• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

E-Check taser.

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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. :eek:

I know there are issues with the devices in many states where setting a trap/ spring gun might make the device illegal.
 
Last edited:

Chrisc411

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
137
Location
Lemon Grove, Ca.

SargentMac

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
100
Location
Vancouver, Washington, United States
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/Armatix-039-High-Tech-Gun-Won-039-t-Shoot-Its-Owner-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.
 

heliopolissolutions

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
542
Location
, ,
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.
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
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.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
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.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
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?
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
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.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
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.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
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.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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.

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.
 
Top