Foreign "Smart Gun" Designer Seeking Captive American Market Appeals to "Freedom"

Armatix iP1 pistol and iW1 sensor/watch.

You are probably as sick as I am of the seemingly endless attempts of the mainstream media to push “smart gun” technology onto the public, but as long as they keep pushing it, I feel that we have a duty to call out the technological shortcomings of the immature and frankly dangerous technology.

Advertisement

The Washington Post has given Enrst Mauch, managing director of Armatix GmbH, op-ed space for a short rant about his respect for the Constitution and his desire to advance gun safety… by selling his guns to a captive audience, of course.

After an opening that toots his own proverbial horn as a successful weapons designer, Mauch discusses his respect for the Constitution:

I have a deep appreciation and respect for the United States’ firearms culture. This culture is devoted to the freedom to choose how you defend yourself and your family, and it is dedicated to resisting undue interference in these important personal decisions. The Constitution does more than state this in the abstract — it actively codifies the right to bear arms in recognition of this freedom.

Mauch conveniently skips over the fact that this “freedom to choose” has been eviscerated in New Jersey, which passed a state law that will mandate the sale of only “smart guns” once they are sold anywhere in the United States:

C.2C:58-2.5 Sale of personalized handguns, inapplicability.
4. a. On and after the first day of the sixth month following the preparation and delivery of the list of personalized handguns which may be sold in the State pursuant to section 3 of P.L.2002, c.130 (C.2C:58-2.4), no person registered or licensed by the superintendent as a manufacturer, wholesale dealer of firearms, retail dealer of firearms or agent or employee of a wholesale or retail dealer of firearms pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.2C:58-1 or N.J.S.2C:58-2 shall transport into this State, sell, expose for sale, possess with the intent of selling, assign or otherwise transfer any handgun unless it is a personalized handgun or an antique handgun.
b. The provisions of this section shall not apply to handguns to be sold, transferred, assigned and delivered for official use to: (1) State and local law enforcement officers of this State; (2) federal law enforcement officers and any other federal officers and employees required to carry firearms in the performance of their official duties and (3) members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of the National Guard.

Advertisement

The only exceptions to this law are for the police and military (which refuse to use such dangerously unreliable technology) and some handguns exempted for certain kinds of competitive shooting.

Mauch’s company would have a captive handgun audience in the state of New Jersey until other “smart gun” companies came along. does he really expect us to believe that this reality has no bearing on his push to have the technology forced down the throats of Americans?

That Mauch has the gall to claim he supports “freedom” in any way, shape, or form is repugnant.

Respect for this freedom to protect your family as you see fit is a major reason I believe that gun owners in the United States should have the right to purchase personalized firearms using high-tech safety features. The reality is that firearm safety has not meaningfully advanced in the past century. Nearly every other industry has transformed its safety features — often multiple times — in that same period. Given how tragic the misuse of firearms can be, guns should be no different.

Armatix offers market-based solutions for improving gun safety. We understand that any time a major new technology enters the market, some people will be skeptical, and that is why it is important to clarify exactly what the Armatix pistol is.

Mauch mentions “market-based solutions,” but again neglecting to mention that his commercial market is almost entirely dependent upon have a government-mandated captive audience.

Consumers are skeptical of the technology, as are both the military and police markets who have zero current interest in such a failure-prone fledgling technology.

Advertisement

Armatix offers one firearm — the Intelligent Pistol — in two different versions: the iP1 Basic and the iP1 Personalized. The Basic works like a traditional firearm. Pick it up, pull the trigger and feel the recoil.

The iP1 Personalized can be synced with our Intelligent Watch, which is worn on the wrist. The authorized user inputs a five-digit personal code into the watch that activates the firearm. Without that code, the gun cannot be fired.

The firearm also detects the proximity of the watch, meaning that even if the gun is stolen after the code has been keyed in, it cannot be fired. If the gun and the watch are both stolen, the thief might as well throw them out because the gun won’t fire without the correct five-digit code.

In short, the gun is yours alone. It is personalized.

Is it really “yours alone,” Mr. Mauch? The Truth About Guns points to an Armatix patent that seems to indicate that they’ve developed the technology to remotely enable or disable computerized firearms.

Once again, Mr. Mauch, your company seems intent on satisfying a governmental desire to contain, control, and if necessary, destroy the Second Amendment and enable tyranny with the press of a button. You seem to represent a gun company that is a sheep in wolf’s clothing.

Because this technology provides a positive and safer experience, I believe the number of gun enthusiasts will rise. Families will be able to protect themselves from criminals while guaranteeing that a child cannot fire the gun. For Armatix, safety is a multi-dimensional concept: We think that guns should make you safer without adding the risk of a terrible family tragedy.

Advertisement

“[T]his technology will provide a “positive and safer experience”… for home invaders, rapists, murderers and carjackers, it most certainly will.

If Mauch gets his way, New JResey residents can look forward to finding both the gun and the watch in the event of a home invasion, hoping both have adequate battery power. He or she will then have to put on the watch, punch in the five-digit code, and hope that the intruder hasn’t wiped out his entire family by the time he’s ready to engage him with anemic .22LR ammunition that may or may not fire out of this dangerously unreliable gun.

The safety mechanisms that I designed are completely in line with the values underpinning the U.S. gun-rights movement and represent a market-driven approach to firearm safety. It’s about having access to more technology features and the right to choose the firearm that best suits your needs. This is a solution everyone should be able to get behind.

What part of the values of the U.S. gun rights movement has ever supported the concept of a government destroying the right of citizens to choose the arms that they want for self-defense? Where has anyone who supports the constitution ever said, “I want to own only the firearm that the government says I can have, and I want them to be able to disable it remotely.”

Mr. Mauch has had a long and successful career designing firearms. What he clearly does not grasp on any level is the purpose of the Second Amendment to our Constitution, which was written to support to the right of rebellion against an unjust government that is at the core of our beliefs as a Republic.

Advertisement

We will not accept the government telling us that we must by a gun that make have been developed with a Trojan horse inside it.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Advertisement
Advertisement