Maryland dealer, under pressure from gun-rights activists, drops plan to sell smart gun

[SecularMotion]

A Rockville gun store owner who said he would sell the nation’s first smart gun — even after a California gun store removed the weapon from its shelves to placate angry gun-rights activists — backed down late Thursday night after enduring a day of protests and death threats.

Andy Raymond, the co-owner of Engage Armament, a store known for its custom assault rifles, had said earlier this week that offering the Armatix iP1 handgun was a “really tough decision” after what happened to the Oak Tree Gun Club near Los Angeles. Oak Tree was lambasted by gun owners and National Rifle Association members who fear the new technology will be mandated and will encroach on Second Amendment rights.

Electronic chips in the gun communicate with a watch that can be bought separately. The gun cannot be fired without the watch.

Oak Tree denied having anything to do with the weapon, despite pictures of the gun for sale in its shop and a special firing range built just for the weapon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/maryland-dealer-will-defy-gun-rights-advocates-by-selling-nations-first-smart-gun/2014/05/01/564efa48-d14d-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html

[Starboard Tack]

1. Oh, the hypocrisy!

Finally, a product comes on the market that ensures only the owner can use or misuse it and the NRA jerkoffs throw a hissy fit.
I hope they do make these mandatory for those who want to legally carry handguns. Heck, the CCW crowd should be happy about a product like this. They don't have to worry about the "bad guys" stealing it and using it against them.

[SQUEE]

2. ...

[Starboard Tack]

5. There's a happy fellow right there

[SQUEE]

7. sometimes, yes

It's more this story and BOTH sides... the technology is fraught with problems..
Think .. IF Glock, SIG, FN Herstal, or H&K could bring a solid, safe AND reliable system to the market... we would be awash in the damn things, and they would be laughing all the way to the bank.. there is a reason that the big EUROPEAN manufacturers have not brought out a SMART platform...

SMART GUNS, are to the NRA what the infamous and completely VaporWare plastic and porcelaine Glock 7 is to Sarah Brady, boogeyman to stampede the sheep. Hence my laughter...

[Starboard Tack]

9. Newsflash! They are already laughing all the way to the bank.

With the NRA on their side, why should they take the trouble to make guns safer?
I would only propose these smart guns be mandatory for legal public carry. You have a problem with that?

[SQUEE]

10. People are hungry for a "safe" gun

"I would only propose these smart guns be mandatory for legal public carry. You have a problem with that? "
In theory? no, not at all...


But FOR ME, if I have to draw and use my weapon, it damn well better work, because I am not pulling it to brandish, nor posture, I am in a real, and serious life ending altercation. I spend money to have the best, I spend time researching and modifying and maintaining my weapon, to ensure as near as is possible it will go pew-pew---pew at the time I need it to, I am not even remotely comfortable with the current offerings. Murphy is already lurking presence in any mechanical endeavor, let's not send him an engraved invitation.

I do not public carry unless it's transit to and from range, but I would not push to legislate a move to decrease the reliability of a needed personal safety apparatus.

Now, with those observations from my techie side out of the way, when, not if, but when... the underlying tech can be fielded and reasonably guaranteed to function, not be jammed, or co-opted, or lock my weapon up when metal needs to hit meat, I will promote and use it.
I think it would make a lot of sense to have a personally coded pistol for Home/Self defense and would incorporate a series of carrots to convince people to adopt the tech.

[oneshooter]

25. Mandatory for public carry?

That would include on duty LEO's also?

[Starboard Tack]

28. Of course. LEO's should be first.

They should be role models. If they adopt these weapons and test the in the field, then private citizens will have no reason not to. Accountability is a huge part of public safety.

[geckosfeet]

31. If I am carrying for self defense I do not want to depend on a layer of technology that can fail

Last edited Sat May 3, 2014, 10:42 AM - Edit history (1)

in so many ways.

This solution in search of a problem appeals to people who jump on the latest tech gizmos regardless of utility. It also appeals to the people who are ignorant of the real purpose of a self defense weapon (it is a .22. Few people rely on a .22 for self defense). It also appeals to those who would slowly infringe on 2A rights by incrementally placing obstacles and obstruction in the path of those who lawfully seek to arm themselves for self defense. Finally, it appeals those who thrash about implementing feel good but accomplish little technologies and legislation just to say they did something.

The ONLY use of this technology that makes any sense is for a gun that is stored in a home (should be in a safe or locked anyway) to prevent unauthorized use. In this scenario it would make little difference when the technology fails.

[Eleanors38]

39. "stored in a home." Only real purpose for the tech.

If European LEOs want to use the tech to prevent guns being taken from and used against them, let 'em. But it seems to me that if there is a practical use for the device, it would be for when most crims get their guns: theft. And not in the unlikely event a gun is wrestled from a CCW.

I'm fine with developing the tech and testing it out (hopfully without the Dick Tracy wristwatch). But keep the feverish ban & grab legislation at bay and let the public decide.

[gejohnston]

3. assuming it actually works as advertized

I doubt it does. It actually has to do with New Jersey. New Jersey has a law that says that if someone markets a "smart gun" then all handguns sold in NJ must be "smart guns." Laws like that, and California micro-stamping, are actually intended to be "constitutional bans". using economics. That is why the $200 transference tax on most NFA items, the supporters in the 1930s thought that a ban would be struck down as violating the 2A. The latest versions are the same thing, notice the "law enforcement exemption". California's MS scheme would send the price of manufacturing for non LE beyond the reach of the 99 percent. That is why people like Feinstien and Yee ignores the peer reviewed forensics studies that show that the technology would be great corporate welfare for the company selling the technology, but of no value to investigators because the markings would be worn down withing ten rounds (plus how many PD forensics labs have an electron microscope?)

Since police in the US are less law abiding, and less responsible with their firearms than the general public (and more likely to get away with irresponsible). They should be the first. Also, out of the US cops killed, 20 percent of them are with their own guns.

[Starboard Tack]

4. Well of course the cops should have them first.

Then, anyone who wants to carry. And, of course, they should work as advertised. Duh!
Of course the NRA and it's supporters are gonna distort this as a gun grabbing tactic and the naysayers will insist they won't work. Go figure.

[gejohnston]

8. the cops are exempt from these laws

therefore, it is as explained. Since the one pistol is a $1500 pistol, the $400 watch that makes it work sold separably. Oh and it only comes in .22
http://www.armatix.de/Home.783.0.html?&L=1

Of course the NRA and it's supporters are gonna distort this as a gun grabbing tactic and the naysayers will insist they won't work.

Sorry, you assume that the "grabbers" actually care about public safety. Truth is, many of them don't. It is about having the power to force their personal opinions on others, rally a political base. One only has to look at the number of MAIG members who have been convicted of crimes against persons, oh and Leland Yee.

[Starboard Tack]

12. Hold on, you say the "grabbers" don't care about public safety?

What would be their motive then? Are they just a bunch of party poopers who want to spoil the gun fun? Or is there something more sinister afoot?

[gejohnston]

21. There are a number of reasons

and none of this new nor unique to the US. There are some who honestly believe it will enhance public safety, most do not. You sir, are in the minority of "gun grabbers". You know better, so please spare me the false naivety.
I already listed some reasons. One reason is culture war, which is why "antis" here, GD, or anyplace else use cultural, regional, or religious slurs that would have banned if applied to anyone else. Some are about maintaining political power, see post WW1 Europe and the Red Scare. Some were to support state tolerated terrorism, which is why the South had stricter gun laws from the founding until 50 years ago. Most of the eroding gun laws were passed during the 1920s, often lobbied for by the KKK. That is certainly the case of purchase permit laws in Michigan (1925) North Carolina (1919), and Missouri (1921-2007). South Carolina had a handgun ban (outside of LE and "special deputies) from 1902-1965.
I'm not saying Bloomberg is a Klan member (kind of hard since they lynched Jews and Catholics too. He is a narcissistic authoritarian, but not a racist.) nor am I saying the Klan was a gun control group, even though they were more effective than Bloomberg. Simply saying there are several reasons. When you expand outside of the US south.

Other reasons include those made by sociologist Raymond G. Kessler, a lawyer-sociologist suggests these political reasons:

(1) increase citizen reliance on government and tolerance of increased police powers and abuse; (2) help prevent opposition to the government; (3) facilitate repressive action by government and its allies; (4) lesson the pressure for major or radical reform; and (5) can be selectively enforced against those perceived to be a threat to government.

. Number one describes neo-cons and authoritarians like Nixon, Bill Krystal, Fienstien, and Bloomberg. One is NYC in a nutshell. Number two describes red scares in Europe in the 1920s and terrorism in the 1970s. Number three describes racist governments and the Klan as mentioned above. It also describes gangsters like Tim Sullivan who introduced New York's first gun law to protect his soldiers from the businesses they shook down. Four is current Chicago. Chicago is also part of three, since the Alterman and the gangs are in each other's pockets. when Southsiders want something done, instead of doing anything about the gangs or corruption, officials whine "we need stricter gun laws."

Do you think Leland Yee was motivated by public safety? You think his conspiring to put illegal machine guns in the hands of gangs would be as good for public safety as his attempted ban semi autos used by peaceful target shooters?


https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=250959

[Starboard Tack]

26. As usual, I appreciate the history lesson, GE

As cynical as I am, I'm not buying any of it. I honestly believe that Feinstein et al are motivated by oublic safety concerns and not by any authoritarian, narcissistic, KKK or any other random ingredient you care to throw in the mix. Sounds like you are buying the NRA/Libertarian conspiracy theory crap that appears to be the standard propaganda for NRA members, supporters and apologists.

[blueridge3210]

30. None are so blind as those who will not see. (NT)

[gejohnston]

35. Feinstein and Bloomberg not authoritarians?

The same Feinstein that supports NSA spying on us, but not congress, loves the PATRIOT Act, wants to limit the 1A to "government approved" and licensed journalists? When she was recalled as Mayor of SF, the organizers of the recall landed up in jail. Just because she has a D after her name, doesn't make her a liberal. I would like to see her replaced with a real liberal.
Bloombeg, the guy who says he can just walk by god because he earned his place in heaven, thinks we should have our rights infringed, did not order his police from stop using stop and frisk, did not punish cops for using excessive force against Occupy?

I'm not saying either of them are part of the Klan or any other such organization that used gun laws to safely repress others. For them, it has more to do with culture. Both are certainly authoritarian. Do you honestly think Leland Yee or [link:http://|Gary Becker] were all about "public safety"?

Sounds like you are buying the NRA/Libertarian conspiracy theory crap that appears to be the standard propaganda for NRA members, supporters and apologists.

Can you name one libertarian on the NRA board of directors? Name one that might be? Even easier, can you name one individual on the board or management that supports ending pot prohibition, State allowed discrimination against gays or anyone else? Pro choice? Opposing the MIC and empire, corporate welfare, needless wars? If there are any, their names aren't Nugent or LaPeirre. There are probably libertarians and liberals among the rank and file, but that's it. The management seem like old line conservatives and neo-cons like John Bolton.
I remember when conservatives called the Tonkin Gulf incident being a hoax, Contra/CIA Cocaine connection, COINTELPRO, and MI-6/CIA using false flags and propaganda to undermine democratic governments of Iran and Nicaragua as "conspiracy theories". Guess what, they have been declassified and were in fact true. That and Operation Northwoods. 20 years ago, I first heard of those on a Pacifica station (KPFA), conservatives called them "nutty conspiracy theories". Now that Alex Jones is talking about them, progressives are calling them "nutty conspiracy theories." I find the phenomenon astounding.

I do know one thing for certain, if some dim bulb didn't think James Bond's Walther P-99 (the should have let him keep the .32 PPK. If they wanted a more modern pistol, a PPS or PPQ would have been better Walther Models. But I digress.) was real, this wouldn't be a political issue. If we could seriously trust the Prohibition lobby's integrity, which they have none, the gun would be a product review in some gun magazine or blog.

[Straw Man]

11. When you said this ...

Of course the NRA and it's supporters are gonna distort this as a gun grabbing tactic and the naysayers will insist they won't work.

... perhaps you had forgotten this:

New Jersey has a law that says that if someone markets a "smart gun" then all handguns sold in NJ must be "smart guns."

The marketing of this gun has extreme repercussions for anyone living in New Jersey who wishes to own a handgun. Their only option will be this one, no matter how flawed, expensive, or unsuitable it may be.

Elimination of viable choice? Sounds like a "gun grab" to me.

[Starboard Tack]

13. Then why isn't the NJ law the focus of the opposition, rather than the gun

The technology is a step in the right direction. Maybe it needs refining. Maybe the price can come down as demand rises.
Pardon my cynicism, but I'm not buying your argument.
Safety comes first, guns come last. That's pretty basic stuff.

[Straw Man]

14. I imagine it would be both.

In any case, it's irrelevant. My point is that it is realistic to construe the situation as a "gun grab."

Pardon my cynicism, but I'm not buying your argument.

What argument? That reducing gun consumers' choices to one is not an infringement on their rights? Go ahead -- make your case.

Safety comes first, guns come last. That's pretty basic stuff.

Pardon me, but that sounds like a meaningless truism. So you contend that any cockamamie invention that comes on the market claiming to be "safe" should receive the sanction of law? Have you also considered that in a self-defense application, anything less than perfect performance of such a system could actually dramatically reduce the user's safety, even to the point of causing his/her death?

No, I'm the one who's not buying it.

[Starboard Tack]

15. What I'm not buying is the "gun grab" meme

The story is about a gun store in Maryland and the intimidation of the proprietor. There is reference to California, but you come up with your reasoning based on some bizarre NJ law. you are claiming the smart gun is unsafe. Have you tested it? Have you seen credible studies that support your claim? Or are you just blowing smoke?

[Straw Man]

16. I'm saying that if the gun comes on the market anywhere ...

... it is going to have dramatic real world implications for gun owners in New Jersey. Are you denying that?

you are claiming the smart gun is unsafe.

I was talking about self-defense applications. First of all, it's a .22, a spectacularly unsuitable round for self-defense. People shot with a .22 tend to live long enough to commit further mayhem before expiring from blood loss. The worst of both worlds: a dead perpetrator and a dead victim. Second, it depends on batteries. I've had far too many bad experiences with cameras, radios, cell phones, and flashlights to ever want to have to entrust my life to batteries. A self-defense weapon must be reliable above all.

No, I'm not blowing smoke. Are you?

[Starboard Tack]

17. It depends on batteries?!?! IT DEPENDS ON BATTERIES???

That takes the fucking prize.
Your argument against this technology is "it depends on batteries" and "it doesn't kill efficiently enough"

Oh boy! Carry on.

[Straw Man]

22. I'm glad you amuse yourself.

It depends on batteries?!?! IT DEPENDS ON BATTERIES???

That takes the fucking prize.

Even if you do it by playing the fool. Yes, it depends on batteries. It makes a time-tested and dependable mechanical device into an unknown electronic quantity that doesn't work without batteries. Would you put a battery-operated lock on a fire door? Would you create an electronic fire extinguisher that didn't work without a battery? For an item that you may one day have to depend on to save your life, that would be extremely foolish, don't you think?

Your argument against this technology is "it depends on batteries" and "it doesn't kill efficiently enough"

Let me explain this carefully for you. A larger caliber handgun causes immediate and major damage, such as breaking a bone. This can stop an attack without killing the perpetrator. This is desirable. The effect of a .22 is minor at first, but potentially fatal later. Death can come from blood loss and internal injuries, but the effect is not immediately debilitating. Therefore, the attack continues before the perpetrator has succumbed to his injuries. The result is two dead people when the desired outcome was no dead people, or at least only one -- the perpetrator. Remember this?

The worst of both worlds: a dead perpetrator and a dead victim.

So no, I'm arguing that the .22 doesn't stop attacks but it does kill. This is not desirable.

Were you able to grasp that, or do you need cartoon graphics to help you?

[Starboard Tack]

27. On batteries.

Of course you wat them to work, just as well as your cellphone and your car. They need batteries. I bet you make sure they're charged. But you'd forget to charge your gun? Really? Would you also forget to put bullets in it? This is basic shit. If you can't figure out how to make sure your batteries are full, you probably shouldn't be leaving home, especially armed.
What a totally pathetic argument.

Regarding your caliber. If you want to stop, but not kill, you might want to look into other types of PSD, beside guns. Regardless, attacking smart guns based on caliber is ridiculous. The technology is not restricted to any caliber. New products usually roll out in limited editions and models.

Kneejerk naysaying is not progressive. Be positive. Figure out how to make it work, for everyone, instead of dismissing safety innovations out of hand.

[Straw Man]

29. Pathetic arguments.

But you'd forget to charge your gun? Really? Would you also forget to put bullets in it? This is basic shit. If you can't figure out how to make sure your batteries are full, you probably shouldn't be leaving home, especially armed.
What a totally pathetic argument.

Bullets rarely fail. Batteries do, even when charged. I would not want to find out that my battery had failed just at the moment that I needed it to save my life. Cell phone and car batteries fail all the time. The stakes are generally not very high in such failures.

Again, why would I want to take something foolproof and make it subject to potential failures? Because of someone's unfounded assertion that this makes it "safe"? Talk about pathetic arguments.

Regardless, attacking smart guns based on caliber is ridiculous. The technology is not restricted to any caliber. New products usually roll out in limited editions and models.

The only one available now is a .22. This will be the only handgun available in New Jersey if their ludicrous law is upheld. If I lived in New Jersey, I would be rightfully upset about this. That is the topic at hand.

Kneejerk naysaying is not progressive. Be positive. Figure out how to make it work, for everyone, instead of dismissing safety innovations out of hand.

Gun violence, like all violence, is a complex social problem. Seeking simplistic technological solutions to social failures is fruitless. And stupid.

I'm not saying that this gun shouldn't exist or be marketed. I'm saying that it should never be mandated by law. Ever.

[Starboard Tack]

32. And I'm saying, a tried and tested smart gun should be mandated for carry.

Guns, as they exist, are not foolproof, despite your claims. They jam, they misfire, they run out of ammo, and are subject to the failure of the weakest link. You want foolproof, carry an axe. But whatever you carry, the weakest link is always the person carrying it.

I recommend buying quality equipment and a good supply of batteries/chargers. I rely on all kinds of equipment to keep me alive. Most of that equipment runs on batteries. One of the few that doesn't, ironically, is a flaregun.

Seeking simplistic solutions for social failures, you say, is fruitless. I would call carrying a gun an extremely simplistic solution.

[Straw Man]

34. Trying and testing.

Guns, as they exist, are not foolproof, despite your claims. They jam, they misfire, they run out of ammo, and are subject to the failure of the weakest link.

A modern handgun is a simple and remarkably reliable mechanical device. I have a Glock 26 that has suffered zero failures in over 2000 rounds fired. In the Chuck Taylor torture test, he fired 100,000 rounds from a Glock pistol, cleaning only every 10,000 rounds (a round count higher than most owners will achieve in a lifetime). He suffered one failure-to-feed just short of the 30,000th round, a failure which could be cured simply by pulling the slide back and releasing it again, just as you would after loading a magazine.

When a smart gun has accomplished that, I will be happy to buy one.

I recommend buying quality equipment and a good supply of batteries/chargers.

And what does one do when only one brand and model of equipment is available? Remember the topic at hand?

I rely on all kinds of equipment to keep me alive. Most of that equipment runs on batteries. One of the few that doesn't, ironically, is a flaregun.

If you had a choice between a battery-powered flaregun and the traditional kind, which would you choose?

Seeking simplistic solutions for social failures, you say, is fruitless. I would call carrying a gun an extremely simplistic solution.

Carrying a gun is not a solution to the social problem of criminal violence; it is an attempt to survive an occurrence of it. Laws mandating smart guns are intended to solve the problem. They are misguided and useless.

[Starboard Tack]

20. NJ has nothing to do with this. It is a red herring

Let NJ sort out it's shit, without dragging it into everyone else's back yard. That is a pathetic excuse for attacking safer technology. Sorry if the caliber isn't big enough for you. I'm sure they'll eventually accommodate you and others who want maximum killing power.

[Straw Man]

23. Please read #22.

It will explain why your slanders are not only gratuitous, but false.

Carry on.

[SQUEE]

42. Your point on "maximum killing power"..

No I want the best combination of availability, shootability, stopping power and reliability.
I could defend my home with a 454 Casull, or a .50, or even the ridiculousness that is the Judge,
My HD/SD pistol is a 941 Jericho, a 9mm, I do not need MAXIMUM KILLING POWER, just what works in a given situation. and 22 is not gonna do it in a shoot/no shoot situation, I am only squeezing the trigger when I NEED to STOP a threat, DRT, and 22 does not offer me that.

[Eleanors38]

38. On "smoke blowing," NJ, and gun-grabs: Great, develop the technology...

then, put it on the market -- Europe is a great place to start, esp. with their LEOs, and without an NRA equivalent. We'll see how it works with 9mm SD weapons. Until then, calls to "mandate" purchase is clearly (in the case of NJ) a transparent move to grab. And there is no surprise in that: As soon as a so-called edge is seen, the grabbers start grabbing. Same goes for requiring an unproven tech be used for CCW. I don't see the tech in SD calibers, in all makes, in all models, and at prices comparable to "conventional" weapons. And I don't even see those "conventional" weapons grandfathered into any future weapons legislation.

[oneshooter]

6. " They don't have to worry about the "bad guys" stealing it and using it against them."

I don't really worry about it. Figure you will do enough for the both of us.

[Starboard Tack]

19. Better keep an eye on those tools. They are enough for you to worry about.

I'm sure your guns are big enough to take care of themselves.

[krispos42]

24. The technology is not proven to be reliable

There's no hypocrisy here; gun owners don't want their options for buying a new handgun to be limited to "smart guns" of unproven worth. I believe New Jersey and/or California have laws in place where once this technology goes into production, it is mandatory for all new sales of handguns. So, yeah, people that own Glocks and Smiths and Colts and Kimbers don't want to see their options reduced to a single type of "smart gun" built by some new company with no track record.


If it's so great, then let the police departments use their massive buying power to get a major gun maker to supply them with "smart guns". And if the cops use them, and there are no problems, then the established gun makers will flood the market with new "smart guns" based on police-issue sidearms.

Until then...

[Starboard Tack]

18. I guess smart guns were designed for smart people.

Looks like it will be a tough uphill climb.

[Jenoch]

33. I'll buy a 'smart' gun when they are affordable

and they are the duty gun for the FBI, the Secret Service, and local law enforcement across the country.

[clffrdjk]

36. Why is it always the ones.

That will never buy or shoot this gun, why are they it's biggest supporters? And they all seem to want me to go out and buy it, hell in this thread they want me to be forced to carry it.
Has anyone seen any actual testing on this pistol? All I can find is a short video on a very sterile range. I would really like to see oh I don't know the the same type of testing I can find on any other new gun being sold today. Or oh I don't know how about some pictures of it disassembled. $2000 is a hell of a lot to spend on something I can't find any information on.

[geckosfeet]

41. Didn't realize they were $2000. That's one pricey .22.

[ileus]

37. is this about that junky 22 that would trigger

The long dormant gun ban?

[Eleanors38]

40. You wouldn't want my Samsuck controlling a gun.