The watch this guy's wearing was made by Armatix, the same company who designed his high-tech gun. Poor fellow can't ditch the ugly accessory though, because the $10,000 weapon won't fire without it.

Basically the gun is disarmed and a red LED lights up unless the corresponding watch is close enough to send a wireless signal. While I really don't see a high demand for it, Armatix's .22cal weapon will be shipping next month for 7,000 euro, which is just under 10k in Washingtons. The watch is probably included.

Its not a bad idea for police.

It varies from year to year, but in a given year the number of police officers fatally wounded by their own guns makes up a sizable number of all officers killed.

Its not a bad idea for police.

It varies from year to year, but in a given year the number of police officers fatally wounded by their own guns makes up a sizable number of all officers killed.

Old news SW was working on this 10 years ago. I first heard about on the History channel TV show Tales of the Gun.

Imagine if -all- guns had a system like this, and that the RFID chip could be shut down from some central government place. Dude goes crazy and starts trying to shoot up his office? Shut down the chip and all he has is a paperweight. Someone steals your guns? Well, they're basically worthless without the chip.

1) RFID doesn't work like this.
2) You're suggesting that, in the case of an attack, the police circle in, identify the perp, look up his firearm records, get the necessary paperwork and shut down the firearms, all within half an hour? (And if it takes more than half an hour, it's not likely to be much use.)
3) Of course, this also sort of violates the intention of the second amendment. Not a concern if you aren't in an enlightened nation that recognizes the right of self-defense against an oppressive government, but for the rest of us...

The National Socialist parties (Nazi parties) in europe sure liked to limit who could have firearms and what kind and all that progressive stuff, then they started genocide.

"Shall not be infringed."

* Federal Gun Control

The first major gun control initiative was enacted by Congress in 1934 which regulated the sale of fully automatic firearms like machine guns. This legislation was followed in 1938 by a new federal law which required gun sellers to be licensed and which prohibited persons convicted of violent felonies from purchasing guns. No further legislation was passed by Congress until 1968. The Gun Control Act of 1968 regulated imported guns, expanded gun-dealer licensing requirements, and expanded the list of persons not eligible to purchase guns to include persons convicted of any non-business related felony, minors, persons found to be mentally incompetent, and users of illegal drugs. In 1986, federal legislation established mandatory penalties for the use of a gun in the commission of a federal crime. Also prohibited were "cop killer" bullets capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing. In 1990, legislation was passed which banned the manufacturing and importation of semi-automatic assault weapons.

In 1994, Congress passed what has been regarded as the most comprehensive effort at national gun control. The "Brady Bill" named for the press aide who was seriously injured in the assassination attempt on President Reagan imposed a five day waiting period for purchasers of handguns and required local law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks of all purchasers. The Supreme Court held that the background check provision was unconstitutional because it infringed on state's rights. Presently, the law has been revised so that the background check is instantly accomplished by gun dealers through a national computer system and there is no longer a waiting period. Also in 1994, Congress passed a ban on certain types of assault weapons. This ban expired in 2004. By a narrow margin , the Senate voted to extend the ban but the House did not take action and the ban was allowed to expire. Efforts to revive the ban have been unsuccessful.

* State and local gun control

Guns are additionally regulated by state and local legislation and there is little uniformity among the states. (Click to see map) The major regulatory issues are:
o Child Access Prevention laws

Many states have passed legislation making it a crime to leave a loaded weapon within easy access of a minor.

o Concealed weapon laws

About seven states prohibit concealed weapons. Many others require an individual to show a need prior to obtaining a license to carry a concealed weapon. In over half the states, all non-felons are able to obtain licenses to carry concealed weapons. Only one state, Vermont, has no licensing or permit requirement.

o Regulation of private sales to minors

Under federal law, minors under 18 are prohibited from possessing guns and minor under 21 are prohibited from purchasing guns from dealers. However, unless regulated by state law, minors 18 and over are able to freely purchase weapons through private sales. Currently 21 states either prohibit or substantially regulate this secondary market for minors.

o Regulating all secondary market sales

Over twenty states regulate all secondary sales through registration or licensing requirements. In the states that have no such regulation, the secondary market allows minors and criminals to easily obtain weapons. This is the so-called "gun show" loophole.

o Ban on "assault" weapons

In 1989, California was the first state to ban certain types of automatic weapons. More extensive bans have been enacted in New Jersey, Hawaii, Connecticut and Maryland.

o "One handgun a month" laws

Many purchasers (felons and minors) have circumvented federal law by purchasing firearms from individuals who have legally made bulk purchases of handguns. Four states (South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and California) have laws that limit legal purchases of handguns to one a month per buyer.

o Ban on "Saturday Night Specials" and other "junk guns"

These are small, easily concealed lightweight guns which are unreliable but have appeal to criminals because of their portability. A minority of states have laws which regulate the purchase and use of these weapons. Additionally, local laws in a number of cities outlaw the possession of these weapons.

o Preemption

The majority of states have laws which prohibit local authorities from passing local gun control ordinances. These "preemption" laws have been supported by the opponents of gun control. Officials in cities which are able to pass such ordinances, such as New York, credit their existence to a dramatic reduction in violent crime.

o Waiting periods

Although background checks are no longer necessary under federal law, about half the states still use state data in addition to federal data to conduct background checks prior to issuing a handgun permit. Eleven of these states impose waiting periods as well.

Wow, that's quite a few laws that infringe on a person's ability to own a gun.

In germany Jews were not allowed to have firearms. Thats a big infringement.

If there was a gunshow loophole I would be happier though and not want it closed anyway. Unfortunetly every time I buy at a gun show they do a nics check as they are legally required to do:(

Wow, that's quite a few laws that infringe on a person's ability to own a gun.

Who decides when they're "trustworthy?" Who decides what the legal definition of "trustworthy" even is? Definite (as opposed to indefinite) prison terms are the principal defense against a prison state. You serve your time, you get out. That doesn't mean you're not a felon anymore, it just means you've paid your debt to society.

it just means you've paid your debt to society.

If your debt is paid, why are your freedoms still limited? It seems like it should be an either/or -- either you're safe enough to be let out of prison, having served your time and paid or debt, or you should continue to have you rights infringed and be monitored by the state. If you're not safe enough to let out of a cage, why are you out of your cage? It's the same issue I have with, for instance, Sex Offender Registries. If they're still such a danger to kids we need to keep track of them, publish their information, monitor them, etc...why aren't they still in prison?

so felons are subhuman? perhaps we should stop them from breeding with humans then because of bestiality laws.

I'm not misinterpreting anything I'm anticipating a eugenics argument based not on race but some other criteria.

That's an exceedingly black & white view of things. Felons that have been let out of jail are assumed to be more or less 'normal' and 'safe' but they've already proven they can do X, so there is no reason to make it easy for them to do X again.

I always find it funny when people say that. Prisons after all cost money to run, and thus it can be taken that a prisoner has actually increased his debt to society rather than decreased it.

That's an exceedingly black & white view of things. Felons that have been let out of jail are assumed to be more or less 'normal' and 'safe' but they've already proven they can do X, so there is no reason to make it easy for them to do X again.

Can I inquire as a plaintive reader what the hell any of that has to do with SR?

And freedom from government is the the only freedom.

Imagine if -all- guns had a system like this, and that the RFID chip could be shut down from some central government place. Dude goes crazy and starts trying to shoot up his office? Shut down the chip and all he has is a paperweight. Someone steals your guns? Well, they're basically worthless without the chip.

Now, I know it would be possible to bypass a system like this, but it could be made difficult. Might be a little 'big brother'y but it could save alot of lives from: people shot by their own guns when being robbed, disgruntled employees trying to take out their office mates, children finding the gun and playing with it, and might also go a long way in reducing illegal gun ownership due to the difficulty of having to strip out the extra parts for the RFID scanner.

And freedom from government is the the only freedom.