"‘Smart’ Firearm Draws Wrath of the Gun Lobby"

[Cl1mh4224rd]

[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.

Source: ‘Smart’ Firearm Draws Wrath of the Gun Lobby (via Slashdot)

/me sighs.

 

[Cylinder]

I certainly wouldn't want this Armatix model as a self defense firearm. There is no current technology that provides the correct failure mode or an acceptable failure rate -- which is very near zero. This technology is trivial to defeat for any determined person (less than an hour to replace a trigger group for the first time). That trivial nature will next be cited as the next "loophole" in the power grab.

As long as politicians ask for bans, punitive regulation or regulation that concentrates the individual right to keep and bear arms with the government there will people who resist.

 

[Ranb]

Looks like they will need a better firearm; one that people are willing to market or buy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armatix_iP1

Watch has to be within 10 inches of the pistol to allow it to discharge; it only comes with one watch. I shoot right or left; with one hand. 48 inches would be better.

I wonder how well it is selling in Germany?

Ranb

 

[PhantomWolf]

I certainly wouldn't want this Armatix model as a self defense firearm. There is no current technology that provides the correct failure mode or an acceptable failure rate -- which is very near zero. This technology is trivial to defeat for any determined person (less than an hour to replace a trigger group for the first time). That trivial nature will next be cited as the next "loophole" in the power grab.

As long as politicians ask for bans, punitive regulation or regulation that concentrates the individual right to keep and bear arms with the government there will people who resist.

Simple answer, if you don't want one, don't buy one, but why should people who do want one be prevented from buying it?

 

[Howie Felterbush]

You guys are overlooking the main problem with this gun.

If you want to use it, you are limited to wearing the same watch every day.

I'd rather get shot by a mugger.

 

[MontagK505]

What has firearms owners outraged is that the government might make this mandatory. I don't have any problem with a "smart gun", but this technology doesn't impress me.

 

[Cylinder]

Simple answer, if you don't want one, don't buy one, but why should people who do want one be prevented from buying it?

No -- I don't think the government should be in the business of preventing people from buying this particular firearm. I don't think that's what Ms. Padilla is complaining about here, though.

 

[WildCat]

I'm not relying on any firearm for self defense that can be defeated with a radio jammer, or a dead battery or defective receiver for that matter. And just how does that technology handle calibers with far more recoil than .22 rimfire? Those forces are quite significant.

Let the police rely on $1,500 .22 rimfire radio-activated guns first to test them out.

And the article glosses over the New Jersey mandate that could be triggered by this gun.

 

[Black Hole Box]

What has firearms owners outraged is that the government might make this mandatory. I don't have any problem with a "smart gun", but this technology doesn't impress me.

Mandatory for whom, what, when, where? That sounds like the usual gun nut paranoia.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What has firearms owners outraged is that the government might make this mandatory. I don't have any problem with a "smart gun", but this technology doesn't impress me.

Then fight that battle if it comes, rather than attacking those wanting to produce and sell these weapons.

 

[PhantomWolf]

No -- I don't think the government should be in the business of preventing people from buying this particular firearm. I don't think that's what Ms. Padilla is complaining about here, though.

The Government isn't preventing it, the 2nd Amendment nuts are. What right have the NRA and the nuts that follow them got to prevent people who want to buy this sort of gun from doing so via intimidation of the importers and sellers?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'm not relying on any firearm for self defense that can be defeated with a radio jammer, or a dead battery or defective receiver for that matter. And just how does that technology handle calibers with far more recoil than .22 rimfire? Those forces are quite significant.

Fine, don't buy one.

Let the police rely on $1,500 .22 rimfire radio-activated guns first to test them out.

How about letting those that want one buy them?

And the article glosses over the New Jersey mandate that could be triggered by this gun.

So fight that rather than intimidating the importers and sellers and preventing people that do want them from being able to buy them.

 

[Ranb]

Mandatory for whom, what, when, where? That sounds like the usual gun nut paranoia.

It's starting in New Jersey. http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2002/Bills/PL02/130_.HTM

C.2C:58-2.3 Reports as to availability of personalized handguns.
If the Attorney General determines that personalized handguns are not available for retail sales purposes, the Attorney General, every six months thereafter, shall report to the Governor and the Legislature as to the availability of personalized handguns for retail sales purposes until such time as the Attorney General shall deem that personalized handguns are available for retail sales purposes and so report to the Governor and the Legislature.

C.2C:58-2.4 List of personalized handguns.
3. a. On the first day of the 24th month following the date on which the Attorney General reports that personalized handguns are available for retail sales purposes pursuant to section 2 of P.L.2002, c.130 (C.2C:58-2.3), the Attorney General shall direct the Superintendent of State Police to promulgate a list of personalized handguns that may be sold in the State.

C.2C:58-2.5 Sale of personalized handguns, inapplicability.
4. a. On and after the first day of the sixth month following the preparation and delivery of the list of personalized handguns which may be sold in the State.... no person registered or licensed by the superintendent as a manufacturer, wholesale dealer of firearms, retail dealer of firearms... shall transport into this State, sell, expose for sale, possess with the intent of selling, assign or otherwise transfer any handgun unless it is a personalized handgun or an antique handgun.

When the AG decides that personalized handguns are available for sale, a list will be made 24 months later. 6 months after the list is made only personalized handguns may be sold in NJ.

I might be interested in a personalized firearm, but it has to be better than what Armatix is trying to sell. Their iP1 looks like a cheap 22lr pistol being sold for $1500 more than it is worth. But I still need to hold and fire one first.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

So fight that rather than intimidating the importers and sellers and preventing people that do want them from being able to buy them.

Is the alleged intimidation illegal? How has the manufacturer been prevented from selling these guns? If the Oak Tree Gun Club is going to wimp out, Armatix can open their own store or find someone else. Why start in CA when they could do it in NJ?

Ranb

 

[PhantomWolf]

Is the alleged intimidation illegal? How has the manufacturer been prevented from selling these guns? If the Oak Tree Gun Club is going to wimp out, Armatix can open their own store or find someone else. Why start in CA when they could do it in NJ?

Ranb

So you think that the intimidation of and the posting of contact details and pictures for others to do so is acceptable behaviour? You think it is perfectly alright to terrorize someone for trying to sell a product that is perfectly legal, and threaten businesses who support or sell it?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Is the alleged intimidation illegal?

Ranb

Very likely.

For those outside of California it would be under:

47 U.S. Code § 223 - Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications

(a) Prohibited acts generally
Whoever—

(1) in interstate or foreign communications— (A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly— (i) makes, creates, or solicits, and (ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass another person;

Those inside California would be covered under

Crime of annoying telephone calls in California (Penal Code 653m PC)

1.1. Making or permitting a telephone call or electronic communication

1.2. Obscene language, threats, or repeated calls

1.3. Intent to harass or annoy

 

[WildCat]

Mandatory for whom, what, when, where? That sounds like the usual gun nut paranoia.

Sounds like you didn't read the article and and/or perhaps your internet didn't come with Google.

 

[WildCat]

So you think that the intimidation of and the posting of contact details and pictures for others to do so is acceptable behaviour? You think it is perfectly alright to terrorize someone for trying to sell a product that is perfectly legal, and threaten businesses who support or sell it?

Boycotts do not constitute a threat.

 

[Ranb]

So you think that the intimidation of and the posting of contact details and pictures for others to do so is acceptable behaviour?

It is not acceptable to me. Not sure if it is illegal though.

You think it is perfectly alright to terrorize someone for trying to sell a product that is perfectly legal,

Terrorize, no. Criticize, yes.

and threaten businesses who support or sell it?

Threaten to boycott them; entirely acceptable.

Ranb

 

[PhantomWolf]

Boycotts do not constitute a threat.

Of course it's a threat. A Boycott is a threat to shut down the business by refusing to shop there if they don't do what you demand.

What about harassing phone calls?

Besides, what right have NRA nutters got to prevent other law abiding citizens buying a gun of their choosing, a weapon that is perfectly legal, and some people may even find useful? Aren't they doing exactly what they claim the Government will do, banning a gun, though by intimidation rather than law.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It is not acceptable to me. Not sure if it is illegal though.

See post above, abusive, harassing phone calls are illegal.

Criticize, yes.

Why is criticizing someone for wanting to sell a product you personally don't want to use acceptable?

Threaten to boycott them; entirely acceptable.

Why is it acceptable to threaten a business for selling a legal product that others might actually want that does no harm to you (unless someone uses it on you)? Isn't the NRA and their supporter doing exactly what they accuse the Government of, trying to ban a gun they don't like?

 

[Ranb]

See post above, abusive, harassing phone calls are illegal.

From the tone of the article these idiots are no more harassing then a telemarketer. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if the calls she is getting meet the definition of the law you posted.

Why is criticizing someone for wanting to sell a product you personally don't want to use acceptable?

Because it is one of those first amendment rights we so love in the USA. some people think the gun is garbage, and are saying so. That is never going to be anything new about guns; right or wrong.

Why is it acceptable to threaten a business for selling a legal product that others might actually want that does no harm to you (unless someone uses it on you)? Isn't the NRA and their supporter doing exactly what they accuse the Government of, trying to ban a gun they don't like?

As far as I know people are only threatening to take their business away from the gun club that was planning on selling the pistols. I don't see anyone organizing any sort of ban. Pressuring the market to make or not make something available is part of free enterprise.

Lots of guns get lots of crap from gun owners. Ever see how opinionated gun owners are about guns?

I've been threatened online before, by people who claim to be gun owners, over my position on various firearms. One thing they all had in common was that they lacked the backbone to do anything more than post anonymously online. They are total whack jobs and cowards for the most part and I never lost any sleep over it. Ms. Paddilla looks like a big girl, she can probably handle these losers with her pinky finger.

Ranb

 

[WildCat]

Of course it's a threat. A Boycott is a threat to shut down the business by refusing to shop there if they don't do what you demand.

They're also perfectly legal and acceptable practice. It's also letting the market decide.

What about harassing phone calls?

Free speech. Speaking your mind is not illegal harassment.

Besides, what right have NRA nutters got to prevent other law abiding citizens buying a gun of their choosing, a weapon that is perfectly legal, and some people may even find useful? Aren't they doing exactly what they claim the Government will do, banning a gun, though by intimidation rather than law.

The "nutters" are concerned about legislation, both already passed and introduced in several states as well as Congress, to mandate such technology. There's no choice in a mandate.

This is actually old news, earlier (and more informative) WaPo article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...432058-a544-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

...or a dead battery...

This is one of the lamest criticisms of the technology I've seen, in my opinion. Guns can run out of ammo, too, but I've never seen anyone interested in, say, self defense use that to argue that guns in general are stupid and useless for the purpose.

 

[WildCat]

This is one of the lamest criticisms of the technology I've seen, in my opinion. Guns can run out of ammo, too, but I've never seen that used as an argument against guns in general.

They run out of ammo in a very predictable manner. I don't have to worry that the ammo in my gun has "run out" or gone dead since the last time I loaded it.

 

[Ranb]

Guns can run out of ammo, too, but I've never seen anyone interested in self defense use that to argue that guns in general are stupid and useless for the purpose.

Then you probably never got involved in any discussions over the merits of the 7 round 1911 vs the 17 round Glock.

Ranb

 

[WildCat]

Then you probably never got involved in any discussions over the merits of the 7 round 1911 vs the 17 round Glock.

Ranb

Or 9mm vs .40 S&W vs .45ACP vs .357 Sig...

 

[WildCat]

And just think about the times when boarding the bus or train you have to tap your transit card multiple times on the sensor before it finally registers, imagine being in a desperate situation repeatedly pulling the trigger and nothing happens. That's when seconds may as well be hours.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And just think about the times when boarding the bus or train you have to tap your transit card multiple times on the sensor before it finally registers, imagine being in a desperate situation repeatedly pulling the trigger and nothing happens. That's when seconds may as well be hours.

You mean like during one of those 0.006% of burglaries where someone in the home is killed?

 

[tyr_13]

This is one of the lamest criticisms of the technology I've seen, in my opinion. Guns can run out of ammo, too, but I've never seen anyone interested in, say, self defense use that to argue that guns in general are stupid and useless for the purpose.

Ammo is much more resilient than any battery. My brother's Nagant will still shoot 7.62x54R ammo that's been berried in Finland for over a hundred years without malfunction. Ammo's failure rate while sitting in the gun as a function of time is astonishingly low. Batteries however will drain from maintaining readiness to shoot. So a gun that can run out of ammo AND run out of battery power has more points of failure in addition to the limitations of batteries in the first place. This technology is promising. NFC devices don't actually need a operate battery, and the ring version of this would only have a battery in the gun, not one in the gun and one in the watch (an extra point of failure). This technology is not mature in any way, shape, or form however. It will be first employed by organizations where the risk of snatched guns is high, and the organizational support for maintaining gear helps mitigate the inherent weaknesses (security guards and police). That these things are already being mandated is horrendously stupid unless a type of backdoor ban is the goal (and of course for many people it is).

That is not to say that I support the reaction of the NRA or the people who may be harassing a technology developer. Let the early adapters and hobbyist have the new toy and refine it. Save the ire for those mandating this in an effort to making owning a functioning firearm unfeasible. Criticize those calling this a mature, ready technology. Be the 'bigger' side.

Those for more firearm restrictions. For the love of reason do not support poor solutions or legislative trickery just to disarm more people. Throwing support to obviously bad solutions turns people away from arguments for any restriction, good or bad. It works against the goal in the long run and builds distrust.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And just think about the times when boarding the bus or train you have to tap your transit card multiple times on the sensor before it finally registers, imagine being in a desperate situation repeatedly pulling the trigger and nothing happens. That's when seconds may as well be hours.

Besides, if you don't like the Technology, then don't buy it. If you are scared that the Government will force it on you, fight that instead. All I see is a bunch of cowards who believe in Conspiracies threating a woman for trying to make things safer for everyone, it's despicable and I'm amazed that you support their actions.

 

[arthwollipot]

From the tone of the article these idiots are no more harassing then a telemarketer.

"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,"

If that were directed at me, I would interpret that as a credible and direct threat to my life.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That is not to say that I support the reaction of the NRA or the people who may be harassing a technology developer. Let the early adapters and hobbyist have the new toy and refine it. Save the ire for those mandating this in an effort to making owning a functioning firearm unfeasible. Criticize those calling this a mature, ready technology. Be the 'bigger' side.

This, a million times this, and I congratulate you for having the balls to stand up and say it Tyr, unlike some others.

 

[Ranb]

If that were directed at me, I would interpret that as a credible and direct threat to my life.

One of the differences between me and you I guess. That "threat" sounded like something from the typical internet poser/loser.

Ranb

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If that were directed at me, I would interpret that as a credible and direct threat to my life.

I don't read it as a death threat so much as a threat to make her life a living hell. And I don't read it as this person making the threat themselves, only that they have no problem with others going through with it.

Still...

One of the differences between me and you I guess. That "threat" sounded like something from the typical internet poser/loser.

It's significantly more disconcerting knowing that these people have her home phone number and know where she lives.

 

[PhantomWolf]

From the tone of the article these idiots are no more harassing then a telemarketer.

Really? You must have really strange telemarketers if they do this... "fuming-mad voice mail messages and heavy breathers"

 

[marplots]

You guys are overlooking the main problem with this gun.

If you want to use it, you are limited to wearing the same watch every day.

I'd rather get shot by a mugger.

^^^
This.

Especially since the reason I got the gun in the first place was so I could get more watches. And, you know, other stuff.

 

[Ranb]

It's significantly more disconcerting knowing that these people have her home phone number and know where she lives.

Seeing as how she has probably put her face/image out there as part of marketing for the company, it is not surprising that anyone can get it. I do the same for the lobbying efforts I am involved in.

I don't condone what these people (on calguns.com) are doing. It will not hinder Armatix efforts much and certainly gives gun nuts (jref definition) like me a bad image.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Really? You must have really strange telemarketers if they do this... "fuming-mad voice mail messages and heavy breathers"

The ones I had in mind were those warning me about the gay agenda. They made me want to go find out what it was so I could vote for it.

I don't pick up for any unknown numbers now. Ms. Paddilla probably isn't getting harassed on her phone anymore either as she claims to no longer answer unknown callers.

Ranb

 

[Noztradamus]

~~~It will be first employed by organizations where the risk of snatched guns is high, and the organizational support for maintaining gear helps mitigate the inherent weaknesses (security guards and police). .

~~~

Like that will ever happen

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2002/Bills/PL02/130_.HTM [C.2C:58-2.5 Sale of personalized handguns, inapplicability.

4. b. The provisions of this section shall not apply to handguns to be sold, transferred, assigned and delivered for official use to: (1) State and local law enforcement officers of this State; (2) federal law enforcement officers and any other federal officers and employees required to carry firearms in the performance of their official duties and (3) members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of the National Guard.