Smart Gun Technology

[jimbob86]

So, who knows some anti-gun city council somewhere could very likely mandate the use of this technology.

.... and "if it's good enough for our Police Officers ......" then they have a case for requiring you to have it...... just one more hoop to jump through ..... adding expense, and decreasing reliability and convenience....... "If you want less of a thing, make it more expensive, less convenient, and dangerous."

No.

 

[44 AMP]

To our resident legal beagles, lets say it is mandated, and in gravest extreme, the smart gun fails to fire. And its not some user responsibility issues (battery life, etc). Lets say there is no detectable fault in the mechanism, but it didn't work.

WHO is at fault, the maker? or the law requiring you to use a defective product? Is your estate going to go to court for damages because you had dirty hands? (gun didn't read your fingerprints?) Or because the magic watch was an inch too far from the gun when you needed it most?

Create your own sceneario. Base question is, if required by law, and it fails (not your fault) can the law be responsible in some degree?

(in that type of situation, I would want to be able to sue the individual people who passed and enforced the law, but I know that isn't remotely realistic)

Or would it be treated like car seatbelts? Law says you have to have them, law says you have to wear them, but if they don't save your life, its just your tough luck?

 

[Spats McGee]

To our resident legal beagles, . . . . . Base question is, if required by law, and it fails (not your fault) can the law be responsible in some degree? . . . . .

Or would it be treated like car seatbelts? Law says you have to have them, law says you have to wear them, but if they don't save your life, its just your tough luck?

Without doing any legal research whatsoever on the issue, I'd call the guy whose smart gun failed "out of luck." Let's look at the possible defendants:
Legislature -- Their defenses: (1) legislative immunity; and (2) "we just passed the law, we didn't design the gun, or mandate anything that would have made it fail.

Manufacturer -- Defense: Simple failure does not mean the same thing as "defective design." (You did stipulate that there was no "detectable fault" in the mechanism.)

 

[44 AMP]

Kind of what I figured, Spats, thanks.

Now, how do we get rid of that pesky legislative immunity thing?

I know its probably a pipe dream, but it just seems to me that we would be better off, as a nation, if there was some way to hold legislators responsible, other than not re-electing them, when their current term expires.

And I don't mean for things that are unpopular, but for things that actually cause harm.

I think that if they are going to rule, then they should be liable for the consequences. And make no mistake, things like mandating smart gun technology is NOT representing the people, it is ruling.

 

[Spats McGee]

The only way to actually get rid of legislative immunity would be to have legislators pass a statute doing so. Anyone want to take odds on whether a bunch of legislators who are protected by legislative immunity are going to vote to take it from themselves?

Besides, I'm not sure that's a good idea. Legislators would be sued every time they passed a law that someone didn't like, and there would be no end to that litigation. I'm not sure anyone would want public office.

 

[44 AMP]

Yes, I recognize the other side of that coin. Our system is the best one we've got, but I think we could do a better job running it. Of course, I'm also of the opinion that people who seek political office are often the least desirable ones to have in it.

 

[spacecoast]

Functionally, I'd also worry about where I'd be if my "watched" hand was disabled in a struggle or by a gun/knife. I don't throw rocks well left-handed, but I can shoot with it.