The iPhone of guns?

Haha, I've been quoted!

Guess my days of shopping at Engage are over. I respected Andy's testimony over SB281 after seeing it firsthand. I got an EA branded upper and lower specifically to help support his shop and how he stood up for everyone.

He has to do what's right for his business, but if they're selling this epic fail then I won't be back. And it won't be only until he course corrects and stops selling this item, it will be forever. He's got the freedom to sell it. I have the freedom to do business elsewhere.

P.S. That's not behaving like an anti-gunner because NOBODY said it should be banned by the government, that's the free market deciding the product is beyond worthless.

teratos said:

I don't think so. We should tar and feather the lawmakers who mandate they be the only thing available. The technology itself is completely benign.

Click to expand...

We already have this law in NJ. Within 3 years we can only purchase these wretched smart guns. Thanks a lot.

1 - Some people need to park their high horses. The gun rights community has no greater friend than Andy. That's a fact.

2 - I might buy one as a collector's item, because this thing is going the way of the gyro-jet.

3 - There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of a smart gun. The technology just isn't ripe yet.

HT4 said:

1 - Some people need to park their high horses. The gun rights community has no greater friend than Andy. That's a fact.

2 - I might buy one as a collector's item, because this thing is going the way of the gyro-jet.

3 - There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of a smart gun. The technology just isn't ripe yet.

Click to expand...

Well it does affect me because once one is sold anywhere in the USA, it will be the only kind available to us here in NJ in 3 years. The AG just has to certify that the gun being sold meets the requirements of the law.

Yes, I realize it isn't your fault in MD for allowing our law to be passed. But if some in Congress are to be believed, our law could become a national model.

And honestly, this gun only has one purpose, and that is to show legislators that smart guns are here, and it's time to start mandating them.

ryan_j said:

And honestly, this gun only has one purpose, and that is to show legislators that smart guns are here, and it's time to start mandating them.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It's not like these things are actually being manufactured by RKBA supporters. Whatever their motivation, I think it's pretty obvious that the people making these are wanting them to be the only firearms in civilian hands in the future.

HT4 said:

3 - There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of a smart gun. The technology just isn't ripe yet.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are MANY things inherently wrong with smart gun (Networked Weapons Systems) technology as viewed from a Freedom and sustaining 2A standpoint. One of the hats I wear is a technologist and strategist for implementation of advanced technologies, both for their intended uses, but also for unintended uses. The idea of implementing networked weapons systems (both larger systems but inclusive to small arms as well) in a similar manner as today's modern smart phones is something being continually worked. It started years ago and it deemed smart gun technology as a small but critical step to a larger and more encompassing effort to advanced networked weapons both for the positive benefits of the user and for the denial of access for their enemies. There are many more implications (most of which are bad for private citizens) to this in the big picture/longer time frame than most people can envision.

Without getting into large detail, it ultimately comes down to who has control over your device whether it be your smart phone or your smart gun. Where will your smart gun network? Will it work only when it has correct admission codes or only at a specific geo-location such as the range or your home? Will the .Gov be able to control the signal in case of an emergency like they would an EAS broadcast or the internet? Will hackers be able to spoof your gun signal and take control of your weapon to remotely fire it or jam it? While certain weapons for Mil/LE will would most likely have encryption, they would in effect be the ones with the guns when the switch is flipped either on small tactical operations (city blocks) or on a larger scale like Boston Marathon Bombing (city wide) - pretty much an LE wet dream. There are about a couple other dozen issues that have been explored and many plausible futures do exist for this technology to mature and be integrated, please consider that coming from the point of view of someone who has seen what lies down this path, there is more to lose in personal freedoms than there is to gain. I'm not saying we can or cannot stop the technology from being forced upon civilian small arms, but if and when it does, it will be one of the nails in the coffin if not done properly.

A further consideration is what happens to all the non-smart, non-networked weapons? A new pre-smart gun registry similar to NFA – can of worms there that I won’t get into here.

In the end, I hope those saying this is a great thing can take a peek down the road, 1 year, 5 years, 20 years and compare that to how other RF/networking technologies have gone exponential in both capability and ability to be controlled. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of what engage is doing, just make sure you have thought it all through – after all – it’s for our children

HappyCamper said:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of what engage is doing, just make sure you have thought it all through – after all – it’s for our children

Click to expand...

And this time, it really is...

If NJ says this gun is what starts the 3 year clock, what about other calibers? If in 3 years there is still only a .22LR, will 9mm, .45, etc all still be banned or would it be per caliber?

jc1240 said:

If NJ says this gun is what starts the 3 year clock, what about other calibers? If in 3 years there is still only a .22LR, will 9mm, .45, etc all still be banned or would it be per caliber?

Click to expand...

The way the law is written, caliber don't matter. If someone anywhere in the USA offers for sale a smart gun air pistol, and that's the only kind of smart gun there is, in 3 years that will be the only kind of gun you can buy here.

Ryan you need to reread the law.. it doesn't have to be sold it's the opinion of the AG is they are available and even though the store in California didn't sell any they had them there for sale and that's all the needs to happen for the AG to enact this law

tjv4163 said:

Ryan you need to reread the law.. it doesn't have to be sold it's the opinion of the AG is they are available and even though the store in California didn't sell any they had them there for sale and that's all the needs to happen for the AG to enact this law

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how what you're saying is any different from what I'm saying.

For the record, Oak Tree denied having the gun for sale. Armatix showed photo evidence that it did, but Oak Tree is denying.

That issue could be moot if Engage decides to sell the gun and takes it into inventory and then not deny that it offered the gun for sale.

I always thought glocks were the iPhone of guns?

Selling a $1800 .22 caliber shooting system that has mostly negative support in the shooting community and has caused one gun store to close already. Does not sound like a sound business decision to me. But Engage is free to conduct their business as they please and I will spend my money as I please.

Don't have the gun in inventory and have reconsidered their course of action ...

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=691344154258026&stream_ref=10

Ryan the fact is the gun does not have to be sold the AG just needs to think it can be sold The key word Is deemed ... it doesn't say it has to be sold. Even if oak tree didn't sell one they considered it (deemed) and if the AG is an anti gun person this is all he needed to start the law.. The gun does not have to sell

The only positive I see, of course it will be a negative for NJ, is that we get a court challenge.

Heller said guns in common use are allowed, so unless a majority of other states adopt smart guns in every caliber, NJ won't have a legal leg to stand on.

Drake will be decided by then, in our favor god willing, which will but even more legal pressure on NJ.

tjv4163 said:

Ryan the fact is the gun does not have to be sold the AG just needs to think it can be sold The key word Is deemed ... it doesn't say it has to be sold. Even if oak tree didn't sell one they considered it (deemed) and if the AG is an anti gun person this is all he needed to start the law.. The gun does not have to sell

Click to expand...

No it has to be in dealer inventory. The law is specific on that.

ericahls said:

The only positive I see, of course it will be a negative for NJ, is that we get a court challenge.

Heller said guns in common use are allowed, so unless a majority of other states adopt smart guns in every caliber, NJ won't have a legal leg to stand on.

Drake will be decided by then, in our favor god willing, which will but even more legal pressure on NJ.

Click to expand...

If the court wants to be arbitrary, though - they can say that "smart" handguns fall under the class of guns called handguns. Since the smart gun POS is available, a class of guns in common use (handguns) are not banned.

It's complete BS, but then, look at Woollard.

Computers are dumb. So putting one in a gun doesn't make it smart.

I would be willing to bet the device could be easily defeated allowing it to be fired without the bracelet or unable to fire with the bracelet.

These types of things sound like a good solution to a perceived crisis. But it doesn't take much thought to realize that the negatives out weigh any positives such a gun would offer.