Slashdot Mirror
New Jersey Enacts 'Smart Gun' Law
rmohr02 writes "New Jersey has just enacted legislation that would require all handguns to be able to recognize their owners and only fire when their owners grip them. Gun manufacturers will be required to implement this within three years of the NJ Attorney General's approval of an acceptable, commercially available model. One critic says 'No technology is foolproof--anyone who has a computer knows how many times it crashes.' I'm sure fellow /.ers will have something to say about that. Also on Google News"
If guns don't kill people, but people kill people, then wouldn't it follow that New Jersey should enact a "Smart People" law???
Most of these type devices, that I have seen, involve a magnetic ring of some type. My only concern is what happens, when you take it off.
Nightmare scenario, you fall asleep without your ring on, and awaken to the sound of a burgler, but forget your magic ring.
Also the reliability of the device would have to be paramount, due to the device they will be installed upon. What happens when this breaks?
Education is the key. I grew up around guns, as did others in my neighborhood. Even as children we knew how to operate, and maintain them.
Responsible parents need to accept the liabilities associated with gun ownership, and lock up their firearms as appropriate, when there are children in the environment.
p.s. on a related, but barely, topic if parents would start parenting, instead of letting the tv, and computer raise their children, this issue would be practically moot.
This space intentionally left blank.
Actually, I've always throught that US cops should had the gun attached to their belt by a cable, just like they do in many European and Asian countries.
Drop your gun? Well, at least somebody can't pick it back up and shoot you. According to these guys, "10 percent of police who are shot are shot with their own guns".
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
If your going to allowed to carry guns, at least
they should be made so someone else can't use them
against you.
Agreed... but I would much rather prefer that my wife of one of my children are able to pick up a handgun I own to defend themselves in the event that I'm disabled... perhaps after being shot an an intruder.
I am sure some gun nuts here, are
going to be against the idea, but i can't imagine
a reason why.
See above for why.
And yeah it probably won't be secure at first, and they'll be underground gangs rechiping the guns. But it makes it harder for criminals to get guns and that has to be good.
Yep... all them law abiding criminals that buy guys legally will certainly be up shit creek without a paddle on this one. Thank goodness we're preventing law abiding citizens from buying a gun that will fire at the pull of a trigger. So what if the WinCE device in your pistol fails when you need it.
Anti-gun advocates: The #1 reason any thinking human purchases a gun for is it's reliability. I do not want to put my life on the line when I need it to something that -may- fail based on my fingerprint. I'll take the risk of my own firearm being used against me. When I go to sleep at night the only unlocked firearm is the one sitting right next to my bed. That's the answer -- not fingerprint technology.
If you ask me, we need LESS laws, not MORE. We need to clear the courts from the stupid lawsuit and patent law CRAP, and free up court and prison space for the real criminals.
If you kill someone, you KILLED THEM, and you should get life in prison, or death. Not X years for killing them, X more for doing it with a gun, X more because your motive was racial. Look, I don't care if you killed a black or white or yellow or red person, you killed them, go to jail I don't care if he was Christian, Jew, Hindu, or what, you killed them. Your telling me an EXTRA law that makes it a race crime, a religious crime, makes the system better? By making MORE laws like that, you just dilute the system. Crime is crime, simple is simple. Kill, go to jail. Black man kills black man, less jail time because it wasn't a hate crime? Should we really say "white guy killed white guy, not racial, not religious, less of a sentence?" He was killed with a gun, not a knife, the criminal should do 105 years instead of 150 years?
All I can say is, it's just another step in the long and relentless process for the United States of America to drift into the New World order. I am going to rant, long and hard, prepare. This is a step to a socialist society, where we see "Democracy" become something that is nothing more than "Mob Rule" with a slight bit of organization.
Look, it's a feel good law, we all know that. The science and the technology are not presently available to comply with this law. This law requires all guns to "recognize they are in the hands of their owner" before they are able to fire, WHEN that technology becomes a reality. Let's be realistic, some lame as money grubbing company will come up with some half ass way to almost make this happen, because they want to monopolize the gun market in NJ. But, they will fail because no one buys guns in NJ anyway, because of the existing legislation. And it's just an exercise in "can we do it."
Now, don't get me wrong, if I wanted to own a firearm, and I knew I could get a high-tech one that wouldn't allow anyone to fire it except me, that would be cool. I would get one like that, if I wanted one at all, to be sure that I could defend myself and the invader of my home couldn't disarm me and shoot me with my own gun.
But, that's not what this law is about. This law is yet another measure of the Sarah Brady group to make guns harder to own. And, being a Libertarian, I have respect for other people's beliefs. However, I love my country, and I love my country because it is the country that is founded on individual freedoms.
If you were to tell me that there was a country in the world that would allow you to do anything you wanted, provided you did not bring harm to anyone else, I would respect that country as well. However, the USA is as close as we have now. Capitalist (work hard and earn a lot). Intelligence, perseverance, planning, and hard work should pay off. And people should be allowed to do what ever, worship whatever they want, think whatever they want, self destructive or not, risky or not, SOMEWHERE in the world. That is why the USA was founded.
The USA is becoming Socialist under pressure of the rest of the world. If you don't like it, you have a lot of other countries in the world to go to that believe what you do, we don't stop you from leaving. Yet every day people are willing to die (look at the boat people, the central Americans, the middle eastern people that are not the "popular" religion" in their country). People come here because of the freedom.
We are soo willing to give away our freedom to make "Soccer Moms" who are the minority, feel better.
I'll tell you what, give me the hard working, open minded, freedom loving, socialist, people from around the world who are NOT Christian like me ANYDAY over the bible thumping Southern Baptist Soccer Moms who want "smart guns" any day!
Don't just say no don't touch it. Explain to them it could blow their head off if they don't handle it properly. My parents did that with me and somehow I resisted the urge to play with a .357 in their closet. Teach them to respect guns and not fear them. That same logic goes for anything dangerous; animals, power tools, weapons, fireworks, you name it. Respect, not fear.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
This is a training problem... one you will have a hard time fixing with technology.
As a former firearms instructor, I can tell you that retention is tough. If you are fighting for your gun, it's real, no-shit, do-or-die time, and you had better win. I'm not going to discuss specifics in this forum. Even though I have hard time imagining some slashgeek going for a cop's gun, there's probably a few here who are crazy enough, and I'm not going to give anyone any sort of tactical edge.
The reasons police officers get killed with their own guns are many, and often simply come down to bad tactics. That said, I would NEVER trust one of these smart-gun gadgets for a duty weapon.
This is the same philosophy behind the "New York Trigger" that many police officers are required to have on their handguns. Instead of better "trigger control" during training, you get one of these heavy triggers. The trigger pull weight on a New York Trigger is about 12+ pounds, and was put in place to prevent accidental shootings, ostensibly because such a hard trigger pull is difficult to accomplish "by accident." Unfortunately, it causes accuracy to suffer (perhaps increasing bystanders getting hit by stray rounds?), and makes the guns unusable for some smaller-framed officers. Again, a misguided technology fix for a training problem.
I think this is just grandstanding by some NJ politicians. It's almost funny to see them mandate something that doesn't even exist. Unfortunately, this will impact regular gun owners disproportionately, and have little effect on crime guns.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
I see that this story has unleashed the obligatory pissing match between those who believe that the /. idea of freedom - freedom of information - goes hand in hand with the freedom to be armed, and those who believe that the idea of personal armament is an outdated and dangerous concept in modern society.
On Friday night, a good friend, colleague, and fellow slashdotter defended his household and family from intruders with a 12 gauge Mossberg shotgun. He stopped the robbery and scared the suspects off. The police caught them a short while later. No one was hurt. In reflecting upon this event, he and I look at the issue of gun control, and indeed the entire issue of gun culture, with a degree of clarity previously unachieved.
He, like many in our generation, is a reluctant gun owner. We've been bombarded with social engineering that seeks to cast gun ownership in a bizarre, almost psychotic light, which has created, in my opinion, a sort of cultural "gun guilt". Despite this, he recognized about a year ago that he needed a weapon for personal protection, and asked for my advice in selecting it.
I was raised around guns. I was taught to shoot at a very early age, and participated in official tournaments when I was 13. I own several weapons, including a shotgun and what some like to consider an "assault rifle". I've never been in doubt with regard to the necessity for weapons ownership in a free society, but even I have been affected by the discomfort weapons owners are subjected to in our culture these days. Before this recent event, I might even be known not to have a "ready weapon" for use in a home defense situation.
I was therefore his "gun nut friend", and took him to the range to learn to shoot safely and effectively. While fully capable of using it, and with a confident, demonstrated, and consistent application of gun safety practices, he never felt comfortable as a gun owner for precisely the same reason so many around here chime in gleefully when something as ridiculous as smart guns gets proposed. (Are you prepared to stake your life on the speed and accuracy of modern biometric identification?) He, and indeed I as well, are victims of the great lie of the modern American anti-gun culture, and it could have cost him his life.
So before you chime in on this one, and run with the crowd of those who believe guns are vehicles of evil and that those who own and use them are psychotic redneck madmen seeking only to kill schoolchildren, take a second to question your views, what cultural influences formed those views, and the possible agenda of those who exterted those influences. Your life may one day depend on it.
Constitution does not say you can own a gun.
Neither does the Constitution itself bless the right to own a firearm. You commit a common fallacy in believing the Constitution must specifically grant an individual a right before said individual can exercise that right. Nothing can be further from the truth. Check out Cruikshank v. US (1876).
The Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to gun ownership.
I alwasy find it interesting when the anti-freedom people spew their half-assed, poorly-researched drivel as if they were actually knowledgeable on the subject. The fact that this parent was modded up to a 5 show the general ignorance in this country when it comes to constitutional rights.
In your haste to make yourself look like an ignoramus, you failed to mention US v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), in which the Supreme Court clearly indicated that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people, not some imagined "militia" under the guise of government.
Lower courts have been divided on the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court has consistently recognized the right to arms as an individual right in every Second Amendment case they've heard.
Finally, don't you think it kind of strange that every amendment in the Bill of Rights refers to an individual right? The courts rightly recognize that the Bill of Rights, in its entirety, addresses the rights of individuals, not the rights of governments (or their militias).
If you are going to spew propaganda, the least you can do is check your facts first.
The people who say the second ammendment does not authorize private ownership of fireamrs usually base their argument on case law, instead of the precise text in the Bill of Rights.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Aside from the catch-all nature of the 10th ammendment, the entire Bill of Rights concerns the rights of the people. Not states, not the Federal government, the people. Courts may have attempted to substitute various government entities as surrogates for the people, but that's really just wishful thinking that the ammendment isn't really written as we all know it is.
Why would the government need to grant itself the right to bear arms? Why would the states need such authorization? The word "militia" is what it is, not a "state militia" or "municipal militia", just "militia" as in the original revolutionary "bring your own weapon" variety. If the intended benficiary of the 2nd ammendment was the Federal Government or the states, why aren't they mentioned? If the 2nd ammendment grants "the right to keep and bear arms" to someone other than the people, why doesn't it specify who that might be? How is it that ammedments 1 and 3-10 deal with rights of the people, except for ammendment 2, which somehow applies to an unnamed government entity, even though it specifically says the people?
The people who wrote the Constitution had a great deal of experience with an out-of-touch, nonresponsive, non-represtentative government (England). The militia was the organization that would form out of necessity in order to remain as a "free state". The concept was left vague, so that the militia could form and deal with whatever threat might be at hand. Today's Federal Government is too proud to admit that it may someday become the problem that a militia was intended to solve.
Reasonable people might argue that an armed population causes a bigger problem than it solves. Those who say we don't need a militia or privately owned weapons are free to make that argument and they can attempt to carry that argument to its logical conclusion: repeal of the 2nd ammendment. Twisting its interpretation into obscurity merely invites other special interests to use similar techniques on the parts of the Bill of Rights that we still care about.