Engage to sell so called "smart gun"

DC-W · May 1, 2014

The market will decide the electro-gun's place. We are the market.
If not Engage doesn't sell them, someone else will. It's inevitable.
Let the market decide, and decide it will.

The reactions I'm reading are akin to lefties all in a wad because of Cody Wilson's 3D printed boogeyman Liberator. The Armatix has achieved the same level psychological mind-fvck.

Our state of MD, and others like NJ, CA, CT, and NY do not represent the face of 2A restoration. They're all desperate outliers devoid of proper representation that will not succeed forever in their current modes of 2A restriction.

Personally, like the Liberator, I think the thing is physically garbage. Betting your life on it doesn't make any sense to me. It likely won't be bought too much though, considering it's an $1800 (essentially $2200 for a first-time buyer in MD...) handgun that shoots .22, when usually these caliber handguns can be had for less than $300 in most cases...

ThisGuy918 · May 1, 2014

Wow clandestine you can read between the lines simply amazing. The blame isn't squarely on his or engage's shoulders, but they aren't helping. What's that quote about straw?

webb297 · May 1, 2014

ThisGuy918 said:
Then why in the hell would he or anyone else comfortable selling it to a customer? Says a lot about the ethics of a person to sell a product that is this questionable.

I have a Ruger MKiii, its a .22, I wouldn't choose it for self defense. I do use it for many other things though, and I am glad I bought it.

Also, if a .22 is the only thing a soccer mom feels comfortable defending her home with, I think it would be a good deal better than nothing.

SWO Daddy · May 1, 2014

Norton said:
For those that were asking, this is the relevant language with regards to this technology in Maryland:

Once this technology is proven, it will be the law of the land in Maryland. Mark my words.

Thank you for posting that - it confirmed my fears. We're all talking about NJ - MD could implement this first.

clandestine · May 1, 2014

ThisGuy918 said:
Then why in the hell would he or anyone else comfortable selling it to a customer? Says a lot about the ethics of a person to sell a product that is this questionable.

Every gunshop that sells a NEWLY designed firearm would also be in the same boat by selling an unproven firearm. :rolleyes:

Your own words just supported a Handgun Roster because according to you the public shouldnt be able to make decisions on their own, the State should step in and ensure the product is "Acceptable". Gotta stop those greedy evil gun dealers from making money. :sad20:

rwbow1969 · May 1, 2014

My personal opinion is if Engage wants to sell the firearm that's their business. If people want to patronize their establishment, that's up to the customer.

Make no mistake that Engage is in the fight like the rest of us. Will this hurt them? Time will tell. I hope not.

Will their decision to sell this setup be used by the legislation as a "see, look" . Maybe, maybe not.

Would I offer it for sale? No.

This is NOT the position of MSI either. Just mine.

Norton · May 1, 2014

SWO Daddy said:
Thank you for posting that - it confirmed my fears. We're all talking about NJ - MD could implement this first.

The language is already in place for it to be implemented here.

From there, it's a simple step to mandate that all firearms be so equipped once the technology is readily available and proven.

teratos · May 1, 2014

Norton said:
The language is already in place for it to be implemented here.

From there, it's a simple step to mandate that all firearms be so equipped once the technology is readily available and proven.

I have no doubt that they will do just that.

ThisGuy918 · May 1, 2014

No the state shouldn't step in clandestine. Nice try at twisting words as usual. We, as the consumers, should hold manufacturers and sellers to high standards to ensure a product is safe. If you feel that sales are more important than morals than so be it. No self regulating is the real thinking that provides a window for the government to step in.

teratos · May 1, 2014

ThisGuy918 said:
No the state shouldn't step in clandestine. Nice try at twisting words as usual. We, as the consumers, should hold manufacturers and sellers to high standards to ensure a product is safe. If you feel that sales are more important than morals than so be it. No self regulating is the real thinking that provides a window for the government to step in.

You aren't listening. The existence of the technology is enough for them to start mandating the use of the technology. It doesn't matter what any FFLs or consumers buy, sell or boycott.

Norton · May 1, 2014

teratos said:
I have no doubt that they will do just that.

I just don't think that I would want to be the one assisting in the beta testing of it, but that's just me.

ericoak · May 1, 2014

teratos said:
You aren't listening. The existence of the technology is enough for them to start mandating the use of the technology. It doesn't matter what any FFLs or consumers buy, sell or boycott.

Wasn't availability a concern in the Heller and McDonald cases?

teratos · May 1, 2014

ericoak said:
Wasn't availability a concern in the Heller and McDonald cases?

I mentioned the common use test earlier. I think it is a valid argument.

clandestine · May 1, 2014

Andy is to blame if Smart Gun Tech is adopted in MD even though it was already set in motion before Andy decided to sell a smart gun.

Chad is to blame for FSA2013 and the MSP making up rulings that the forum does not agree with.

Nutty...

Metaterra · May 1, 2014

Norton said:
The language is already in place for it to be implemented here.

From there, it's a simple step to mandate that all firearms be so equipped once the technology is readily available and proven.

I don't doubt that MD legislators will introduce legislation like that in time. I would anticipate an extremely strong negative legal reaction to that. Granted we don't really need yet another legal battle. But given the life and death stakes, I think (hope?) the courts would be pretty skeptical of adding unproven and fragile technology into the exercise of a constitutional right. Maybe skeptical of adding any technology constraint to a fundamental right.

And it will remain unproven technology until it is has been widely used on a large variety of platforms for many years. And again, if it is a matter of life and death but neither law enforcement or the military will consider adopting it (and they won't) how is that reasonable to force that risk on a citizen?

NateIU10 · May 1, 2014

teratos said:
You aren't listening. The existence of the technology is enough for them to start mandating the use of the technology. It doesn't matter what any FFLs or consumers buy, sell or boycott.

As evidenced by the fact that the legislatures of multiple states passed laws regarding such devices far before anything was even developed. Gun grabbers will do what gun grabbers do, regardless of what one shop in one state does.

teratos · May 1, 2014

Metaterra said:
I don't doubt that MD legislators will introduce legislation like that in time. I would anticipate an extremely strong negative legal reaction to that. Granted we don't really need yet another legal battle. But given the life and death stakes, I think (hope?) the courts would be pretty skeptical of adding unproven and fragile technology into the exercise of a constitutional right. Maybe skeptical of adding and technology constraint to a fundamental right.

And it will remain unproven technology until it is has been widely used on a large variety of platforms for many years. And again, if it is a matter of life and death but neither law enforcement or the military will consider adopting it (and they won't) how is that reasonable to force that risk on a citizen?

The police need to adopt it. If they won't use it, then it isn't acceptable to require us to use it.

Metaterra · May 1, 2014

teratos said:
The police need to adopt it. If they won't use it, then it isn't acceptable to require us to use it.

That seems like a pretty significant barrier to me. I just can't see the police adopting this for exactly the same reasons none of us would bet our lives on it.

ThisGuy918 · May 1, 2014

teratos said:
You aren't listening. The existence of the technology is enough for them to start mandating the use of the technology. It doesn't matter what any FFLs or consumers buy, sell or boycott.

Let me spell this out for you. No, one dealer selling a gun isn't going to influence legislation. However, one dealer, who is a well known strong supporter of the second amendment, going out of his way to showcase that his company is going to carry this technology does nothing but harm to our cause. Now they have one of us to use to further their agenda. This isn't bush league politics, the left is pushing this hard and engage accepted it like a glock 42. Do you se what I am saying now?

occbrian · May 1, 2014

clandestine said:
Andy is to blame if Smart Gun Tech is adopted in MD even though it was already set in motion before Andy decided to sell a smart gun.

Chad is to blame for FSA2013 and the MSP making up rulings that the forum does not agree with.

Nutty...

I'm not convinced that you aren't somehow solely responsible for the nj smart gun law, the 94 awb, the NFA and obamacare.

Engage to sell so called "smart gun"

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

AR-15 Savant

Get Wiffit

NRA Endowment Member, Rifleman

My hair is amazing

Active Member

My hair is amazing

NRA Endowment Member, Rifleman

don't drop Aboma on me

My hair is amazing

AR-15 Savant

Active Member

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics