Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumPersonalized Handguns-NJ
as to the Availability of Personalized Handguns for Retail Sales Purposes,
pursuant to N.J.S. 2C:58-2.3
November 2014
In accordance with section 2 of P.L.2002, c.130 (C.2C:58-2.3), the Attorney
General has made the determination that personalized handguns are not available for
retail sales purposes within the meaning of those terms as set forth in the law. That is,
the Attorney General has not found that at least one manufacturer has delivered at
least one production model of a personalized handgun to a registered or licensed
wholesale or retail dealer in New Jersey or any other state. See N.J.S.2C:58-2.3b.
***
Prior to making the determination in this report, officials from this Office had met
with a representative of Armatix, a gun manufacturer that has produced a firearm, the
Armatix iP1 handgun, that incorporates in its design technology that automatically limits
the weapons operational use. Specifically, the Armatix iP1 system incorporates within
its design a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip inside a wristwatch that enables
the functioning of the iP1 pistol. In order to fire the pistol, the matching watch must be
situated within 10 inches of the pistol. The pistol also may be disabled with a timer or a
PIN code entered into the matching watch. The statute expressly contemplates the
possibility that a handgun that incorporates radio frequency tagging technology to
automatically limit its operational use could qualify as a personalized handgun.
However, the statute imposes the further requirement that the technology incorporated
must be such that the handgun may only be fired by an authorized or recognized user.
N.J.S.2C:39-1(dd).
After careful consideration of the iP1's design, we have determined that it does
not satisfy the statutory definition because, as a matter of design, the pistol may be fired
by a person who is not an authorized or recognized user. That is, as long as the pistol
is situated within 10 inches of the enabling wristwatch, it may be fired by anyone the
authorized user or any other person who is able to pull the trigger. While the system
does incorporate a PIN code or a timer to disable the handgun, when the weapon is
enabled, there is nothing in the technology which automatically limits its operational use
so that it may only be fired by an authorized or recognized user (so long as the pistol is
within a 10-inch proximity to the wristwatch component).
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/opi/Reports_to_the_Legislature/attorney_general_personalized_handgun_retail_report_Nov_2014.pdf
PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)All you have to do, is look down the Barrel and pull the Trigger.
sarisataka
(18,616 posts)that a surprising number of people would support that without reservation.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)What if a fistfight preceded the need for defensive firearm use, and blood was running down your face? Or a scuffle in the dirt, such that the scanner component was occluded?
But rather than argue these and other possible hypotheticals, I will simply state that the Second Amendment covers 'arms' and not just the gee-whizz personal-identifying-gizmo subset of arms. I believe that the NJ law unconstitutionally restricts the breadth of arms, even after a single model becomes available that meets the definition of their law.
All of the firearms designs I own and enjoy are at least several decades old, even if a few individual guns are of more recent manufacture. With proper care, they all will last many more decades. I have no desire to switch firearms, and it is well within my Second Amendment rights to decline untested and expensive technology becoming a precondition for exercise of said rights.
Thanks for the story & posting.
-app
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The strategy is to bring to market a weapon with some form of safety technology, then eventually pass laws that require ALL firearms to have this technology.
As a part of this movement, existing arms that lack the technology will just have to be reported and then at some point, turned in.
Give 'em an inch?
Nope, not gonna.
DonP
(6,185 posts)From what I've read the only reason this even came to court was Brady sued New Jersey to start the clock to enforce their Smart Gun law, passed a few years back.
IIRC, they have 3 or 4 years (?) from the initial public availability of a commercially available production Smart Gun to require all new guns sold in NJ to be "Smart Guns", including those sold to police departments. The Jersey legislature painted themselves into a corner with this "well meaning" law and now are trying to find a way to back pedal out of it without looking as stupid as they really are.
A more accurate headline for the story might be "Brady Led Gun Control Loses in Court Again".