Slashdot Mirror


"Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention

R3d M3rcury (871886) writes "How's this for a good idea? A gun that won't fire unless it's within 10 inches of a watch? That's the iP1 from Armatrix. Of course, don't try to sell it here in the United States." From the NY Times article linked: "[Armatrix employee] Belinda Padilla does not pick up unknown calls anymore, not since someone posted her cellphone number on an online forum for gun enthusiasts. Then someone snapped pictures of the address where she has a P.O. box and put those online, too. In a crude, cartoonish scrawl, this person drew an arrow to the blurred image of a woman passing through the photo frame. 'Belinda?" the person wrote. "Is that you?" ... "I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote." The article paints a fairly rosy picture of the particular technology that Armatrix is pushing, but their ID-checking gun seems to default to an unfireable state, which might not always be an attractive feature. And given that at least one state — New Jersey — has hinged a gun law on the commercial availability of these ID-linked guns, it's not surprising that some gun owners dislike a company that advertises this kind of system as "the future of the firearm."

3 of 1,374 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Gun nuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative "

    Again for those that aren't Americans, and apparently some that are... The above statement is WRONG. Local laws MAY NOT supersede the constitution.

  2. Re:Gun nuts by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Constitution guarantees the right for citizens to keep and bear arms for the purposes of having a militia.

    The Supreme Court disagrees with that interpretation and says that the prefatory clause is not a limiting clause. This was the proper decision, given the context of "the people" in the 2nd Amendment, and for that matter every other mention of "the people" in the document and its amendments.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  3. Re:No, they are just nuts by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, the state of New Jersey already has a law on the books that once such a technology becomes generally available, it will become mandatory. So yes, in fact, someone IS forcing residents to buy that gun or no gun at all.