[XHartman]

I have been working on a framework for smart gun technologies. This isn't a smart gun that any person can buy but a set of design specs for hardware manufacturers, control module manufacturers/developers, and licensing. Think of things in the terms of a modified AR platform.
-The lower receiver can have a modification from the baseline design that allows electronic unlock of the safety or the sear. This may require an additional hole from the grip frame area. On the plus side if a buyer doesn't want a smart gun - they don't buy the additional control module.
-The control module has certain physical limitations for where it would fit into the pistol grip and how it connects to the servo that engages the safety mechanism.
-The grip itself will have some criteria to house the electronics - mounting hole locations and a minimum set of internal dimensions

Firearms manufacturers can focus on building firearms. Other manufacturers can focus on building control modules.

But what about the states or localities that try to force the purchasing of smart guns? The licensing restricts the sale of any components in areas where smart guns are mandated. Essentially this should protect consumers from being forced into buying smart guns.

I know that NJ has a law that refers to smart pistols sold anywhere in the US as triggering them. This is part of why my initial work has been with rifles. I think the existence of the framework and licensing may support challenges to the NJ law. i.e. release the framework with rifles as the initial objects. The existence of the framework may make a challenge to the law viable.

So - with all of that said - what would you like to see in the framework? If you were making a control module - how would you want to unlock it?

 

[grizcty]

In my opinion, from the definition you posted above.
Smart Guns = just another form of GUN CONTROL

Which means that I am 100% AGAINST it!!

 

[XHartman]

My goal is to get innovation started, allow consumers to buy what they want, and prevent it from being legally required.

 

[ChaZam]

If there is any form of impetus or control that is in play other than the firearms owner on the trigger and their conscious decisions, someone else can be making your decisions for you or overriding you at a crucial time...

 

[XHartman]

Chazam - valid point. What about a lock that just disengages the safety? Much like a trigger lock. Unlock it and it stays unlocked for 30 minutes (or whatever time you set). This is probably NOT the option for a SHTF firearm but may be for others.

What if a range or gun store could have the lock engage if the firearms were stolen? i.e. they go through the front door and the lock engages. Kind of like the anti-theft tags on clothes or other items.

 

[Big Dog]

While I welcome innovation in all areas, it should NOT be mandated by law. Let We The People have our choices.

 

[ChaZam]

Chazam - valid point. What about a lock that just disengages the safety? Much like a trigger lock. Unlock it and it stays unlocked for 30 minutes (or whatever time you set). This is probably NOT the option for a SHTF firearm but may be for others.

What if a range or gun store could have the lock engage if the firearms were stolen? i.e. they go through the front door and the lock engages. Kind of like the anti-theft tags on clothes or other items.

If it could be controlled or disabled externally for what you deem to be a legitimate reason it could be similarly disabled for any and all reasons... The only thing you need to know about gun control, even this type, is that the end result is aimed at people control. No thanks...

 

[338RUM]

First off, lets cut the "smart gun" buzz words... it is not SMART it is a "computer assisted rifle" and secondly I feel that your wording of this new... stuff... means you would love to be awarded a government contract for your work or a law passed for your work...

I personally place smart gun pushers in the same place as rabid anti gun liberals... only worse as they really think they are helping people...

 

[ChaZam]

I'm with 338RUM about things like these so called smart guns. I think they could only be hatched up by people who are actually opposed to the 2nd amendment and people who support the 2nd amendment. So I have to ask XHartman, whose side are you really on???

 

[GSFixit]

I love the concept of the Tracking Point rifle, but that's as close as I come to approving a technology assisted firearm. But even they have disadvantages that would preclude my ever wanting one. In particular, the wireless communications ability.

The only way I could see myself agreeing to even the concept of smart guns becoming available was if there was a federal law precluding any state or local government, or the federal government from requiring their use by anyone for any reason, and we all know that as soon as someone has them commercially available, the government will require their use. After all, "it's for the children" will be the mantra once again.

If it was truly mandated by law, (and unfortunately, I think it would require a constitutional amendment to place the law securely enough to prevent it's simply being repealed), that it couldn't be forced on anyone, then I would still have to say, no.

I'm sorry. I love technology. Technology has been at the forefront of my life since I was still in school (I'm an electronic tech, and have also done design work on military simulation equipment, as well as some other equipment), but I personally have to draw the line at anything that the government could use to prevent the use of arms.

Let's face it, a localized transmitter in a police car could disable guns in the area of the police. Cellular transmitters could be used in the same way. Embedded GPS (mandated by law in cellular equipment) would be an obvious problem. Heck, even the bad guys could obtain jammers, and worse case scenario, either a localized or strategic EMP would kill the circuitry, rendering the smart gun useless.

I know they are coming, but I will never allow one in my home.

 

[thrillbilly]

I don't even like the newer frame locks on revolvers and some pistols. No way in hell do I buy a "smart" gun. I don't think people should even be designing these pieces of crap....it just gives libtards ideas.

In short....stop it, just.....stop.

 

[338RUM]

This is about as good of an idea as the 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 pistols... it was all fun and games till the government got involved and starting banning shit...

 

[Chris]

So I have to ask XHartman, whose side are you really on???

This isn't the political section, zero tolerance for remarks like this.

 

[FN FAL]

Here is a thought, before adding a forum so controversial as this put it to a vote say of the contributing members. Personally it rubs me really wrong to have such an anti freedom subject even be discussed let alone become a forum for its possible advancement or implementation in any shape or form. We all know if you give the anti's any foothold or even the hope of pushing an inch they will go for miles. I am still ashamed of the NRA and their caving in which helped bring about the AWB in 1994 and if I had some way to cash in the life membership and donate it to a more local grass roots freedom type organization I would.

 

[338RUM]

Here is a thought, before adding a forum so controversial as this put it to a vote say of the contributing members. Personally it rubs me really wrong to have such an anti freedom subject even be discussed let alone become a forum for its possible advancement or implementation in any shape or form. We all know if you give the anti's any foothold or even the hope of pushing an inch they will go for miles. I am still ashamed of the NRA and their caving in which helped bring about the AWB in 1994 and if I had some way to cash in the life membership and donate it to a more local grass roots freedom type organization I would.

Follow the money, how much did you donate vs this Xhartman guy. I use to contribute until I realized they still do not care. Period.

 

[CountryBoy]

NO NO NO NO NO NO and did I say NO. No way, don't want anything to do with it.


Sent from "Somewhere" via my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Big Dog]

Physical and legal 'frameworks' aside, it has already been proven again and again that any advancement in technology, while having some bright side for the general public (the sugar coating on the bitter pill), can and will be used or misused by those in authority to exercise control over the same general public. Allowing the government (and anyone else with the controlling technology) the ability to shut down our guns at will, will get us killed when we need the gun most.
Think Katrina...... no need to send the troops all over to collect the public's guns - simply disable them from a distance.
I must steadfastly refuse to take part in such a misguided endeavor. Keep my guns 'stupid'!