Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Jersey Enacts 'Smart Gun' Law

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the no-comment dept.

Technology 1748

rmohr02 writes "New Jersey has just enacted legislation that would require all handguns to be able to recognize their owners and only fire when their owners grip them. Gun manufacturers will be required to implement this within three years of the NJ Attorney General's approval of an acceptable, commercially available model. One critic says 'No technology is foolproof--anyone who has a computer knows how many times it crashes.' I'm sure fellow /.ers will have something to say about that. Also on Google News"

cancel ×

1748 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I enact (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949864)

FIRST POST law!

I WIN!

Hmmm. (5, Funny)

FunkSoulBrother (140893) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949872)

If guns don't kill people, but people kill people, then wouldn't it follow that New Jersey should enact a "Smart People" law???

Re:Hmmm. (1)

Associate (317603) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949938)

Are you saying that no one in NJ would have a gun legally?

Re:Hmmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949996)

Yes, my sig sucks. But you're the moron commenting on it.

Dude! Your sig totally sucks!

If more than half NJ residents on assigned risk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4950027)



If more than half of NJ resident drivers are in the assigned risk category of drivers, and you can't trust 1/2 the motoring population, why would you trust them with guns?

Better yet, if you have a state where the residents allow a political party to break the law and install an illegible candidate into a federal office, why would you give guns to those that support lawlessness?

And for the poster in another thread that suggested going to NY to buy guns to bypass the NJ law, you must be joking. NY has a governor whose presidential ambitions caused him to sign an anti gun owner law a few years back. This, combined with a total failure to defend law abiding gun owners, and floating the possibility of reducing prison sentences for drug dealers makes NY a state that is following in NJ footsteps. Expect NY to be in the next handful of states that rush to adopt this law. Goint to NY to buy a handgun to bypass NJ laws is ridiculous. Besides, since the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens, they won't be breaking the law to bypass this law.

Get out and push legislation will save more lives. Too many schools are built near major roadways. Instead of lowering speeds to 20 mph or 15 mph near schools like some of the liberal anti-gunner legislators are pushing in NY, they should enact get out and push legislation. If they force car drivers to get out of their cars and push their cars while in the immediate vicinity of schools, more lives will be saved. Children's lives. Save the children!

in other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949874)

texas enacts smart fp law!

no fp for me, but ekrout is still a faggot

-- the ekrout troll

I WIN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949875)

I WON!

FP! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949876)

FP!

saw it first on http://news.google.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949877)

this was on news.google.com around noon today... old news...

Just something else to steal (1, Funny)

Kithraya (34530) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949879)

Now your common street thug will just be sure to chop off your hand when he takes your gun.

Just what does it prevent? (1)

George Walker Bush (306766) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949883)

What's to prevent someone from buying a gun in another state? And it does nothing for preventing gun crime. All it does is maybe prevent kids from finding their parents' guns and killing themselves, and the solution to THAT is responsible, diligent parenting.

Re:Just what does it prevent? (1, Troll)

dcocos (128532) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949910)

What's to prevent someone from buying a gun in another state? And it does nothing for preventing gun crime. All it does is maybe prevent kids from finding their parents' guns and killing themselves, and the solution to THAT is responsible, diligent parenting.

Seeing that if you have a gun in your house you are more likely to kill a family member than a criminal it is a start. Plus it will atleast help with the natural curiosity that kids have about the 'forbidden' items in the house

Re:Just what does it prevent? (2)

Kymermosst (33885) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949987)

Seeing that if you have a gun in your house you are more likely to kill a family member than a criminal

Care to quote your statistical source?

Re:Just what does it prevent? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4950011)

Most people don't keep a gun in the house to kill a criminal, they keep it to deter criminals from entering in the first place. If the criminal runs away when you brandish your gun, it has done its job. The gun-controllers' statistics plot criminal deaths in the home against accidental deaths in the home instead of plotting incidences of deterrence of a crime against accidental deaths. The latter is overwhelmingly a positive statistic.

Re:Just what does it prevent? (1)

Warped-Reality (125140) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950018)

Actually you're not, provided your not a dumbass who buys a gun and doesn't learn anything about it. If you have a well educated family, and you know anything about self-defense, then you shouldn't worry about that.

Re:Just what does it prevent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949916)

...the solution to THAT is responsible, diligent parenting.

Which is obviously working pretty well.

A: dead kids (3, Insightful)

feed_me_cereal (452042) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949937)

and the solution to THAT is responsible, diligent parenting

You mean a solution, not the solution. It seems that this technology would also be a solution, and given the percentage of brain-dead parents there are out there who own guns in reach of children, I think this solution will be much easier to implement than a "no brain-dead parents" law, however you might word that. And given the importance of not having holes in the heads of kids, and the frequency in which these accidents occur (much more than any other gun-related death), I think this is a very prudent decision.

Re:Just what does it prevent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949948)

Yes, yes it is. But since there aren't a lot of god-damned responsible parents out there, being that it is a problem, a little extra protection might save a few more lives from the hands of irresponsible people.

But I suppose a few kids accidentally blowing their brains out, and ending what could have been productive, eventful lives, isn't nearly worth the cost of having to pay a few extra bucks for your "protection" weapons.

Re:Just what does it prevent? (1)

Associate (317603) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949973)

I've known several people who have firearms laying around the house, loaded. These same people usually have already ruined whatever future their kids had, with other means of piss-poor parenting. These are the do as I say, not as I do parents.

Re:Just what does it prevent? (3, Interesting)

ADRA (37398) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949964)

Who does it hurt? I don't see this to pro-gun or anti-gun but a narrowing of the issue.

1. Someone can't break in and kill you with your own gun.

2. Bowling for .. well you know the name had a valid point on raising children.

3. Extra-state gun purchasing, well that is a given, but for every state to say "I am not doing it until my neighboring states do it will et one nowhere. It is good to see that someone has stood up and said this is important.

4. "responsible, diligent parenting" Like it or not, having this gun control measure enacted won't stop kids from killing themselves. Even having responsible and diligent parenting doesn't mean they won't be suicidal.

5. "does nothing for preventing gun crime" Besides point 1, how about preventing people from breaking in and stealing your gun? I am not sure about you, but there are not that many gangs hooked up in the information age. That doesn't mean there will be no "cracked" weapons, but it does mean that more ill-begotten firearms will be put into the hands of people that will use them. If the mechanism for disabling the gun were cracked on day 1, I am spositive that the law would save at least one life, and too me, it is worth it. Save lives not egos.

This tech + gelatin == no way to get caught. (1)

loucura! (247834) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949886)

Since handprints are easily fooled with gelatin, and since this will probably require a handprint (or it'll be useless), killers will -never- get caught.

Like in Judge Dredd... how creepy.

Re:This tech + gelatin == no way to get caught. (2)

Twirlip of the Mists (615030) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950037)

I don't think any of the current proposed technologies are based on biometrics. That's too much smarts to cram into a pistol. The system I'm most familiar with is a proximity system; the owner of the gun carries an identifying item that the gun can detect, and unless the gun is in immediate proximity of the item, it won't fire. And before you spew forth piss and vinegar, of course it's not foolproof. It's not meant to be.

Re:This tech + gelatin == no way to get caught. (1)

reddeno (155457) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950038)

Yes, all of those 13-year-olds with their little gelatin kits. Indeed.

Good idea (3, Insightful)

spiro_killglance (121572) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949888)

If your going to allowed to carry guns, at least
they should be made so someone else can't use them
against you. I am sure some gun nuts here, are
going to be against the idea, but i can't imagine
a reason why. And yeah it probably won't be secure at first, and they'll be underground gangs rechiping the guns. But it makes it harder for criminals to get guns and that has to be good.

Re:Good idea (1)

La_Boca (201988) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949917)

Well actually, what this really prevents against is a child accidently shooting the gun off, or using his father's gun to bring to school and shoot .

Re:Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4950030)

No it doesn't, because policemen's weapons are exempt from this law and it is the children of policemen who are often killed accidently when they find daddy's gun.

Re:Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949940)

Yeah, what happens when little boys cut off their father's hands and the bring BOTH the guns AND the severed hands to school?

Re:Good idea (2, Insightful)

Associate (317603) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949960)

Not to mention, if I were a criminal in NJ, I'd just get a gun from out of state. That's a lot easier than reprogramming a chip or hacking someone's hand off.

Re:Good idea (5, Insightful)

pi_rules (123171) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949970)

If your going to allowed to carry guns, at least
they should be made so someone else can't use them
against you.


Agreed... but I would much rather prefer that my wife of one of my children are able to pick up a handgun I own to defend themselves in the event that I'm disabled... perhaps after being shot an an intruder.


I am sure some gun nuts here, are
going to be against the idea, but i can't imagine
a reason why.


See above for why.

And yeah it probably won't be secure at first, and they'll be underground gangs rechiping the guns. But it makes it harder for criminals to get guns and that has to be good.


Yep... all them law abiding criminals that buy guys legally will certainly be up shit creek without a paddle on this one. Thank goodness we're preventing law abiding citizens from buying a gun that will fire at the pull of a trigger. So what if the WinCE device in your pistol fails when you need it.

Anti-gun advocates: The #1 reason any thinking human purchases a gun for is it's reliability. I do not want to put my life on the line when I need it to something that -may- fail based on my fingerprint. I'll take the risk of my own firearm being used against me. When I go to sleep at night the only unlocked firearm is the one sitting right next to my bed. That's the answer -- not fingerprint technology.

Re:Good idea (2)

Borealis (84417) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950006)

It's worth noting that the law seems to apply only to manufacturers/retailers. I'm sure that the day this hits the market there will be a conversion kit to disable it. I wonder how they plan on policing gun shows (assuming NJ has any after this law is enacted).

How long will it be before the first lawsuit based on the inability of a gun owner to use his gun to defend himself resulting in death or injury?

I'm also wondering what they do for antique enthusiasts. Just how do you put a fingerprint check on a flint lock?

Gun sales in the surrounding states will likely soar (no sales tax in Delaware even).

Re:Good idea (2, Interesting)

Talennor (612270) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950012)

Yeah, but what happens when these 'smart' guns really get smart and start aiming for you, maybe something of a friendly fire option to keep people your family safe. It's not something that should be forced upon people, but improvement can be made until people actually want it, that is if they can afford it.

they'll never learn (1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949891)


great, now we have to use guns that might not fire when we need them too. i hope the "smart guns" don't run windoze CE or something. sheesh.

"Freeze, Mr. Burglar"
"WTF?"
"wait, i gotta reboot my piece. don't move"
Burglar kicks the shit out of the victim

Re:they'll never learn (0, Offtopic)

JeanPaulBob (585149) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950019)

What? You modded this as a troll? Moron.

The Sopranos go High Tech! (5, Interesting)

_Sambo (153114) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949892)

What a great black market is being created here. Soon, on the Sopranos, you'll see the Italian geek boy, with the obligatory nerd goggles. He'll be known as the technical officianado de la cosa nostra. When he gets a support call, it'll be a real life and death situation.

Cracker markets are as follows: rigging the guns to fire when anyone picks them up.

Bio-cracking: making the customer's biometrics fit those of the gun's owner.

Disabling the protection.

Those are a few off the top of me head.

Only one question will remain: Does the tech mob guy get to wear a big gold cross?

Usually, specialization is for insects, but... (1)

Kickasso (210195) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949943)

in this case specialization, together with symbiosis, will really do wonders. The tech mob guy will be a specialized beast. He won't be wearing a big gold cross. Think a big gold Star of David instead.

Re:Usually, specialization is for insects, but... (1)

Associate (317603) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949997)

More like a big gold penguin. And he'll wear a hat. A black one.

Re:Usually, specialization is for insects, but... (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950039)

*L* And hopefully an EMP shield. ;-)

interesting... (4, Interesting)

hagbard5235 (152810) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949896)

I'm curious if when this legislation goes into effect if all new handguns issued to NJ police officers to contain this technology or if handguns for police have been exempted.

Re:interesting... (2)

pi_rules (123171) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949933)


I'm curious if when this legislation goes into effect if all new handguns issued to NJ police officers to contain this technology or if handguns for police have been exempted.


I'd imagine they would be exempted -- I can't imagine going on the job and trusting my life to something other than my own self keeping my own gun by my side to protect me. I don't seen any police officer ever actually considering this to be a safety device to themselves.

Re:interesting... (2)

hagbard5235 (152810) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949978)

If you can't imagine a police officer trusting this technology on their handguns, which they keep to protect themselves, why should a law abiding citizen trust them?

Re:interesting... (1)

jjh37997 (456473) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950036)

I can't imagine a police officer not wanting this tech. for his personal gun. This way he can go after a suspect without having to worry that his gun might be used against him. Even if the criminal gets the upper hand the gun would be rendered useless.

Re:interesting... (5, Interesting)

stefanlasiewski (63134) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949967)

Actually, I've always throught that US cops should had the gun attached to their belt by a cable, just like they do in many European and Asian countries.

Drop your gun? Well, at least somebody can't pick it back up and shoot you. According to these guys [ncpa.org] , "10 percent of police who are shot are shot with their own guns".

Who gets hurt... (1)

Talennor (612270) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949897)

by this is the people that sell guns in New Jersey. It's like outlawing fireworks, people just go across the state line to get them. So if you want a cheap gun get an older used one that isn't 'smart' or bring your business elsewhere. I'm sure that the shop owners will be pretty pissed off, and that this won't help lower crime at all. I'm glad that legislatures look ahead, I just hope that they are planning on repealing the law once the technology comes up to speed on the issue. That would be a really good plan.

Re:Who gets hurt... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949959)

How is this going to hurt gun owners? The only people who wouldn't want to buy smart guns are criminals, and one would think a gun shop owner wouldn't want to sell his wares to murderers.

Nothing's getting outlawed, it's being made more secure.

Re:Who gets hurt... (1)

Talennor (612270) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949975)

Problem is that it's all about the price. There is a difference between an oiled piece of metal and something wired with a circit board and sensors. It will be heavy and unreliable in its first few models. There are many things that could keep me from buying one of these.

New catch-phrase? (1)

di0s (582680) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949899)

"No technology is foolproof--anyone who has a computer knows how many times it crashes"
The blue trigger of death?

Re:New catch-phrase? (1)

robzster1977 (518768) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949936)

More like "403 - Forbidden"

Re:New catch-phrase? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949988)

Maybe more like

anyone who has a Windows computer knows how many times it crashes.

Just buy 'em out of state (1)

NitroWolf (72977) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949900)

People will just buy guns out of state... not really a big deal.

Although, I like this concept to a degree. I currently live alone, and I keep a gun handy... because I know that if anyone is in my house, it's not anyone that should be there. I feel secure that if I were to be forced to shoot someone, I would not be shooting someone accidentally that I had not intended to do harm.

All that changes though if I get married or have someone living with me. I won't keep a gun around, so that either I, myself, could make a mistake, or the person living with me shoots me coming home late.

Having a gun that would only fire by my own hand would be a good compromise for me, as I would feel secure walking in my house late at night, knowing my wife won't get antsy and accidentally shoot me (or god forbid I piss her off somehow...).

It would still leave me with the problem of potentially shooting someone who might be there, but it would eliminate a big portion of my reservations towardsd keeping a gun easily accessable in the house with more than one person living there. (Lets face it, if you keep a gun locked up and not easily accessable, there's no real point in keeping the gun for "self defense." If you need it for self defense one dark night, you won't have time to find the key, open up the locker, load it and bring it to bear.)

I'd like to see some robust smart gun technology hit the shelves, it would be great. (That doesn't require a bracelet or any "extra" accoutraments to work)

Re:Just buy 'em out of state (1)

bucephalis (165674) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950021)

Of course, when your wife/so is home alone at night, and hears a window break, and someone enter, she will have to use your gun in degraded ("club") mode....

My God. (2, Insightful)

rjch (544288) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949901)

It never ceases to amaze me just how many dumb and stupid laws that politicians put in place. We've all had a laugh at the laws which prohibit beheading your wife in public on Fridays and other such nonsense, but what we don't realise is that that these laws are still being passed.

Look at Australia's internet censorship laws [efa.org.au] . Less than two years later, it was pointed out that they had come in to effect, but were totally unworkable and had never seriously been applied. This sounds to me like very much the same kind of law.

If people believe I'm wrong that these proposed laws, I'd like to know why you think it and how you think it could be implemented and enforced.

Re:My God. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949958)

But on another note, the stupid critics who say things like, 'look how much your computer crashes...' should be shot. Most technology we use today is virtually fool proof. When was the last time your digital watch crashed?

Re:My God. (1)

brandonY (575282) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949979)

No, it's not. If you'd have read the article, you'd notice that the system is no required until 3 years after the attorney general decides that these technologies are commercially available. In other words, if nobody manufactures these, then the law won't come into effect. Only 3 years after one of the gun companies starts selling a smart gun will it be required that all of them sell nothing but smart guns. That's not a crazy law at all.

Timothy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949902)

You and Michael are pathetic fucktards. Why don't you just come out and say that you want this to be a gun control debate?

Oh, and I'm sure the eurocunts and canadian pussies whose governments have taken away their guns will have something to say. Of course, they've been all brainwashed to think that guns are somehow sentient and kill by themselves.

Later leftist bitches. We'll be kicking Saddam's ass and there's not a damn thing you eurocunts can do about it.

Oh, and a shout out to the muslims. All of you subhuman mutants will soon be going to meet your 80 virgins or whatever.

HERF guns vs. guns (3, Interesting)

evenprime (324363) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949906)

I wonder if these things will be hardened against EMP attacks. If not, it would not matter if they used a transponder ring or fingerprint recognition; either way a powerful radio signal is all a criminal would need to disable all the guns in a home before breaking in.

I'm especially interested in the transponder ring systems. I'm sure that hardware types will try cobbling together a universal ring...

Re:HERF guns vs. guns (2)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949939)

Er... most theives don't carry around nuclear weapons to generate EMP pulses - and if they did, we'd have more to worry about than disabled trigger locks.

There are enough legitimate criticisms of this technology - don't go inventing absurd ones.

hmm? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949949)

Nuclear weapons are not required to generate EMP... ...dumbass.

Obligatory LOTR misquote. . . (1)

D+iz+a+n+k+Meister (609493) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950026)

One ring to shoot them all!!

guns dont kill people (2)

deft (253558) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949907)


clicking fire instead of cancel by mistake kills people.

I'm just worried about.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949913)

what happens when the gun gets to know me enough to dislike me and turn on me.

Well (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949914)

Old guns will not have this, and I bet all your home boys and drug runners will get somebody to hack it.

So it may not be full proff, but some lives will be saved.

What happens when you forget your smary ring (5, Insightful)

PaK_Phoenix (445224) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949919)

Most of these type devices, that I have seen, involve a magnetic ring of some type. My only concern is what happens, when you take it off.

Nightmare scenario, you fall asleep without your ring on, and awaken to the sound of a burgler, but forget your magic ring.

Also the reliability of the device would have to be paramount, due to the device they will be installed upon. What happens when this breaks?

Education is the key. I grew up around guns, as did others in my neighborhood. Even as children we knew how to operate, and maintain them.

Responsible parents need to accept the liabilities associated with gun ownership, and lock up their firearms as appropriate, when there are children in the environment.

p.s. on a related, but barely, topic if parents would start parenting, instead of letting the tv, and computer raise their children, this issue would be practically moot.

Re:What happens when you forget your smary ring (2)

lennart78 (515598) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950004)

First of all, if the protection is delivered in the form of a ring, it's no big deal, because you can trade your gun with anyone who has at least 1 finger about the same size as you...

Second: Why do people think it is necessary to have a gun in their home for defensive purposes? Do you intend to actually fire that gun at a potential burglar? You'll probably be sued for it, especially in the USA.

Education definitley is important. If you're involved with guns in any way, it's important to be very well aware of every implication. But how does that stop your average frustraded office-clerk or teased-over-the-edge schoolkid from grabbing one in a fit of rage/anger/frustration? What good is education when you've allready lost your wits?

Re:What happens when you forget your smary ring (2)

Xpilot (117961) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950009)

Sauron had this problem too. He kept losing his magic ring to short people with furry feet. But he made up for it by having an army of orcs and black riders to retrieve it for him. Maybe you could do try that eh?

hey! that's not a smart gun! (2, Funny)

Kargan (250092) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949920)

Every Shadowrunner knows that smart gun technology is something else all together (integration of the gun's sighting system into a cybernetic type of retinal display.)

I'm sorry, but the mainstream media is just going to have to find some other term.

Logos (1)

Associate (317603) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949921)

Designed for Microsoft Windows (Read literal BSOD)

Just another stupid law... (0, Flamebait)

HBI (604924) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949922)

The home of Torricelli, Harrison Williams - nay, the very bastion of corruption in government provides us with more stunning legislation sure to cure the nation's ills.

After all, criminals will be sure to get 'smart' guns. Ditto for inner city residents looking for personal protection. Right? I mean they can't speak english - resist it, even, but they'll get a smart gun. For sure.

More crap that sounds plausible but is really utterly useless. Cheers, Trenton!

Anyone got any ideas for where to move? 33 years of NJ bullshit is enough for any one person.

Buy a handgun somewhere else? (1)

Peapod (568493) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949924)

Wouldn't this only apply to guns sold in NJ and therefore be easy enough to say, drive to NY and purchase one without the technology built into it (which would probably mean that its cheaper?)?

Also, like the article said, its kind of silly for NJ to legislate requireing the use of something that isn't yet out on the market (and therefore untested)?

Oh well, we'll see what develpes.

moo

Re:Buy a handgun somewhere else? (2)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950017)

Buying a handgun legally in NY is pretty near impossible.

You need to get a permit from a local court, and have it endorsed every couple of years, or anytime to buy or sell a handgun.

At any time, some county judge can refuse to renew your permit and you are required to surrender your handgun to the local police without compensation. With a quality handgun costing well over $1200, this is a bad thing!

For all practical purposes, it is near impossible to get a firearm of any kind in NYC legally and impossible to get a firearm in any suburb of NYC. These laws have been very effective in removing weapons from the city. (hehe)

Re:Buy a handgun somewhere else? (2)

pi_rules (123171) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950032)

At any time, some county judge can refuse to renew your permit and you are required to surrender your handgun to the local police without compensation. With a quality handgun costing well over $1200, this is a bad thing!

E-gads. I dunno about NY, but here in Michigan the Glock 21 sititng next to me only ran $550 USD.. and I'd consider that a quality gun.

www.marijuanahomedelivery.ca (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949925)

You can soon order marijuana on the internet and its legal. Or its legal if you live in canada and suffer from one of 200 doctor diagnosed aliments including "hiccups" and "constipation".


dont belive me. see the web site:


www.marijuanahomedelivery.ca


Now all you need is a mail forwarding company.

Re:www.marijuanahomedelivery.ca (1)

robzster1977 (518768) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949953)

Yeah....

Can I interest you in a new handgun to protect your stock? Handprint included free....

Computers...crashess...life threatening... (1)

warsteiner (592671) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949926)

I'm sure glad that no one else has decided to embed computers in other life sustaining things such as hospital I.V. machines...

Re:Computers...crashess...life threatening... (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950031)

Excuse me, a gun is not a life sustaining piece.

What do you mean?

Fluff (2)

core plexus (599119) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949932)

It's just fluff, some politician making some press for himself. "This is commonsense legislation. There are safety regulations on cars, on toys. It's clearly time we have safety regulations on handguns," McGreevey said at the signing ceremony. Really, as everyone knows, toys, cars, and guns don't kill people; bacteriam viruii, people, dogs, and rarely sharks and bears kill people.

It's nonsense legislation. Zip guns, black powder guns, archery, shit-tipped sharpened sticks (or the modern equivalent, the syringe), machetes (Australia post "gun control"), etc. etc. What about someone who can kill with their anatomical weapons?

Re:Fluff (2)

Woogiemonger (628172) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949976)

Well, while I don't agree with you, because I think it's obvious that guns make it all-too-easy for Columbine to happen, and there's nothing wrong with safeties being installed in guns, I do think it's interesting that McGreevey passed this legislation before the technology even exists. It looks like an easy way to look good in the public eye right now, without actually getting anything done any time soon.

The law-abiding citizen ends up paying for it all (3, Insightful)

pvera (250260) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949944)

The handgun manufacturers will probably pull it off, but at a price premium. This of course punishes the law-abiding citizen that buys the weapon fair and square and does not break any law. The criminal will continue unchecked, since even after these weapons come to the market they will still have their normal venues for finding these weapons.

Will the NJ gun-banners apply military standards? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949945)



In the very controversial testing (I believe at least 6 manufacturers, possibly as many as 9 or more submitted entries) and acceptance of the 9 mm beretta as the replacement to US military (not all branches) sidearm in preference over the Colt .45, the handguns had to pass tests that included over a certain number of successful firings in all types of conditions, no cleaning, mud, water, etc. (was it 1,000? 10,000? 25,000?, someone want to look it up?) without a single jam. In repeated tests, none of the guns were perfect (though the beretta and colt came damn close), but beretta was compromised on because foreign nations in nato had adopted the 9 mm over the .45 as the standard caliber for interoperability between nations.

So will the NJ gun-banners apply a reliability factor into the requirement so the 100,000+ persons in the US who use guns defensively in the US will be able to protect themselves reliably, or will the NJ gun banners be happy that the gun simply doesn't fire, period?

my gun fires (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949947)

when gripped by just about anybody.

Seriously though, WTG lawmakers. Now I feel very secure and safe. I think this will stop all crime. Brilliant, just brilliant. Really, fucking-A good job. I can't believe no one else thought of this before. Revolutionize the whole business of fighting crime. Amazing.

ECM your smart gun, doh! (2)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949950)

If they have a hand held ECM gun, you could render the gun useless. Does this mean, you could ECM the police too? The police already want ECM weapons for police cars and helicopters. They could stop cars, now they could stop your gun too.

But then, I feel secure. I have homeland security protecting me from Rapists and Murders. (I laughed while I typed that.)

Let the cops work out the bugs first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949952)

If this stuff is so safe and works so well, why don't the cops carry them? They have much more problems with their guns being taken away and used against them. Then, after they have proven how reliable this brand-new technology is, maybe it's time for civilians to start using it.

Guns won't "crash" (3, Interesting)

saskboy (600063) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949954)

"One critic says 'No technology is foolproof--anyone who has a computer knows how many times it crashes.' "

That is utter foolishness. A gun will not have an OS, it will be hard coded. My microwave doesn't 'crash' and I don't think my gun would either.

The more serious concern is how easy it would be to fool the gun. I can fool my microwave pretty easily, so I'd expect the same from a gun.

Re:Guns won't "crash" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4950001)

I crashed my microwave once.

but what happens if.... (1)

Sublimed (122984) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949956)

somebody pulls a gun on me, i knock it out of their hand and then try to shoot them....... if it's a smart gun...... i guess...... i better just run!!

(and give up trying to rhyme words...)

Re:but what happens if.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949986)

Now, if you have their gun... why would you need to shoot them? One would assume they'd no longer be a big threat to you, especially if you were able to knock a gun from their hands in the first place.

gun != PC (2)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949961)

One critic says 'No technology is foolproof--anyone who has a computer knows how many times it crashes.'

That's one of the most absurd statements I've heard against this kind of technology. A gun is not at all comparable in complexity to a PC. How many times does the computer running your car crash? What about the computer in your watch? The one running your kitchen appliances? They don't - because they're simple, one purpose devices, just like a handgun's trigger lock would be.

Sure, All Technology is Fallible (1)

teece (159752) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949963)

Don't you hate that crap?

"We can't trust technology, look how often Windows Crashes ..."

Sure, Windows does crash a lot. But the software that flies the stealth fighter or the space shuttle rarely, if ever, crashes.

Darn Microsoft, and poor software engineering in general, gave the Luddites so much ammunition.

Tim

PS -> Although I am not saying this technology will be easy to implement, just that the computer crashing argument is silly.

Holy Asshats, Batman! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949966)

This gun won't fire. Call the A-Team (by god, they can make any gun fire).

pessimism flame (1)

Eric Pierce (636318) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949972)

"No technology is foolproof"

No shit. Nothing is foolproof and nothing ever will be. I know you're not suggesting that no one *tries* anything, so clarify yourself.

And give someone credit for *effort* once in a while.

Eric P.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (-1, Redundant)

CmdrTypo (603848) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949983)

"smart gun" recognizes YOU!

Handguns shouldn't even be legal.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4949985)

Not even to manufacture. Someone should chase down those damn NRA bastards and cap thier asses.

My point of view (2)

bogie (31020) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949992)

Being a NJ resident I am happy to finally see SOMETHING/ANYTHING being done to control gun violence. I'm just surprised the NRA couldn't lobby its way out of this, although I'm sure they tried like hell.

Anyway, being that many deaths by firearm occur in the home I think this will help on two fronts. First if someone steals your gun(it happens) it will be temporarly worthless to them, ie they can't kill you if they get to the gun first. They also can't use it to kill anyone once they're out of your house. Second it can hopefully prevent little Johnny from A) blowing his friends head off by mistake and B) prevent him from bringing it to school and harming anyone.

Yea big deal, you can still buy guns out of state and existing firearms don't have the technology. No shit. If all goes well NJ in the future will probably have significantly fewer accidental gun deaths then other states. That sure as hell would make me happy.

Don't forget, gun violence in the home is a serious problem as that's actually more likely then some stanger shooting you if your a gun owner.

I just hope the technology works and this isn't somehow overturned by gun nuts.

back-door to big-brother id cards? (1, Interesting)

ezakimak (160186) | more than 11 years ago | (#4949998)

Well, I don't see how they could possibly implement this w/o some sort of id tag on the owner. It should be interesting to see how they attempt to implement this in any reasonable fashion, if it is indeed possible...

"...after the state attorney general determines a smart gun prototype is safe..." Since when are guns safe? They are inherently unsafe last I checked--as implements of destruction usually are.

How does the mechanism they descibe (the grip test) prevent "accidental gun deaths and suicide"? If the owner grips it and fires, _it will go off_ --that's it's purpose! Also, will their 'grip id' work through gloves? It doesn't seem likely. If not, cops couldn't wear gloves in the winter!

Even more interesting, would be to follow the money trail to see who's really trying to make a buck...

Potential lawsuits...against the guns now? (1)

gmerideth (107286) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950010)

Someone breaks into my house holding one of 220+ millions guns that do NOT have electronic control and points it at me; me, being scared to death have a very sweaty hand, possibly holding it in the wrong hand, jittering and nervous pull the trigger only to be told by the gun "Sorry, thats not my owner holding me" and refuses to fire while the bad guy, who doesnt' give a shit about these things, shoots me dead.

The minute a gun refuses to fire in a situation due to bad battery, loose wire, bad reception, mis-red palm print, battery in the watch is dead or whatever and the owner ends up dead the lawsuits are going to be insane.

And, back to whats been said 1,000 times during these hearings. This does not actually *STOP* people killing themselves, nor does it *STOP* minors from shooting their friends. There are 200+ million guns out there that are not flagged in this manor.

This law makes people "feel good" while preventing nothing.

Amazing america.

It's available now. (2)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950013)

Smart gun technology is available today, and is completely practical. If you don't believe me, here's a simulator [keepandbeararms.com] for the technology...

Here's a brainstorm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4950015)

...if the problem with guns is that they kill people, maybe we shouldn't even have them. I can see this technology becoming useful (eventually) but with it comes new legal realms that will only waste time and taxpayer money, for example, will police and military within the state be required to abide by these laws as well? Too much time and hot air will be wasted on issues such as the aformentioned because people will be too afraid to consider the (logical) alternative, that guns should be fully outlawed. Usually I am for protecting any and all rights, but guns and gun related violence is something that we, as an educated people, have put up with for far too long, far after their usefulness in the law. We are no longer in fear of the King of England coming over and pushing us around, we as Americans do that enough on the political stage to other peoples as it is, shouldn't we begin to take the next step as a society and realize that the only way for us as a society to grow is to relinquish our trigger finger? Some of us have guns for protection, some for hunting, no one intends to kill anyone with them, but still, it happens. Let's grow up, forget the trite "well, I had a gun as a kid and was properly taught how to use it" arguments, take a long look in the mirror, and realize that guns are not necessary, are foolish, and represent a throwback to days long past?

Gun restrictions AND tech-naivety! (4, Funny)

tgrotvedt (542393) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950020)

Looks like their trying to piss off ESR two-fold!

Watch out, he might start writing essays again!!

:)

How does this help exactly? (1)

FearUncertaintyDoubt (578295) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950023)

I mean, the gun doesn't detect if you are a psycho. It just says, yes, you are the psycho who purchased this gun. Go ahead and fire. I guess we can sleep safe at night that criminals will now be able to purchase guns that can't be used against them.

Homegrown Industry for Smith and Wesson? (1)

Fireshadow (632041) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950034)

New Jersey Institute of Technology has partnered with Smith and Wesson to develop this technology back in 2001.
Quote: "SCOTTSDALE, Arizona - Saf-T-Hammer Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: SAFH - news), the Scottsdale, Arizona-based firearm safety and security company, today announced that its wholly owned subsidiary, Smith & Wesson Corporation, has announced a partnership with the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT). In a formal agreement signed July 18, 2001, Smith & Wesson agreed to work with NJIT towards integrating the university's biometric identification system into the electronically fired Authorized-User-Only prototype handguns that use ammunition developed by Remington Arms. The NJIT approach is a different technology from other biometric identification systems being evaluated by Smith & Wesson."
Reference this link [iansa.org] . [iansa.org] IMHO - the New Jersey legislature is just creating a need for S & W new products.

One Gun / Multiple Owners (2, Insightful)

nanop (155318) | more than 11 years ago | (#4950035)

I'm know gun ownership is different than ownership of other items, but I assume a gun can be owned by more than one person.

The article talks a lot about "the owner" and "the authorized user" of the weapon; I hope they're taking into account the possibility of multiple owners or else they may be giving the gun rights folks ammo (heh heh) for their inevitable fight to have the law repealed.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?