Today, New Jersey enacted preemptive kneejerk legislation that once:
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.
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.
Meatros, yeah if you wanna get technical, you are right. But you kinda need the gun to launch the bullets in a certain direction.
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’.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.)
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!)
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
