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.

[dbwz]

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.

We all used to know what the meanings of words like "reasonable" and infringed" were, but the definitions have been stretched to the point that we have to sit here and argue over their meanings.

If you look "infringe" up in the dictionary, you'll find it defined as trespass or encroach. The word "reasonable" is defined as being within the bounds of common sense, not excessive or extreme. But we all know that one person's brand of common sense is not the same as another's. How do we determine where infringement begins, or what is reasonable? Most of the time, we look at what's being proposed, what the possible consequences might be, and how we the people are ultimately affected.

So here we have a law passed that will outlaw sale of all handguns in the state of New Jersey which are not equipped with "smart gun" technology. This law will take effect three years after the first working model of a "smart gun" is delivered to any FFL anywhere in the United States. Law enforcement, military, and federal employees are exempt from the provisions of this law.

So let's say the "smart gun" becomes a reality, and the NJ law kicks in. How many models of the "smart gun" will be available at this point, do you think? One? Two? Gun shops will stock only these handguns, and that's what I have to choose from if I'm a first-time gun buyer. Is this reasonable? Is this infringement?

Another question is how much these guns will cost. It's estimated that the new technology will add $400 - $500 to the price, so we may be talking about anywhere from $800 to over $1000. Is this reasonable? Is this an infringement?

Let's consider the "smart gun" in the home. If I want to be able to protect myself from a violent intruder, fine - I have my gun which recognizes my handprint. But what about my husband? My kids? My guests? What if I'm knocked unconscious in a struggle with home invaders? My family may still have a means of self defense, but it's nowhere as effective as it could have been. Is this reasonable? Is this an infringement?

And even if I'm not a first-time buyer, what's to say that a law won't be passed requiring that I turn in all my "dumb" guns? Reasonable? Infringement?

The New Jersey State Constitution states, "All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." The US Constitution says pretty much the same thing, does it not?

Does the "smart gun" law infringe upon my right to defend my life and liberty?

[Shooter 2.5]

I read your posts and you're trying to make some sort of connection based on a link on a home page of a gun manufacturer. IF you were an NRA member, you would already know their position on so-called "Smart Guns" from all of the articles in the American Rifleman. It's December and the yearly index is in that issue. Look the articles up and report back.

[Objectivism USA]

Repeating the same lines and ignoring the points made doesn't do anything to advance the discussion.

[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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 |

[kcar]

I get America's 1st Freedom. The Jan '03 issue decompiles on the "ballistic fingerprinting" media craze but doesn't yet address the Taurus betrayal on NJ's "smart guns" plans, as this no doubt happened after the date of publication. I expect the NRA to be principled, but years of betrayals from trusted sources have led me to look over my shoulder frequently to verify consistency. And sometimes the manner in which defenders defend is worriesome, e.g., making pragmatic arguements why this or that won't work while ceding the principle that if it did work it would be okay, is a bad defense. I would prefer defenders to aver the absolute principle that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms of their choosing, and then oh, by the way, this particular scheme is also impractical for this or that reason. NRA is okay with me as long as they continue to do that.

The NRA's 5 million members are far more impressive than AARP's 10m because of the NRA's singularity of purpose. Its members vote consistently and have badly stung the Democrats in the last two election cycles.

[timestax]

don't think it would ever work, as it would have to work instantly in the rain, snow,frost, sleet,condensation, muddy dirty grimey sweaty hands, etc, have to work on a battery which will run down, wife may have to use husbands gun to shoot home invader coming at her with his own "stolen gun" etc. Gun owner with bandaids on thumb/fingers from working on car, etc.


36 posted on 12/25/2002 9:49 AM PST by timestax
[

[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

[timestax]

Posted by timestax to timestax
On News/Activism 12/29/2002 1:29 PM PST #87 of 87

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

[timestax]

bump for newbies to read!!!

[timestax]

bump