Program Note: All In with Chris Hayes will air an exclusive report on Monday night about the “smart gun” controversy.
The Washington Post reported on the weekend about the vicious backlash from gun worshipers and fetishists against Engage Armament, a Rockville, Maryland gun shop that wanted to sell the “smart gun.” Threats against Maryland gun dealer raise doubts about future of smart guns:
The latest skirmish over the nation’s first smart gun, marked this week by death threats against a Maryland gun dealer who wanted to sell the weapon, has raised doubts about its future and prompted some gun-control advocates to back away from legislative efforts to mandate the technology.
[Photo: The Smart System iP1, a .22-caliber pistol made by the German gun-maker Armatix GmbH.]
Engage Armament, a Rockville gun shop, endured an outpouring of vitriol from gun rights activists who fear the technology will be used to curtail their Second Amendment rights by limiting the kinds of guns they can buy in the future.
The protests echoed those against the Oak Tree Gun Club, a Los Angeles area store that offered to sell the smart gun and — like Engage Armament — quickly dropped the idea after opposition mounted. Electronic chips in the Armatix iP1 can communicate with a watch that can be bought separately. Then the gun cannot be fired without the watch.
Gun rights advocates are worried about a New Jersey law under which only smart handguns can be sold there within three years of being sold anywhere in the country. The law, they fear, will be replicated in other states. Similar proposals have been introduced in California and Congress.
On Friday, New Jersey’s Senate majority leader offered a compromise that might allay fears that smart gun technology will become a backdoor form of gun control. State Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D),who sponsored the landmark 2002 law, said she would ask the legislature to drop the mandate if the National Rifle Association, a fierce critic of smart gun technology, promises not to stand in the way of the development and sale of the weapons.
“I’m willing to do this because eventually these are the kinds of guns people will want to buy,” Weinberg said.
In response to questions about Weinberg’s proposal, the NRA issued a terse statement from Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “The NRA is interested in a full repeal of New Jersey’s misguided law,” Cox said.
Stephen Teret, a public health expert at Johns Hopkins University and smart gun proponent who helped with the New Jersey law, said “bullying” gun store owners was “reprehensible.”
* * *
Andy Raymond, the co-owner of Engage Armament, had decided to offer the Armatix iP1 smart gun, despite the furor it had caused in California. He was fiercely opposed, he said, to banning the sale of any kind of gun and thought smart guns could expand the market for firearms to buyers concerned about safety.
But after word spread that he would sell the gun, vehement protests emerged online, with people calling him a traitor, a communist and various expletives. The protests were fueled, in part, by gun rights blogs alerting gun owners to Raymond’s plans. Although Raymond doesn’t think the NRA was behind the attacks, the organization later tweeted news that Raymond had backed down.
Belinda Padilla, chief executive of Armatix’s U.S. operations, had initially hailed Raymond for selling the weapon.
“He’s very knowledgeable about what happened in California,” she said. “But he is interested in providing a safer handgun for those that want one. He believes in the freedom of choice.” After he changed his mind, she did not respond to a request for comment.
During the blitz of calls and e-mails, someone told one of Raymond’s workers that the store wouldn’t sell the gun because there wouldn’t be a store; it would be burned down.
At another point, Raymond picked up the phone and said, “Hi, this is Andy. How can I help you?” The caller asked, “You’re the guys selling the smart gun?” Raymond tried to reason with him. But the caller said, “You’re going to get what’s coming to you, [expletive].”
Raymond took that as a death threat. Even his dog, Brutus, did not escape the vitriol.
Raymond was shaken, and late Thursday night — sitting at a table with a bottle of liquor, surrounded by assault rifles and puffing on a cigarette — Raymond recorded a video later posted to Facebook in which he vowed not sell the gun. He apologized for messing up and spoke directly to the people of New Jersey.
“I did not know I would be screwing you over,” Raymond said in the video. “I’m terribly sorry. . . . You don’t have anything to worry about from me.” He was furious about the death threats. “That’s a great thing for gun rights,” he said, “when you threaten to shoot somebody.”
At one point, he grew agitated and said that instead of shooting him, people should shoot the politicians who restrict gun rights. He took the video down from his store’s Facebook page Friday.
* * *
Raymond did receive messages of support, with many people commenting online that it should be a buyer’s choice. Some gun owners denounced calls for violence against him.
“I have no doubt that the people who threatened Andy were gun owners,” someone wrote on MdShooters.com, an online forum. “People often say ‘We are all on the same side.’ No we are not. Only a complete idiot who hasn’t been around gun people would say such a moronic thing. Andy is seeing the real side of a section of gun owners.”
Meanwhile, gun-control advocates such as Teret were clearly disappointed and frustrated that protest had caused another potential seller to back off. Advocates think the technology will reduce gun violence, suicides and accidental shootings. While Armatix uses a watch to enable users to fire its smart gun, other companies are trying rings, grips, fingerprints and even voice recognition.
“It makes no sense to me why gun rights people would say certain types of guns shouldn’t be purchased,” Teret said.
Here’s an idea: why doesn’t billionaire Michael Bloomberg and his Mayors Against Illegal Guns organization, and Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly and their Americans for Responsible Solutions organization team up to open a gun shop that exclusively sells only “smart gun” technology? Marketing a safer product that can reduce unnecessary deaths should be part of their gun safety agenda.
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, Restraint of Trade – Elements of a Section 1 Violation:
To prove a Section 1 violation, a plaintiff must show:
• the existence of a contract, combination, or conspiracy among two or more persons or entities;
• that unreasonably restrains trade or competition; and
• which affects interstate or foreign commerce.
See, e.g., Lee v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, 829 F. Supp. 529, 535 (D.R.I. 1993), aff’d, 23 F.3d 14 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 964 (1994).
It is not clear from the reporting about Oak Tree Gun Club and Engage Armament that gun manufacturers are conspiring to keep competitor gun manufacturers out of the U.S. market. The anecdotal reporting suggests that they were threatened and intimidated by individual gun rights activists — not necessarily working in concert, nor in furtherance of a conspiracy. The facts need to fit the elements of the claim.
Great idea. I would buy one, as would others I know. Everyone knows how the NRA and the industry are codependant on each other. But, the market being what it is, if the industry can make a profit on this, money will flow to manufacture these weapons. But I have a hypothetical question for the legal mind of the Blue Meanie. Would the German company have a civil action against the NRA and/or their cohorts in the gun industry for restraint of trade or some other civil legal violation?