Previous Post
Next Post

Screen Shot 2015-11-02 at 7.54.35 AM

Regular readers here know the issues involved in so-called “smart guns.” Besides all the obvious technical questions and inadequacies, one thing is indisputable: New Jersey State Senator Loretta Weinberg (above), via her law mandating the sale of smart guns, has done more to hinder their development and adoption in the US than any other single factor.

Not that she’d ever admit to that, of course, even under direct questioning by Leslie Stahl (click image above to view last night’s ’60 Minutes’ segment). Instead, she deflects as much as she can, pointing the bony finger of blame at opposition from every hoplophobe’s boogie man of choice, the big bad NRA.

Sorry, Senator, but to mix metaphors, that horse hockey just won’t fly.

The quote in the title is from Andy Raymond. The reason he had to break out the whiskey and the AR and take to Facebook to defend himself and his business was that no one wanted to see one store in Maryland activate Weinberg’s smart gun poison pill in America’s armpit.

Threats and arson attempts are far beyond the pale, but firearms owners and 2A supporters, burned time and again by giving in to anti-gunners’ incrementalist disarmament long game, have finally learned…”common sense” regulation is a slow but direct path that ends at registration and, ultimately, confiscation.

We’d guess that the large majority of gun owners, while wanting a smart gun about as much as a fish wants a bicycle, have no problem with seeing them offered in their local gun store’s counter right between the GLOCKs and the Rugers. If there are those who want to buy a self-defense gun that’s dependent on unproven whiz-bang technology (guns that can potentially be remotely disabled), good luck with that.

The market will decide smart guns’ viability. Just don’t presume to tell us that’s our only choice.


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. That’s exactly right. I could care less if other people want smart guns. That isn’t the argument. The argument is the legislator’s snake hidden in the background, waiting. I personally don’t want any smart gun nonsense – freedom hating statists want to force it down our throats, because that is the way they are and what they do.

  2. Smart guns will never become mainstream because there simply isn’t any demand for one. The only people who want smart guns are people who don’t want a gun in the first place.

  3. Loretta Weinberg is a known advocate for confiscation. expecting her to be “reasonable” and conduct a fair debate is a joke.

    • I think we should be glad she pushed this Bill through the NJ State Legislature. Not only did it tip their hand in NJ, but because of the Bill’s provisions, it became a national issue. Contrast that with if the anti’s had waited for “smart gun” technology to be introduced into the free market naturally and then, after they were a bit more commonplace, the anti-gun pols put forth a similar Bill to ban dumb guns. I think the old hag did us a favor. Maybe it would piss her off if somebody sent her an award for her hoplophobia.

  4. I’m still not completely convinced there were any actual death threats–altho I also won’t say categorically that there were none. But when all you have is the word of a drunk (and yes, I think the word is proper here) quisling–well, I’ll just say I’m not convinced. And I still say the easiest way for “smart-gun” purveyors to get their beloved schemes put forth without gun-rights opposition is to drop any LEO carve-outs and exceptions. The “gun community” will no doubt be happy to let the LEOs lead the opposition at that point.

    • Yep – let LEO’s lead the way and demonstrate the technology . . . . if it is so wonderful and safe, this should not be an issue for the state legislatures to MANDATE use by LEO’s (tied to their annual budget). Get back to me in 10 yrs

      • States, hell! Let the feds do it–they don’t even have to wait for that NRA-controlled Congress. Mr Phone-n-pen can order the director of all those alphabet agencies to arm their people with smart guns and only smart guns right this minute…

        • Just think, if the feds had volunteered to deploy this amazing technology themselves, then we could be spared ISIS using against us all those Iraqi Army and Syrian “freedom fighters” weapons that fell into their hands.

        • To be fair, that is like the one circumstance where I’d like there to be smart guns, the guns that go to “moderate muslims” and Mexico. I mean, the only reason for the technology is to give someone the power to switch them off. It would be an admittedly pretty short reprieve as everyone switched back to AK’s, but its the only scenario where I would support gun drm.

      • First beta testers should be the presidents security detail. Then all law enforcement in the worst cities, (think Chicago, New York), followed be the rest of law enforcement.
        Then maybe, I might think about it. Maybe.

  5. Typical liberals. Using a fictional character armed with a fictional gun to push real world legislation that restricts real peoples Constitutional rights.

    • In “Skyfall,” Eve, Mallory, M, and Bond all commandeer other people’s guns to repel bad guys. No one ever mentions that.

  6. Think will start referring to anti 2nd. people as “Anti Constitutionalists”
    If you are a believer, you can not pick & choose which rights you support any more than a Christian can pick & choose which Commandments they adhere to. It’s all or none

  7. Just think of all the lawsuits against the manufacturers for guns that don’t go bang when they are supposed to! Think of all the wrongful death lawsuits for their product failing to perform it’s intended function, save a life.

  8. I DO have a problem with other people having “smart” guns; if it can be remotely activated/deactivated, it can be remotely fired!

    • That’s not true.
      Most of the smart gun designs work by disabling or enabling the ability to fire, not by producing/not producing the mechanical energy required to hit a primer. Basically it’s just an electronic safety, and remotely hacking it does not make the trigger move.

      • True, but electrical/electronic “interference” from a strong enough source could almost certainly stop an electronically-controlled smart gun from being fired. There’s just no room to add the required amount of shielding that would prevent it.

        Everyone who knows the true purpose of the Second Amendment should always keep this in mind.

  9. Say it with me folks: “Stop dictating to us from your piss ant little state” MD is a spec on the map any you blue state a-holes could pack a Trillion more illegal aliens within your borders and you still would not represent another square inch of America, or its values.


  10. Using a biometric safe, I’ve had experience with “smart” locks. They mostly work. There are many times I go to open it (press button, cover light with finger) and …nothing. Wash hands, rub finger, change to the other hand, then it works. Pretty much anything that fills in the fingerprint, hinders the process.
    ” 60 minutes pushed two reasons for “smart guns.” First, to keep kids from getting an unsecured gun and shooting someone. Second, police officers shot by their own gun.
    Finding how big the first issue is, is very hard. The cut off in most numbers is 20. ABC used 18 and claimed 98 deaths from ” accidental shootings.” While the sob story is shooting of a child under 10, it’s hard to know how many there are.
    As for the second, the number of officers killed by their own guns is not clear. One report stated 10% of the officer deaths were by their own guns. Compare that to the 45 officers killed in 2013 and 65 in 2014, you might get and answer between 5 and 7.
    Both are tragic. As has been said, mandating police to carry smart guns would seem a “fix.” In gun grabber terms. The reality is that once mandated, the promoters would have to take responsibility of all smart gun failures.

    Kids and Guns: By The Numbers – ABC News –
    Nearly 10,000 American children are injured or killed by guns every year | MSNBC –
    How many police officers are killed by their own gun or another officer’s gun? – Quora –
    Number of police officers killed on job up 40 percent over last year | Fox News –

    • The iPhone has a state-of-the-art biometric sensor for security. It doesn’t work when there’s moisture or condensation on it. Even when it’s dry, sometimes it takes a few swipes to unlock the phone.

      My car has an RFID key. The key is in my pocket, and if I’m close to the car, it will unlock if I touch the door handle. Most of the time. I’d say the first-touch-failure rate is 2 in a 100. Fine for a car, but not for a gun…

      Firearms are the great equalizer partially because of their ease of use and predictability. You press the trigger, gun goes bang.

  11. I’m a little confused. Since Weinberg is a state senator in New Jersey, what does the store in Maryland have to do with activating her “smart gun poison pill?” I wasn’t able to catch the entire 60 minutes segment because I was putting my kids to bed. I DID see the part where this store announced that they were going to sell these smart guns and then dealt with thousands of phone calls, death threats, etc. What exactly is the threat of this guy offering for sale a new kind of gun? It’s not like he was going to stop selling “normal” guns…

    • @Old Ben, New Jersey’s “Childproof Handgun Law” mandated that once smart guns became available ANYWHERE in the US, ALL handguns sold in New Jersey had to be smart guns within 30 months.

      So when the MD dealer announced that he was going to offer smart guns, NJ owners went wild (as they should). And so did every POTG in every slave state, because we knew what was coming.

      • Fun fact that goes unmentioned for some reason. The Attorney General in NJ is the one charged with judging whether or not a gun is actually a smart gun. According to the letter of the law in NJ, RFID based smart guns are not smart guns because ANYONE can put on the RFID watch and then fire the gun. The only kind of gun that appears to meet the definition of the law is a biometric one that only allows that person to fire the gun. AG Ruling here:

        • Yeah, and we know that no anti-gun/anti-gun-rights politician or political appointee would ever consider twisting the law, or fail to apply it as it was intended. Couldn’t happen. UNpossible.


        • I dont think you are right when you say RFID is against the letter of the law. My understanding is that the Republican Attorney General has made this interpretation. The next AG is likely Democratic, and may consider a RFID gun to be a “smart gun.”

          You guys like busting on Christie here, but it’s going to get far worse when he leaves.

      • @Ralph – Thanks for the context – it makes sense now. I still think the people calling in threats to the owner of this gun store is inappropriate. It’s equally inappropriate for NJ to mandate sales based on what someone in another state is doing.

  12. Yep-I mentioned this yesterday and I’m just happy TTAG isn’t 4-5 days past it’s relevance. Yeah gun shop Quising-has that doofus gone out of business yet?

  13. I read the transcript and there are two big issues with it (never mind the New Jersey law);

    First, using Hollywood for a tech example, what exactly is that doing in a news report? I want my Hover-Board and X-Wing while your at it.

    Second, when they compare it to seat belt and airbags, Didn’t they try making cars in 1974 that would not start if the seat belts were off. What exactly happen with that?? Would anyone buy a car that will not start if the airbag system didn’t work. And in that case the worst that would happen is that you would be stranded.

    Or even better yet, it would turn off the car even while moving. That would be closer to a gun not working.

    Good thing Bond didn’t try to use his PPKs with gloves on.

    • The ’74 interlocked cars were so unpopular with the purchasers that they blew up their elected rep’s phone lines and got the requirement repealed later the same year.
      I can’t imagine “smart guns” with a spotty reliability record would fare much better.
      I believe “unsuitable for it’s intended purpose” is still a real thing.

  14. Carrot and stick. If NJ really wants to promote smart guns, I’d suggest a two pronged effort, preceded by scrapping the current all smart all the time law.

    1) offer discounts to buyers of smart guns when regular guns are traded in. The state could offer a 50% discount on the new gun when the old gun, in any condition, is traded in.

    2) tax deductions for smart gun purchases. Either waive the cost of a background check or offer a tax credit of the equivalent value.

    These two ideas would incentivize smart gun ownership. A lot of price sensitive shoppers would willingly trade cash for these restrictions.

    The trouble is that current policy is trying to mandate behavior it wants to ban. It’s that conundrum that creates the blowback we are seeing.

  15. So maybe we should consider the possible outcomes if NJ’s law were to actually go into effect. Especially if gun suppliers were to only offer the same technology to the various police agencies in the state. We might see something of a political sea change when people start seeing the actual results of their poor prior political choices. It might be enough to tip the balance of public opinion to get the political establishment moving in the right direction.

  16. “When the last gun store owner is shot. We will shoot him with the SMART gun he sold us”.

    I make no apologies for stealing from Karl Marx. Any gun business selling a smart gun will really be selling a staturday special to a sucker. That gun will not work when you need it the most. This new Saturday night special won’t explode in your hand. It just won’t shoot when you need it to.
    And a very expensive Saturday night special at that.

  17. I like these two nuggets from the 60 Minutes debacle:

    “New Jersey senator offered to rescind the mandate if the gun lobby publicly removed its opposition to smart guns.”

    Oh, really? Is that how it works? If she can make a side deal, she can just singlehandedly revoke the law??

    ” Lesley Stahl: Are you thinking that if the gun manufacturers don’t come along, that they’re going to be like Kodak?

    Ron Conway: Absolutely.

    Lesley Stahl: This is what you’re saying.

    Ron Conway: Yes. Kodak and Polaroid all wrapped in one. You cannot stop innovation”

    Someone needs to tell this guy what a 1911 is, why it is called a 1911, and how many are sold annually!!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here