[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by buggyone

Whatever

With that (non)response to a reasonably presented question, you have lost all credibility on this subject.

[ilovetv]

Why would anyone want their police or self-defense weapon to depend on stored electricity (battery) and a bluetooth or RFID device, all of which can fail to communicate with the gun even if both devices are clean, dry, the right temperature, etc....when we all know how often our bluetooth devices fail to connect immediately or not at all until we shut down and reset/reboot both devices??

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by buggyone

I agree it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. As for the technology never working well or solving nothing, that is left for the experts.

I usually don't put this forward but your are getting an answer from someone who actually does have some background and education in designing such systems. Smart Gun Technology will never be implemented for the general public because of all the gotchas, the cost, and reliability. There is no market for them. The whole idea of smart weapons is politically driven and nothing more. Self defense weapon systems for the average police officer or individual need to be simple. There is a saying in the design field we always tried to follow, KISS.
The best self defense firearm for protection from the reliability stand point is the revolver. However there are semi-automatics with a very good track record and provide for more firepower. The only thing you know about a semi-auto is its going to go bang at least one time. The rest is a question mark. Some semi-autos are very particular about the ammunition used. Good quality ammunition in any weapon is a must. Now try to add in an electronic lock. The fact you would put someone in harms way with a complicated piece of electronics that may or may not allow the gun to fire just makes absolutely no sense. Especially when the whole idea is politically driven and the cause of firearm accidents is always negligence. There are far more pressing problems to solve.

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by Steve9930

I usually don't put this forward but your are getting an answer from someone who actually does have some background and education in designing such systems. Smart Gun Technology will never be implemented for the general public because of all the gotchas, the cost, and reliability. There is no market for them. The whole idea of smart weapons is politically driven and nothing more. Self defense weapon systems for the average police officer or individual need to be simple. There is a saying in the design field we always tried to follow, KISS.
The best self defense firearm for protection from the reliability stand point is the revolver. However there are semi-automatics with a very good track record and provide for more firepower. The only thing you know about a semi-auto is its going to go bang at least one time. The rest is a question mark. Some semi-autos are very particular about the ammunition used. Good quality ammunition in any weapon is a must. Now try to add in an electronic lock. The fact you would put someone in harms way with a complicated piece of electronics that may or may not allow the gun to fire just makes absolutely no sense. Especially when the whole idea is politically driven and the cause of firearm accidents is always negligence. There are far more pressing problems to solve.

I joined the Secret Service after the Kennedy assassination and was involved in the selection of the submachine gun to be used in the motorcade follow-up car. In evaluating the possibilities there were three principal considerations; cartridge performance, simplicity of operation, and dependability of operation.

With regard to Steve's observation about self-defense handguns, it is arguably true that those who are not highly experienced would be better served with a revolver.

Over a decade ago, while still active in law enforcement, I became enamored with the Glock semi-automatic pistol. It has no external thumb safety which can be inadvertently left in a position where the gun will not fire. As you press the trigger you release the external safety, and the internal "safe action" components do not cock to release the firing pin, and to move aside the internal safety, until the trigger is pulled fully back to the firing position.

I have fired thousands of rounds through the Glock with no misfires and no jams. One caution: do not fire lead bullets or reloads in a Glock. To do so voids the warranty.

The Glock barrel is very tight for the caliber and lead builds up in the barrel quickly if lead bullets are used.

.

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

I joined the Secret Service after the Kennedy assassination and was involved in the selection of the submachine gun to be used in the motorcade follow-up car. In evaluating the possibilities there were three principal considerations; cartridge performance, simplicity of operation, and dependability of operation.

With regard to Steve's observation about self-defense handguns, it is arguably true that those who are not highly experienced would be better served with a revolver.

Over a decade ago, while still active in law enforcement, I became enamored with the Glock semi-automatic pistol. It has no external thumb safety which can be inadvertently left in a position where the gun will not fire. As you press the trigger you release the external safety, and the internal "safe action" components do not cock to release the firing pin, and to move aside the internal safety, until the trigger is pulled fully back to the firing position.

I have fired thousands of rounds through the Glock with no misfires and no jams. One caution: do not fire lead bullets or reloads in a Glock. To do so voids the warranty.

The Glock barrel is very tight for the caliber and lead builds up in the barrel quickly if lead bullets are used.

.

Carl, I agree if your looking for a good semi-auto pistol the Glock is an excellent choice of a reliability, well designed semi-auto pistol. In a stressed situation no one needs to be worried about whether the batteries are good in their dongle or pistol grip. Many will also miss the point in your last post: "I have fired thousands of rounds" Too many people buy a weapon and then very seldom train with it. I would put more effort into training and educating gun owners and perspective owners then money spent on a device that is just not practical for a defensive weapon. This is one of those things that looks good on paper but in reality is far more trouble then the problem it was designed to correct.

I spent over 40 years of my life designing all sorts of systems and there is no such animal as a smart gun. My son is a Officer in the Dayton Ohio area and I hope he never is put into the position of having to rely on one of those devices.

[Carl in Tampa]

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....................

.

[janmcn]

Attacking other posters is not allowed on this forum.

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by buggyone

I agree it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. As for the technology never working well or solving nothing, that is left for the experts.

Buggyone, you've been talking to the experts. You just don't seem to realize it and you fail to accept what you are being told.

.

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Attacking other posters is not allowed on this forum.

Tell it to blueash.

.

[Steve9930]

When it comes to guns and politics I believe there are no answers. Just endless debate. Isn't life interesting?

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

Buggyone, you've been talking to the experts. You just don't seem to realize it and you fail to accept what you are being told.

.

Personally, I cannot see any purpose in keeping this thread going. One group will not accept smart guns are being made for safety and believe they cannot work. The other group believes the opposite. No matter who is right, the other group will not believe or accept it.

I, personally, feel bad for the Maryland gun shop owner who was terrorized into not selling a legal product.

[Moderator]

Please discuss the topic and not each other. If the personally directed posts continue, the thread will be closed.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

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....................

.

I post when I know an answer, I don't speculate, I try not to claim any expertise if I don't have it. I am not a lawyer nor a legislator. I believe but do not know that you are misunderstanding the NJ law. I believe it allows but does not require the use of smart guns by police once they have been approved by a special panel to look specifically at the issue from a police perspective. I have written to a member of the NJ legislature asking for a clarification who was involved in the drafting of the legislation and I await a reply from that legislator or his staff. So no, I did not ignore you. Instead what I did was seek competent advise and information so that I could correctly reply to your contention. Multiple online sites believe as I do that the law exempts police. Here are several examples from pro-gun sites and organizations, but they are not authoritative:

"The NRA did not respond to requests for comment, but Scott L. Bach, the executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, said the technology is flawed, and could put gun owners in danger when it fails. He also questioned why law enforcement officers are exempt.“New Jersey’s smart-gun law is as dumb as it gets,” Bach, of West Milford, said in a statement. “It forces you to use an unproven technology to defend your life, and then exempts the state from liability when the gun goes ‘click’ instead of ‘bang.’ If it’s such a great idea, then law enforcement shouldn’t be exempt, and the free market should be allowed to determine its viability.” - See more at: NJ's 2002 smart-gun law could take effect soon, limit supply - NJ State News - NorthJersey.com


From Fox News which you might consider authoritative
New Jersey Smart Gun Legislation Enacted | Fox News
Under the New Jersey law, the technology will be required in all new handguns sold three years after the state attorney general determines a smart gun prototype is safe and commercially available. Weapons used by law enforcement officers would be exempt.


'Smart gun' law, a first, is signed N.J. becomes the only state to require that guns eventually contain technology that thwarts unauthorized use. - Philly.com
Police organizations supported the law, but lobbied to have themselves exempted from its requirements. The original idea for the smart gun was to protect officers from having their weapons turned against them.
Under the law, a panel would be appointed to review when such weapons could be used by law enforcement

This quote from the Philadelphia Inquirer interprets the law the way I would interpret subsection dd, in that it allows law enforcement to use smart guns but not require. So I will reply with a definitive answer when/if I receive a reply from NJ. I will only add that my understanding of the law is consistent with everything I found in reading multiple website. There will be no requirement for NJ police to adopt smart gun technology, just an option. So we will have to agree to disagree about whether you have proven anything.