|
|
|
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:
Smart guns could be coming to the US this year
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Personalized smart guns, which can be fired only by verified users, may become available to Americans after more than two decades of questions about reliability and concerns about potential government regulation.
This kind of gun has been promised for years and it has the potential for a big industry shakeup, particularly in the states with tighter gun laws that might only support smart guns.
“A firearm is a tool, but if it what falls in the wrong hands, they’re gonna be deadly tragic consequences,” said Tom Holland, the founder and president of SmartGunz LLC. |
| Comment by:
jac
(1/13/2022)
|
What could go wrong.
I think they should be mandatory for New Jersey state police.
Years ago, Hammerli sold a target rifle with an electronic trigger. It was taken off the market after too many complaints that it quit working. Most of the issues were the result of a dead battery. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
