New Jersey to mandate "smart" guns. Hear the eyes roll in my head?

[Tripler]

I direct you to this article in my hometown's paper. (http://www.bergen.com/page.php?level_3_id=1&page=6095248)

Today, New Jersey enacted preemptive kneejerk legislation that once:
(a) manufacturer has made a handgun with such technology available for sale in New Jersey, other makers would have three years to equip their weapons with such technology or be banned from selling in the state.

So, what I'm reading is that there currently is no proven technology, but there is a requirement to implement it within three year, which would eliminate competition on legitimate, legal products thus creating an unofficial state-sanctioned monopoly.

As soon as I dig it up, I'll cite a better program in Washington state where sales tax on gun locks and gun safes/vaults is now exempted at the time of purchase. Apparently, gun lock and safe sales are up 35%. Again, let me find the cite. . .

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: A gun doesn't kill people, the intent behind the trigger does.

Educate your damn kids, and lock up your weapons and ammunition securely.

Topic: Am I off base? Discuss.

Tripler
I'm feeling faklempt at this. :mad:

[Meatros]

Originally posted by Tripler
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: A gun doesn't kill people, the intent behind the trigger does.

Well if someone was intent on blaming an inanimate object, wouldn't the bullets be at more fault than the gun? Afterall an empty gun held by someone with the intent to kill is utterly useless.


I agree with you though, I think this "unproven" technology should not be implemented. What's more is it's dangerous; I mean only one person can fire the gun, right? Well what if I'm away on business and someone tries to rape my fiance, how is she going to shoot the guy?

I think this "safe" technology is a bad idea, aimed at people with no control over their kids, and limited knowledge of things we call "safes" that are meant to protect criminals from stealing things, such as weapons.

[Tripler]

Some cites I promised:

An online version of Washington's tax exemption for gun safes/locks bill. (http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2950-2974/2969_sbr_030398.txt) I'm still working on the article that cited this 1998 bill.

Meatros, yeah if you wanna get technical, you are right. But you kinda need the gun to launch the bullets in a certain direction. :D

As far as "unproven", I don't think it could be called that yet. I think it's more "unfeasable" at best, for the same reason you elucidated earlier. What about my roommate, who may need a sidearm or shotgun to separate our dog from a brown bear? Oh, sorry Bill, I locked up my wristlet in my desk. Too bad, so sad. . .

Personally, I applaud the Million Mom March for taking up an issue and a cause, but I fault them for inventing a stigma that a firearm is an inherently evil object, capable of killing indescriminately (like saying a certain religious item is capable of miraculously curing cancer). A firearm is an inanimate tool used to express the intent of the user. And the only way to prevent misuse and abuse of these tools is to take the intent out from behind the trigger.

Again, I invite comments to get me thinking . . .

Tripler
I love a good, healthy debate to get me thinkin'.

[JRDelirious]

Geesh... Mandating a technological result, but with the technology being implemented when and if ever it becomes viable?
Next: legislation to order car makers to invent a technology that makes it materially impossible to run over the paperboy; legislation to order cutlery makers to invent a technology that prevents fish knives from cutting anything but fish; legislation to order digital camera makers to insert a chip that recognizes when what is being focused on is obscene... Think of the children!!!


An immediate thought was: OK, who decides what technology is "technologically and commercially viable"? Gunmaker? State Police? A lab at Rutgers? ATF? the NRA? Then once that is cleared, what happens if during that 3-year phase-in some OTHER manufacturer comes up with another, different but possibly better "smartgun" technology? Does that satisfy the requirement? If so, does the timer reset for everyone else to adopt that in a further 3 years? Does the standard go up with the technology or stay at LCD with whoever was first, with the NJ public being asked to settle for being "protected" by whatever half-arsed beta technology is rushed into production to be first in the market? Because evidently all makers w/o their own R&D labs will be under pressure to license the "leader"'s technology within 3 years in order to keep doing business in NJ.

I live in a total license-and-registration jurisdiction and don't feel particularly opressed by it; but I don't think much of this "solution". Heck, this sounds like more of the "look, look, we're doing something" legislation that has been plaguing us in this insecure age.

... I just had a thought -- How's the S&W boycott doing? Is it even still on? [briefly: Smith & Wesson back in the Clinton years started requiring dealers who carried their guns to observe more-stringent-than-the-Law rules about ALL sales, resulting in many dealers boycotting S&W products. I myself found no fault in S&W but that's another story] 'Cause something like this could this possibly be a "privilege" statute for gunmakers willing to play ball with the state.

[BF]

... I just had a thought -- How's the S&W boycott doing? JR, nope, that's all over now. S&W was bought out by (in case you didn't know, S&W was owned by a Brit firm when they decided to cut their throat) a US firm Safe-T-Hammer. They've mea culpa'd and really have been cranking out the PR machine. They have now been officially welcomed back to the fold by the NRA (American Rifleman adverts and articles) and most gun owners.

[IndependentVoter]

I only have one question......and I'm pretty sure I know the answer.



Will this inlclude the guns that police departments purchase for police officers to carry?

[Berkut]

Originally posted by IndependentVoter
Will this inlclude the guns that police departments purchase for police officers to carry?
Probably not. After all, police are a higher class of citizen.

[JRDelirious]

I dunno... I would think one of the earliest pitches for smart-gun technology has been precisely for equipping police guns with the technology so they can't be turned against the policeman if he loses control of the weapon. What would probably be sought in that case, however, would be that whatever "ID" technology was used in LE weapons would be departmental rather than personal i.e. would identify "holder = Podunk City PD" rather than "holder = Sgt. Mac Millan".

Of course, the black market on "law enforcement ID-ring chips" would move some serious cash...

[robertliguori]

Right. How does New Jersey plan to stop dumb guns from being smuggled in? The same way they stop drugs?
Anyway, to paraphrase Neal Stephenson, the concept of trying to hold gun busts presents the police with several inherent contradictions.

[Maeglin]

I know this is off-topic, but does this sound suspiciously like missile defense to anyone else?

[Sofa King]

Originally posted by IndependentVoter
Will this inlclude the guns that police departments purchase for police officers to carry?

That's exactly why such a device has already been proposed and, I'm pretty certain, designed, tested, and owing to recent events, probably already in use in certain places. Police are very sensitive about the idea of having their guns taken away and used against them.

Since New Jersey apparently hasn't heard of it, I'm not going to say much else beyond this post just in case I'm going somewhere I shouldn't. Someone I know played around with various designs for such a system back in the early '70s. It worked then. It should work a lot better now.

However, the particular design I know of would not likely stop children from shooting each other with stored guns. (Hint: there is a classic conundrum between home gun safety and home gun defense. That's not likely to change with owner-specific guns for very similar reasons.)

[DSeid]

As someone is who has become very pro gun reg as a result of discussions had on these threads, I will go on the record and say that I think that such a regulation is just plain dumb. There won't be much debate about that I think.

Now as to whether or not wide handgun availabilty and casually stored handguns magnifies the consequences of bad intent ... well that debate has been had enough in the past and we know our mutual positions.

(Now a law mandating smart gun owners? That would be an idea!)

[ExTank]

My prediction: as long as it is just New Jersey (AFAIK for now), most firearms manufacturers won't bother with "rushing" into smart-gun technology development; they'll let it evolve and develop over time, taking the time to get it right.

Even then, I think that "smart guns," where they aren't mandated by law, will be a "niche" firearm. I think your standard handgun will remain basically unchanged (minor safety innovations of a purely mechanical nature), with "smart guns" being offered to the few nervous nellies who want them.

And hoo, Lordy! Are they gonna fork over the payola for 'em, too!

I doubt that New Jersey, being a fairly gun-unfriendly state, comprises enough revenue from handgun sales to compel manufacturers to bow to this fairly asinine piece of legislation.

If, however, this "legislation" catches on with enough additional states, all bets are off.

I guess it's a good thing that a well-maintained firearm is never truly "obsolete."

[Gadarene]

Geesh... Mandating a technological result, but with the technology being implemented when and if ever it becomes viable?

Actually...this sort of thing is done all the time in the context of environmental regulation. It's called "technology-forcing" regulation, and it's generally worked out quite well. Although in that context it's usually not "when and if," but rather telling the industries, "You have five years to develop technology that will take care of this emissions problem or else."

It's not as silly as you make it sound.

[lucwarm]

IMHO, there's really no need to pass such a law now. Why not wait until the technology has been developed?

In the meantime, New Jersey could allocate more money towards smart-gun technology research.

Side-note: It really annoys me how so many anti-gun activists seem more interested spiteful, feel-good, ineffective legislative strategies than in working towards the goal of reducing crime. For example, its become pretty clear over the last 10 years that "shall-issue" concealed carry legislation doesn't particularly increase in those jurisdictions that enact it. And yet anti-gun folks keep opposing these laws. For what reason, I don't know. I just wish that certain liberals would use more critical thinking in their (laudable) quest to use government to improve peoples' lives.

[Gadarene]

IMHO, there's really no need to pass such a law now. Why not wait until the technology has been developed?

I just answered that. Because such a law forces technology. It provides incentive to innovate.

I'm not commenting on the merits of the law itself; I ain't fer it or agin it. I'm just saying that this is something that's done elsewhere, and it works.

[45/70]

Will smart gun technology make up for stupid lawmaker technology?

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by Gadarene
I just answered that. Because such a law forces technology. It provides incentive to innovate.



Based on the quote in the OP, I disagree. The law (apparently) does not require anyone to develop a new technology, just to implement it if and when it's developed.

I suppose one could argue that the law gives an incentive in that if the first gun-maker to develop smart-gun technology patents the technology, it will effectively have a monopoly on the New Jersey gun market. (Query whether New Jersey can constitutionally grant such a monopoly)

In any event, I'd be interested in seeing an example of a "technology-forcing law." It seems to me that such laws, to be effective, would have to be very modest in ambition.

[Gadarene]

My mistake if that's not the case for the NJ law.

In any event, I'd be interested in seeing an example of a "technology-forcing law." It seems to me that such laws, to be effective, would have to be very modest in ambition.

Not at all. If I had my Environmental Law textbook with me, I could go more in-depth, but the Clean Air Act's provisions mandating that automobile manufacturers curtail emissions by 90 percent within five years eventually--after a couple of court-allowed extensions--proved to be extremely effective on a large scale. Ditto getting lead out of gasoline. That's the way technology-forcing regulations work: they say, "You need to meet X standard by Y date. We don't care how you get it done; just do it."

The Clean Water Act is similarly technology-forcing (http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/BriefingBooks/Laws/e.cfm?&CFID=6213428&CFTOKEN=64314461):

The Act has been termed a technology-forcing statute because of the rigorous demands placed on those who are regulated by it to achieve higher and higher levels of pollution abatement. Industries were given until July 1, 1977, to install "best practicable control technology" (BPT) to clean up waste discharges. Municipal wastewater treatment plants were required to meet an equivalent goal, termed "secondary treatment," by that date. (Municipalities unable to achieve secondary treatment by that date were allowed to apply for case-by-case extensions up to July 1, 1988. According to EPA, 86% of all cities met the 1988 deadline; the remainder were put under judicial or administrative schedules requiring compliance as soon as possible. However, many cities, especially smaller ones, continue to make investments in building or upgrading facilities needed to achieve secondary treatment.) Cities that discharge wastes into marine waters were eligible for case-by-case waivers of the secondary treatment requirement, where sufficient showing could be made that natural factors provide significant elimination of traditional forms of pollution and that both balanced populations of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and water quality standards would be protected.

As is CERCLA (http://www.iet.msu.edu/Regs/superfundact.htm) now.

Rather than being modest in ambition, these are big time environmental statutes with big time goals.

[Billy Rubin]

Originally posted by Meatros
Well if someone was intent on blaming an inanimate object, wouldn't the bullets be at more fault than the gun? Afterall an empty gun held by someone with the intent to kill is utterly useless. You've obviously never been whacked upside the head with a 1911A1. Utterly useless, it's not. Lack of bullets stimply turns many handguns into hammers, and hammers hurt!!!Otherwise, yeah, I'm with you.

As I read this, though, it seems that if it takes four hundred years for this to be developed, then the deadline for the other mfrs. is 403 years. Am I misreading this?

And Tripler, no you do not need a firearm of any kind to "launch" a bullet. You can do it fairly effectively (though not accurately)with a piece of board with a hole in it, and an icepick. Done it, it can be done.
The beginnings of the technology are there, by the way, have been for twenty years. I have an automatic with a slide-locking hammer-blocking safety which can only be deactivated if you're wearing a special magnetic ring. I think it's a good idea, but I still don't think it should be mandatory. I can see that this tech will prevent owners from being fired upon with their own weapons,or prevent a child or unauthorized adult access, but there will never be a time when criminals won't have ready access to "standard" weapons. Like wearing a helmet on a motorcycle- should be the option of the end user.


b.

[Cubsfan]

Originally posted by Tripler
So, what I'm reading is that there currently is no proven technology, but there is a requirement to implement it within three year, which would eliminate competition on legitimate, legal products thus creating an unofficial state-sanctioned monopoly.


No that is not what you are reading

Once the attorney general concludes that one manufacturer has made a handgun with such technology available for sale in New Jersey, [THEN] other makers would have three years to equip their weapons with such technology or be banned from selling in the state.

Thats not the same as what you said. This could be 5, 10, 15 years aways.

Where is the monopoly?

[RobertTB]

Is there any onus on the manufacturers to acually develop such a a system? If the law is dependent on the manuf. developing said system, they can just drag their feet, and expose this law for the soccer-mom pandering that it is.

[JRDelirious]

Not so much a monopoly, as that any manufacturer that could not develop and deploy an equal-or-better smartgun system within those 3 years (either due to not having their own R&D lab or being behind on developing their own system) would be forced by law to license the "leader's" technology and pay them royalties (which would be for as long as the patent lasts and they use the system, not just 3 years) if they want to stay in business in NJ . Unless you forced the "leader" to open-source the technology (In which case why bother).

[Space Cadet]

Sounds like sending the non-essential worker to hunt the problem bear.

My country has 1/10 your population, but last year well under 1000 murders, probably only half or less were firearm related - and yet we have more guns per capita than USA.

Methinks maybe a (cultural) violence problem, not a gun problem, is on your hands. Do what you will with your guns, Homeboyz(TM) or whatever will buy knives. Or baseballs bats. Or loaves of french bread (very crusty, hurts the noggin).

[GusNSpot]

Originally posted by Space Cadet


My country has 1/10 your population, but last year well under 1000 murders, probably only half or less were firearm related - and yet we have more guns per capita than USA.

Methinks maybe a (cultural) violence problem, not a gun problem, is on your hands.

And that is the truth of it. :cool:

[Berkut]

Originally posted by Space Cadet
Methinks maybe a (cultural) violence problem, not a gun problem, is on your hands. Truer words were never spoken.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally posted by Gadarene
I just answered that. Because such a law forces technology. It provides incentive to innovate.

I'm not commenting on the merits of the law itself; I ain't fer it or agin it. I'm just saying that this is something that's done elsewhere, and it works. But it doesn't always work. Remember California's law that X% of all new cars sold in the state had to be Zero Emission Vehicles? A law which they've had to continually rewrite and revise since the automakers not only had trouble building cars that met the original definition of the law, but also in getting folks to buy them?

Sooner or later the blackmarket is going to come up with a "skeleton key" for these things, and then we'll be back where we started. Except, of course, that law abiding folks won't have 'em.

[Liberal]

Gadarene

It is fascinating to me that you speak of technology-forcing environmental law. (And since you've taken the topic there, we might as well discuss it.) Wouldn't a single law prohibiting general coercion (such as pollution) be equally effective? If not, why not?

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by Gadarene

Rather than being modest in ambition, these are big time environmental statutes with big time goals.

Well, I'll concede that a 90% reduction in auto emissions seems, on its face, to be a dramatic improvement. At the same time, I'm still skeptical. Why not mandate a cure for cancer within 5 years?

In any event, I basically still stand behind my original thought - which is that there doesn't seem to be much point in passing the NJ law now.

[E-Sabbath]

I'd like to verify the ease of launching a bullet. Back in the day, when I was young and stupid, I used to make 'boom sticks'. Shotgun shell, a nail, and a drill with a corer bit were used in some way on a baseball bat. Used it mostly to swing at watermellons and watch them vaporize. Stupid, dangerous, but functional. Once.

[Una Persson]

How nice to see the CAA and its Amendments brought up.

There are some things that environmental lawyers seem to not understand about the real world and technology forcing legislation.

1) Often, no cost-benefit analysis given as a rationale - the largest problem of "BACT". Is it technologically feasible to reduce ALL power plant NOx emissions by 99.99%? Yeah, maybe. How much does it cost to do that? Oh, well, that doesn't matter... OK - so what about the guns? What if the technology costs $20,000 per gun - does that satisfy the provisions of the law? If so, that's a good way to enact a gun ban...only those who can plop down the dough will be able to afford one. What if it's only an extra $100? Is that too much, too little, or a wash?

2) Often, oversight and decision on when a technology is "feasible" lies in the hands on a single, non-elected, political individual in a highly politicized office (such as oh, I don't know, the EPA?). And we know that both the Left and the Right never politicize the gun control issue at all...what's to keep a political person (in the case of NJ, it is the State Attorney General who gets that power) from saying "OK - it exists now. What? It doesn't work? Gee, too bad..." or "Nope, it doesn't exist, and it probably won't, as long as I'm in office..."?

3) Typically ZERO liability protection given to innovators who honestly attempt to meet the provisions of the "technology forcing" legislation. Good-faith efforts and honest engineering analysis are no defense for unintended side-effects of implementing mandated technologies - hence, manufacturers being sued over installing airbags which were mandated to be installed. Or power plants with dry stacks being targeted for complaints over opacity in their emissions (which, ironically, the cause of the opacity in this case is nearly 100% harmless steam) by implementing a wet scrubber to meet CAAA 1990. And what do you think will happen the very first time that a gun doesn't fire when it ought to, fires when it ought not to, or just malfunctions and breaks? Or the batteries run out? Given the average public and the penchant for frivilous lawsuits over anything and everything, I can just see the dollar signs in the eyes now.

Oh, and removing lead really had nothing to do with technology forcing. It was a simple mandate to remove lead. While many automobiles relied upon the lead as the "cushion" for their exhaust and intake valves, the technology was in-use and employed long before the lead-reducing mandates came into play.

That having been said, technology forcing legislation can be put to good use, and can result in successes. But there needs to be a cost-benefit done - even if it doesn't change the outcome, but at least so people know what they are getting into - bi-partisan or(if possible) apolitical oversight and a decision on when the goals are met, and serious liability protections for innovators who try to meet the demands of the legislation (nope, you can bet that will never happen... :rolleyes: ).

Oh - the article on CNN says that (of course, big surprise here) police will not be subject to the same restrictions on their weapons:

Weapons used by law enforcement officers would be exempt until a commission determines whether the requirement should apply to them.
Why not? Why make all of the law-abiding gun owners of NJ the Guinea Pigs? If so many cops are being shot with their own weapons, why don't they implement this first, so we can have "professionals" verifying the safety and effectiveness of this new technology? What could *possibly* be the reason for not making police subject to the same restrictions?

Could it be that there is not enough faith that the technology will actually work as intended, even after it's been forced on the public?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/12/24/smart.guns.ap/index.html

[Liberal]

Don't forget the brand new black market for regular guns.

[Susanann]

We need to require all of the police and all of our armed forces to carry only these types of guns for at least a 10 year period for this issue to be properly discussed. It is an easy matter to require police and army to carry only these types of guns. Regular citizens will not do so, unless it has been totally proven to be workable.

[DrDeth]

The FIRST dudes that should be required to meet this technology s/b the police. Fact is, a fairly large % of police gun deaths are from their own fire-arm.

Someday, effective "smart guns" will be available at a reasonable price, and that will be a "GOOD THING". But that time is not now, nor even 3 years from now.

[Gadarene]

Everyone's made good points, and I'll defer to Anthracite's real-world expertise (certainly there are different sorts of technology-forcing regulations, none of which are perfect), although we might disagree about some of the particulars.

But Libertarian:
It is fascinating to me that you speak of technology-forcing environmental law. (And since you've taken the topic there, we might as well discuss it.) Wouldn't a single law prohibiting general coercion (such as pollution) be equally effective? If not, why not?

I've addressed this precise question at length in the thread to which you're no longer responding (and I did so, I might add, before you posted that you'd no longer be responding, so I'm sure you saw it). You can't set environmental standards by calling pollution coercion. This says nothing about how many parts per billion of arsenic in the water, for example, is coercive.

And I'd rather continue this conversation on the thread where my original post is located--or, failing that, start a new thread specifically about environmental standards and libertarianism, so we don't prolong the hijack here. If you'll do the honor of responding to my last post on the subject in the Lighthouse thread in a new OP, I'll be happy to participate.

[kanicbird]

Just something I read a while back I wish to add (paraphrazed)

A gun that doesn't fire in a self defense situation is not a smart gun, It is the dumbest gun in the world.

[ISiddiqui]

Very silly law. Of course, the NJ legislature has forgotten about things called patents. A gun company with 'smart gun' tech will have a patent on that tech and then the other gun companies will have 3 years to reverse engineer it or come up with a 'smart tech' of their own?

That's silly beyond belief!

[Tripler]

Originally posted by Stinkpalm
Thats not the same as what you said. This could be 5, 10, 15 years aways. Where is the monopoly?

The technology could be 5, 10, 15 years away, but for at least a brief period of time, that company that first has the technology would corner the marked, as the att'y general would mandate that others catch up. I'm not sure how patent law works, but doesn't ISiddiqui's comment present a problem?

And as far as making "boom sticks" or 'launching bullets', I'm not even going there. I was just commenting that to put a round accureately on target, you need a tube with some sort of rifling. . . I'm sure you guys knew what I meant at the time. :)

Tripler
I'm still shaking my head at this article.

[GusNSpot]

100% safe airplanes are too heavy to fly.

100% safe guns are unable to be fired.

100% safe automobiles can't be driven.

100% safe buildings can not be built.

So it does come down to cost / benefit or acceptable risk management or popular conceptions of acceptable risk.

IMO, we need to remember the technology can not ever be 100% put back in the bottle.