SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
German firearms manufacturer Armatix LLC is planning to release its second smart gun in the U.S. next year after sales of its first model -- the .22 caliber iP1 -- were quashed by pressure from some gun owners and gun rights advocates who saw it as a threat to Second Amendment freedoms.
Unlike the iP1, which used RFID technology, the new iP9 9mm semi-automatic pistol will have a fingerprint reader. The iP9 will be available in mid-2017, according to Wolfgang Tweraser, CEO and president of Amratix LLC.
How long before the smart guns go all WOPR?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
German Arms Maker Armatix to Release Second Smart Gun in U.S.
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 49 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Grelb's Reminder:
Eighty percent of all people consider themselves to be above
average drivers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @09:59AM
And those words are relevant to the question of offering weapons with fingerprint sensors how?
How does the existence of weapons with fingerprint sensors, no matter how bad that idea may be, infringe on your right to own a weapon? Want a weapon without fingerprint sensor? Well. then just don't buy this one. I mean, there's more than enough weapons that don't have this technology.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:05PM
A law in New Jersy ("Childproof Handgun Law of 2002") makes the demand that once personalized (aka "smart") handguns are available anywhere in the USA, all handguns sold in New Jersey must be "smart guns" within 30 months.
Considering that such "smart guns" are less smart than a commuter bicycle tied to a dozen cinder blocks, perhaps you will now be enlightened as to why some people in the USA correctly identify the very existence and availability of "smart guns" (in conjunction with unConstitutional laws such as the one from NJ) as a direct infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Much like a fire extinguisher, when a defensive firearm needs to be used, it needs to work immediately.
Call me when you choose to buy "smart fire extinguishers" for [nih.gov] your [mashable.com] home [ewn.co.za].
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Foobar Bazbot on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:40PM
Yeah, but that law IS unconstitutional, and WILL be struck down, so it doesn't matter. I can see why New Jersey residents would be annoyed by this, but they've got a thirty-month window to buy whatever guns they need to wait out the court case, or to move to another state. And the rest of us, who don't live in New Jersey (or anywhere else with such dumb unconstitutional laws) will remain unaffected. So I really don't care whether someone brings smart guns to market or not -- I think they badly overestimate the market, but it's their money to lose, and doesn't affect me at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:08PM
In order to strike a law down using the courts, a case involving the law must be brought to the courts. The person bringing the case to the courts needs to have standing to do so, which usually means the person has had criminal charges levied at them!
So, unless you like the idea of a dice roll with your own meager resources versus the effectively unlimited resources of government which also has armed agents with carte blanche to ultimately kill you if you resist - it DOES matter!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:58PM
I guess the manufacturer of a non-smart gun who wants to sell it in that state would have a standing. And probably also enough money to fight in court. And not more to lose than it pays for the lawsuit (when losing, the manufacturer is in no worse position than before — actually the company image effect alone might be worth the cost of the lawsuit, as their customers are surely not the proponents of gun control), but much to win (namely a market).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:04PM
They are relevant as they could be legal.
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
Right now the congress has basically abdicated its role. So that means anything goes until they prescribe what is right and wrong.