|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NJ: Senator Looking to Restart ‘Smart Gun’ Efforts in State
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg heads to Washington for the day Thursday, waiting to kick-start a 15-year quest to require personalized “smart guns” on the shelves of New Jersey gun retailers. Such guns would have technology keeping them from being fired by anyone other than the registered owner or, as envisioned in the case of police officers, the officers and their partners. Current New Jersey law requires them to be exclusively sold in New Jersey once they’re viable – which may be unintentionally undercutting their path to the marketplace.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/2/2017)
|
As an option, yes. As a mandate, hell NO.
Such a mandate facially violates the Second Amendment right to arms, because according to the Supreme Court (US v Miller, 1939), arms that are "in common use" that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" and/or are "any part of the ordinary military equipment" are within the ambit of the Second Amendment, and ARE PROTECTED.
It doesn't get any plainer than that. |
| Comment by:
jac
(8/2/2017)
|
Pass a law requiring law enforcement to switch to smart guns in 5 years. That will promote smart gun technology.
If smart guns are so great, law enforcement should be the first to have to use them. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
