A Very Stupid “Smart Gun”


A German company called Armatix is trying to peddle a very stupidly designed “smart gun.” It’s a small .22 caliber pistol of the sort that might be useful for plinking at tin cans but is underpowered for any serious self-defense application. Strike one.

iP1The gun uses RFID technology to enable operation. The user must have a companion wrist watch, and the watch must be within 10 inches of the pistol in order for it to be fired.

As soon as the gun loses radio contact with the watch – e.g. if it is knocked out of the shooter’s hand or in case of loss, theft, etc. – it automatically deactivates itself.

Since most of us wear our watches on the left wrist, the pistol would have to be fired from the left hand (as shown in the Armatix picture above) or using a two-handed grip. While that wouldn’t be a problem for me, I’m ambidextrous, it’s could be a real issue for the roughly 90% of shooters who are right-handed and might not have both hands free in a self-defense situation. Strike two.

Using RFID means that the gun could be subject to jamming—and I don’t mean failure to feed the next round. Strike three.

I’ll believe that “smart guns” are a good idea when the security details of the politicians who want to force them on the public are carrying them—and no conventional firearms for backup.

Undue Burden Analysis


I’m on record as supporting a ban on high-capacity magazines. No one has any legitimate need for a copy of Mother Jones or Time with more than ten pages. Sebastian has an excellent piece over at Shall Not Be Questioned on how a related, but broader, proposed common sense regulation on reading materials might survive judicial scrutiny.

One might argue there’s no governmental interest, but suppose it’s saving trees? You can have as many e-books as you want, but you’re strictly limited in paper books. The surplus books can be recycled and put back in to supply existing paper needs.

Read the whole thing.

“For Sale To Civilians”


The Jersey Journal and the WSJ report that Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop wants to “shape the dialog” about “gun safety” by requiring companies who want to sell guns and ammunition to the Jersey City PD to state whether they offer “assault weapons” “for sale to civilians.” Of course, they do. They wouldn’t be offering them for sale to the Jersey City Police Department unless they did.

Perhaps the mayor should reacquaint himself with the Constitution. Article I, Section 10 states:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace …

Jersey City, as a subdivision of New Jersey, has not been granted the authority by Congress to raise and keep its own army. The cops in Jersey City are civilians.

The mayor’s question would be more properly framed as asking if the companies offer semi-automatic rifles for sale to citizens. Citizens. Those pesky people who think that public officials, elected and appointed, work for them rather that rule over them.

Justice Stevens and the Second Amendment


A few days ago, retired Justice John Paul Stevens published an op-ed over at WaPo promoting his new book coming out later this month. The hook for his piece was an explanation of how to fix the Second Amendment so that it will mean what he wishes it meant. I’ve been puzzling over how to comment on his essay, but a couple of other bloggers have beat me to the punch.

Clayton E. Cramer demolishes Stevens’s shoddy scholarship in a piece over at PJ Media.

Da Tech Guy points out that Stevens does conservatives a favor by reminding everyone that the Constitution means what it says and not what liberals wish it says.

Read ‘em both.

The Constitution State?


At least that’s what Connecticut was called when I was in school a half-century ago. Times change, I guess. This is from a press release from Connecticut Against Gun Violence.

A coalition of state Gun Rights Prevention Groups will be holding a press conference on Thursday, April 3, at 10:00 am at the State Capitol, 3rd Floor, Old Judiciary Room.

(H/T, Say Uncle) Kinda makes me wonder what other parts of the Bill of Rights these folks might view as expendable.