Engage Armament Co-Owner: The Truth About the Armatix iP1 Backlash

The Armatix iP1, a .22 caliber, is a gun with a safety interlock

Hello Mr Farago,

I hope all is well. My name is Andrew Raymond and I am the co-owner of Engage Armament. I am the guy who agreed to sell the Armatix pistol and all that madness. I’ve been trying to steer clear the best I can from a lot of the drama so I didn’t really read any of the articles that covered it. Its just painful I guess. However, today on Facebook I noticed a friend liked and article relating to MDA and from there it linked to another story. I read that article and noticed you mentioned the threats against us and how it went unreported. There is a reason for that . . .

I estimate we received at least 2000 “contacts” which were phone calls, emails, or messages on our facebook. Most of those occurred the first day. It was simply overwhelming to me. I didn’t nor do I now know how to handle such a thing. It was unlike I had ever experienced before. Just call after call of people cursing or email after email of some seriously vile stuff.

However, most people WERE polite and politely expressed their disagreement, which was what I had hoped for. I had posted our phone number up and invited people to call so long as they were civil. The response though was unlike anything I’ve ever experienced. I cannot describe what was happening here that night. It was just chaos and as I had invited people to call I felt obligated to answer the phone. I wasn’t smart enough to just ignore it.

Anyway, out of those 2000 or so contacts there were TWO threats. I received one, and my business partner received one. So that was thrown into the middle of the first night when the SHTF. I felt betrayed but gun people, I realized I was used/betrayed by Armatix, and I realized that I might have doomed myself and everyone in NJ, so I was at the end of my rope. Hence the video. It wasn’t alcohol that did that, it was the pressure.

The next day though things changed. The calls slowed down, the emails slowed down, and the antis started hating me. That was something I was far more comfortable with. I also realized that people who threatened typically don’t do. People who “do” typically just “do”. I realized that this was far too much for me to handle though so I backed away from just about everything I could. This is why we didnt report it. I didn’t want anymore attention.

People were already starting to say it was anti-gunners making the calls setting up the pro-gunners. It was clearly devolving into another cluster. I also didn’t want cops in here, who might also happen to be customers, now knowing about what happened and moreover looking up the video I made. I wanted it all to die out and to forget about it. It did happen, it is real, but I wanted to and still want to forget about it all. However, it was only two calls out of 2000. I think people have overlooked that.

Anyway, I just wanted to reach out and explain the situation a bit. I really like your website and read it frequently. I really appreciate the real deal reviews as well.

Take care  – Andy

comments

  1. avatar Paul53 says:

    Thanks for the information, Mr Raymond. For gun owners, what you experienced was certainly not our finest hour. You have an honorable business to run and the market should decide what you sell. All the negative carp around this sure makes people of the gun seem immature and adds fuel to the anti’s arguments. We need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot. I am sorry for your experience, and wish you and your business all the best.

    1. avatar Paul53 says:

      BTW, your girlfriend is………..never mind. Each to his own.

      1. avatar ChainsawWieldingManiac says:

        Brutus shares his loving with everyone. He is all over my damn shoes every time I go there.

    2. avatar Steve Lo Vullo says:

      Paul, normally I would agree with you about letting the free market sort things out. But if you look more closely at this issue, you will see that it is more complicated than that. And if you look more closely still, you will see that the adoption of “smart guns” will actually tend to destroy the free market for firearms. Why? Because the left wants to dictate that ALL firearms be “smart guns.” That is why people were so up in arms about this. People don’t care in general whether or not this or that company manufactures “smart guns.” What they are up in arms about is making this so-called technology mandatory. Of particular concern right now is the fact that the New Jersey legislature mandated years ago that when the first “smart gun” hit the market, ALL firearms sold in New Jersey would be required to be “smart guns” within three years. California is doing something similar. So the problem is that the adoption of this flawed technology would eventually strangle the freedom of the marketplace, not make it more free. And if you think this will stop in New Jersey and California, you haven’t been paying attention to the leftist movement in this country. I can’t for the life of me see why more people aren’t concerned about this, and why they are so quick to sell our brothers and sisters in NJ and CA down the river. If you want to understand better what is going on in NJ, I suggest the Gun for Hire podcast, which covers NJ in particular (and is a very entertaining podcast whether or not you live in NJ).

  2. avatar M J Johnson says:

    Thank you for the clarification, Andy. We now know the facts of the incident instead of conjecture. All the best to you.

    1. avatar Rocco says:

      I hope that people stop giving him any business at all and his business goes under.

      Then he can go work directly for MDA.

  3. avatar Ross says:

    Robert, thanks for posting this, interesting read, hope Andrews life get back to some sense of normalcy.

  4. He could have avoided all this by not making the decision to sell the “smart” gun to begin with.

    So, cry me a river guy.

    You only have yourself to blame.

    Own you error in judgment, but stop the whining.

    1. avatar Doug says:

      If someone wants a smart gun, that’s their business. Why in the world would someone hold it against this guy that he was going to enable people to make that choice?

      1. avatar Anon says:

        Because he’s helping the antis and thought he’d make some easy money. Now everyone here is going to give him a pass.

      2. avatar Rich Grise says:

        I don’t know how much of it was dislike of the smart gun, or a reaction to the NJ law that once they go on sale, that they’re mandatory. At least in my case, it’s the “mandatory” I object to most strenuously.

        The fact that I think it’s a really dumb idea in general doesn’t really enter into it. But if the NJ bosses think it’s such a nifty idea, why don’t they order them for their cops?

        1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

          Because they are .22 caliber and even THEY can’t find ammo

        2. avatar Fler says:

          @Tom

          Less available ammo for cops? I’m all for that.

      3. avatar Steve Lo Vullo says:

        See my response to Paul, above.

    2. avatar ProfBathrobe says:

      Dude, he’s apologizing for a bad situation that he didn’t intend and that he lost any ability to control right out of the gate. It’s not an optimal situation, but at the very least he has the stones to own up to what he did, and that has to count for something. Cut the harangued guy a little slack.

      1. avatar Anon says:

        No. He betrayed gun owners, let him go hang out with his new anti friends.

        1. avatar Brian Miller says:

          JFC, you really don’t know Andy…he’s been at the forefront of the fight AGAINST the anti’s like O’Malley, Frosh, and the others in MD. He made one bad decision, rescinded, and now a-holes still want to pile on.

        2. avatar Rocco says:

          @Brian Miller

          So? He used to be for gun rights then he saw the dollar signs. Dick Metcalf used to be pro-gun, then what happened to him and his career?

        3. avatar Anon says:

          @Brian Miller

          No, I don’t know him. I wouldn’t associate with his kind.

      2. avatar B says:

        I’m more inclined to tell New Jersey to hang than this guy.

        1. avatar Fler says:

          Why is it an either/or? They both wronged us, so this guy should be shunned/boycotted.

      3. avatar Steve Lo Vullo says:

        But as I read his comments above, he seems to have known what this would have meant to gun owners in New Jersey. He also seems to know that this was wrong. So why do it in the first place?

      4. Where in his communication with RF is he apologizing? He isn’t.

        He’s whining.

      5. avatar David says:

        Well its clear your a moron! And by the way, I have some swamp land in FL I can sell you! This guy got caught with his pants down, and now boohoo he’s getting what he deserves! If you were going for a quick buck on the heads of the gun people, YOU FIN LOST!! You have no BALLS!! We all know what kind of person this importer is now! A ordanary asshole that wanted to make a shit load of money!! END OF STORY!! He cares nothing about the PEOPLE OF THE GUN, only for getting rich quick, by bending all of us over the barrel!!!!! And then throwing a pitty party for himself…W

    3. avatar Paul53 says:

      If someone buys a “smart gun” as their first gun, that still makes them a gun owner, and more likely to buy more. That’s more power to us!

      1. avatar Rocco says:

        You’re not very informed. In New Jersey, it will soon be their only gun, then that’ll spread to other states, “for the children”.

        1. avatar Steve Lo Vullo says:

          Exactly. People who say we should let the free market sort it out don’t seem to realize that this will destroy the free market for firearms, because the left aims to tell us that these are the ONLY guns we can have. Some free market!

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Let the free market sort it out” means “Keep the government out of our business.” So the Free Market is still the right way to do it – the Free Market is always the right way to do it – but you need to understand that when government gun-grabbers start dictating who can sell what to whom, what you have is no longer the Free Market, but Statism.

          Please focus, and don’t let your confusion impugn the Free Market.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Rocco,

          You’re not well informed. The only states that would mandate smart guns are the states that already have draconian gun laws — e.g. Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New York, and maybe Rhode Island. The other 40 or 41 states would burn down their government buildings in their capitals if their legislatures tried to mandate smart guns. It will never happen in the other 41 states.

          This would never happen even in Illinois. Do you remember when the Illinois legislature got all cute after Sandy Hook and started legislation to make most rifles illegal? The overwhelming response from constituents calling phones, sending e-mails, and sending U.S. mail quite literally began to shut down government business. Their lawmakers got the message loud and clear and quickly abandoned their legislation. If that sort of response happened in not-so-gun-friendly Illinois, imagine what would happen in the other 40 gun-friendly shall issue states.

        4. avatar Rocco says:

          @uncommon_sense

          No, you’re not very well-informed: It’s established that New Jersey will mandate mandatory adoption of this type of gun three years after its first sale/availability anywhere in the US.

          Please know what you’re talking about the next time you address me.

    4. avatar William Burke says:

      I see Dr. Hyde is back in his office.

    5. avatar Pseudo says:

      You really are quite the tool. From what I read, this gentlemen selling a ‘smart gun’ in his shop wouldn’t have even triggered the law. The actual language in the bill is so vague that the mere availability of these guns from distributors fulfills the trigger on the bill just as much as availability in a retail store. And for those who accuse him of helping the antis/wanting to make a buck off the restriction? I don’t actually know what he was thinking, but do you really think that if the law triggered, that by the time non-smart guns were illegal that no other retailer would have been selling them? That he’d have a higher percentage of the market share? That’s a huuuuuuge stretch.

  5. avatar Bud says:

    Having “screwed the pooch” a number of times in my life, I can most certainly sympathize with you. The only bit of advice i could offer is, “that which doesn’t kill you will make you stronger”. If your post was meant as a general apology to the POTG, it works for me.

    1. avatar lolinski says:

      1+

      Though I disagree with “what doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger”. In reality what doesn’t kill you, either maims or cripples you (as my bad knee can attest).

  6. avatar JR says:

    Thanks for the message, Mr. Raymond.

    I was one of the ones questioning if there were threats, why not call the cops. For my part, I was under the impression that the threats were far more numerous than merely two.

    The other point is that I said at the time…”credible threats.” You addressed this point in this message. To you at the time, the threats did not seem ‘credible.’

    I thank you for your clarification on what happened and how it happened.

    I think none of us should be surprised that the way it was initially “reported” was not quite the way things really were.

  7. avatar Shire-man says:

    How did Armatix betray/use him?

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      They exist. That’s how.

  8. avatar Jeff says:

    The outrage should be placed on the New Jersey Politicians (just deserved outrage). If somebody wants to buy\sell a smart gun they should be able to buy\sell a smart gun without ridiculous mandatory laws taking effect. Mr. Raymond isn’t a politician. The New Jersey Childproof Handgun Law (Assembly Bill No. 700) needs to be repealed. Its an awful law for those who want a Smart Gun and even more so for those who have zero interest in the technology.

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      A-phuckin’-men! Furthermore, I say let’s get this court case going now. While I have little faith in out current court system, even I would be surprised if the availability of one handgun, cambered for one caliber, as the only gun for sale in the whole state of NJ would pass any type of Constitutional muster… in 20 years, who knows?

    2. avatar Steve Lo Vullo says:

      But the problem is that companies such as this LOBBY politicians to adopt such laws. It’s part of the crooked crony-capitalism that is corrupting our country. If such laws are adopted, guess who makes a lot of money? That’s right, Armatix.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Steve,

        Armatix is a modest (small) foreign company. They don’t have that kind of influence with legislators in the U.S.

        1. avatar Rocco says:

          Fvcking shill; gtfo

  9. avatar Excedrine says:

    We appreciate the clarification, though this will never make it to the (slowly dying and increasingly irrelevant) lamestream “news” media, nor into the clouded and closed minds of the obstructionist civilian disarmament industrial complex.

    My only question now is, as it has always been: Why?

    Why sell an inherently unreliable product? Especially one that costs almost as much as a used car, which would be exponentially more useful than Armatix’s mouse gun.

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      Some people like being early adopters – paying a bunch more to own unreliable, bleeding edge tech. When I had no kids and a lot more disposable income, I was that was in the A/V world – don’t even want to think about what I paid for my first blu-ray player.

      And if it wasn’t for stupid laws like the one in NJ, then it would be all to the good.

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    If “smart guns” could be purchased without triggering NJ’s stupid law that all guns have to be smart guns, I’m sure that nobody would complain about them being offered, and the gun might have carved out a niche in the marketplace.

    Unfortunately, the gungrabbers overplayed their hand by trying to force something upon all gun buyers that most gun buyers do not want. Hence, smart guns have become a political issue, not a technical issue.

    Andy Raymond may have his heart in the right place, but his brain was not. Most of us are not in the business, yet we knew of the ramifications of the Armatix pistol. Raymond is in the business. How could he not know?

    1. avatar Rocco says:

      He knew. He sold us out and it blew up in his face. Apparently, much of the TTAG crowd is gullible enough to let it slide.

    2. avatar Steve Lo Vullo says:

      It seems pretty clear to me from his comments that he did know.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        If he knew, then he has no beef. He tried to screw over the gun community and it turned on him, which can be no surprise. And if he didn’t know, okay, fine, but then I’m not sure why his ignorance should let him off the hook.

  11. avatar ST says:

    Some thoughts to offer here

    Honestly, as a young gun owner, I have to say that all of this angst over the Armatix befuddles me. What, did you guys really think we’d just decide to collectively reject technological progress in the firearm business for all time?

    That being said, it makes sense. Most gun owners demographically slot into the generation who runs away screaming when their computer shows a dialog box. The combination of a handgun and a computer chip must be the devil, obviously. And thus opposed with the largest force we can bear.

    As to New Jersey, let’s be candid. There’s already a gun ban in effect . I call it the “Red Tape” ban. A New Jersey resident endures more scrutiny just to get a permit to buy a pistol then the typical Californian has to endure for a freakin’ carry permit. Notarized forms, employer and spousal permission forms, mental health checks, waived consent for medical record search, and so forth. At this point banning guns from over the counter sale is almost superflous- it’s like saying you can’t buy a non hybrid car in a place where non police legally can only buy six gallons of gas a year .

    Priorities folks.

    1. avatar Fler says:

      ST,

      I’m a programmer, therefore I don’t run screaming from modal dialogs, and I am against this “smart gun” nonsense; I am hardly a luddite.

      As you know; New Jersey is going to mandate that every gun sold is a smart gun, since it’s now on the market. Once that takes hold, you honestly think it won’t spread?

      They are prohibitively expensive and underpowered, with only .22 being available. Maybe the shot placement crowd will like them, though; since everyone insists that any caliber higher than 9mm gives no benefit, they should love .22.

    2. avatar Defens says:

      Dude, I’m 60, worked for Microsoft for 10 years as a server developer, and have owned all sorts of high tech toys, electronics, and tools. Smart guns will never enter that picture for me and it has nothing to do with dialog boxes; the only Smart Gun I might consider would be sitting in a drone some number of miles from my location.

      1. avatar Anon says:

        this++

    3. avatar AK says:

      ST, you’re misinformed. Of all the items you listed as required to get an NJ pistol purchase permit, only the “mental health check” is correct. No notarizing, no spousal or employer forms or permissions. There are plenty of folks here with plenty of pistols, and long guns are easy and unlimited once you have your firearms ID: walk in, NICS, buy, walk out.

      That being said, it’s still a horrible place as far as gun laws go.

      However, if the point of your argument is that the smart gun law is no big deal because gun ownership in NJ is DOA already, you are very, very wrong.

    4. avatar CarlosT says:

      ST,

      The strongest reactions against “smart guns” I have seen here on TTAG and elsewhere have come from professionals in IT, software, and related fields. Why? Because when you spend your life working with technology, you spend a large proportion of that time working around its failings.

      In my working life I’m a reporting analyst. I write database queries which feed into a reporting engine for formatting. Everything has to be just so or you get incorrect or misleading results. And if someone changes how they store some data, it could unexpectedly break dozens of reports. And so on and so forth.

      We accept these risks because the benefits of automated reporting are worth it. Manual report couldn’t possibly generate the same amount of information we want in the time we want.

      “Smart guns” offer no benefits and come at very high monetary and reliability costs. That’s why people are opposed to them and will continue to oppose them, even if the technology progresses.

      1. avatar Anon says:

        SSRS?

        1. avatar CarlosT says:

          Same idea, but a home-grown solution. We should probably use SSRS or Oracle Reports, but we’ve got the worst case of Not Invented Here in the history of the universe.

    5. avatar Steve Lo Vullo says:

      So for you there are not already enough things that could go wrong with a firearm. We need another layer of potentially life threatening malfunctions. Sheesh! In the same breath that you mention how computers fail, you want to encourage us to embrace something that is equally prone to failure? You are your own worst argument.

    6. avatar Ralph says:

      ST, I don’t want a “smart gun” and I don’t want to be forced to buy one. Without the coercion factor, I’d support the technology — but I still wouldn’t buy one. But in a society where one smart gun, once sold, requires all guns to conform to the technology, I say bury the damn thing. Burt it deep.

    7. avatar John says:

      I’ve worked in IT for years, for major multinational companies, and wouldn’t trust my life in a self defense situation to anything electronic and “sophisticated”. Let me know when the cops adopt it, maybe at a 90% level for 10 years with zero electronics failures.

  12. avatar Model 31 says:

    Mr. Raymond,
    “I felt betrayed but gun people, I realized I was used/betrayed by Armatix, and I realized that I might have doomed myself and everyone in NJ”

    Gun people expend great effort to abide within the law. People thought at the time your decision to sell the smart gun might have “doomed…everyone in NJ”. I still don’t know where this “count down to smart guns required” law(s) stands today. You potentially made present and future gun people’s lives difficult with your decision to sell the Armatix pistol.

    What happens in one state can happen in any state. That is why this gun person felt betrayed by you. Betrayed not by you selling a specific gun, but by how your decision could affect everyone with new laws/restrictions in decades to come. You are a gun person and run a gun shop in NJ. You should know better.

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    Firearms Concierge would say this guy is not smart enough to run a gun shop. I don’t have such a condescending opinion. He made a bad decision. Of course he should have understood the fallout. He didn’t. As a struggling business owner I get it. As I type this I’m watching the endless coverage of the California killer. Look for that BS to reignite the anti-gun crowd. Including so-called smart guns.

  14. avatar Another Robert says:

    OK, NOW he tells us, out of a couple thousand contacts he got two–count ’em, two–threats, and those he didn’t consider credible. So what are we seeing in the news to this day, and will continue to see forever? He wanted to sell a “smart gun”, but backed off because of death threats. Everyone screws up, mostly we believe in second and even third chances. but that was realllly major, if you ask me, going on about “death threats” like that. That is a bell that won’t be unrung.

    1. avatar Steve Lo Vullo says:

      You’re right. By making a big deal out of “threats” that were few and not credible, he further stabbed us in the back. Does he think the leftist media cares that he is now setting the record straight? Does he think they will report THAT? And worst of all, his own words indicate that he knew full well how his actions would harm the gun owners in NJ.

  15. avatar Rocco says:

    @ANDREW RAYMOND:
    DID SHANNON WATTS AT LEAST LET YOU SMELL IT? SELLOUT

  16. avatar DaveM says:

    A least in NJ a “smart gun” was produced and for sale
    Mr. Raymond might as well keep selling them, he probably has already lost a lot of customers
    I have not seen any micro stamp pistols for sale here in PRK but it is now required for any new models
    submitted to the state for safety test before adding to list of approved pistol and that just pisses me off Bought an LC9 just before it went off the list and mostly just because

    1. avatar Steve Lo Vullo says:

      This is the point that many gun owners aren’t getting. I hear a lot of talk about letting the free market sort things out, but the people who say this seem oblivious to the fact that these laws mandating “smart guns,” microstamping, etc., are destroying the free market for firearms, as you in California know good and well.

  17. avatar Anon says:

    I don’t buy his explanation. Anyone smart enough to run a gun business would know what the consequences would be.

    My guess is he did it for publicity and or $.

    Nice BS though.

    1. avatar Anon says:

      He’s an opportunist who thought he’d make some quick money and these TRAITORS here are defending him after his plans didn’t work out.

  18. avatar Ardent says:

    “However, most people WERE polite and politely expressed their disagreement, which was what I had hoped for.”

    I think that this isn’t miswritten or misconstrued in it’s plain meaning. Either he knew that there would be a vocal and powerful backlash or he badly misunderstood the situation.

    I don’t believe this is about choice or market dynamics or anything but profit, and it’s not that profit is bad, rather that profit in the absence of good citizenship is bad. Note that there isn’t a rush of FFLs to sell this product, so far only two in the nation. The first didn’t make a single sale before pulling it and the second has now down the same. The reason is that the profitable side of the market place are the gun buyers who buy more than one and who come back for ammo with regularity. This market segment hates the very idea of a ‘smart gun’ so much that they will spite themselves to avoid it if necessary.

    The decision to sell the smart gun was a poor business decision from an economic point of view, but what made it so was the fact that it was an utterly traitorous and immoral decision, which was promptly pointed out by the very group that encompasses this businesses customers.

    ” I realized I was used/betrayed by Armatix, and I realized that I might have doomed myself and everyone in NJ, so I was at the end of my rope.”

    I’m left reading this to mean that Andrew Raymond 1) didn’t realize the pushback that would occur when he offered the smart gun for sale, 2) was either unaware or unconcerned about the NJ situation and 3) put profit ahead of conscience. The only escape would be a claim of complete incompetence in how he operates his business.

    As for being ‘used/betrayed by Armatix’ I’d love to hear an explanation. Either he entered into this deal in complete ignorance, was somehow mislead by Armatix (which would be interesting to hear about) or thought that the potential profit outweighed the negative response the decision would garner (now clearly a mistake). Forgive me if I’m crude but either Mr. Raymond is incompetent or duplicitous. Either way I don’t see how this pseudo mea-culpa in any way exonerates him or his company from the rightful ire of 2a supporters everywhere. If this wasn’t a malicious decision, then it’s simply a case of stupid hurts.

    1. avatar Anon says:

      “Forgive me if I’m crude but either Mr. Raymond is incompetent or duplicitous. Either way I don’t see how this pseudo mea-culpa in any way exonerates him or his company from the rightful ire of 2a supporters everywhere.”

      This * 2000.

      Why the hell does hardly anyone else here see that?

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        “Why the hell does hardly anyone else here see that?”

        Because it isn’t so. He seems to be at worst naive, probably got stars in his eyes because R&D had just invented the new toy, and he went and presented it to the world without doing much homework. Now he has apologized, and as someone said, “recanted,” so I say there’s no need to continue to dump on him.

        1. avatar Ardent says:

          As stated, he is either a fool, or else puts profit ahead of the liberties of his fellow men. Either way there ought not to be much support for his decision. Worse, his ‘apology’ if that’s what it is, falls well short of what was needed even for an explanation. I see a person who was caught doing something wrong, who has too much hubris to admit it, yet hopes that we’ll forgive him anyway.

          I also see someone who is lies blatantly: didn’t report the threats to authorities because they weren’t credible and he didn’t want more attention, instead reports them on youtube for anyone to see while at the same time making Yeageresque statements that were at least as foolish and ill advised as they were useless and which could serve only to draw more attention.

          Further, I see a man attempting to deflect blame for his own unconscionable and ultimately terrible decision onto someone else rather than taking responsibility and owning up to the poor choice he made.

          I really think there are only two likely explanations for this; either he is utterly incompetent both as a citizen and a business man, or else he sold out what he knew to be right in favor of profit from those enslaved by his decision. Truly pathetic and beyond redemption.

  19. avatar Southern Cross says:

    From what I’ve heard locally from firearms dealers, the distributors make package deals which in addition to the popular selling items will also include less popular items (such as firearms with options and calibers that don’t sell well). The dealers have to shift the less popular stuff by making discounts which then increases the sales of these items. The manufacturers see the sales and continue making the less popular items (cough! Winchester cough!).

    I’m not sure of the arrangements but perhaps the vendor had to take some Armatix stock in order to get other more-popular items as well.

    1. avatar Rocco says:

      BULLSHIT! QUIT DEFENDING HIM!!

      Why would only two vendors “have to take some Armatix stock” out of the whole country?

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        No idea. I’m in another country half-way round the world. I know some local vendors who tell me how the business works behind the scenes. There are actual importers and distributors who buy from the manufacturers or their distributors in the source location (USA or Europe). They often have to take package deals to get the products they want to sell. These packages are then passed to the retail outlets.

        In our global society, you can vote with your feet and not buy from the store, or vote with your dollars and not buy the Armatix products.

        I personally do not agree with the Armatix iP1 as it is the thin-end-of-the-wedge to force the adoption of smart-guns (dumb-idea) while phasing out classic guns. If no-one buys them, the unsold stock will have to be returned unless the distributor provided them on a no-return basis.

        1. avatar Rocco says:

          “In our global society, you can vote with your feet and not buy from the store, or vote with your dollars and not buy the Armatix products.”

          If that were all there was to it, no one would have a problem with it. Once these start getting sold anywhere in the US, New Jersey will mandate that this will be the only handgun allowed to be sold. California and New York will follow.

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          Making someone buy a product they don’t want in order to get a product they do want can be an illegal “tying arrangement” under US law.

        3. avatar Steve Lo Vullo says:

          Rocco, some people are just uninformed of the situation or don’t understand the sinister and devious nature of our enemies. This isn’t the free market, but, as I’ve explained in other posts in this thread, the destruction of the free market in firearms. It’s about crony capitalism, wherein the repressive government tells us what to buy and unscrupulous businesses that lobbied for the laws in the first place provide the product. Pure evil.

  20. avatar Icabod says:

    Wait. You mean the “death threats” were .01% of all contacts? Then why do all the media stories mention it. Mostly in the first paragraph!

    How about this, Raymond decides to sell the gun, getting lots of publicity and maybe some profits. Whoops. It’s clear this isn’t going to work. OK, skip the “boy did I screw up” let’s just jump to “death threats”

    Maybe the gun grabbers will patronize the place.

  21. avatar Rocoo says:

    “In our global society, you can vote with your feet and not buy from the store, or vote with your dollars and not buy the Armatix products.”

    If that were all there was to it, no one would have a problem with it. Once these start getting sold anywhere in the US, New Jersey will mandate that this will be the only handgun allowed to be sold. California and New York will follow.

  22. avatar Andrew Raymond says:

    I wrote this email to Mr Farago to clear up just one aspect of something that was said.

    Concerning NJ, its clear several don’t understand the NJ law. Armatix on their own website says the gun was for sale in the US last October (where I have no fricking idea). Moreover, after the Oak Tree incident, the Attorney General of NJ was notified the law was in play. That notification letter was sent in February. When people from NJ starting calling saying I was activating the law things changed.

    If you think this technology isn’t coming you are quite naive. I guarantee you they are licensing this to other companies, and there are plenty more companies out there developing this sort of thing. Moreover, the next people who decide to make a move with Armatix probably just won’t give a shit about what happens. On a basic moral level there is nothing wrong with it. Its just a gun. On the political level, I get it, its dangerous. The fight needs to made against legislation. That is the enemy. This tech, though, is coming. Understand that, and prepare the fight against the legislation. Nothing is stopping Armatix or any other manufacturer from starting an e-commerce website and selling the gun consumer direct other than perhaps their own misunderstanding of federal firearms law.

    Concerning money, I sell guns. Yes, its what I do. I also do it in just about the most restrictive state in the US. However, I had no exclusive deal with Armatix or anyone else. This was not something I thought I would make a fortune on. Its not even approved for sale in MD with the watch.

    I would also like to ask where all you super critical and badass 2A supporters were when the law was passed in NJ? Or the most recent laws they’re trying to push through there? Where were all you guys last year when we were under siege here in MD? Where were the thousands of phone calls from around the country to MD legislators? Where was the backlash when MD passed the law that in blatant violation of natural rights and the constitution took away the rights of nearly 6 million of your fellow Americans?

    I will tell you where you were. You were sitting there typing on a computer. Playing keyboard commando. Typing about Molon Labe and such. You didn’t do anything to help us fight it. I don’t think there was a single threat made to any MD legislator over the new laws, even from a MD resident. Yet a gun dealer agrees to sell a gun, and all hell breaks loose from so many.

    If you think I am anti-gun you are mistaken. There is nothing further I can add to that.

    I also was mistaken thinking that people would take time to understand my position and then agree with what I thought about fighting legislation and not the guns. I do my best to reach out to anti gunners and fence sitters after our experience here in MD. I take people shooting who normally wouldn’t. I actually engage people on the other side instead of hurling accusations of treason and insults, although I myself am not above that.

    I think that addresses most of the comments that stuck out to me in the comment section. I’ll respond to anyone else here that has a question or you can always email me at andy@engagearmament.com.

    1. avatar Rocco says:

      You have the nerve to insult us? You made a bad decision now you whine so people will overlook it? You knew what you were doing, and were aware of what New Jersey will do once this technology is available for sale anywhere in the US.

      As someone else here just pointed out; you’re either incompetent or duplicitous; which one is it?

      1. avatar Andrew Raymond says:

        Im not whining about anything, simply presenting my point of view. I see plenty of whining all the time but no action.

        No one needs to overlook anything. You want to hate me, please do. Moreover, I’ve read some of the comments and the comments on other articles now. You want to talk about insulting? I dont see where Ive insulted anyone, just called out those who talk so hard about gun rights yet don’t do anything for those who are actually losing them.

        Moreover, I didn’t insult anyone specifically. If you yourself feel insulted then you need to address your own reasons behind that feeling.

        You have also apparently misread what I wrote. I did not believe me doing anything would effect New Jersey. When New Jersey residents said it would, the position was reconsidered. Me simply saying I would sell the gun didnt do anything. It didn’t take a Smart Gun to ruin the Second Amendment for New Jersey. It certainly didn’t did take it to ruin it here in MD.

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      “Nothing is stopping Armatix or any other manufacturer from starting an e-commerce website and selling the gun consumer direct other than perhaps their own misunderstanding of federal firearms law.” . . .and perhaps your own misunderstanding of federal firearms law, since it would be quite illegal for them to sell directly to the consumer, they need a dupe or a Quisling of an FFL, like you.

      “I would also like to ask where all you super critical and badass 2A supporters were when the law was passed in NJ? Or the most recent laws they’re trying to push through there? Where were all you guys last year when we were under siege here in MD?”

      Are you implying that because each of us has not done all he could do for the sake of 2A it somehow absolves you of responsibility for betraying the 2A community? If too many of us are passive in our support of 2A does it make all those involved in the gun control movement blameless? This argument is simultaneously vacuous and flawed.

      “I don’t think there was a single threat made to any MD legislator over the new laws, even from a MD resident.”

      Forgive me if I’m being obtuse because it’s not intentional, but are you suggesting that because these you mention didn’t receive threats you shouldn’t have either or are you lamenting that they didn’t receive threats?

      For that matter, are you certain they received no threats or only that they didn’t immediately take to youtube to bemoan that they had received them?

      Either way, the argument makes no sense, since one cannot be betrayed by a known enemy (for the POTG, the MD legislature counts as a known enemy) but one can be betrayed by someone thought to support the same goals and ideals as oneself, such as you previously were.

      I’ll stand on my previous statements, with additional explanation: you’re either incompetent and ignorant (having not known what the backlash to you decision would be while also having not understood the market forces and politics behind the decision) or immorally greedy (in seeking profit despite the cost to others in loss of liberty).

      “If you think this technology isn’t coming you are quite naïve. I guarantee you they are licensing this to other companies, and there are plenty more companies out there developing this sort of thing.”

      Should we really accept lessons in naivety from someone using it as defense to poor decision making? I think that it doesn’t matter if a million companies develop this technology if no one will sell it and no one will buy it. Frankly, lack of distribution has killed good products, it shouldn’t be hard for it to kill a bad one.

      “Moreover, the next people who decide to make a move with Armatix probably just won’t give a shit about what happens.”

      Oh, you mean like you, who either didn’t know what would happen or didn’t give a shit about it?
      You should close your gun shop and open a waffle house, you’re vacillating so fast it’s disturbing my equilibrium. Either you knew it was a terrible idea, in which case your comment about giving a shit makes sense or else you didn’t, in which case your quite foolish. You should really choose one and stick with it, or else drop out of the debate and let us decide amongst ourselves, which we eventually will anyway. However, you could try an honest apology, that might have a little traction.

      1. avatar Andrew Raymond says:

        You’re right about the apology. I believe my principles were correct but I do apologize for any of the problems I created. Unfortunately, I did become part of the problem in NJ however I hope I have rectified that and I will continue to work towards that. I am also truly sorry if I did something to hurt our cause. You are right about that Ardent.

        1. avatar Rocco says:

          How much did Bloomberg pay you to sell out?

        2. avatar Andrew Raymond says:

          And back to the insults. Why don’t we just talk instead of typing this whole thing out? Email me at andy@engagearmament.com and I’ll email you my cell.

        3. avatar Rocco says:

          @Andrew Raymond

          I have nothing to say that can’t be said in front of everyone here.

        4. avatar Rocco says:

          I won’t type any more “insults”. Simple question(s): How could you do what you did to the gun community, and was it worth it?

        5. avatar Andrew Raymond says:

          @Rocco. I didn’t write the law, enact the law, or support it and when it became apparent that other things were in play I backed off as I do not want to be part of the problem. I did not want to be used by anyone. I haven’t done anything to the gun community. My offer still stands to talk on the phone, be gentlemen, and work out our differences. No matter what you say, we ARE on the same side.

      2. avatar Rocco says:

        I have nothing to say that can’t be said in front of everyone here.

        1. avatar Andrew Raymond says:

          @Rocco. So you prefer to hurl insults anonymously instead of actually talking through any differences we might have? Theres way too much to type out and at some point Im going to have to go to sleep. Seriously, hit me up. I will send you my cell. You can block your number, thats fine.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Don’t feed the troll.

        3. avatar SteveInCO says:

          So which one(s) is(are) the troll(s)?

        4. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Sheesh! I’m not going to do your homework for you.

        5. avatar SteveInCO says:

          My apologies Rich.

          When I responded to “don’t feed the troll” your comment (for some reason) appeared at the very bottom of the thread as a top level comment, so it was hard to see what it was in reference to. It’s pretty clear now that I see it in its proper context.

        6. avatar Rich Grise says:

          No problem. 🙂

    3. avatar int19h says:

      TTAG crowd tends to be on the extreme fringe side of RKBA. I mean, many people here are seriously saying that prohibitions on mentally ill possessing firearms are unconstitutional and morally wrong. So this is probably not the best place to “reach out” unless you’re willing to compromise – and by “compromise” I mean adopt the local orthodoxy wholesale, because anything less than that will get you branded as a sell-out.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        You’re right, this probably isn’t the right place to reach out for psychiatric help. I’d suggest checking with your family doctor or the local health facility for a referral. God Speed!

      2. avatar Ardent says:

        I did notice that you weren’t at my annual “Buy Guns for the Mentally Ill” drive.

        My NRA backers are a little concerned at the low turnout since they can’t wait to arm all the worst people you can think off. Since they control gun owners like drones I really don’t even have a choice in being a gun rights advocate, I’m sure I was educated (brainwashed) somewhere along the way.

        Thank you so much for rescuing me!

  23. avatar Roger says:

    This is all lies. I’ve spoken with both owners on person at their store numerous times. They knew about the law and just wanted to get some local tv advertising for free. Shills and shusters

    1. avatar Andrew Raymond says:

      Really? And what is your name, sir?

      All this positive publicity has been great for us.

      1. avatar Roger says:

        Don’t even try that deflect there. You knew the law and knew how people would react. I’m not the only person who commented on your facebook page about having that particular discussion with you -BEFORE- your decision. The other guy you deleted and banned even said you made a joke about that specific NJ law. YOU KNOW MY NAME. Even if you didn’t, and yes Roger is my real first name, you could just search your records. I was one of your best costumers. You can’t honestly say that YOU and the STORE was not on local news FOR THE ENTIRE WEEK after. Hell WJZ is still running your piece when there’s not enough carnage in the city to fill the time slot.

        And now you have the utter gall and lack of respect, not just to one person but to the entire gun community and our beloved state, to demand where the outrage was when MD passed it’s own laws when you did nothing but advertise and capitalize on bad legislation.

        What infuriates me is seeing good people here actually buy your naive but somehow educated and outraged demeanor. What degrades our movement is people like you hiding in plain sight pretending one minute to be truly die hard patriots and the next to sell out everyone for a few “hard earned” dollars. If you had any decency you wouldn’t have tried selling the guns. You wouldn’t have advertised it so specifically to stir up ire. And you wouldn’t have lied.

        I’m voting with my dollar and my voice.

        1. avatar Andrew Raymond says:

          You are a liar. That is all I have to say regarding the utter bullshit you just wrote.

  24. avatar Dermott says:

    So, if someone threatened me with death (over the phone ), I’d call the FBI (across state lines) and let them hunt that person down, can’t be hard with the phone.

    OTOH, if there were no threats and I wanted sympathy. . . .

    Don’t you all think the BATF or Justice Dept would run that one to ground? Holder would jump at the chance.

    There were no death threats, his explanation is BS. He did it for $.

    And for those who defend him, P T Barnum said there’s one born every minute .

    Stop trying to parse his words BUT peel the onion down to its basics.

    There’s some kind of rule/law about issues which states basically, the most simple obvious answer is usually correct. He did it for the $.

    1. avatar Pseudo says:

      How do you figure? Where is all this money he’d be making coming from? Virtually nobody wants them now, and by the time the law was in effect, everybody in the market would be selling them. He’d have no more market share then than he does now. What am I missing? Or is it the massive bribes he’s getting from the antis/manufacturer? /rollseyes. Sometimes the simplest answer just hasn’t had any thought put into it.

  25. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

    Andy, geez, just let it go. It was already fading from the chatter before this letter. It’s all already been said, but since you’re apparently looking for more, then read what everyone’s saying here and take the wiser comments to heart.

    You laid an egg on this Armatix deal and that’s that. Accept it, reject it, or try to imagine it better. Better yet, learn from it, live your life in peace, and run your business, such as it is. This protracted tit for tat offers answer to no valuable purpose; only adding ongoing embarrassment to initial betrayal. Even the Backstreets Pub & Deli guy had enough sense to quit while he was behind, and go back to doing his own thing.

  26. avatar Wade says:

    The odds are quite good that your *government* will simply decide at some point that you may no longer own firearms. Wether or not this smart gun hastens the day or not is a speck in the big picture.
    As you look around at the nation, world in general, you can not truly think things are looking rosy. Our world is getting to be a dark place…with all the wrong sort of people in power.
    The question you need to be thinking long and hard about is when gov pushes hard enough, are You man enough to stand up for your beliefs ? And if so, what are you willing to do ? When this day comes Everything we do will be, and good share is currently in some way, against the law. Look at freedoms lost..people abused at protests. Have you stood up for them..played security, for them ? No ? Sounds like you aren`t that serious about freedom. You want to make a hate list.. you start collecting government employee names and addresses. When that line is crossed, pay a visit.

  27. avatar Ardent says:

    I spoke with a source close to the issue tonight and to say that his information changed my position on this matter is a massive understatement. What I learned tonight is scandalous and damming of Armatix while exculpatory of Engage Armament.

    Anyone who’s read my prior comments on this matter should realize that what I’ve learned must be in the least highly interesting. Anyone doubting the validity of my source should likewise read my early comments on this matter before deciding. I do not take this source nor this information lightly.

    Hopefully a full article concerning this will be available forthwith from TTAG.

    Until then, I urge you to suspend judgment, this is going to be huge!

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Looking forward to that. It should bring some clarity to this issue.

  28. avatar publius2 says:

    Andrew- the old saying- “when you are in a hole, stop digging”… applies here.

  29. avatar Ing says:

    This is a classic case of shooting the messenger.

    Sure, there would have been negative consequences in NJ if he had started selling the Armatix pistol. He obliviously stepped right into a huge pile of shit and some of it might have splashed onto your boots, so you’re upset. But consider why that pile of shit was there on the carpet in the first place — the government of New Jersey took a huge crap all over the idea of individual freedom and then wiped their ass on the Second Amendment. And all Armatix sees are the dollar signs that come with a government-mandated captive market.

    The treasonous shysters in New Jersey’s state government created this situation, not Andrew Raymond. Save your anger for them.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      There’s enough to go around for shysters and collaborators alike.

  30. avatar StirFriedPanda says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t NJ lawmakers say they would repeal the gun law that would make smart guns mandatory if the NRA stopped it’s objections to smart guns?

  31. avatar ameyer says:

    I don’t think ” smart guns” will be the end of the regular aka useful gun any more than rifles with an internal magazine are the end of modern sporting rifles. The people choose what they want to buy, and they choose who represents them at state level. Bad choices equal bad laws, or poorly developed guns as the case may be, lol. You can’t stop technology, just make good choices.

    1. avatar Anon says:

      Can you read!!? As has been stated 100 times here: the issue is that New Jersey is mandating that once ANY store sells ONE of these anywhere in the US, then starting 3 years later, this will be the only gun that people in New Jersey will be allowed to buy.

      A $1,400 gun which requires a $400 watch to be worn at all times to use it, available only in .22.

      Still think you know what you’re talking about?

      1. avatar int19h says:

        That’s NJ’s problem. Just a thought – maybe they should stop electing idiots who write laws like that?

        1. avatar Anon says:

          True, it’s their problem. Now. What about when it spreads to other states? With the momentum the antis are getting, who’s to say it won’t be all of our problems someday?

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          I wouldn’t fret too much. This November, and in 2016, there will be a right-wing landslide, they”ll roll back the 2A infringements back just enough to lull us into a false sense of security as they double down on all the wars on everything and everybody that’s not on their approved list.

      2. avatar Pseudo says:

        Except the law doesn’t say that. It doesn’t say anything about “being sold in a gun store,” just commercially available, which they already are.

  32. avatar bobby b says:

    I think people are missing what the truly bad effects of a commercially-viable smartgun would be.

    We’ve all watched as the injury lawyers tried every which way they could to prove up “product defect” claims concerning guns. They have mostly all lost, because (among other reasons) a gun doesn’t shoot out deadly bullets because of some defect – they are designed to do that.

    And so it’s been quiet on the lawsuit front recently. Once all of those “John Doe v. Gun Manufacturer” lawsuits that popped up eight or ten years ago ran through the systems and received anti-plaintiff rulings, there weren’t any more product-defect legal theories that seemed to apply to the situation.

    One major tenet of products liability law is that, if you can do something that is feasible and reasonable that makes your product safer, and you fail to do so, then you may be held responsible for any injury or harm caused by the specific danger that the reasonable steps might have addressed.

    An example: let’s say you manufacture electric tabletop fans. Like every other fan maker, you do not put guards around your blades. (Hey, it’s MY hypothetical.) People are regularly amputating fingers with these fans. But, whenever fan makers get sued for selling dangerous products, they’ve been able to prove that blade guards would interfere with the blown air, and that no guards could keep fingers out while allowing enough air to pass.

    In such a situation (yeah, it’s absurd, but I’m just trying to illustrate a principle), if you prove that your product is as safe as you can possibly make it given current technology, and that the dangers inherent in your product are outweighed by the need for that product, then, under the current interpretation of product defect law, your product is not unreasonably dangerous, and the lawsuits for missing fingers will fail.

    But then, one day, a fan maker adds blade guards. And they allow sufficient air to pass through them, and they prevent finger loss. And they prove to be commercially viable – i.e., the cost to add guards doesn’t kill off your sales.

    The next time someone sues you because your fan cut off their fingers, the plaintiff is going to be able to point to that new fan maker’s fans with blade guards, with the aim of showing that this one reasonable and feasible addition, had it been made to YOUR fan, would have removed the danger inherent in open fan blades, and, more importantly, that since someone else is adding guards to their fans and selling them profitably to people who then do not end up losing their fingers in their fans, then the addition of guards to fans must be feasible.

    So, as long as “smart gun” technology hasn’t been incorporated into commercially-available guns – because it doesn’t work, or it always breaks, or it makes small .22cal pistols as pricey as Italian racecars – then the PI lawyers can’t say to juries “my client’s son was shot with this gun by a small child who did not own the gun – but had this gun maker added “smart gun” features to the gun – like other gun makers have done – my client’s son would be alive.

    Once they can add that “like other gun makers have done” statement, they have a newly rejuvenated cause of action against any gun manufacturers whose products are used by anyone who would not have been able to use a smart gun. So, if I’m shot by someone who is not the legal owner of the gun – say the gun was stolen, or was discharged by a small child – then the lack of the “smart” ID feature becomes, not a choice of gun design, but a “defect.”

    Once smart technology arrives on the market, any “non-smart” gun becomes, by definition, defective. And not just in NJ, but all across the country.

    So, prepare for the next big round of lawsuits against gun makers, premised on product liability law, as soon as smart guns start becoming available. Heck, in most states you can sign up for a CLE (Continuing Legal Education) class right now that teaches you how to prepare such a lawsuit. (If you can find one with any openings left, that is.)

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Interesting take on the issue. Not saying I disagree, or agree, for that matter; but it is interesting and I hadn’t heard it before or thought of it myself. So that’s pretty good.

    2. avatar ChainsawWieldingManiac says:

      Nice theory, but gun makers are already protected from such law suits _because of the very reason you described_.

      1. avatar bobby b says:

        Gun makers have received some protection arising out of the earlier spate of lawsuits, but generally those protections only apply when governmental entities – cities, towns, states – are the ones attempting to sue. Cities and states were attempting to force gun makers into a settlement structured after the tobacco lawsuits settlements.

        As someone who worked on the defense of some of those lawsuits (for my employer who insured several of the manufacturers) I can tell you that we’re much less certain than you seem to be about how protected the gun makers have become.

  33. avatar Roger says:

    Andrew Raymond says:
    May 25, 2014 at 22:32

    You are a liar. That is all I have to say regarding the utter bullshit you just wrote.

    Anyone notice he says this about anyone who calls him out on his lies? He’s done it on his facebook at least twice.

  34. avatar Jus Bill says:

    Fair enough. Thanks for the follow-up.

  35. avatar David says:

    Well BULLSHIT!! You are just like most of the gun makers in the last 2 or 3 years, trying to make a extra couple bucks by feeding off the people of the gun! You dont give two shits on bringing another SHIT BUILT GUN to market, even though the guns electronics arent proven. The gun itself is SHIT, all that for the mere 1800 bucks! Now you want us to feel bad for you, come on, give me a break!!!!! I am a gunsmith here in Saint Pete, FL and I have had more bad guns come from all the major makers in the last 15 months, than in the last 20 YEARS!! The problem is MONEY, and how they can make the most, with the least amount of work! I have seen Smith take a nose dive in shit creek! Along with Sig, Glock, and dont get me started with Remington!

    These companies are running way past their MAX PRODUCTION LIMITS, just to get the products out to the new gun buyer, who most of the time dont know trash from quality. CS depts at all the big name gun builders have had government contracts cancel huge orders just for this reason. TIME TO SLOW DOWN, and SERVICE THGE MACHINERY USED TO MAKE THESE GUNS!! I have had 3 bad Smith & Wesson M&P’s this month come back due to poorly put together guns and parts. Than 3 phone calls to Smith with an average wait time of 60+ minutes! Thats not aceptable for me, im not spending 3 hrs a day getting these dumb ass’s to build a gun correctly!
    And to get back to this DUMBGUN, I love the failure rate of 1 out of every 10 rounds fails, and thaat number goes up expedentialy when you increase cali size. In 45 ACP the gun fires around 2 or 3 rounds out of 10!! And this dumbass doesnt understand why gun people are upset with him for wanting to import this TRASH!! Not to mention the NJ law that hangs in the balance! More so called GUN MAKERS carring more about cash than human beings safety!
    The real stinker is that this importer new way in advance that the gun sucked ass before he rolled the dice. And now has tiny violins playing because he’s so troubled by his half baked decision to bring another shit product, and dump it on the new gun buyer. WAKE UP GUN MAKERS BEFORE YOU ALL END UP IN CHAPTER 13 LIKE Remingtons shooting for!

  36. avatar JT says:

    “I realized I was used/betrayed by Armatix, and I realized that I might have doomed myself and everyone in NJ”

    I don’t buy it, not for one second. After all the hoopla about the shop in California that tried to sell them and all the news there was about it, there is no way in hell he didn’t know what the consequences would be and that he was throwing every current and future gun owner in New Jersey under the bus.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email