(courtesy shop.enagagearmamanent.com)

“A Rockville gun store owner who said he would sell the nation’s first smart gun — even after a California gun store removed the weapon from its shelves to placate angry gun-rights activists — backed down late Thursday night after enduring a day of protests and death threats,” washingtonpost.com reports. The Post provides no other information: the who, what, when, where or why of the thing. More information is required.  This is the second time in less than a week that [alleged] death threats have made the news relative to firearms issues . . .

Shannon Watts claimed she needed armed guards after [allegedly] receiving death threats for her work for Mothers Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. Ms. Watts’ spokesfolk provided no evidence of these threats, nor did the subsidiary of Everytown for Gun Safety file charges or mention a police report.

Obviously, no one in the gun community condones death threats. They are illegal, amoral and (probably) fattening. Given the impact of these [alleged] threats – painting [some] gun owners as “gun bullies” – asking for proof is not unreasonable. TTAG will reach out to Engage Armament, former purveyors of the Armatix iP1 firearm, later today. [h/t TB]

Recommended For You

113 Responses to BREAKING: MD “Smart Gun” Dealer Changes His Mind After Death Threats

  1. “No one” is a strong term, as long as we consider ALL gun owners as part of the “gun community.” There are those among us, unfortunately, that would make death threats. There are @assholes in any group of people.

    • truth. and people can pretty much say what ever the He%$ they want. Nothing I can do about that, but it does not reflect back on me. At all…

    • After reading the article is feels more like a “messaging” package than a news piece. The quick deployment of the “death threat” message and association with the protest leaves us to believe it was only the “death threats” as the cause for him to reconsider.

      Absent from the article was any sort of clear statement of the motivation of the protest, and alleged “death threats”. And I mean the previous statement not to claim there were no threats, but rather to point out that as a strategy piece is political opportunism, and not meant to inform but rather manage perception.

      See what they did? They moved the discussion from the merits and demerits of “smart guns” to “death threats”.

    • If someone is stupid enough to make a death threat I find it hard to believe they are smart enough to avoid detection. Due to the timing it seems like these threats would have to come in via phone, email, or other electronic means which should result in all kinds of possible ways to deduce the perp. Of coarse…a threat would have actually been made to have some leads…….

  2. I would like to see proof and if they are real, I hope they turn them over to law enforcement to investigate. After all, these threats maybe coming from the anti-gun side to make the pro-gunners look bad.

    As a unapologetic pro-2A supporter and law abiding member of my community, it would sadden me to find out my fellow people of the gun would do such a immoral and stupid thing.

    • This, I don’t think he got any of the mass media would be playing this 24/7 showing gun owners the low life’s they portray us to be. Also I think he got tired of the pissed off phone calls of people boycotting his shop, he was a idiot for thinking his shop would survive if he even offered them for sale.

    • It wouldn’t sadden me, who cares if they’re gun owners? Its not like everyone who owns a gun is needs to be defended like we are all a big dysfunctional family…screw the crazed bastard(s), who cares? I’d take a death threat from a gun guy seriously, too. So when the Minions of Satan, I mean gun-control advocates, say how deranged these people were, just say “You got that straight, crazy MFers,. Probably one of those zombie horde apocalypse fanatics. They always are a bit bonkos with their endless supplies of guns and ammo stashed away in mountainside weapons caches…

      Well, take it easy!”

    • I don’t think anti-gunners would understand the problem gun-owners have with this shop selling this stuff enough to spoof threats.

  3. Jersey is screwed. Someone needs to just set off this land mine now before the elections, and frankly I am disappointed by this dealer backing down. The sooner Jersey’s ban on all firearms goes in place the better off we will all be.

    • I’m pretty sure the criminal’s will not give a rats arse on what Jersey does, watch the crime rate go up just because of you moron’s who don’t want people to protect themselves

    • Yet no FFL that wants to stay in business is willing to risk offering a gun, that once it is for sale the liberal law makers will demand that all firearms must use this tech, as well as ban any weapon as they do IN CA that does not meet their standards.

      • Terrible reading comprehension. The problem isn’t that this gun exists for sale. The market will determine if its something people want. The problem is New Jersey’s law. Kicking the can down the road isn’t an option for us, we need to fight it now in te courts and the ballot box.

        This needs to be an issue before the November elections, and for it to it needs to go into effect and hurt people. Punting past the election like Keystone and Obamacare will not help us one freaking bit. It needa to hit now so people can see the future sensible gun control brings.

        • No, New Jersey’s law is A problem, but is utterly meaningless until another problem (an FFL who puts greed over people’s rights and lives) decides to enable it. The law could stand for 100 years and have no effect on the people of NJ as long as some FFL doesn’t go full retard and decide “making a few thousand bucks is worth sacrificing the rights of 9 million people”.

        • I’d burn Jersey to save gun rights everywhere else. Until they man up and fight like Cali, they are non-entities to me. I will not be beholden to the worst state in the union. The fact that you consider it a possibility that it could stand for 100 years…

    • I would actually like to see a (more or less) unbiased review and even more so I would like to see genuine ‘in the field’ testing of its reliability. I am sure many others would like to as well. I have serious doubts as to the reliability of such a device, especially in areas of radio interference (such would need to be part of the test, including interference specifically on the frequencies it uses).

    • It’s based on an Umarex/GSG zinc-alloy slide design, so what do you expect?

      It’s basically a Walther P22 with “smart gun” tech attached. So IOW, a CHEAP pistol with incredibly overpriced RFID-activated hammer blocking solenoid

      Anybody with an EE degree equivalency in electronics tinkering skills, and a little gunsmithing knowhow could design an equivalent pistol for a fraction of the cost. The ONLY reason this pistol is nearly $2K is because of the politics surrounding it, being produced by a German company, and being first to the market.

    • I actually want to buy one and see how easy it is to ‘jailbreak’. That would be the biggest win – show everyone how easy it would be for criminals to steal and alter so they no longer need the stupid wristband thing.

  4. He tickled the dragon and got burned more than he thought and he couldn’t handle the heat. I guess his business staying open meant more then his promise to sell the gun.

  5. I am surprised Armatix doesn’t set up a website to sell those pistols online (shipped to an FFL dealer, of course). Assuredly all of these people that want the gun would order it sight unseen, if they really exist.

    It is a crying shame about the New Jersey law. This is an example of unintended consequences, if it wasn’t for the New Jersey law there wouldn’t be any real good reason to object to stores carrying and selling this pistol. Probably few, if any, people would buy it, but putting it on the shelf would probably get little outrage.

    • What dealer in the right mind would ever accept that FFL request much less be THE ONE who gave this liberal wet dream a chance. The gun community would shun them, it is kinda like asking a morgue to find a grave site in the US for dead terrorists that has killed Americans. If the public finds out, your shop is over.

    • Probably because Armatix is exporting the pistols to the US, and therefore wants to set up wholesale agreements with importers before doing so. Of course, they could set up an importer to sell direct to FFLs, but foreign-run companies often seem clueless about the particulars of selling guns to US customers.

      • The gun community(IE the market) has made it well known they do not want this product.

        ” A poll conducted for the National Shooting Sports Foundation has found Americans are highly skeptical of the reliability of user authorized technology for firearms. They also say overwhelmingly that they would not be likely to buy a so-called “smart gun” and overwhelmingly oppose any government mandate requiring the use of this technology should it become available.

        Asked “How familiar are you with efforts to develop a firearm that will only fire for a specific authorized person(s)?”, only 20 percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat familiar with the concept of “smart gun” technology. When told that such firearms would incorporate biometric or radio frequency identification (RFID) with an activation system that would rely on battery power, 74 percent of respondents said that these firearms would not be reliable at all or very reliable. Gun owners overwhelmingly (84%) believed a smart gun would not be reliable, while a clear majority (60%) of non-gun owners also believed they would not be reliable.

        These findings were among the results of a national scientific poll of more than 1,200 Americans conducted in October by McKeon & Associates and released today by the NSSF. Although attempts to develop and market firearms equipped with authorized user recognition technology have been discussed for many years, the topic has been revived in recent months by some gun control advocates, remarks by President Obama and by the depiction of a smart gun in the latest James Bond movie.

        An overwhelming 74 percent of respondents overall said that they would not buy or would not very likely buy such a smart gun. Some 70 percent of the survey sample said that they did not believe that government should mandate that all firearms produced incorporate smart gun technology should it become commercially available.”

        http://nssf.org/Newsroom/releases/2013/111213_americans-skeptical-of-wont-buy-smart-guns.cfm

        • Firearm market in US is huge. Heck, it’s big enough that ridiculous things like double-barreled 1911 sell enough to make a profit. Even if only 1% of gun owners in US would buy this thing, it’s already profitable enough to bring it to the market.

    • Why would it need to be sent to an FFL? This is the NEW TECH, the incredibly wonderful completely safe approved for everyone, everywhere double special finally we have done it gun. Why is an FFL necessary, why not sell it at the fiveanddime with no paperwork? Or are we being lied to?

  6. Threatening to commit the very death and destruction the anti’s claim we all want is a great way to show fence sitters we are reasonable people just exercising our rights, duh, everyone knows that.

  7. These are Alabama Crimson Tide football fans doing this. They are used to making death threats against their kicker for missing a field goal in the Iron Bowl against Auburn. I could add the numerous other violence against their fans and fans of other teams, but that is enough…it is definitely Tide fans making these threats.

    • Now now, they’re not the only ones guilty of making death threats in college football. There are MANY cases of UofM fans renting cars when they play Ohio State just so they’re not in the stadium parking lot with Michigan tags.

      • Wouldn’t know, not a huge football fan and the Tiger’s seem to perennially ignore their lack of a bullpen.

    • Yes he is, yet he would be out of business by years end. We do not take kindly for those who support products they damn well know will be used to restrict our rights even more.

      • if you don’t support Engage’s decision to sell this you are as much of a fascist as Bloomberg.

        You are making the same silly argument the anti-gunners use to ban the AR-15. The product is not the problem, it’s the legislature that is the problem. If it was not this gun, it would be some other gun. The whole point of mandating this technology is that no one can afford it. If someone starts to sell it and it becomes cheap, they will just mandate some other technology.

        I personally think its a terrible unreliable product, but I also think that Remington is an unreliable product. If someone wants to take the risk, who am I or you to judge?

        • I never said he couldn’t yet the Market he service( that would be the gun community) will boycott his store and he will be out of business by years end. Any FFL dumb enough to be THE ONE who accepts them and give this liberals wet dream of making every firearm have this chance, they will be shunned.

        • “The whole point of mandating this technology is that no one can afford it.” I am guessing you forget about CA now requiring micro stamping firearms after the tech was introduced to the market. If it hits the market it will be mandated as well, and these FFL’s know it. The gun community will make sure the FFL’s that offer it go out of business.

        • Completely backwards. That is no different from antis saying someone dieing from a beating is morally superior to being shot and trying to ban guns. The technology isn’t the problem, its the stupid laws. These stupid laws either need to be repealed or put into immediate effect to show the rest of the country how insane common sense gun control is before the elections.

        • The gun community(IE the market) has made it well known they do not want this product.

          ” A poll conducted for the National Shooting Sports Foundation has found Americans are highly skeptical of the reliability of user authorized technology for firearms. They also say overwhelmingly that they would not be likely to buy a so-called “smart gun” and overwhelmingly oppose any government mandate requiring the use of this technology should it become available.

          Asked “How familiar are you with efforts to develop a firearm that will only fire for a specific authorized person(s)?”, only 20 percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat familiar with the concept of “smart gun” technology. When told that such firearms would incorporate biometric or radio frequency identification (RFID) with an activation system that would rely on battery power, 74 percent of respondents said that these firearms would not be reliable at all or very reliable. Gun owners overwhelmingly (84%) believed a smart gun would not be reliable, while a clear majority (60%) of non-gun owners also believed they would not be reliable.

          These findings were among the results of a national scientific poll of more than 1,200 Americans conducted in October by McKeon & Associates and released today by the NSSF. Although attempts to develop and market firearms equipped with authorized user recognition technology have been discussed for many years, the topic has been revived in recent months by some gun control advocates, remarks by President Obama and by the depiction of a smart gun in the latest James Bond movie.

          An overwhelming 74 percent of respondents overall said that they would not buy or would not very likely buy such a smart gun. Some 70 percent of the survey sample said that they did not believe that government should mandate that all firearms produced incorporate smart gun technology should it become commercially available.”

          http://nssf.org/Newsroom/releases/2013/111213_americans-skeptical-of-wont-buy-smart-guns.cfm

        • the only poll that actually counts is the one where people actually buy stuff, which has yet to happen. Like 85% of people support background checks, polls can be wrong.

          And, it should be allowed to happen (sales).

        • Then congrats NJ have a 2002 law mandating it be the only type of guns sold in NJ and they will have a BAN on any handgun that does not have this technology three years after a product is introduced

        • The community is not a single entity – it consists of individuals which, in a free society, should make their own decisions for themselves. If you don’t like this gun, then you make such a decision by not buying it. But when you start boycotting the seller specifically for offering this gun, you’re no longer making the choice just for yourself – you’re trying to deny the ability to make that choice to everyone else (by putting people who offer this gun out of business). Why do you want to restrict the freedom of other people?

          As for the stupid laws, the blame for those lies solely with the legislators who enacted them, and no-one else. Ditto for steel penetrator ammo import bans.

    • Engage is free to sell this product. And the consumers let him know how they felt about his decision. And then he got cold feet, and predicted that he might not be in business much longer if he continued on with this flubbed attempt at free publicity.

      • 99% of the people commenting on MD shooters were not actual customers. Actual customers, along with people who know him, supported this.

        • If they werent actual customers (I dont see how he or you could tell this?) then why did he not go ahead with his plans to sell it? Surely this man has a permit to carry in MA, so the death threats couldnt really have been all that intimidating…

        • I’m an actual customer. I’ve spent thousands of bucks with him. I’ll continue to do so.

          Also, the idea that “hey, I’ve got a permit to carry in MD, so death threats are no problem!” is bizarre to the point of being insane.

        • @economist
          Getting death threats would be a bigger deal if you were a non-gun owner, with no way to protect yourself, than if you carry a gun daily. That is all that I meant by that comment.

        • I agree. The closest I’ve been to an actual death threat was an obscene caller on the phone (who turned out to be a police officer from an adjacent jurisdiction) who, when he figured out I had him, asked if I realized that he knew where I lived and I did not know where he lived, and I told him to “come on down, but bring your lunch because you won’t be leaving”. And there were no CHLs at the time (1992). There may have been some insulting adjectives used as well, I cannot recall. I confess, I had returned from Desert Storm less than a year earlier, guess I could claim PTSD today, huh?

          I will NEVER adjust my actions due to a threat from anyone, except perhaps in the caliber I carry.

      • bingo, the market he serves told him NO way. I am guessing gun owners who say don’t try and boycott stores that offer it, don’t remember how liberals ran with the idea of micro stamping when that tech was invented and the patient expired.

  8. Perhaps the store owner and Watts did get threats. Perhaps one or the other did. Either way, it is getting them lots of sympathetic free-publicity media coverage and advertising.

    • Maybe, maybe not. He is likely trying to find a way out of now trying to sell it, I am guessing he is not willing to loose his business over trying to sell it. If any FFL is dumb enough to accept one they will be shunned by the market.

    • I smell BS, i think he is looking for a excuse to back out. There is a active boycott of his store right now, I think he is feeling the heat that he won’t be in business for much longer if he sells it.

      • There’s no mass boycott of the store, at least by the people who count: Marylanders. He lost a few customers and probably gained a few. This isn’t going to put him out of business – what the MD legislature did was far more painful.

        Maybe some Internet commandos in other states are “boycotting” him. It’s basically irrelevant.

        • The gun community(IE the market) has made it well known they do not want this product.

          ” A poll conducted for the National Shooting Sports Foundation has found Americans are highly skeptical of the reliability of user authorized technology for firearms. They also say overwhelmingly that they would not be likely to buy a so-called “smart gun” and overwhelmingly oppose any government mandate requiring the use of this technology should it become available.

          Asked “How familiar are you with efforts to develop a firearm that will only fire for a specific authorized person(s)?”, only 20 percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat familiar with the concept of “smart gun” technology. When told that such firearms would incorporate biometric or radio frequency identification (RFID) with an activation system that would rely on battery power, 74 percent of respondents said that these firearms would not be reliable at all or very reliable. Gun owners overwhelmingly (84%) believed a smart gun would not be reliable, while a clear majority (60%) of non-gun owners also believed they would not be reliable.

          These findings were among the results of a national scientific poll of more than 1,200 Americans conducted in October by McKeon & Associates and released today by the NSSF. Although attempts to develop and market firearms equipped with authorized user recognition technology have been discussed for many years, the topic has been revived in recent months by some gun control advocates, remarks by President Obama and by the depiction of a smart gun in the latest James Bond movie.

          An overwhelming 74 percent of respondents overall said that they would not buy or would not very likely buy such a smart gun. Some 70 percent of the survey sample said that they did not believe that government should mandate that all firearms produced incorporate smart gun technology should it become commercially available.”

          http://nssf.org/Newsroom/releases/2013/111213_americans-skeptical-of-wont-buy-smart-guns.cfm

      • I posted the same thing without reading previous comments. After his hubris in the article, this sounds like he’s just trying to save face while backing down.

  9. Blame NJ. They passed the smart gun law that is blatantly unconstitutional and predicated on actions in other states.

    • Well CA micro stamping bill is now in effect and gun company’s are refusing to sell their guns in CA now. One bill comes down that demands this be installed on every gun, say good by to your firearms.

  10. Pretty off topic, but Armatix actually has a pretty cool pistol stand that can unlock by RFID or PIN, which would be really nice for those “bump in the night” moments where you could literally just grab the gun off the rack, or enter in your PIN if the RFID for some reason fails.

    • Or you get a gun vault that opens in mil seconds that cost around 100-250 and it does not have the risk of it not working when you or a loved one needs it. it is likely using 100 dollar bills to wipe with when regular toilet paper is so much cheaper and is much more effective.

      • Or PERHAPS just have the loaded weapon on night table, under mattress, under pillow, etc read to actually USE when needed?

        • Which if you don’t have kids would be a good option, which is what I do, yet with kids you do not want them to have access to it.

    • In the dark. Right! Then check the battery on the gun itself, and make sure the invader is wearing his mandated “I’m a criminal, you may shoot me” bracelet and that its battery is likewise up to speed, then you can go to the next room and open the second safe, the one with the bullets, and load that bad boy, still in the dark, and on and on. WHY?

      OH! I forgot. “For the children”, right? Including your children who are being raped, kidnapped, murdered during that time.

  11. Either the death threats are being sent from MAIGMDAET4GS or one lone chairborne ranger with his hand down his pants is making these calls between eating the beef jerky he couldn’t sell at last weekends gun show.

    Besides — who would market a gun you can’t get ammo for anymore, smart, dumb or otherwise?

  12. Boycott his store. He is making us look worse now with his lies, If we concentrate our efforts we can bankrupt him shortly.

    • There is a active boycott on his store now, read the local firearms boards, they are blowing up his phone and email from around the country.

      • I’m super-active on the MDS forum, and have been following this issue on there. There’s no mass boycott. The mods and most of the community are squarely behind him. Some people are pissed off and probably won’t be going to him – which is their right. But claiming that Maryland gun owners are en masse cutting him off is ludicrous. That’s simply not what’s going on.

        • The gun community(IE the market) has made it well known they do not want this product. NJ since 2002 has laws already on the books that will ban all firearms that do not have the device within three years of one being introduced. A FFL is not wanting to be THE ONE who caused all other firearms to be banned. Also CA is doing that very thing with micro stamping, two massive gun company’s are pulling out of CA because they can not afford to comply with the stupid micro stamping law that has been show in detail that it will never curb any crime much less help law enforcement

          ” A poll conducted for the National Shooting Sports Foundation has found Americans are highly skeptical of the reliability of user authorized technology for firearms. They also say overwhelmingly that they would not be likely to buy a so-called “smart gun” and overwhelmingly oppose any government mandate requiring the use of this technology should it become available.

          Asked “How familiar are you with efforts to develop a firearm that will only fire for a specific authorized person(s)?”, only 20 percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat familiar with the concept of “smart gun” technology. When told that such firearms would incorporate biometric or radio frequency identification (RFID) with an activation system that would rely on battery power, 74 percent of respondents said that these firearms would not be reliable at all or very reliable. Gun owners overwhelmingly (84%) believed a smart gun would not be reliable, while a clear majority (60%) of non-gun owners also believed they would not be reliable.

          These findings were among the results of a national scientific poll of more than 1,200 Americans conducted in October by McKeon & Associates and released today by the NSSF. Although attempts to develop and market firearms equipped with authorized user recognition technology have been discussed for many years, the topic has been revived in recent months by some gun control advocates, remarks by President Obama and by the depiction of a smart gun in the latest James Bond movie.

          An overwhelming 74 percent of respondents overall said that they would not buy or would not very likely buy such a smart gun. Some 70 percent of the survey sample said that they did not believe that government should mandate that all firearms produced incorporate smart gun technology should it become commercially available.”

          http://nssf.org/Newsroom/releases/2013/111213_americans-skeptical-of-wont-buy-smart-guns.cfm

  13. Okay, I’ll stir the pot.

    Last time I checked, businesses have the liberty to sell any legal product or service they choose … and the public has the liberty to purchase or not purchase any legal product or service that a business offers. So what if some firearms dealer offers “smart guns”? If prospective customers don’t want one, don’t buy one. If People of the Gun think “smart guns” are a horrible idea, then they can use their First Amendment rights to inform the public about the shortcomings of “smart guns”.

    If People of the Gun are concerned that “smart guns” will lead to governments banning the sale of traditional firearms or being able to disable “smart guns”, then the People of the Gun should direct their ire toward government, not a firearms dealer. Come on people.

    • The market told him how they felt and lets hope he listens, it is a very valid fear in fact because it is being done in CA with the micro stamping mandate and gun company’s are starting to pull out of CA. NJ is next.

      • You keep blathering about micro-stamping in CA in relation to this subject. The micro-stamping issue is in no way comparable to this one. What happened in CA was that their very anti-gun AG deciding “micro-stamping could be technologically possible, if anyone bothered to do it”. It was not triggered by any industry or FFL action. It was essentially a regulation-implemented handgun ban.

        I feel bad for gun owners in NJ, but be real: THE CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG. They can push this a year or two, but eventually someone’s going to be selling that pistol, and NJ gun owners will need to fight it out in court.

        • Smith & Wesson officially becomes the second gun company to pull out of California over microstamping. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/22/smith-wesson-stop-selling-guns-california-due-micr/

          Smith & Wesson announced late Wednesday evening that it will stop selling its handguns in California rather than manufacture them to comply with the new microstamping law. The other publicly traded firearms manufacturer in the U.S., Sturm, Ruger, also said this month that it will stop new sales to California.

          The announcement came a week after the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for firearms manufacturers, filed suit against California for requiring that all new semi-automatic pistols that are not already on the state’s approved gun roster have the microstamping technology.

          Microstamping doesn’t work, on any level.

          The theory is that a laser can etch the firing pin and breech face of a semi-automatic firearm, so that when a round is fired, a uniquely identifying mark is left on the primer by the firing pin, and another is left upon the cartridge case by the breech face etching.

    • This has nothing to do with the gun being a piece of crap and everything to do with the fact that by choosing to sell it, he will take away the rights of everyone in New Jersey. THAT is why people are mad – the fact that he wanted to put (small) profits over the rights of millions.

      • Publius,

        “… he will take away the rights of everyone in New Jersey.”

        You are absolutely wrong. New Jersey politicians are infringing on the rights of everyone in New Jersey, not some firearms dealer. Direct your ire at New Jersey politicians.

        • New Jersians have no rights. They sign theirs (and their neighbors) away each and every time they continue to elect progressives and rinos (often the same thing) to office. This gun dealer didn’t take away their rights, they did it to themselves.

        • “New Jersey politicians are infringing on the rights of everyone in New Jersey”

          Correct, however, he is definitley their enabler…

        • Wrong. The NJ politicians loaded the gun, put a round in the chamber, and sat it on a bench rest – aimed at the people of NJ. However, it will be whichever FFL decides that money is more important than rights who will pull the trigger. THAT person will be the one ultimately responsible for it. Without an FFL willing to sell out the rights of everyone in NJ, the law doesn’t mean jack and affects no one.

        • Yes but New Jersey politicians don’t care about gun owners. The owner of a gun shop might, and so is more likely to bow to pressure (and fast!).

          Death threats aren’t cool, though.

        • I feel sympathy for freedom loving people who are stuck there, but the legislation that’s got everyone worked up wasn’t passed by this guy. The NJ legislature chained you to the tracks, knowing that eventually a freight train would come along and cut you to ribbons. When that train comes along, and it will, will you blame the engineer who can’t stop technology or will you blame the people who chained you in its path?

          Put another way, smart gun technology doesn’t threaten the rights of people in Texas, New Hampshire, or Montana. Only New Jersey. Who is to blame for that?

  14. “Death threats”. I’ll take that claim with a large grain of salt – I think despite his bluster in the interview of “I don’t care how much hate I’m going to get for taking away the rights of everyone in NJ, I want to make a few more bucks before Maryland shuts us down”, he was terrified at the prospect of a boycott actually putting him out of business. With the arrogance he showed in wanting to take away the rights of everyone in NJ, I’d say this is just him trying to save face when backing down.

  15. Death threats are not hard to believe. Have seen responses on this very sight that come close to outright threats. Not a far leap from wishing some one was run over by a bus and saying you would be the one driving. Whenever there is a subject people feel strongly about there will be people who are not able to control their mouths. Look at the fight over abortion. Problem is if nobody on our side comes out publicly against these idiots we play right into their hands and look like a bunch of out of control thugs.

  16. Death threats?! Ugh. Boycott and an active decision not to spend money in his establishment is one thing and perfectly legit, but death threats!?!?! Jackasses.

  17. On Slashdot, this topic has gotten at least one of the 10 highest comment post counts I’ve seen since I joined around 4 years ago. It might even be top 5, I know 9/11/2001 was the highest. The /. member base always seem to be pretty much split when it comes to 2A issues, you’ll hear some of the best and stupidest stuff about it there. There are lots of geek gun (good?) guys,

    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/05/01/152243/smart-gun-seller-gets-the-wrong-kind-of-online-attention?sbsrc=md

  18. Death threat BS. If there were any threats, the perp’s face would be plastered all over the news. Gun rights groups should be hammering the authorities to arrest those making these threats and wait for the cricket sounds.

    The “market” should boycott this FFL and put him out of business for attempting to sell this tech. I don’t care how it shoots. It is only a first step to more controls and going along with it is like feeding the bears. Statists will get some feel good out of smart guns, then push and push until these are the only guns allowed.

    BTW, once and for all, these statists and mom’s for hire do not fear guns or gun rights advocates. IF they in fact did fear gun owners, they would leave us alone. You don’t see them going after cartels or gangs because they really do fear those people. They don’t need a gun to eff you up and have no problem doing away with anyone in their way. Gun control is about control – control of people that are not like themselves. Its a way to hitch their wagon to powerful wealthy people they agree with to help distinguish themselves from the regular folks -to pull themselves into a higher caste…at least in their own minds.

    • Such boycott does not even need to be organized. Nobody had to tell me to stop buying S&W guns after they caved to grabbers’ demands, and the EU company which was at fault sold the company at an 80% loss a few years later. Nobody bought their products until they were no longer involved.

  19. I’m torn on the issue of the technology itself.

    In principle, I have no problem with existence and availability of these various “smart gun” technologies. On the other hand, I have infinite issues with government attempting to mandate them.

    At this point, thanks to pantywaist legislatures, the two things are inextricably linked in my mind and it makes it hard if not impossible for me to support its commercial success. That is unfortunate.

    • Past the edit time, but I considered something else.

      Ironically, if New Jersey would repeal that law and no legislature ever made mention of such a thing again, these guns might actually start being sold.

      Obviously, the goal of NJ law makers is controversy, not safety.

    • To convince me of their altruistic intentions, all a gubt needs to do, such as NJ, is to mandate that all LEOs in the state, including Feds, carry only such “smart guns” for a period of 10 years in order to prove the technology. It will never happen, the LEOs would quit, the Feds would fight in court or leave.

  20. More stirring the pot.

    This article also condemns People of the Gun who threatened “political activists” who actively and openly seek to take away our lives, liberty, and/or property. What is a moral and just response to such “activists”? I don’t yet have an answer.

    I do want people to understand the context of this question. These “activists” are not debating about the best location for a new bridge or the best way to spend tax dollars. Rather, these “political activists” are actively seeking to take our lives, liberty, and/or property for their exclusive benefit … and claim that their actions are somehow legitimate as long government agents do their dirty work. Something about tar and feathers comes to mind.

    At any rate, given that these “activists” are actively seeking to take our lives, liberty, and/or property for their exclusive benefit, I am having a hard time condemning people who respond to those “activists” with threats. If a wealthy “upstanding” neighbor declared that they were going to take your life, liberty, and/or property, would you smile and invite them over for tea and crumpets? Or would you tell them in no uncertain terms that they would proceed at their own peril? Why should we treat “political activists” any differently?

    Important disclaimer: I was very explicit to describe “political activists” or just “activists” as people who openly and actively seek to take away other people’s lives, liberty, and/or property for the exclusive benefit of the “activists”. “Political activists” and “activists” in this comment does NOT refer to people who exercise their 1st Amendment rights to influence government policy in harmony with common law, state constitutions, and the United States Constitution.

  21. Why bother threatening the guy? I won’t be rushing out to buy a smart gun and neither will you. The market can’t be that big, so let him tie up a bunch of his money on a product he can’t sell. And let him anger gun owners, who by definition, are his best customers. That’s a lot more effective than hiding behind a keyboard and slinging out wild threats.

  22. Why would anyone make threats against a store for offering something to sell? Here in TX, if someone wished to open a store which offered only CA or MD approved firearms, I don’t think anyone would care, other than the owner, who would see zero sales in his first 6 months. If you’re pissed enough to threaten someone, try your LEGISLATORS! And threaten them with a fate even worse than death, being thrown out of office! That’s not even illegal, I don’t think. Tho maybe in CA or MD ….

    • I think you might be on to something. Let Bloomberg get a FFL and sell the smart guns out of his store to wealthy middle aged moms that believe they’re right because everyone in the their bubble agrees with them. I bet he would sell tens upon tens of them.

      For a while, they’ll carry them as a smart status symbol and never shoot them. There will be a whole accessory market -bracelets, matching necklaces, purses…etc. They’ll get tired of the accessories, leave them at home, taking only the gun…the batteries will go dead. If it doesn’t work when life depends on it, they or their family will try to sue Bloomberg and manufacturer in a east coast blue state haven known for awarding millions for frivolous lawsuits…

      Bloomberg might actually sell enough to keep the doors open if the moms ever get enough membership to establish some credibility on their own without relying on a man to finance their operations. I’d would bet against it though.

      • Lordy, that is a great post!

        “Tens upon tens.”

        Accessories like bracelets and necklaces, you’re killing me.

  23. First off I have to say that I do NOT agree with actually making death threats against any dealer or distributor that stocks this thing. That being said I also STRONGLY feel that dealers and distributors should SHUN this thing and it’s items like the plague. I’d even go so far as to push a boycott of the thing and any other items the Armatix corporation sells. Drive them into the sea so hard that no other company will even ponder selling this kind of tech for decades.

    Normal I could be considered the completely antithesis of a luddite. I love new technology. Hell, I like some of that crazy trans-humanist ideas that the Coast to Coast AM crowd like to freak out about. But the ‘smart gun’ technology is too mired in politics. New Jersey is the test case. We have to use any (legit political) means to crush the smart gun mandate before it spreads to the other hot beds of rampant anti freedom sentiment.

    • I can’t argue with the idea of a boycott. I’m already participating in one against smart guns with you and just about every other person posting in this discussion – just because I’d rather have a good used Ruger MKII than some unproven electronic gadget that may be able to be switched off by a third party.

      But NJ’s problems are out of my hands. While states like NJ get more restrictive on guns, states like Georgia get less restrictive. Smart gun requirements can spread to anti-freedom localities and there’s not a thing I can do about it. Only the people who live there can save themselves from that.

  24. After three discussions on this guy, I have to ask “why?”

    I know I forward an article or two a week. Some make the cut, some don’t, and that’s the editor’s choice I guess. Fair enough. But I have to believe that there are others on here sharing at least as much as I am. There has to be other stuff to write about.

    But why three write-ups on this story in a day or two? How is this worthy of so much attention? It just isn’t that significant.

  25. the threats, if made by any gun owner, are absolutely the STUPIDEST response to this that can be taken, and anyone engaged in them should be ashamed of themselves.

  26. Yeah, you know what? I’m *part* of the “gun community” and I don’t doubt for one second the willingness of a vocal minority of gun-rights activists to resort to death threats against people we don’t like. I’ve seen it, and I seriously doubt that anyone who spends any amount of time on gun forums hasn’t. Good communities police themselves and show asshats the door… but there’s never a short supply of new asshats to replace them.

    • He he did have death threats or he would have filed police reports and the perps faces would be national news that the anti-gunners would be giddily with excitement about having evidence of crazy gun owners.

        • Bullshit. Just because he received death threats doesn’t mean he would have filed police reports, and just because he filed police reports means that the police would have caught the perps– or even *tried* to. The police can’t do jack or shit about most death threats unless they leave physical evidence or show patterns of repeated harassment.

Leave a Reply

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