New Jersey’s Slippery Slope Toward Outlawing Non-Smart Guns

SAF sues Gov Phil Murphy NICS

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

New Jersey’s new law requiring all gun stores in the state to sell so-called smart guns is the first step toward outlawing traditional firearms.

This law still isn’t as bad as it might be… yet. It only says that the guns have to be available for purchase. But it clearly paves the way for later legislation demanding that only smart guns be sold or owned in the state. That’s a terrible policy for several reasons.

First of all, smart gun technology is in development, but it’s still far from perfect. Assuming you find one that works every time, they still take too long to draw and prepare to fire. And a firearm that won’t function when needed is about as useful as a brick. On top of that, they tend to be insanely expensive.

Further, just from a small government conservative perspective, having the government demanding that private retailers sell this or that product is simply bad policy. And banning them from selling otherwise legal products is even worse. And I won’t even get started on the Second Amendment issues being raised.

– Jazz Shaw in New Jersey’s New “Smart Gun” Law Is A Disaster In The Making

comments

  1. avatar Draven says:

    inb4 CA does it first.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Remember…these are “smart” guns. Sacramento doesn’t understand the word “smart”.

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        That made me chuckle, unfortunately the ignorance often makes them even more dangerous to civil rights. 🙁

    2. avatar DDay says:

      There are plenty of bad states with terrible politicians but I don’t think there are any worse than NY, NJ or CA.

      1. avatar Tec's Dad says:

        I respectfully beg to differ; connecticut used to be the arsenal of the Free World. We made guns and ammo and tools to make the tools that make the guns and ammo. Today we have Ned Lamont, a democrit state house and senate majority, blumenthal, murphy, himes, courtney, delauro, larson, hayes… not one of them understands the Bill of Rights all of them are anti-gun… they will and have chased good jobs out of the state to advance their agenda…

    3. avatar TickTalk says:

      CA doesn’t need smart gun laws to ban everything else.. the roster is doing that. They are playing a long game, with old handgun models slowly falling off the list, and it is impossible to add new models due to the mythical firing pin stamp… down to something like 700 models total now.
      The original stated purpose was to get rid of those cheap ringofire semis and the melt in the sun 38s.. which wasn’t a really bad thing. Consumer protection and all that.. but of course the unstated purpose was to ban everything..

  2. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Making it impossible (through regulation) to exercise a protected right to buy a gun doesn’t rise to the level of banning, or confiscation, or infringement. People can still move to another state.

    Besides, if you like your gun you can keep it.

    See how that works?

    1. avatar Hank says:

      Yep. Democrats have a very long history of doing exactly that.

    2. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      That’s their argument, but it’s wrong. Infringement begins the moment any adverse action is taken against the right, not when the “final” adverse action is taken.

      Trespassing is synonymous. It begins the moment an intruder steps across the property line, not when he opens the door of the closet his victims are hiding in.

      1. avatar Salty says:

        My concern is that if they are “smart” that means internet connectivity/bracelet/etc which means open to be jammed electronically. Which the gov would love for controlling the unwashed masses in an uprising.

        No thanks, I’ll keep my freedom and you can keep pedaling your bs somewhere else

        1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

          ??? HUH ???

          My comment was pointing out that the 2nd Amendment’s prohibition against “reasonable restrictions” of the right to keep and bear arms is absolute, and that includes so called “smart gun” requirements.

          BTW, I have yet to see a “smart gun” that is anywhere near as reliable in all use situations as even the worst, P.O.S., “ring of fire” garbage mechanical gun. I can’t see one I would accept being developed anywhere in the next 50 years, if ever.

    3. avatar DDay says:

      That’s what Wash DC did after Heller. They openly said fine, we’ll allow gun license but we’ll make is so expensive, burdensome and so restrictive no one qualifies to get one.

    4. avatar Lost Down South says:

      > People can still move to another state.

      AH! So this is a real estate scam.

      Got it.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “AH! So this is a real estate scam.”

        Rats. You busted me.

    5. avatar Mark N. says:

      Yup, that’s the way the liberal circuits have been construing “infringed.” A restriction, they argue, is not an infringement. Infringement doesn’t happen until it is impossible to exercise the right. You can’t have an AR, but it is not an infringement because there are plenty of other guns. You can only have ten rounds, but you don’t need any more than that, more than that is dangerous to the public, and therefore it is not an infringement. The Second is not a right worth insisting upon, as gunz is bad, m’kay?

      I m hoping the NYRPA v. NYC results in a solid slap down to the Second Circuit, where the circuit court held that an ordinance that made it illegal to remove a lawfully owned firearm from the city without police permission was not an infringement. I wonder what the founders would say, since it was a similar policy of the British Military Governor of Boston Hutchinson that was one of the precipitators of the Revolutionary War–as it was that policy that lead to the raids on Lexington and Concorde, after all of the guns in Boston had been seized “for safe keeping.” I would think they would tell us that “shall not be infringed,” the strongest language in the BOR, was a direct “hands off our guns” order to the government.

      1. avatar Geoff "Guns. Lots of guns." PR says:

        “A restriction, they argue, is not an infringement. Infringement doesn’t happen until it is impossible to exercise the right.”

        Well now…

        That pretty much makes the school gun-free zone laws unconstitutional, since it’s impossible in the inner-city to be more than 1,000 feet from a school…

    6. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

      same with abortions…get them in another state…
      works the same way

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “same with abortions…get them in another state…
        works the same way”

        “same with abortions…get them in another state…
        works the same way as guns“.

        You forgot to stay focused on guns.

  3. avatar anarchyst says:

    Law enforcement should be the first to be required to use “smart guns”…

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      These places that think smart guns are such a great idea, tend to be the same places that hate cops. If someone were to do a black flag operation and get enough signatures on a ballot requiring that “All law enforcement personnel in the state (municipal, county, and state) be equipped with smart guns, to save the lives of those in vulnerable communities (children, women, minorities, LGBTQRSTUV#@$) from police brutality”, then this idea may actually get mainstream support…. it would also force the Left’s “firearms experts” tell everybody why it’s a bad idea.

  4. avatar Wiregrass says:

    “Further, just from a small government conservative perspective, having the government demanding that private retailers sell this or that product is simply bad policy.”

    Politicians don’t care about small government, even the ones that claim to be conservative. If a politician truly cares about small government, they are ostracized at the first available opportunity..

  5. avatar Ollie says:

    Put a democrat politicians in a room with a crowbar and within an hour, the crowbar will be effed up.

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      I, personally, wouldn’t want to touch the crowbar after such an experiment. At least, not without double gloving and a bleach spray.

  6. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Speculation on future legislation aside, even after it’s demise that NJ law will inhibit future development of ‘smart gun’ technology for a generation. Maybe it will be developed in Europe or Asia or maybe for other purposes and later adapted to firearms, but I don’t see any American firearms company developing the technology.

  7. avatar DerryM says:

    “Smart Guns” is an oxymoron…as long as that term is used, there’s a selling point propaganda meme to convince people they are an acceptable technology…call them PIS Guns (Pray It Shoots), and take the shine off the turd…

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      And pick it up by the clean end.

    2. avatar D says:

      Every name or title that has an adjective in it is a LIE.
      -Common sense gun control
      -Affordable Care Act
      -Smart gun
      -Intelligent design

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      Murphy’s Law dictates that the more complex a system, the more likely it is to fail.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Murphy’s Law dictates…”

        Murphy was a clueless, flaming optimist.

  8. avatar Pg2 says:

    Smart guns but not smart vaccines? Very
    telling.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      Well said.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Vlad responded to Pg2 within only six minutes.

      2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        We are echo Vlad Tepes. We take it as an article of faith that any environment can be structured, by government, to mold and shape all human behavior. The total success of Prohibition is all the proof we need. We will wear you down with our moronic comments. In the end, you will just give us your dumb guns to shut us up. Also, for a limited time, official Vlad Tepes big girl panties are on sale for the low price of $89.97! You will be assimilated, you must comply, resistance is futile. #DumbGunsBadSmartGunsWorse #BigGirlPantiesNow #IHateMommy

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Ah, Pg2’s back. Knute(ken) wants a word with you. I don’t see that you ever responded back to his lengthy posts about you in the past few days’ worth of articles. I guess TTAG is allowing your vaxx comments again, though I see you at least included the word “guns” in your remark today to get past the censors.

  9. avatar Hasaf says:

    My concern is how this will impact small dealers. A big shop can have a non-seller in stock. However, a small dealer may not be able to afford merchandise that has no chance of selling.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “However, a small dealer may not be able to afford merchandise that has no chance of selling.”

      Be interesting to know if the law states a smart gun must be in inventory at all times, or if special order on request satisfies.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Interesting point. If true, I suppose an FFL could order the cheapest model available, then place it on display in the store (if required to do so by the new law) and jack up the price to where nobody will buy it. But it will satisfy the legal requirements to keep the doors open in NJ.

        I wonder if NJ is going the way of CA. Here in SoCal, we had multiple brick-and-mortar gun stores all over the place 25 years ago (before the Internetz). Now I can only think of a single one remaining within a fifty mile radius of my home.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          It is the opposite up here at the other end of the state. The brick & mortar stores stay in business by charging $75 plus the $25 DROS to do an internet transfer. Adding a C note and the shipping cost means that there is virtually no benefit of buying guns on the internet compared to the in-store price. I think that there have been at least three new stores opened int he past ten years, one of which is an AR manufacturer.

      2. avatar Southern Cross says:

        These are the points I made several days ago. To sell an item, you don’t need inventory. You can make a special order to the manufacturer or distributor. But you may need one as a demonstrator.

        But the devil is in the detail, and at some point there will be an amendment to the law where a minimum number of sales (probably percentage) have to be smart guns. Didn’t California try this with zero-emission vehicles with a mandated minimum percentage to be sold? Any number multiplied by zero is still zero. Zero smart gun sales equals zero gun sales.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Zero smart gun sales equals zero gun sales.”

          But, we can make laws that suspend business licenses for any gun seller failing to sell a set amount of smart guns per year.

  10. avatar daveinwyo says:

    If “smart” guns can be mandated, can we mandate “smart” politicians?
    If we can ban non-smart guns, can we ban non-smart politicians?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “If “smart” guns can be mandated, can we mandate “smart” politicians?
      If we can ban non-smart guns, can we ban non-smart politicians?”

      Politicians do the banning; self-limiting feature.

  11. avatar Aven says:

    I think the fascination with smart guns is just another way the anti gun forces are going after guns. The only thing the legislation will do is drastically increase the cost of guns. Regardless of the technology used to make them smart guns, how long do you think it will take for hackers to defeat the technology? I think the “fix” to defeat smart guns will be available within days of the introduction to the public or it will probably be done before then.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      But of course. Every time California bans another feature in an attempt to ban the sale of evil black rifles (EBRs), someone is on the market within days with a viable and legal work around. When California banned mag release buttons and mandated “fixed” magazines that could only be removed with a tool, the Bullet Button was invented. When they decided that Bullet Button rifles were evil “assault weapons” that had to be registered by July 1, 2019 or removed from the State/destroyed, pinned stocks and “fin grips” that did not qualify as “pistol grips” were invented that circumvented the definition, In addition, the definition was changed to require that the mag had to be fixed or removable only with disassembly of the action. To inventors, that meant splitting the upper and lower halves–even fractionally–qualified, and so devices were designed that allowed one to hit a paddle to crack the action a fraction of an inch, which in turn released the mag button. Alternately, there is a device that reloads through the ejection port.

      Where there is a will, there is a way.Necessity is the mother of invention. It will be the same with smart guns when they arrive.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        And then the media and politicians will say these “loopholes” are weakening their laws.

  12. avatar Bob Jones says:

    The first time a smart gun fails, either to not shoot when needed or shooting when not needed, trial lawyers will liquidate the manufacturer for making a faulty product. It is unreasonable to expect established manufacturer to produce and sell such a product unless their management is incompetent. PLCC would not apply in such a circumstance.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      ^^ This ^^

      If I recall correctly, NJ said it would mandate smart guns as soon as they’re available for purchase in the open market.

      Are we there yet? Are any viable models available? What manufacturer will volunteer to be the first to stray from the herd and be the vanguard for such unreliable technology? Even if proven to work during testing trials, the standards for draw-from-holster exercises is often 1.5 seconds or less. If an attacker closes in on me from the proverbial 7 yd distance with a knife and I go for my holster, will the gun “turn on” and operate if I don’t achieve a perfect grip (assuming fingerprints on sensors) in the heat of the moment?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Are any viable models available?”

        Glad you brought that out. Thinking this new law bypasses the older on, making it mandatory to have a smart gun for sale, whether there is one or not. Maybe following Californication Supreme Court regarding required micro-stamping of firing pin faces, cartridge cases, etc. ….a law is not unenforceable just because it cannot be complied with.

  13. avatar Richard Taylor says:

    Just as your cell phone, TV, car with onstar or almost anything else digital can be disabled remotely, perhaps by government order your smart gun will be no different. Not for me!

    1. avatar Paul says:

      My thought exactly. The so-called “smart gun” is a gun that listens to Big Brother’s voice, and obeys instantly. You or me telling it to shoot, is automagically over ridden by Big Brother’s voice.

  14. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Just make sure that ALL NJ law enforcement is armed with them before anyone else is required to carry one.

  15. avatar William says:

    Super and Easiest onl!nee Home opportunity for all. make 87 Dollars per hour and Make 52512 Dollars per month . All you just Need an Internet Connection and aComputer To Make Some Extra cash .Copy and open this webiste.

    HERE > http://Www.BriskGold.com

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Okay, TTAG editors. ^^ THIS ^^ comment above is the perfect candidate for removal, per your recently-stated intention of removing non-gun related content.

      Personally, I think the only comments that should ever be removed are those that promote illegal and harmful activity, but some funky and inconsistent censoring has been going on over the past week. Either allow everything to be visible regardless of content (such as on Zerohedge), or stick with a consistent oversight policy (such as on Survivalblog). Knowing what to expect will help TTAG’s reputation as a platform tremendously.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        I think a bot posts these, since this same ad appears on another thread. It can be hard to stop since it can just change its address to avoid a block.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          You can filter keywords or, crucially, URLs. If someone posts a url perhaps it should be held for review.

  16. avatar Dutch says:

    This is like requiring every car dealer to have a self driving car on the lot, for the children of course.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The only difference is that people really do want self driving cars. Just think, they can fire their chauffeur,, or do their nails/text and pay no attention to traffic while commuting to work. My God what a Utopia!!

  17. avatar David says:

    In order for the Democrats to completely ban something, they use the tactic of making it more and more difficult and more and more expensive to own because fewer people will be able to own guns! They do it in incremental steps so it’s less noticeable — much like the frog in the pot coming to a slow boil. That’s the tactic the animal rights organizations like the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) use, which is supported by the left to outlaw animal ownership. This law will make guns insanely more expensive and they’ll rejoice that this law will do this because fewer people will be able to own guns! The Democrats are doing the same with animal ownership!

  18. avatar Anymouse says:

    Smart guns have greater liability than current guns. Despite what livs claim, PLCAA doesn’t protect a company against a lawsuit for defective design or manufacturing (Rem 700 Walker triggers for example). A smart gun that doesn’t go bang when it needs to is a lawsuit. One that goes bang when it shouldn’t is another. A criminal who steals one and circumvents personalization for use in crimes is yer another. Smart gun companies are going to be sued out if existence if they’re not already bankrupted by lack of sales for their expensive and unreliable guns.

  19. avatar RMS1911 says:

    Non story
    1 supremacy clause
    2 infringement

  20. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    I myself prefer my fire arms not be pre-broken.

    So, we’re gonna make fire arms better by injecting flakey electronics or “internet of broken things” elements into them? How’s that work?

    The one, obvious advantage is that injecting infotech-based elements into a gun lets the overlords meter the gun’s operation at time of use. You have it. Whether you can use it is up to them, and their opinion of whether your use is appropriate, at that time.

  21. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    If they think the threat is immanent enough, they’ll issue you the “right” to fight back. What could be wrong with that?

  22. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    What could be wrong with that?

    Several folks from Sheriff Lyin’s jurisdication, a FL night club, various govt buildings, and the occasional street side-walk or bike path were unavailable for comment.

  23. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The pictures of shaneen Allen and Carol bowne and what happened to them should be on billboards all over the state of New Jersey.

    Yes it would cost $$$. But what better message is there in the tyrannical state of New Jersey?

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