California store’s sale of smart guns prompts furious backlash

The California gun store that put the nation’s first smart gun on sale is facing a furious backlash from customers and gun rights advocates who fear the new technology will encroach on their Second Amendment rights if it becomes mandated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...432058-a544-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

Click to expand...

Another "gun rights advocate tosses his fellow gun rights advocate under the bus.

Here ya go NJ!!

That's what happens when you meddle with incentives without bothering to even think about how they work.

Had the statists kept their grubby mitts off, this technology would grow and, eventually, flourish under its own steam and on its own merit. Can't say I have any sympathy for them, though.

Frankly, Armatix should sue New Jersey for poisoning the well.

This technology is being touted as a "compromise" between Freedom-loving individuals and statists. They seem to forget all the other "compromises" we've made without the statists ever making one concession in their quest to ban all privately-owned firearms (or now, all RELIABLE privately-owned firearms).

I must've missed something, did the store advocate for mandating the smart gun?

what's wrong with selling a product that someone is free to purchase or not?

While I wouldn't buy one or consider it to fit my circumstances, someone else may want a smart gun for varying reasons..... a company made a viable "smart gun" and is trying to market it and sell it. what's wrong with selling that product? I wouldn't hold it against the retailer.

EMNofSeattle said:

I must've missed something, did the store advocate for mandating the smart gun?

what's wrong with selling a product that someone is free to purchase or not?

While I wouldn't buy one or consider it to fit my circumstances, someone else may want a smart gun for varying reasons..... a company made a viable "smart gun" and is trying to market it and sell it. what's wrong with selling that product? I wouldn't hold it against the retailer.

Click to expand...

It's tied to a trigger law in NJ that says that as soon as one is sold anywhere in the US, NJ has 3 years to mandate all guns sold in NJ will be "smart" guns regardless of effectiveness or functionality. So people got ticked off that someone would start selling a gun that won't actually work or do any good and then the dominoes that would eventually fall because of that. I don't blame the people who got mad at Oak Tree.

EMNofSeattle said:

I must've missed something, did the store advocate for mandating the smart gun?

what's wrong with selling a product that someone is free to purchase or not?

While I wouldn't buy one or consider it to fit my circumstances, someone else may want a smart gun for varying reasons..... a company made a viable "smart gun" and is trying to market it and sell it. what's wrong with selling that product? I wouldn't hold it against the retailer.

Click to expand...

The store can still sell the gun if they want~~they just decided they do not want to. Pretty simple, consumer decides who to do business with, business decides to stock and sell what the consumer wants. Shame it does not work that way with health care anymore. I guess it is good Obama is anti gun, OR we would be forced to buy smart guns, even if we did not want any guns to start with.

BTW our health insurance this year went up by as much as one of these smart guns. Gotta love the statists and government looking out for us.