TAURUS working with NJIT on "Smart Gun"

Taurus International website ^ | June 27, 2002 | Taurus International

[dbwz]

Taurus International partners with the New Jersey Institute of Technology in a "Personalized Weapons Technology" research and development project.

(for detailed information on this project, please follow this link to the New Jersey Institute of Technology report at www.njit.edu)

(MIAMI, FL, June 27) Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc. announced today that it has partnered with the prestigious New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) (www.njit.edu), in the pursuit of "Personalized Weapons Technology", sometimes erroneously referred to as "Smart Gun Technology", which will provide user identifiable firing controls for firearms. The NJIT has been working on this project for some time.

[timestax]

bump

[RogueIsland]

Given the serious quality control problems I've encountered with some Taurus revolvers, I shudder to contemplate the reliabiility of any "Smart Gun" these folks would produce.

[timestax]

bump to the top!

[timestax]

WELL, it prolly would put an end to the Vince Foster type suicide/Murders, as it wouldn't go over very well finding a "suicide gun" next to the dead body, and then finding out it was programmed to work "ONLY for someone else"!! eh

[dbwz]

Requiring "smart gun technology" is going to be tuff to challenge as an infringement because it allows all current weapons to continue in civilian hands and it makes no infringement on any type or caliber as long as the weapon has the required "safety" feature.

What do my rights include? Can the government tell me how I have to keep a gun in my home (locked, separate from ammo, out of reach of children, etc.)?

[dbwz]

Then why criticize Taurus for developing the technology? NJ is the problem, forcing people to accept the technology, not Taurus.

Taurus is working with NJIT to develop the technology, funded with NJ taxpayer dollars.
The technology that they develop will then be forced upon the citizens of NJ.

If Taurus wants to work independently to produce a "smart" gun to put out on the market for the market to decide, let 'em have at it.

[dbwz]

Tthink about it. Taurus is probably getting a pile of money to do this.

As I've stated, they are getting money from the taxpayers of NJ. I see your point about setting it up for failure, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it coming out of my pocket.

[dbwz]

Given the serious quality control problems I've encountered with some Taurus revolvers, I shudder to contemplate the reliabiility of any "Smart Gun" these folks would produce.

Agree. My husband is a firearms instructor, and he has two Taurus revolvers in his collection that he lets students use on the range. In one day, the transfer bars on both of them broke, and he had a heck of a time getting the new parts.

[Objectivism USA]

You and Hugin are the one’s who claim that the NJ law violates the Constitution. I have offered a couple of potential challenges but they are dependent on problems with the cost and/or reliability of the technology. If you want to claim that the law is unconstitutional you are going to have to come up with some reason for that claim.

[harpseal]

What part of "[S]hall not be infringed" do you not understand?

[Objectivism USA]

Read reply # 27.

[harpseal]

I read that it is obvious you do not understand the meaning of the word infringed. An infringement is ANY restriction thatlimits a person's ability to keep and bear arms. Since there will be numerous firearms manufactured that do not conform to the New jersey standard anything that limits the availability to so called smart gun technology would as such be an infringement. When it comes to a right guaranteed by the US Constitution strict scrutiny is the standard. A legislative body has no right to ban any arm that has a militia use.

[PatrioticAmerican]

If you live in NJ, this is the LEAST of your worries!

[Objectivism USA]

Simply claiming that it is an infringement does not make it so. If the technology works every useful feature of every weapon currently available would still be allowed. If a gun manufacturer won’t make and sell the gun that you want in your home State, how is that an infringement or are you claiming that the Constitution requires gun manufacturers to cater to you?

I don’t believe that any court at any time in this Country’s history has ever upheld such a broad interpretation of what would constitute an infringement as you have offered. Do you consider all rules as to who can buy sell and possess any weapon of any kind in any location at any time to be an unconstitutional infringement?

Weapons’ being stolen and used by the enemy is a common occurrence, a weapon that could only be used by friendly partisans could be advantageous for militia use. Being useful for the Militia could actually be a reason to require this technology.

[Objectivism USA]

First off follow the whole debate and second you have not offered any court case to back up your assertion.

[RogueIsland]

Agree. My husband is a firearms instructor, and he has two Taurus revolvers in his collection that he lets students use on the range. In one day, the transfer bars on both of them broke, and he had a heck of a time getting the new parts.

Here's one for you: a cylinder so badly fitted that after a half dozen shots or so, the cylinder expanded from the heat to the point the weapon completely bound up. Unusable except as a club.