Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash
As was clearly explained earlier in this thread, 90 days is not the same as 3 years. The NJ law takes 3 years for implementation. It also absolutely and completely does NOT require ALL "gun owners to use such smart technology within 90 days" It very simply limits future sales of new guns to those with whatever smart technology has been authorized by the AG. There is a clear definition of the degree of reliability required for listing. The gun must fire with the same reliability as a non-smart gun. You gun owners can certainly attest that every weapon has a failure to fire rate. So the argument about my smart gun is not going to fire as reliably as my stupid gun fires is moot as such a gun does not fit the requirement to be sold. My bold
http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=144757&Depth=4&TD=WRAP&advqu ery=2C%3a39-1%20%20Definitions&headingswithhits=on&infobase=st atutes.nfo&rank=&record={1A38}&softpage=Doc_Frame_ Pg42&wordsaroundhits=2&x=34&y=12&zz=
2C:39-1 dd
"Personalized handgun" means a handgun which incorporates within its design, and as part of its original manufacture, technology which automatically limits its operational use and which cannot be readily deactivated, so that it may only be fired by an authorized or recognized user. ... No make or model of a handgun shall be deemed to be a "personalized handgun" unless the Attorney General has determined, through testing or other reasonable means, that the handgun meets any reliability standards that the manufacturer may require for its commercially available handguns that are not personalized or, if the manufacturer has no such reliability standards, the handgun meets the reliability standards generally used in the industry for commercially available handguns.
|
OH LOOK! blueash is back posting. Here he is at post #58 and he has not yet responded to my post #37.
You may recall that he had ridiculed a statement that I made, and because he believed that "fact" was in error he questioned all the "facts" that I had presented.
The problem is, as proven in post #37 with a direct quote from the law, my fact was correct.
Blueash, who says he posts on this thread only to "correct" the pro-gun posters, can't seem to bring himself to acknowledge that he was wrong when he said my statement was incorrect.
Wonder why....................
.