New Jersey Considers Legislation to Repeal and Replace “Smart Gun” Mandate Law

Loretta Weinberg (courtesy eyeontherecord.blogspot.com)

New Jersey has had a law on the books that Democrat Loretta Weinberg (who introduced it) claims promotes the development of “smart gun” technology. The law mandates that once a smart gun is sold anywhere in the U.S., all guns in New Jersey must be smart guns. But as we’ve seen since it’s been on the books, when a smart gun was finally marketed, that very law was the biggest reason why not a single one was ever sold. Weinberg seems to have finally come to terms with the fact that her feel-good legislation actually did more harm than good and has finally introduced a new bill to repeal the existing law and replace it with a new and slightly improved version. In other news Hell has frozen over, and porcine aircraft are buzzing the capitol in Trenton . . .

The proposed legislation can be found in its entirety here, but in general it’s a small step in the right direction. If enacted, it would flip the system on its head — after a single “smart gun” becomes available for sale, all gun stores in New Jersey will be required to offer at least one smart gun model for sale.

There’s no question it’s an improvement. New Jerseyans without the means to purchase a multi-thousand dollar “smart gun” (minorities, low income households, and other reliable Democrat voting blocs) will be able to continue to enjoy their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. The law still has problems, though.

Most obvious to me is the possibility that a “smart gun” might make it to market designed solely to kill the gun business in New Jersey. If, for instance, Armatix comes back to sell their wonder guns priced at, say, $500,000, then every single gun dealer in New Jersey will need to either hand Armatix $500,000 or close up shop. Not only would that be an opportunity for some devious person to get filthy rich selling marginally functional “smart guns” at insane prices, but it would also close a lot of mom and pop gun stores in the state.

If Democrats thought that Texas’ mandate for upgrading abortion clinics (which requires expensive upgrades to continue to provide abortion services) was despicable for denying minorities and low income women access to abortions, then the new New Jersey law has the potential to be an exponentially worse infringement on (an emanation and penumbra-free) Constitutionally protected right for those same populations. Not that they really care.

Less obvious is the back door opportunity. We’ve already seen what people like Loretta Weinberg want: complete and total firearms confiscation. Her intermediate goal is still to see that if guns must be sold in The Garden State, the only ones available will be “smart guns.” There’s no guarantee that once they finally come to market that the legislature won’t do an about face and reenact the original dumpster fire of a law the state enjoys now.

Give Loretta Weinberg some points for recognizing the original mistake and doing something about it. Only a few weeks ago she was still proclaiming on national television that the Evil NRAⓇ was responsible for the failure to launch of the first commercial “smart gun.”

Loretta Weinberg: We passed that bill to help spur this technology.

Lesley Stahl: It appears it totally backfired because it spurred this passionate objection to the gun.

Loretta Weinberg: Because of the intervention of the NRA and the Second Amendment folks.

She has apparently accepted what everyone else has been able to see for years – that her law is what has prevented the adoption of smart gun technology in the United States, not the Evil NRAⓇ. It’s a step in the right direction both in terms of getting that idiotic law off the books and getting some Democrats to realize that gun owners aren’t categorically opposed to smart guns because they’re stubborn redneck yokels. In this case gun owners (including members of the NRA) were right all along. Weinberg’s law did far more harm than good. Hopefully New Jersey Dems will take that into account in the future when proposing new gun laws. But don’t hold your breath.

comments

  1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    If, for instance, Armatix comes back to sell their wonder guns priced at, say, $500,000, then every single gun dealer in New Jersey will need to either hand Armatix $500,000 or close up shop.

    Before the abomination of jurisprudence that was Roberts’ decision in upholding ObamaCare, I would have confidently asserted that the government requiring a private entity to engage in a specific, contractual relationship with another, private entity, was utterly unconstitutional.

    Now? Who knows.

    1. avatar dlj95118 says:

      …my thoughts exactly.

    2. avatar Stinkeye says:

      It is utterly unconstitutional, Chip. Just because the court said it’s constitutional doesn’t necessarily make it so.

      Unfortunately, we’re forced to live with plenty of Supreme Court decisions that have failed in this regard.

    3. avatar Accur81 says:

      Roughly 1/2 of SCOTUS is completely worthless, and I wouldn’t trust the other half with my life or my freedom. The Constitution is rarely defended, rather, laws are “interpreted” to justify statism and the categorical increase of government at the expense of individual liberty.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I might differ with a word here and there, but generally I agree.

  2. avatar Julio says:

    It’s a step in the right direction–right up until they re-enact it AFTER smart guns are available for purchase in NJ. They just jumped the (smart) gun and passed the law BEFORE it was in shops. Yeah, this will totally work now.

    1. avatar TommyG says:

      Exactly. They are going to flip the law back.

  3. avatar Zak says:

    “If, for instance, Armatix comes back to sell their wonder guns priced at, say, $500,000, then every single gun dealer in New Jersey will need to either hand Armatix $500,000 or close up shop.”

    Not entirely true…….. In this theoretical example, stores would be required to “Sell” a smart gun….. not necessarily required to have one “In Stock”.

    Real Life Example: My local Gun Shop sells probably 2,000 different kinds of firearms, of which, 90%+ are not “In Stock”. My dealer simply places the order with the manufacturer and we wait a few days for it to arrive at the store so that I can fill out my glorious, government mandated paperwork 😀

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Not entirely true…….. In this theoretical example, stores would be required to “Sell” a smart gun….. not necessarily required to have one “In Stock”.

      What if the LGS refuses to order/sell a particular firearm, as a matter of principle? Does it matter if the firearm in question is a “Smart” gun? What if the LGS simply dislikes GLOCK, or Colt (etc.)? What if the LGS has bad memories of WWII, and refuses to trade in Mosin Nagants? (Or hates AKs after Vietnam?)

      [Insert your own silly/absurd example here]

      Where is the enumerated authority for the government to compel the LGS to engage in such transactions? Why would a “Smart” gun be any different?

    2. avatar KingSarc48625 says:

      I don’t carry Dapper Dan, I carry Fop. If you want Dapper Dan I can order it for you, it’ll be here in a couple weeks.

      1. avatar Dan Zimmerman says:

        Well, New Jersey is nothing if not a geographical oddity.

      2. avatar YaDaddy says:

        (OK I’ll give the less subtle response.)

        “Well I don’t want FOP GD’it, I’m a dapper Dan man!”

      3. avatar Colt Magnum says:

        That quote is bona fide!

      4. avatar Timmy! says:

        I think all of you should just RUNN OFT.

  4. avatar Pod People says:

    Now taking bets that they will include language to : ” Confiscate – Confiscate – Confiscate “

  5. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…all gun stores in New Jersey will be required to offer at least one smart gun model for sale…. The law still has problems, though…. If, for instance, Armatix comes back to sell their wonder guns priced at, say, $500,000, then every single gun dealer in New Jersey will need to either hand Armatix $500,000 or close up shop.”

    At least one smart gun model for sale? A store has to be able to sell one, or actually have one on the shelf? Is having a catalog not enough? This gun is available and can be ordered for you and available in x weeks, sign here please. A subtle but very important difference.

    1. avatar Illinois_Minion says:

      Agreed. I do not see anything about ‘stocking’ said firearm.
      Welcome to the 21st century where you stock only fast moving inventory and ship from warehouses.

      I think NJ gun stores are safe for now.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        The proposed legislation says that you have to have at least one “smart gun” in your “inventory”. I would guess that would mean that you have to have it “in stock”.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I will sell you one of my proprietary smart guns for $1500, with the caveat that it cannot be examined until after it is sold, and its price cannot be discounted more than 10% below the retail price of $500,000. So, you will have one on the shelf. If anyone pays you the $450,000, they will find that the gun is exactly what they wanted, completely safe, since it will have no firing pin, and you and I will be $200,000 richer, each. Win-win!

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        “for now” can be a very short time.

    2. avatar Chris. says:

      And place a deposit.

    3. avatar GuyFromV says:

      One of these could be considered a curio or something meant to attract gun owners just to be able to touch and see one while they have a chance, like the last Australian thylacine or a few molecules of antimatter just to tickle the gun-buying bone.

  6. avatar William says:

    Yeah, a huge improvement having the government micro manage privately owned businesses by requiring them to sell a particular ANYTHING!

  7. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    Change the current law to try and get “smart guns” into the commercial market and then they’ll just change the law back after that happens. As usual, hoplophobes can’t help but tip their long term goals well ahead of schedule.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      What a cynic! Don’t you think we should just trust them?

  8. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    My vote is add a rider making pds implement them too.

  9. avatar JohnF says:

    The devil is always in the fine print:

    “The technology limiting the handgun’s operational use may include, but not be limited to: radio frequency tagging, touch memory, remote control, fingerprint, magnetic encoding and other automatic user identification systems utilizing biometric, mechanical or electronic systems. No make or model of a handgun shall be deemed to be a “personalized handgun” unless the Attorney General has determined, through testing or other reasonable means, that the handgun meets any reliability standards that the manufacturer may require for its commercially available handguns that are not personalized or, if the manufacturer has no such reliability standards, the handgun meets the reliability standards generally used in the industry for commercially available handguns.”

    The way I read this is that if a proposed “personalized handgun” cannot meet reliability tests for non-smart guns, it doesn’t qualify. I’m sure they meant reliability in terms of the personalization, but it doesn’t say that. To me, that would mean that if say, Glock would offer one, it would have to be as reliable as other Glocks. I doubt that is possible. Anything you build into a system to prevent it from working for any reason, generally reduces reliability. Especially if it is a new technology.

  10. avatar 357M28 says:

    Is she giving us the bird in that photo?

    1. avatar YaDaddy says:

      Looks like she’s in the process. Camera caught her on the word…”Qyouu”

      She needs to work on her timing.

  11. avatar GuyFromV says:

    That is a really bad scarf or whatever the hell that is.

    1. avatar dh34 says:

      That’s a woman? I thought it was the Joker without makeup on.

  12. avatar JD says:

    If I was to make a smart gun I would state that it could only fire hollow point ammo. Watch them pull their hair out in NJ.

    1. avatar Jack says:

      That’s an interesting question. If some company came out with a smart, evil, black, assault rifle, would that make her head explode?

  13. avatar Smelly says:

    Once again, I don’t give a shit what that kunt wants. I will not comply.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      Unless you own a gun shop in New Jersey, you don’t have to worry about complying.

      1. avatar clickboom says:

        To be fair, it matters because it’s one of the 1000 cuts to kill liberty. NJ first, then NY, then CA, then IL, then MI, then CO, etc…

        The lot of the the statists huddled up in statistville plotting how they can fk over their “constituents.”

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Could be. I would advise them to stay away from Texas. Just sayin’.

  14. avatar Dan H. says:

    Well, devil’s advocate, if the law only require that the gun stores offer the smartgun for sale, than the customer hands them their $500,100 and the gun store hands $500,000 to Armatix, for example. Unless she’s proposing that it has be in inventory, in each store? Don’t get me wrong, still a bad law, but at least not a nationwide, market-smothering one.

    It’s still a bad law, but it might at least mean that these devices might come available for whoever it is that would prefer to own one or wants it as a hobbyist.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      She IS proposing that it has to be in the store’s “inventory”. Click the link and read it.

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        fractional share inventory. . . . One lucky dealer thru a trust “owns” the gun and sells a fractional interest in the actual inventory to other dealers who become a member of the trust. problem solved.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Yeah. We have to remember that these “legislators” are somebody’s grandma, have little education and no experience, could be best described as “dumb as a post”. The idea that they could come up with a law enforceable on any level is fantastic. Hell, in Texas legislators (and the Lt Governor) make $7500/year, the post is like entertainment for the elderly and slightly nuts. And Texas likes it that way.

          Yes, that was $7500, not $75,000.

  15. avatar Anonymous says:

    Good. Because that garbage was complete controlling nonsense. Manipulative, deceiving, controlling nonsense intended to strictly force law abiding gun owners of New Jersey to take actions they don’t want that doesn’t benefit them. Forcing gun owners to pay outrageous prices for subpar unreliable self defense products deters law abiding gun owners from owning handguns.

    Loretta Weinberg… let the people be free. Just let them be free.

    1. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

      “Just let them be free.”

      In New Jersey? …………

      Riiiiiiiiight

      Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose….

  16. avatar J says:

    Has her law or any other part of their state/local legislature defined a smart gun?

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Nice point, just what is a smart gun? Does it have to be biometric? Does it have to be activated every time the gun is picked up? What if you just have to dial a cell phone number to activate it? Can it be deactivated only by a button on the gun?

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        The law has a rather detailed definition or description of “personalized firearm” (“smart gun”).

  17. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    all gun stores in New Jersey will be required to offer at least one smart gun model for sale. Depending on how this is actually worded, the gun store could have a cardboard advertisement offering a smart gun at ridiculous prices with none actually in stock and very, very long delivery times.

    1. avatar ANdrew Lias says:

      If it’s mandated that it be electronic, I could see a lot of vaporware being out there as well as semi functional products. Otherwise something like the Magna Trigger could be installed which has existed for a long, long time.

  18. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

    It really doesn’t matter if they change the law. Who is going to trust that it won’t simply be passed again there and elsewhere once a “smart” gun does hit the market?

  19. avatar Doesky2 says:

    If the LGS doesn’t want to sell a smart gun then there’s no reason why he couldn’t decide tgat he wants to make a million dollars profit on that particular sale. Pretty safe bet tgat he won’t have to sell one.

  20. avatar Parnell says:

    The bill states that the dealer must STOCK at least one model and DISPLAY it for sale. So, every FFL: in NJ will have to stock these stupid $1500.00 .22 LR POS’s that nobody in their right mind will buy. Will this be followed by a edict that all car dealers must stock a Google car when available?

  21. avatar Independent George says:

    I’ve said this many times – the single best way to get smartguns accepted by the populace is to have law enforcement buy and use them. Any objections made by law enforcement is just as applicable to the civilian market. And if it proves to be successful in law enforcement… then I would be inclined to adopt it so long as it wasn’t mandatory.

  22. avatar Patron49IFT says:

    This Weinberg character is typical of the busy body types populating the Democrat controlled state assembly here in the people’s republik of New Jersey. Over reaching harpies searching for a problem to apply a government mandated solution, paid for by us ov course.

    They aren’t satisfied unless they are controlling every aspect of everybody’s life no matter how insignificant.

    F the lot of them I say!

  23. avatar Icabod says:

    Just add to the law that when the first such gun becomes available, all police forces in New Jersey must adopt them. One for each officer. After all, we can’t have police shot with their own weapons? It’s for the police!
    This also shows just how dumb smart guns are. Those legislating them don’t want then used to protect themselves.

  24. avatar DanielB says:

    Feinstein and Weinberg have got to be the front runners for most hideous beings on earth. I would have a grudge against the world if I was born that ugly too. Can you blame them?

  25. avatar Bobiojimbo says:

    I think this bill may have killed smart guns in general, or at least their sale here in the USA. Now that we know what the gun-control groups are willing to do, and have historically done, we will forever be twice-shy about smart guns.

  26. avatar Chris Kirkpatrick says:

    The picture of Loretta Weinberg makes it seem like she’s about to flip the citizens of NJ and the 2A the middle finger…..

  27. avatar Cal Barrett says:

    Whineberg should recognize that the LAND OF THE FREE is incompatible with nanny-state controllists who want to impose their ideology onto people who don’t care for it.

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