legislators to propose and promote this legislation) outlined in their last report. They stated that there were numerous liability issues that MUST be addressed before such concepts are legislated. It is one of the reasons why I am absolutely convinced beyond all doubt that NJ legislators are nothing more than gun banning fascists. They threw this study around every way they could as supporting their position, but didn't bother to address any of the points made by it, other than to cover their own asses!
Does anyone else think we're approaching the fourth box yet?
pdmoderator
New member
Testing "smart" guns
http://www.nlectc.org/testing/pistols.html
This would work, assuming the testers are honest (which in PRNJ is a long shot. ).
NIST has a program going:
http://www.eeel.nist.gov/oles/weapons.html#Evaluation Of Smart Guns
http://infoserve.sandia.gov/cgi-bin/techlib/access-control.pl/2001/013499.pdf
And here is the technology that Sandia said was "most promising":
http://www.dss.state.ct.us/digital/news21/bhsug21.htm
The thing, called a LiveGrip, does an infrared scan of blood vessels in the hand. The company that makes it, Advanced Biometrics, Inc., seems to be in serious financial trouble.
- pdmoderator
http://www.nlectc.org/testing/pistols.html
This would work, assuming the testers are honest (which in PRNJ is a long shot.
).NIST has a program going:
http://www.eeel.nist.gov/oles/weapons.html#Evaluation Of Smart Guns
BTW, the following is the most up-to-date and unbiased info I can find about the current state of so-called "smart" gun technology:Evaluation Of "Smart Guns"
Goals
The objective of this project is to evaluate smart gun technologies; and if a mature technology is incorporated into a fireman [sic
Customer Needs
As evidenced by recent news stories, there is great concern with regard to the safety of handguns for two main reasons: law enforcement officers are killed by criminals using the officers' own guns; and children are accidentally killed with guns they find at home or elsewhere.
Because of these problems, Congress requested that the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) investigate ways to increase handgun safety. Specifically, the request was to make guns "childproof" and to ensure that only authorized users could fire law enforcement officers' guns. A study conducted by Sandia National Laboratories in the mid-1990's defined the operational requirements for firearms utilizing smart gun technologies. For several years, NIJ has awarded grants to develop smart gun technologies and smart guns. To make wise decisions regarding funding and technology development, specialized advice is needed to evaluate the technologies to determine if they are feasible.
Technical Strategy
As smart gun technologies are developed, OLES will continue to provide technical guidance to evaluate the technologies and their integration into smart gun designs.
As designs mature, OLES will assist in developing a plan to conduct limited field testing of prototype smart guns at participating law enforcement agencies
FY2002 DELIVERABLES: As needed.
http://infoserve.sandia.gov/cgi-bin/techlib/access-control.pl/2001/013499.pdf
And here is the technology that Sandia said was "most promising":
http://www.dss.state.ct.us/digital/news21/bhsug21.htm
The thing, called a LiveGrip, does an infrared scan of blood vessels in the hand. The company that makes it, Advanced Biometrics, Inc., seems to be in serious financial trouble.
- pdmoderator
Last edited:
pdmoderator
New member
Don't look for a boom in used guns from PRNJ, Jeets. We'll want to hang onto the ones that work.
- pdmoderator
- pdmoderator
RAY WOODROW 3RD
New member
Jeets....................
Don't worry Jeets. I'm sure your new Governor Mr. Rendell is salivating at the law and figuring on what back room deals can be done to get it into your state also."It's for the children!"
Are you ready for the "one gun a month" bill? It's coming...........
Finally, when the AG says there is smart gun technology and it will be implimented in 3 years I will gaurantee that you will not find ONE DUMB GUN IN ANY SHOP. Everybody over here will be buying them up. Myself included. The wife has been put on warning about this..................
Don't worry Jeets. I'm sure your new Governor Mr. Rendell is salivating at the law and figuring on what back room deals can be done to get it into your state also."It's for the children!"
Are you ready for the "one gun a month" bill? It's coming...........
Finally, when the AG says there is smart gun technology and it will be implimented in 3 years I will gaurantee that you will not find ONE DUMB GUN IN ANY SHOP. Everybody over here will be buying them up. Myself included. The wife has been put on warning about this..................
I get to play electronics engineer in a "shooting" company, and the "smart gun" money's been around for a while.
At least five years ago I was asked about designing a circuit to accomplish this function.
With zero thought about just how I'd go about identifying the specific individual I asked the following:
"Given all circuits will eventually fail, if for no other reason than power supply failure, just what do you want the "fail safe" mode to be?
If you select "live gun", you get sued when some idiot shoots some other idiot, regardless of circumstance.
If you chose "fail safe", you get sued when some owner is killed, maimed or wounded when the weapon fails in the time of need.
Either way, we'll lose."
We didn't apply for the contract(s)...
I doubt that anyone else will, either.
At least five years ago I was asked about designing a circuit to accomplish this function.
With zero thought about just how I'd go about identifying the specific individual I asked the following:
"Given all circuits will eventually fail, if for no other reason than power supply failure, just what do you want the "fail safe" mode to be?
If you select "live gun", you get sued when some idiot shoots some other idiot, regardless of circumstance.
If you chose "fail safe", you get sued when some owner is killed, maimed or wounded when the weapon fails in the time of need.
Either way, we'll lose."
We didn't apply for the contract(s)...
I doubt that anyone else will, either.
benetown:
Don't worry about responsibility or being sued, for the politicans
would likely promise to "immunize" the manufacturer, even though they knew that this "immunization" might fly like the dodo bird.
I'm still curious as to how the "Law Enforcement Exception" stands respecting the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Anyone have any ideas? After all, "law enforcemenbt" supposedly thought that Lautenberg was the greatest thing since baseball, till they discovered that it had bitten them on their ass, when it turned out to be to late.
If I understood the thing correctly, former congressman Bob Barr killed the "LE Exception" to Lautenberg. While some claim that he left something to be desired, I believe that we owe him a vote of thanks for doing that, if for no other reason than to prove the following point, What Goes Around, Comes Around. Of course, "congress critters" should have had the integrity to kill Lautenberg, but obviously they didn't.
Don't worry about responsibility or being sued, for the politicans
would likely promise to "immunize" the manufacturer, even though they knew that this "immunization" might fly like the dodo bird.
I'm still curious as to how the "Law Enforcement Exception" stands respecting the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Anyone have any ideas? After all, "law enforcemenbt" supposedly thought that Lautenberg was the greatest thing since baseball, till they discovered that it had bitten them on their ass, when it turned out to be to late.
If I understood the thing correctly, former congressman Bob Barr killed the "LE Exception" to Lautenberg. While some claim that he left something to be desired, I believe that we owe him a vote of thanks for doing that, if for no other reason than to prove the following point, What Goes Around, Comes Around. Of course, "congress critters" should have had the integrity to kill Lautenberg, but obviously they didn't.
Green Republican
New member
Ray:
"It's for the children". Perfect cue for posting my next editorial (not yet in) which I'll do in an hour or so. Then I'll post a link if it's picked up (already tentatively approved by the editorial staff). Hope I'm not jinxing myself.
"It's for the children". Perfect cue for posting my next editorial (not yet in) which I'll do in an hour or so. Then I'll post a link if it's picked up (already tentatively approved by the editorial staff). Hope I'm not jinxing myself.