BREAKING: NJ AG: Smart Gun Not Smart Enough to Trigger Smart Gun Law

iP1 (courtesy

Press release from the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs:

The New Jersey Attorney General has issued a legally-mandated report to the Governor and the Legislature finding that the Armatix iP1 handgun does not qualify as a “smart gun” under New Jersey’s 2002 smart gun law. Read the Attorney General’s report here. The report includes the following statement . . .

After careful consideration of the iP1’s design, we have determined that it does not satisfy the statutory definition because, as a matter of design, the pistol may be fired by a person who is not an authorized or recognized user. That is, as long as the pistol is situated within 10 inches of the enabling wristwatch, it may be fired by anyone – the authorized user or any other person who is able to pull the trigger. While the system does incorporate a PIN code or a timer to disable the handgun, when the weapon is enabled, there is nothing in the technology which automatically limits its operational use so that it may only be fired by an authorized or recognized user (so long as the pistol is within a 10-inch proximity to the wristwatch component).

Situations may readily be envisioned in which an unauthorized individual gains access to the pistol in close enough proximity to the wristwatch component (by either maintaining possession of the pistol within 10 inches of the authorized user’s wrist on which he or she is wearing the watch, or by forcibly taking possession of the wristwatch), and therefore would be able to fire the weapon, despite the limiting technology. Accordingly, we are unable to conclude that the iP1 design meets all the elements of New Jersey’s statutory definition of a personalized handgun under N.J.S.2C:39-1(dd), and therefore its availability for retail sales purposes will not trigger the operation of N.J.S.2C:58-2.4 (requiring the promulgation of a list of personalized handguns) and N.J.S.2C:58-2.5 (prohibiting the sale of non-personalized handguns).

The report was likely issued in connection with pending litigation in which the Brady Center has tried to force the Attorney General to issue a report that would trigger New Jersey’s smart gun law by finding that the Armatix gun satisfied the law.

“New Jersey’s smart-gun law is a dumb as it gets,” said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. “It forces you to use an unproven technology to defend your life, and then exempts the state from liability when the gun goes ‘click’ instead of ‘bang’. If it’s such a great idea, then law enforcement shouldn’t be exempt, and the free market should be able to determine its viability.  This is a welcome finding by the Attorney General.”


  1. avatar Michael Nieto says:

    This is without a doubt done to keep the law from being challenged

    1. avatar Dano says:

      There’s no way it can have anything to do with Chris Christie and 2016. Not a chance.

      1. avatar Joe says:

        For what it’s worth, this law was passed by DEMOCRAT Gov. John Corzine. We haven’t had ANY anti-gun laws passed in NJ since Christie was elected, not that the DEMOCRATS DIDN’T TRY! Remember THAT when you pull the lever for Hillary in 2016 and she turns the state you live in, into NJ.

    2. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

      Whatever the reason, anything that is the opposite of what the Brady Campaign wants is a good thing.

      Kicking the can down the road until a MORE restrictive “personalized” gun is designed/released may backfire in a future challenge of the law, as well. It wouldn’t take a genius lawyer to point out the many flaws of fingerprint systems (the most likely technology to be used) in terms of how easy they are to spoof – again allowing a non-authorized individual to use the firearm.

      So basically, as much as the law sucks, this report sets precedent that a firearm must be foolproof to be considered personalized, and NOTHING is foolproof.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        The greatest fault with a fingerprint system is not the false positives (very rare), but the high number of false negatives (when the system says that an authorized person’s fingerprint is not authorized). I do not want any gun that might prevent me from using it when I need it, and a fingerprint-based system is very likely to do that.

        1. avatar Nick says:

          Precisely! I have an iPhone with the fingerprint reader. It worked a few times, but I can never seem to get it to work anymore. Inside a gun, the reader would be of similar size and quality, and I’d never want to stake my life on whether it reads my print, because I’d likely be dead.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        I don’t agree… I want to see this happen. Because if it happens now, it will lay bare the gun grabber’s aim and will almost certainly be struck down, creating an early precedent. But later… if Clinton gets the presidency and can appoint some judges… NJ can just reverse it’s own opinion and it could end up being the next ‘common sense’ law.

    3. avatar Fred says:

      They want to protect the law more than they really want a solution. Hopefully manufacturers won’t fall for that one sided deal, as they’re the ones who get left holding the bag.

  2. avatar IAB2 says:

    “Forget it Jake, its New Jersey”

  3. avatar jwm says:

    Dumb law makers attempting to define a smart gun. D’oh.

    1. avatar Arod529 says:

      They will never succeed as it will never exist.

  4. avatar Ralph says:

    “After careful consideration of the iP1’s design, we have determined that it does not satisfy the statutory definition because, as a matter of design, the pistol cannot be remotely disabled.”


  5. avatar ST says:

    In short-the IP1 is not restrictive enough for New Jersey.

    Then again , even the DNA based Judge Dredd gun from Hollywood would fail that standard.

    1. avatar Michael nieto says:

      technically Dred’s gun wasnt made by Hollywood but rather buy the creators of the comic

    2. avatar John P says:

      I would actually be willing to accept the Dredd-verse DNA-laced projectiles if we could actually get all of the Lawgiver’s features. You know, being able to switch the _projectile type_ on the fly, with _voice commands_. Even a retractable(!) suppressor, and automatic swap to subsonics! (the 2012 film used modified Glock 17s for the props)

      Actually, I don’t mind the Dredd-verse DNA-projectiles at all. THOSE would be incredibly difficult to plant, and since I’m not likely to become a murderer (and you could always theoretically disable that feature if you wanted to) I don’t mind people knowing who I’ve shot.

  6. avatar Don says:

    Only way to make what these jokers have in mind is to surgically implant the firearm and connect it to the central nervous system. If somebody cut it out, it would possibly FTF. On the other hand, if someone was implanted with such a device there’s no guarantee they wouldn’t shoot somebody when they sneezed. On top of that, can you imagine slamming a 10 round (limits you know) magazine up your backside to load it? That’s about how much sense that whole idea makes. I agree, let the police, ATF, DEA, FBI, and Homeland insecurity be issued them first if they’re such a great thing.

    1. avatar pyratemime says:

      If I have a gun implanted in my hand do I need a CHL to wear gloves or put my hand in my pocket?

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        It would make certain activities quite perilous…

        Use your sick and twisted imagination.

  7. avatar JasonM says:

    If it’s such a great idea…the free market should be able to determine its viability.
    Free Market? In New Jersey? New Jersey is such a corrupt crony economy that it makes Chicago look like a Ludwig von Mises fantasy.

  8. avatar Sergio in NC says:

    I bet someone’s pocket was gonna take a hit if that law was activated. They realized it and so…

  9. avatar Don says:

    The law is around 13 years old and there still isn’t technology out there that can pass the test.

  10. avatar Another Robert says:

    I still say the key to destroying that particular Hydra is to kill the LE exemption. That would kill a lot of similar Hydras, I expect.

  11. avatar Somebody says:

    Does anyone else think the remote looks like a LEGO piece?

  12. avatar Nick D says:

    So it’s not that the gun is intrusive and potentially life threatening, it’s that the gun’s design isn’t intrusive and life threatening enough.

  13. avatar Brentondadams says:

    Smells political

  14. avatar John says:

    Camel. Nose. Tent.

    Step 1. A.G. declares guns don’t meet legal requirements.
    Step 2. Some gun sales ensue.
    Step 4. Lawsuit re: gun DOES meet legal requirements.
    Step 5. A.G rolls over
    Step 6. Some have in fact been sold and presto!, The law is fully in effect.

    So the A.G.s finding is just holding the tent open with a date in hand and calling “here, camel, camel, camel.”

    1. avatar Bruce W. Krafft says:

      Let me fix it for your John:
      Step 1. A.G. declares guns don’t meet legal requirements.
      Step 2. Some gun sales ensue.
      Step 4. Lawsuit re: gun DOES meet legal requirements.
      Step 5. A.G. “revises opinion” and states that the gun does meet requirements.
      Step 6. Some have in fact been sold and presto!, The law is fully in effect.

  15. avatar Phil L says:

    Is there *any* technology being considered today that would meet this law’s requirements in a “second person grabbing the gun, trying to reach inside the trigger guard” situation?

    Looks like N.J.S.2C:39-1(dd) may be a logical dead end…

  16. avatar John M. says:

    They’ve determined that the law has more power if it just sits out there and hangs over people’s heads than if they actually push the button and put it in effect, and thereby subject it to court review and/or backlash from the voters.

    I mean, really, by this standard, no gun will ever satisfy the criteria. You can always cut someone’s finger off and use it to activate the trigger if you wanted to.

  17. avatar bontai Joe says:

    I don’t care why the AG canned this, just glad he did.

    1. avatar Jay-El says:

      I’m thinking Chris Christie believes in keeping his options open.

  18. avatar S.CROCK says:

    I didn’t fully understand this. Does it mean that because it isn’t “smart” enough, so the law requiring all handguns being sold must be “smart” will no longer go into effect? Or does this mean that all nj handguns will still need to be “smart” but even “smarter?”

    1. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

      “the law requiring all handguns being sold must be “smart” will no longer go into effect?”

      The law won’t YET go into effect. It’s still waiting for an appropriate “smart” gun to trigger the conditions that will require ALL guns to be smart.

      For now we can still purchase “dumb” guns.

  19. avatar Model 31 says:

    So a smart car is small, a SMART tv is large and plays apps and the smart gun is stupid.

  20. avatar Scrubula says:

    Now that they have basically defined a smart gun under NJ law (unable to be fired by anyone except the authorized user) perhaps the law can be challenged in court. Aside from a microchip embedded in the hand, there is almost no way to produce such a firearm. Fingerprints might be possible but would not prevent the gun from being given to someone else (or taken).

    The law is insane but we should be fighting this before all of the pro gun people in NJ are forced to leave.

  21. avatar BradN says:

    This tech is not ready for prime time, nor would I ever consider depending on a smart gun to protect myself no matter how good the technology gets. I’d rather carry a Mauser C96 before I trust a smart gun.

  22. avatar Accur81 says:

    Wow, I guess I can rush out and purchase an unreliable .22 LR handgun for $1,500. ‘Cuz who wouldn’t want that?

  23. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    I see your “ha-ha” and I raise you a “ha-ha.”

  24. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    To quote admiral Akbar: “It’s a trap!”

    Say it won’t trigger the law, get the gun to market, then “oh, it does trigger the law.”

  25. avatar BLAMMO says:

    What if you don’t bring a watch to a gunfight?

    Then, you’re bringing a brick to a gunfight.

    Don’t bring a brick to a gunfight.

  26. avatar IAB2 says:

    Well, nice trick there New Jersey, changing the definition so you wouldn’t be stuck limiting everyone including the cops to using the Armatix .22LR handgun.

    Still, its ‘smart’ enough in California for Armatix to have gotten a pass by Kamala Harris to make it onto the Approved Handgun Roster in Oct 2013, several months after the requirement for microstamping went into effect, causing all other manufacturer’s new handguns to be illegal to buy in CA (unless you are a cop, of course).

    Oddly, the Armatix does not meet that requirement. So the CA DOJ called it a “Firearms Safety Device”.

    And, strangely enough, there’s a connection beyond the Oak Tree Range, where it was first offered for sale, which was the proof that triggered the Smart Gun law in New Jersey. Something about the UN disarmament treaty that Kerry and Obama were hot to sign. And George Soros proteges working with a radical gun grabber group and Armatix…and remember when the goofy gun-grabbing rabbi went to Europe…?

    David Codrea has been on it for awhile. He didn’t get the same attention as Sharyl Atkisson, but he is of the same caliber, for dedication and persistence, in gun related investigative journalism.

  27. avatar Hannibal says:

    They are trying to avoid triggering their own law because they know what would happen… and it would not be good for them. The law would probably be struck down, would be obviously ridiculous, and would kill the fledgling ‘smart gun restriction’ angle.

    They know the time isn’t right, and they can just release another report when it is. This isn’t good bye, it’s “see you later.”

  28. avatar Nelson says:

    2A… and NJ’s still dickering over irrelevant minutiae.

    this shit ain’t never gonna end until NJ denizens have some overnight catharsis on their understanding of the PRE-constitutional natural right of self-defense; rationalizing their already UNconstitutional statutory insane rationale already on the books, don’t mean jack: they’re still gonna pass insanities into ‘law,’ regardless.

    put a fork in that armpit run by Bobby Bacala.

  29. avatar Stu Chisholm says:

    It should NEVER trigger said provision unless and until NJ then mandates that police must use them, too. Period.

  30. avatar D. Fruechting says:

    Society does not need smart guns, it needs smart politicians. If not smart, at least with common sense. They have yet to discover that if one person wants to kill another, he ( or she ) will find a way to accomplish their desire regardless of any device that is outlawed or banned

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