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.

[Gritty]

This is a swell idea! After a whole lot of time, these guns might be at least as reliable as my computer.

My computer has been using a technology perfected over twenty years with billions of dollars and countless hours of trial and error and cleverly engineered improvements. It is perfected so even a dummy like me can use it without having a Masters Degree in computers. Still, it freezes up once in a while, sometimes on shutdown and sometimes in the middle of use. Most of the time it reboots on the first try. It has only mysteriously erased some of my work files a couple of times and generally works OK if I don't interrupt the power or jar the case too hard. Of course, I can't use it during a power outage or an electrical storm.

On the other hand, my ancient manual slide rule has never failed me, but works every single time - maybe not with the same accuracy as a computer program, but with flawless reliability.

I wouldn't consider for a minute having my life depend on a firearm which has the latent bugs my computer has. I wouldn't hesitate putting my life or those of my loved ones on a gun with the reliability of my slide rule.

But then, this has nothing to do with any of the above. It has everything to do with devious and dishonest politicians controlling honest people through phony "safety" issues and outlawing guns in the hands of decent citizens.

Speaking of "safety", you can safely bet the farm none of their private bodyguards will ever carry one of these "smart" weapons!

[Objectivism USA]

It might help if you could read a little of what you linked, but I know you are to smart and busy to be bothered. Simply by asserting the claim that you have me "outclassed" does not hide your inability to offer an argument. If you had followed the debate and read a little of what you linked you would not have made the assertion that "dbwz" expansive interpretation of infringe has any bases in any legal court decision. From your link "What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment" footnote 11:
This modern Standard Model is similar to the position embraced by every known legal scholar in the nineteenth century who wrote about the Second Amendment: the Amendment guarantees an individual right, but is subject to various reasonable restrictions.

If reasonable restrictions are allowed then you can’t seriously claim that infringe should be interpreted as preventing all rules laws and regulations that might touch upon Guns.

[Objectivism USA]

First off an explanation; have you ever argued a point because you wanted to explore the ideas involved, not necessarily out of total support for the position taken?

Even with your understanding of footnote 11 it does not mean that an early Court ruled reasonable restrictions would amount to an infringement. I think we are debating what constitutes an infringement not on whether any and all reasonable restrictions are forbidden.

It won’t work to place the burden on the State prove that no possible infringement occurs. If that were the standard then no law that might even tangentially touch upon guns would be Constitutional because it might in some unforeseen fashion infringe on somebody’s rights. Try proving that all crows are black; the observation of a million black crows doesn’t prove that all crows are black but the observation of even a single white crow would disprove the contention. What the Court will look for is even one example of where the law does infringe.

Is there a mention in the NJ law about allowing law enforcement to disable your gun because nothing in this article mentions such a thing? For the sake of my argument I am assuming low additional cost and that the smart gun technology works flawlessly in always allowing friendly use. I realize that the technology is unlikely to be perfect and that imperfection will form the bases for a Constitutional challenge. Absent an excessive cost burden or any flaw in the smart gun technology, it will be hard to argue an infringement exits. If during your use of a smart gun it performs identically to how it would perform without the smart technology how would it be an infringement.

[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


44 posted on 12/26/2002 12:39 PM PST by timestax
[

[timestax]

bump

[harpseal]

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?

Certainly any restrictions other than for a felony conviction are an unconstitutional infringement. Do you consider a liscense to write an political article an unconstitutional law? Do you consider state-government taxation to support the maintainence of a church building to be prohibited by the Constitution unconstitutional? Certainly the latter was ruled Constitutional in the 1820's in a case involving NH. and Congregational Churches. (Congress shall make no law)

The right of the people shall not be infringed is the strongest language within the Bill of Rights. The guarantee is to the people and may be taken as originally binding on any state that has ratified the Constitution. Since by definition a felon may lose some or all civil rights for life or may lose life itself as a punishment such impediment to rights may well be imposed legally but such impediment should be clearly spelled out in the law at the time the felony took place otherwise we as a nation are engaging in ex-post-facto legislation.

The rulings by prior courts limiting the right guaranteed by the Constitution do not impress me any more than the rulings that said seperate but equal impressed me. The history of the meaning of the language and the language itself is clear.

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.

This argument you have advanced does not make sense to me. The use of a militia is by definition a guerilla type formation that does not have standard military issue armament. A government armed force fully supported with supply is the type of unit that will have sufficient armament where there would be an interest in preventing the use of caqptured armaments.

[KC_for_Freedom]

You are quite right sir, the only users of any type of restricted gun should be those who decide that those restrictions should be on "their" gun and they can buy them if they want to. Thus there is very little reason for any government grant to be available.

These same resonable restrictions such as the gun must cost more than 100 dollars or the state should subject each gun design to tests before they can be purchased are indeed infringements.

[gundog]

Yeah, I can relate to the new toy thing. Mostly he buys mil-surps and I don't think he's adjusted for inflation...it's a pretty old rule.

[Objectivism USA]

I had hoped that after you toned down your pompous attitude that an exploration of ideas surrounding the NJ law might be possible; I now see that I was mistaken. You will have no more luck finding a court case where the state was required to prove that a particular law did not infringe a right than you had finding a case supporting your contention that any court had ruled that a reasonable restriction amounted to an infringement. Every case where a law was ruled unconstitutional had a specific instance presented to the Court where the law violated the rights of at least one person. Unless your rights are violated you don’t have standing to file a suit that would prevent enforcement. When you start imagining what flaws will be in a technology that is not yet available you yourself have left reality and are dealing with the hypothetical. Until the technology is available and the law takes effect we won’t know what flaws may be present. If the Technology works flawlessly your lack of arguments won’t have a hope of convincing anyone that an infringement exits.

[Shooter 2.5]

Someone else puts a NRA sticker on something and you use it as an excuse to sit on the sidelines?

Golly, that makes a lot of sense. Any excuse to do nothing?

Are you going to join another gun group or just complain?

[kcar]

Well I was just saying that if Taurus gets contracts from states enacting restrictive gun laws then I won't buy from them. If it turns out that the NRA actually endorses their collaboration with NJ then I'll put them in the 2A weak tea category, and yes, vote with my dollars elsewhere. Another gun group? Possibly. But I actively vote for pro-2A candidates and disqualify those that for gun controls.

I guess a boycott could be considered doing nothing but it seemed to work well vs S&W and anyway it's my business. Beyond that what would you recommend doing?

I was making an observation about the Taurus site - not complaining.

[Shooter 2.5]

Well, actually you did complain. The Taurus Company supports a Gun Group. Because of that, you're more than willing to quit and sit on the sidelines. That's called using any excuse to sit on the sidelines.

The reason we have gun control is there are only five million gun group members. There are ten million members of AARP which is anti-gun. The politicians really aren't frightened of the gun groups because 95% of the gun owners sit on the sidelines and do nothing but complain.

If you want to quit the NRA, I'm more than willing to hold the door open. Just don't complain about the NRA or any other group. Blame the do-nothing gun owners.

[kcar]

I vote - as a non-politician that isn't sitting on the sidelines complaining. I merely said Taurus appeared to be selling us out so I won't buy from them anymore - that is a real complaint. Re: the NRA I just noted that Tauras still shows them on their website - as though Taurus is a principled supporter of 2A while they're climbing in bed with NJ. That is not necessariy the NRA's problem but I was posting a note to watch for the NRA's future response. If the NRA is less than principled, I will bolt from them too - maybe to another gun rights group, but I'm not going to be hasty. For now I will just passively 1) not buy Taurus products 2) check for NRA position re: Taurus/smart guns, and 3) not visit NJ. What a workout this all is.

[Shooter 2.5]

Yep, use that link to find out if the NRA is anti-gun and in bed with New Jersey. /sarcasm

Tell you what. Just quit now and start sitting on the sidelines. The real workers will wake you up every four years to vote. I hope spending a half hour every four years isn't too taxing for you.

[kcar]

You're being obtuse, mega-man. I never accused the NRA of that connection - reread the posts - I said it was a point to follow up on.