Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: E-Check taser.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    E-Check taser.

    I am working on an active gun retention device. It puts a taser device on the firearm rail where a flshlight would normally go underneath the barrel and has contacts on the grips.

    The device would send a 50,000 volt charge into anybody that grabbed the firearm and completed the circuit. I am trying to perfect a proximity device in a bracelet (Ring in the future) that disarms the taser, so that when the gunowner draws the weapon he/she is not tased.

    This sort of device might make for interesting e checks.

    I know there are issues with the devices in many states where setting a trap/ spring gun might make the device illegal.
    Last edited by Thundar; 07-28-2010 at 06:05 PM. Reason: spelling
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Lemon Grove, Ca.
    Posts
    137
    actually i have seen something similar to what you mean, in the bracelet sense i mean. For the life of me i cant remember the company that is developing it. But the basis is the the user wear a watch the sends out a small signal to your firearm allowing only you to use it. They were working on a biometric handle for them as well.


    Found the "Watch Gun"
    http://gadgets.softpedia.com/news/Ar...r-7670-01.html

  3. #3
    Regular Member SargentMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, United States
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisc411 View Post
    actually i have seen something similar to what you mean, in the bracelet sense i mean. For the life of me i cant remember the company that is developing it. But the basis is the the user wear a watch the sends out a small signal to your firearm allowing only you to use it. They were working on a biometric handle for them as well.


    Found the "Watch Gun"
    http://gadgets.softpedia.com/news/Ar...r-7670-01.html
    I've seen this as well. I believe it was on a 60 Minutes or 20/20 show that I caught. There was discussion that once technology like this is developed, it could be put into law to be on every firearm. I would never entrust my life, or the lives of my family, to a firearm with this technology. There is too much to go wrong with it. I can see this being an OPTIONAL add-on for a hunter rifle or shotgun, but I would be keeping a tech-free sidearm with me as well.

    As far as the taser safety, I also think this is a dangerous way to go. What happens when an attacker wrestles the gun from you, or just gets his finger into the trigger guard when you're fighting for the weapon? The gun would still be in contact or close proximity to your hands. Taser finally activates, attacker's hand tenses up and BANG.

    Not saying it can't be done, but there is alot of liability involved.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542
    Funny.
    But probably not for someone who anticipated using their firearm in self defense.

    Plus, I assume by 'interesting' you mean, getting shot, beaten, stabbed, sodomized and then thrown in a river for the indignity of making an LEO crap his pants while performing unlawful search and seizure of your property.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    I think this is outta my price range.

    Nevertheless, the manufacturer told us this .22 caliber weapon would be available and shipping this February, with a price tag of 7,000 euro that makes it under the $10,000 tag in America. It would be the funniest thing ever if the watch was not included in that price. Also, as pinpointed by a commenter on a third-party website, the time on the watch says 211, which is the police code for "Armed Robbery in Progress." I simply adore subtle things like that, and cheers to the people with a hawk's eye for that.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586
    I'm sure 99% of CA juries would find this to be premeditated assault/battery of a LEO. I could even see a DA try to go for attempted murder (yes, even though police use the same technology for for use of "less lethal" force).

    At the very least, I'm sure it would be a violation of 12031(e).

    Lastly, I'll just say I wouldn't do it even if legal. I want to avoid violence. Even in the resistance of violence. Only when I have no other choice would I be willing to resort to violence.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  7. #7
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    What about this option.....not good for self defense but certainly good for "open" carrying while thumbing your nose at "the system". Sorry if it gets a little "technical" sounding but it's a tech description.

    A firearms "holster" manufactured from composite materials in such a way that: A Kydex (or similar material) internal holster is mounted inside a small enclosure manufactured of composite material (Kydex may be appropriate) with a hinged upper lid. The lid is locked into place by an electro-mechanical locking system which is released when the wearer activates it either by bio metric sensing (i.e. thumb or finger pressed upon a sensor) or by an electro magnetic "key" with characteristics such that the locking mechanism is not released unless the key is in contact with a particular spot on the enclosure.

    When the locking mechanism is released, the internal holster is raised by a spring, suffciently that the grip of the firearm can be obtained by the wearer and the weapon drawn from the holster.

    Constructing the enclosure with a clear but solid outer panel would allow the weapon to be visible but due to the locking mechanism, it is technically "inside a locked container".

    LOCKED container, no ammunition in the weapon, NOT subject to a 12031 e check but instead requiring a search warrant to gain access to the weapon....RIGHT? Or would the outer panel not be able to be clear?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    What about this option.....not good for self defense but certainly good for "open" carrying while thumbing your nose at "the system". Sorry if it gets a little "technical" sounding but it's a tech description.

    A firearms "holster" manufactured from composite materials in such a way that: A Kydex (or similar material) internal holster is mounted inside a small enclosure manufactured of composite material (Kydex may be appropriate) with a hinged upper lid. The lid is locked into place by an electro-mechanical locking system which is released when the wearer activates it either by bio metric sensing (i.e. thumb or finger pressed upon a sensor) or by an electro magnetic "key" with characteristics such that the locking mechanism is not released unless the key is in contact with a particular spot on the enclosure.

    When the locking mechanism is released, the internal holster is raised by a spring, suffciently that the grip of the firearm can be obtained by the wearer and the weapon drawn from the holster.

    Constructing the enclosure with a clear but solid outer panel would allow the weapon to be visible but due to the locking mechanism, it is technically "inside a locked container".

    LOCKED container, no ammunition in the weapon, NOT subject to a 12031 e check but instead requiring a search warrant to gain access to the weapon....RIGHT? Or would the outer panel not be able to be clear?
    Even when the gun is in a locked container, if the LEO knows there is a gun there, he can legally demand a 12031(e) check.

  9. #9
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Decoligny View Post
    Even when the gun is in a locked container, if the LEO knows there is a gun there, he can legally demand a 12031(e) check.
    Okay so no clear plexiglas "window" and he can "know" all he wants he'd need probable cause (not reasonable suspicion) to get into that locked container.

    Though I'm not sure the e check applies if the weapon is in a locked container....which also allows carry through GFSZ's right? That's how you're REQUIRED to transport through GFSZ's, in a locked container. I'm trying to find that part now....and whether ammo is also required to be in locked container if the weapon is (when in GFSZ).

    You see, I have this friend who does some serious prototyping, for several major corporations, that has the capability to make such a device.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Okay so no clear plexiglas "window" and he can "know" all he wants he'd need probable cause (not reasonable suspicion) to get into that locked container.

    Though I'm not sure the e check applies if the weapon is in a locked container....which also allows carry through GFSZ's right? That's how you're REQUIRED to transport through GFSZ's, in a locked container. I'm trying to find that part now....and whether ammo is also required to be in locked container if the weapon is (when in GFSZ).

    You see, I have this friend who does some serious prototyping, for several major corporations, that has the capability to make such a device.
    12031 (e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a
    vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.

    Based on 12031 (e) an officer is authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person. So if the officer KNOWS that you have a firearm, he is legally authorized to examine it to ensure that it is unloaded. If you refuse to allow an officer to examine it, then you will be arrested.

    I don't like 12031 (e), I think it is a violation of our rights. However, while it is on the books, it is still the law. If the officer can say "You are carrying a locked gun case, which reads "GLOCK" on the side and is covered with gun stickers, so I believe you have a firearm inside" he has just articulated his reasonable suspiscion that you are carrying a firearm. If perchance you are carrying a 2lb lead diving weight inside, and refuse to open it, your refusal, by law gives him the probable cause, and he will still arrest you, take you downtown, put you in a cell, and make you spend a whole lot of time waiting for the locksmith to come, after the long wait for the judge to sign a warrent to open the case.

  11. #11
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Decoligny View Post
    Based on 12031 (e) an officer is authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person. So if the officer KNOWS that you have a firearm, he is legally authorized to examine it to ensure that it is unloaded. If you refuse to allow an officer to examine it, then you will be arrested.
    As long as you're in a public place. If you're answering the door with a firearm 12031(e) wouldn't apply and if you're behind your enclosed fence then it also doesn't apply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Decoligny View Post
    If the officer can say "You are carrying a locked gun case, which reads "GLOCK" on the side and is covered with gun stickers, so I believe you have a firearm inside" he has just articulated his reasonable suspiscion that you are carrying a firearm. If perchance you are carrying a 2lb lead diving weight inside, and refuse to open it, your refusal, by law gives him the probable cause, and he will still arrest you, take you downtown, put you in a cell, and make you spend a whole lot of time waiting for the locksmith to come, after the long wait for the judge to sign a warrent to open the case.
    I'm not sure RAS has anything to do with the ability to do an (e) check. The officer has to know the firearm exists. In your scenario you'd be unlawfully arrested and wouldn't be charged with anything substantial, maybe a contempt-of-cop charge of some sort. Then you'd have a great case against the department for violating multiple portions of the fourth amendment (unreasonable search and seizure as well as warrant without oath or affirmation).

    As far as We-the-People's idea goes, his friend could even construct a plexiglass container with a hologram-like gun that appears to exist. No law against that, but sure to get any person wearing such device stopped and arrested.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •