Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California store’s sale of smart guns prompts furious backlash
Washington Post ^ | March 6, 2014 | Michael S. Rosenwald

Posted on 03/06/2014 4:51:26 PM PST by Second Amendment First

The California gun store that put the nation’s first smart gun on sale is facing a furious backlash from customers and gun rights advocates who fear the new technology will encroach on their Second Amendment rights if it becomes mandated.

Attacks in online forums and social networks against the Oak Tree Gun Club have prompted the store to back away from any association with the Armatix iP1 smart gun. The protests threaten the nascent smart gun industry, which received a jolt of support recently when a group of Silicon Valley investors offered a $1 million prize for promising new technology.

The vitriol began almost immediately after The Washington Post reported last month that the Armatix iP1 smart gun was for sale at the pro shop. Electronic chips inside the gun communicate with a watch that can be purchased with the gun, making it impossible to fire without the watch. Gun control advocates, who believe smart guns could reduce gun violence, suicides and accidental shootings, marked the moment as a milestone.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist

1 posted on 03/06/2014 4:51:26 PM PST by Second Amendment First
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
The protests echo what Smith & Wesson endured after it signed a landmark gun control agreement with the Clinton administration in 2000 that called for the company to research and introduce smart guns. Boycotts of the company’s products nearly put it out of business.
2 posted on 03/06/2014 4:54:31 PM PST by Second Amendment First
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
Cops are the ones that have their guns wrestled away from them.
All cops should have one of these guns.....when they do then I'll think about getting one.
3 posted on 03/06/2014 4:54:51 PM PST by Politically Correct (A member of the rabble in good standing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

Let ‘em sell the silly things. I’ll be waiting for the first person to get killed because something failed and their gun didn’t “unlock.”

(If California mandates these things for the police, look for somebody to come out with a jammer that will prevent the police guns from firing!)


4 posted on 03/06/2014 4:57:27 PM PST by G-Bear (Always leave your clothes and weapons where you can find them in the dark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
trust your life to a battery??? not me...
5 posted on 03/06/2014 4:57:58 PM PST by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

Good!


6 posted on 03/06/2014 4:58:21 PM PST by Ken H (What happens on the internet, stays on the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

I would never shop there and if the owner were a friend I would let him know as much.


7 posted on 03/06/2014 5:01:40 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

Difficult to believe that anyone would even buy one of these pieces of crap.

If/when the SHTF, you’re going to be fumbling with this horse manure technology all the way to the morgue.

Keep It Simple, Stupid is the high sign in moments of intense stress.

And that’s all to one side when considering the political issue; once it’s established that The Government can tell you what sort of weapon falls within Second Amendment purview, your freedom is gone.


8 posted on 03/06/2014 5:05:55 PM PST by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

So let’s say I buy this wonderful safety package.

Why would it be necessary for me to lock it up and why couldn’t I leave it loaded.

The device that makes it possible for me to fire the weapon could be locked in a drawer or safe.

Sumpin like that of thinking.


9 posted on 03/06/2014 5:09:50 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chode
trust your life to a battery??? not me...
__________________________________________________

Plus, you have an electronics device that can fail or be covertly fried or a frequency wave that can be jammed. When your life depends on it, keep it simple and mechanical and stay away from electronics.

10 posted on 03/06/2014 5:13:06 PM PST by iontheball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

The thing is a battery powered 22lr, seriously? If I had to choose a weapon, I’d arm myself with a baseball bat before I’d break that thing out.

No thanks.


11 posted on 03/06/2014 5:24:59 PM PST by slouper (LWRC SPR 223)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iontheball

If it’s “smart”, it wouldn’t take much more to enable it to: record where and when you shoot it (or even handle it); record the direction it was pointed when fired; record the calibre of the ammo you used; and, to transmit reports to the “authorities”.


12 posted on 03/06/2014 5:25:47 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
Mitchell (the shop owner) told The Post earlier this month: “I walk in a delicate line because I am an extremely pro-gun conservative type person. But I’m also logical, you know.” He said the technology, if accepted, could “revolutionize the gun industry” and provide a compromise between gun rights advocates and gun control supporters.

Mitchell is a moron. Decent people cannot compromise with those who see meeting halfway as the first of many steps toward getting their way completely. My right to keep and bear arms is not negotiable, and I will not compromise my rights in any way with those who want me disarmed.

But if we're talking compromise, what I'd like is a compromise in which we identify the 15,000 (out of 30,000) most useless gun laws in the country and repeal them all. Then we could compromise and identify the most useless 7,000 remaining gun laws and repeal them . . . Oh . . . the left isn't interested in that sort of compromise, only in compromise that turns the ratchet in their direction? That's what I thought.

13 posted on 03/06/2014 5:29:11 PM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iontheball

I’m a watchmaker. Today, among others I finished the repair of 2 watches. One is a Waltham pocket watch made in 1873, and it now and STILL running like it was a month and a half old. At its current rate of wear, I estimate it will last more or less another hundred years.
The other was a very high grade Swiss made BATTERY powered quartz day/date man’s watch. It was purchased and given as a Christmas gift in 2013!!! Tuesday it stopped and was brought to me. Gee—something in the circuit died and the watch stopped. This high quality movement is seen so often I keep a couple of circuits in stock, just to save ordering time. Any electronic circuit can and will eventually fail. The company will, of course, back up its warranty. Not a big deal.. HOWEVER—
Question....You want to have you very life dependent on that somewhat fragile thing on your wrist?


14 posted on 03/06/2014 5:31:34 PM PST by CaptainAmiigaf (NY TIMES: We print the news as it fits our views.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
Marginally less snark than we've become accustomed to on the part of the Post but it's clear they still don't get it. Still, there is this: (1) the gun's a .22, (2) it costs $1800, and (3) to shoot it you need the watch, which has to be bought separately and costs $400. Yeah, right, I'll get right on that.

It isn't so much that gun owners are "afraid" of a mandate, those poor silly people, because it isn't fear that is being shown here, it's outrage that someone would go along with the scam. The Post missed the significant part of the story. It was the rage. We've had enough, we really, really have.

15 posted on 03/06/2014 5:39:04 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

What’s funny is the owner thinks he can scrub the internet of his previous comments and photos. It’s pretty hard to undo stupid. I would almost feel sorry for the idiot if he hadn’t been such a stooge for the state of Kalifornia.


16 posted on 03/06/2014 5:39:20 PM PST by Second Amendment First
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

It doesn’t say but maybe part of the cost is that it includes microstamping. Can they do that on a rimfire?


17 posted on 03/06/2014 5:41:30 PM PST by Second Amendment First
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
This product's self-proclaimed supporters (obviously fakers because no real gun owner wants their firearms to be less reliable) treat it like a free market decision. They are all over the article saying "if you don't want one, don't buy one", and I agree with them. Almost.

The problem is that "SmartGun" supporters don't want one. They want us to be compelled to buy one and to retrofit our existing firearms with "SmartGun" technology. That is not in any way okay. Given the existing laws and support for laws that would make "SmartGuns" the only legal guns once they are available, I'm going free market all over anyone who makes or sells "SmartGuns". I'm boycotting any business involved in the whole process. Consumer boycotts are part of the free market, and this is going to be an expensive (and probably permanent) mistake for any gun dealer who carries "SmartGuns".

18 posted on 03/06/2014 5:48:11 PM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
I don't know what the current status is, but Ruger has already stated they're not playing. In California the firearms manufacturer has to give the state free samples to see if they'll put it on the "approved" list, which has been grandfathered with respect to microstamping...for now. That could be rescinded at any time by some state bureaucrat, with no appeal allowed. If the Post had bothered to do a little investigating they'd have found out that's why Californians are angry. It isn't what they "fear", it's what they know is coming first chance the antigunners in the state government get their chance.
19 posted on 03/06/2014 5:51:53 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

This process is, I was just told by a Californian FFL holder, for each model number of every gun. Smith & Wesson, who is very profligate with model numbers, is, he says, volubly upset and threatening to quit the state.


20 posted on 03/06/2014 5:53:37 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

Dear Aimee Dewing & Smart Tech Challenges Foundation:

“that allow only authorized owners to control access to their firearms.”

This appears to be an infringement of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. viz

“to keep” = means “not to let go one`s possession or control” = Webster`s Dictionary, p460

Once the “owner” of a gun restricts that use to himself by a machine or instrument, he has lost control if he wants to let his son or nephew or relative or friend use the weapon for self-defense or even target practice or to scare off wolves here, if he is incapable, in a hurry sometimes coz wolves run pretty fast..

Even hunters switch rifles sometimes to try them out in the field. This is a no- brainer- Any company producing such owner-only weapons will probably wind up in challenges in court and spend millions of dollars in litigation.

What should be done is to put criminals who have used weapons in jail, not restrict law-abiding citizens by forcing them to use single-owner only smartweapons.
sorry nice intention but bad unconstitutional idea.

What if a cop could fire only his weapon? What if he was shot and another cop needed to use his weapon to defend himself or both? [This does not apply to military or national guard?]

Criminal wins- smartgun loses, cops dead just because of this stupoid idea. Oh this smart weapon technology does not apply to law enforcement personnel?

hmmmmm- that in itself is unconstitutional.

Criminals are usually always one step ahead of police and everyone else.

If they can hack Apple`s iPhone finger print security, they can steal and hack any -”owner-only” smartgun, reverse engineer it and be able to fire it by disabling said technology..

well duhhhhhhhh

It`s a waste of time,talent, money and a violation of the Second Amendment.

I taught my 5 brothers and sisters how to become marksmen/women from the age of 8, coz we have wolves up here preying on livestock. According to this proposal I would have to buy 5 more smart-rifles just to target practice- .

Gimme a break!
This is a stupid stupoid idea and someone has no common sense, and it ain`t me.

Nice try, but someone is headed for expensive litigation and it ain`t me.

I guess it appears none of the people at Smart tech challenges foundation was ever raised on a farm???

You`all must be appearing to be them thar city slickers that never had to protect chickens in the coop from the foxes nor goats, sheep & cattle from the wolves n coyotes..

It`s nice and eye-opening to get out into the rest of the world to see how people live elsewhere,not just in cities.
Best regards,


21 posted on 03/06/2014 5:56:13 PM PST by bunkerhill7 ("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

I recall reading somewhere that if an grandfathered model is modified in any way it must get new approval.


22 posted on 03/06/2014 5:57:20 PM PST by Second Amendment First
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

Ok, the “dumb gun” only fires when near the wrist watch.
(when the wrist watch is working)
So, the bad guy takes both.
Duh?
The future?
Like the “smart meters” of California’s utility, PG&E...or the “black boxes” Obama wants in all cars....wireless transmittal to the Govt which can “turn off” the car, utilities, the “dumb gun”, etc.

Duh?

(or the crook simply removes the electronic gizmo and retrofits it back into a normal gun...should not be rocket science)


23 posted on 03/06/2014 6:02:40 PM PST by OldArmy52 (The question is not whether Obama ever lies, but whether he ever tells the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Chode
trust your life to a battery??? not me...

you trust your life to every little part and screw in the weapon and in someone else who manufactured the live round in your chamber.

you can replace the battery every month and test the new one before you install in....for a couple of bucks.

24 posted on 03/06/2014 6:53:39 PM PST by terycarl (common sense prevails over all else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
In California the firearms manufacturer has to give the state free samples

Not quite correct. The manufacturer has to supply the gun at no charge, and then has to pay for the testing, a term I use loosely, and I believe there is a fee for applying for the test. We are talking time and money here, at least in the low thousands to get a gun accepted.

Some LEOs are requiring a gun to be on the current list if you want to make it your CCW gun. My Sheriff accepts any gun that has ever been on the list. Yes you can get a CCW in CA. We have over 800 in our county with a population of 24,000.

25 posted on 03/06/2014 6:58:51 PM PST by onceone (0311, K Co., 3/5 1st Mar Div, RVN '68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
yeah, right...
26 posted on 03/06/2014 7:03:12 PM PST by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7
I taught my 5 brothers and sisters how to become marksmen/women from the age of 8, coz we have wolves up here preying on livestock. According to this proposal I would have to buy 5 more smart-rifles just to target practice-

no you wouldn't, you'd just leave the "watch" or whatever it is, with the rifle....anyone can use it.

27 posted on 03/06/2014 7:06:12 PM PST by terycarl (common sense prevails over all else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Politically Correct
All cops should have one of these guns.....when they do then I'll still want a real one that doesn't have this electronic BS on it.
28 posted on 03/06/2014 7:07:22 PM PST by NorthMountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
Why should I replace a battery every month?

Why not load up a revolver, place it in my nightstand and feel comfortable that in 40 years it will still fire every round.

I say this because in the mid 70s I found a revolver (S&W M1917) in my grandmother's nightstand. She said she put it there when my grandfather went to fight WWII in 1943 and never moved it since then. I took the revolver out to the range, shot the bullets that were in it, fired about 30 more rounds, cleaned it, lubricated it, refilled it with modern hollow points bullets, and put it back in her night stand. In the mid 90s, my grandmother died. I took the pistol home with me and repeated what I did in the mid 70s. It sleeps in my nightstand now. I have another S&W 1917 for target practice, so there is no need to wake my grandmother's pistol up.

29 posted on 03/06/2014 7:14:50 PM PST by fini
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1; All
I assume the clock is running in NJ now?

See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3126027/posts?page=2

30 posted on 03/06/2014 7:34:40 PM PST by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: onceone

Yeah. I’m not surprised at all. Thanks for letting me know it’s even worse than I thought... ;-)


31 posted on 03/06/2014 7:45:42 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: fini
Why should I replace a battery every month? Why not load up a revolver, place it in my nightstand and feel comfortable that in 40 years it will still fire every round.

the original question was why shoule I place my life on a battery....I merely suggested that you could get a brand new battery every month, obviously that would only apply to someone paranoid about the dependence of batteries.

as far as grandma's trusty fireare...great, I have several myself but you set up a scenario, so I will too.

Your family lives in a middleclass neighborhood in a large city. You leave for work every morning and your wife and young children are at home. Your wife feels secure knowing that she has a handgun and knows how to use it. She knows where it is, very handy to where she is, but in many cases the kids know where it is too. Wouldn't you feel more secure knowing that ONLY she could fire that gun? The kids can't, their friends can't, and in the unlikely event that an intruder got it away from her, ....he can't either.

32 posted on 03/06/2014 7:55:01 PM PST by terycarl (common sense prevails over all else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

nope cause I wouldn`t buy one watchgun never


33 posted on 03/06/2014 7:57:56 PM PST by bunkerhill7 ("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

And then you are still relying on a battery, and delicate electronics, that will end up being made in China once the ball gets rolling on smartgun legislation and laws. Non-electronically enhanced guns will NEVER have an electronic failure.

What is your point?


34 posted on 03/06/2014 8:07:26 PM PST by Blue Collar Christian (Vote Democrat. Once you're OK with killing babies the rest is easy. <BCC><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

Wouldn’t you feel more secure knowing that ONLY she could fire that gun? The kids can’t, their friends can’t, and in the unlikely event that an intruder got it away from her, ....he can’t either.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mine were ‘put away’ accessible to my Wife AND Daughters. They knew how to use them and were instructed you don’t point that at anyone unless you are ready and willing to use it.

My daughters knew that it was none of their friends business where my (our) guns were, and they also knew the daughters were not going to give them access to the liquor cabinet either.

My grandkids also know how and when to use a weapon.

You can’t be ‘scared’ of guns, they are here and best to let those you love have every advantage of protecting themselves. The more restrictions you put on a ‘tool’ the sillier it looks to those who KNOW what it is about.


35 posted on 03/06/2014 8:12:08 PM PST by xrmusn (6/98 --In CNNs (feeble) mind, EVERYONE that doesnt ask for more Kool-Aid is bullying BO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
" It’s pretty hard to undo stupid."

Like the Calif. dummies that found $10 million worth of gold coins and blabbed about it? Government claims coins in 3...2...1...blast off.

36 posted on 03/07/2014 1:44:05 AM PST by Lockbar (What Would Vlad The Impaler Do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

So if someone breaks in in the middle of night you need to ask them to wait while you get your watch on?

Sign me up/s


37 posted on 03/08/2014 1:26:43 PM PST by Red in Blue PA (When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

Does the smart gun also only shoot people in the arm or leg?


38 posted on 03/08/2014 1:31:36 PM PST by N. Theknow (Kennedys-Can't drive, can't ski, can't fly, can't skipper a boat-But they know what's best for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson