The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 20, 2014, 01:15 AM   #1
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 884
Mass. Senator proposes ridiculous gun control legislation.

http://bearingarms.com/senator-propo...es-bond-movie/

(fixed it)

I did a quick search and couldn't find anything on this, so here it is. Senator Ed Markey has apparently proposed a gun control regulation that would require gun owners to have RFID or thumbprint recognition technologies integrated into their handguns.

Firstly, I highly doubt this will gain any real traction, but seriously, who thinks of this crap? I'm under the impression that this would basically be a handgun ban as no current manufacturers make guns with such technology. Then again, the microstamping legislation has held up in CA so far, so maybe it will make it through.

Thoughts?
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Old February 20, 2014, 02:31 AM   #2
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,959
It's just the old "smart gun" initiative being taken down from the shelf and dusted off again. Let's hope it doesn't go anywhere.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 20, 2014, 08:29 AM   #3
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,353
Sadly, we are getting ready to see a real rush of this type of legislative efforts. The Washington Post reported a couple of days ago that there is now a "smart gun" on the market which can be fired only when in close vicinity with a watch that comes with the gun. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...y.html?hpid=z1.

According to the article, New Jersey passed a law in 2002 "requiring that only smart guns be sold in the state within three years of a smart gun being sold anywhere in the country." This smart gun is only sold at one gun store in Los Angeles for $1,800 (ouch!) and the gun store owner claims to be extremely pro-gun. I wonder if he realizes he just condemned the state of New Jersey to firearm purgatory.

I also couldn't help notice that even the gun-grabbers at the Violence Policy Center don't think it is going to have any impact on gun violence:

Quote:
But some of the sharpest criticism comes from an unlikely corner — the Violence Policy Center, a staunch advocate of reducing gun violence.

Policy Center officials argue that the new technology is unlikely to stem gun homicides, which often occur between people who know each other, and that personalization will have no effect on the more than 300 million guns in circulation. The organization also questions whether the technology would deter the nearly 350,000 incidents of firearm theft per year, though some of the proposed technologies are add-ons that can be installed on existing guns.

And perhaps most important, the Violence Policy Center worries that smart guns will increase the number of firearm owners, because marketing that touts safety could sway those previously opposed to guns to make their first purchase.
Presumably, the VPC is against accidental handgun deaths such as those which sometimes tragically happen with children. Yet, they would rather accept these than encourage "smart guns", which might prevent some of these tragedies, just because more guns might be sold. Proof positive they believe the gun is the evil to fight, not the results of using or misusing the gun.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.

Last edited by KyJim; February 20, 2014 at 08:58 AM.
KyJim is offline  
Old February 20, 2014, 12:42 PM   #4
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,078
Can one get additional watches (four your spouse, etc) keyed to the same firearm? Can one key the same watch to multiple firearms? Is being required to put on said watch any different than being required to store your home defense pistol in an unloaded an unusable condition?
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 20, 2014, 01:50 PM   #5
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,020
Markey is pandering to the anti-gunners in his home state of MA. His proposed legislation will go nowhere.
thallub is offline  
Old February 20, 2014, 01:56 PM   #6
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 535
The whole idea is a bunch of Malarky.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old February 20, 2014, 02:13 PM   #7
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,503
I believe New Jersey has already passed some related regulation and obviously other states are going to consider it. While we can debate the pros and cons of these initiatives I personally believe that a lot of gun control is designed not to reduce violence, but as a punitive strategy to discourage gun ownership.

So, regardless of how ludicrous some of these initiatives sound I believe we would be foolish to ignore them.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/23/us/new...smart-gun-law/
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old February 20, 2014, 02:41 PM   #8
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 884
I definitely think that it won't gain much traction. If it did thoguh, I am almost positive that no gun manufcaturer would comply with the laws, similar to what is happening now in CA with microstamping.

Also, I really don't understand how passing laws that requires things that don't even exist yet to be integrated into guns upon their invention is okay or even legal. That very thought just seems absolutely absurd to me.

As for the guy who made the guns with watches, there is no way I'd pay his shop a visit after that.
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Old February 20, 2014, 03:03 PM   #9
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,115
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...ll-103728.html

The Senator from MA wants to mandate smart guns. While it sounds noble, the Senator seems to think the tech will become available if the government helps pay for it. He wants to retrofit older guns (how?).

Seems to think the police will jump at it for retention purposes - yeah, let's see that.

Just an ignoramus or it is another sham attempt at gun control by limiting standard arms.

It has little chance of passage but let's the doofus posture and some media will go all a twitter over it.

Fixed Link - Al.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 20, 2014, 05:43 PM   #10
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,353
Quote:
He wants to retrofit older guns (how?).
One of the articles/blogs I saw referred to another manufacturer which had developed a device that would replace the grips of a 1911 and included a biometric reader where the shooter's fingertip would rest when wrapped around the grip frame. I couldn't quickly find it again. That has to be some really dicey technology, though.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old February 20, 2014, 06:32 PM   #11
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,078
I bet changing the battery sucks. And woe to the person with freakishly large/small hands. Or having to shoot with their off hand in a defense situation.
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 20, 2014, 06:55 PM   #12
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 884
Or to the person that is wearing gloves in the winter, or just having dirty hands at the time they are so unfortunate as to need their gun.
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Old February 20, 2014, 07:47 PM   #13
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,277
The comments section are a hoot!
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 20, 2014, 07:54 PM   #14
Ruger480
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2013
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 343
Quote:
Firstly, I highly doubt this will gain any real traction, but seriously, who thinks of this crap?
My guess would be the people who make this crap. I would also guess those manufacturers have lobbyists to get bills passed to sell their crap.
Ruger480 is offline  
Old February 20, 2014, 08:10 PM   #15
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 884
Quote:
My guess would be the people who make this crap. I would also guess those manufacturers have lobbyists to get bills passed to sell their crap.
That would actually surprise me a little if it were true. It seems like most of the companies or individuals that make them are relatively small and without much financial backing. I seriously doubt that any gun manufacturer would be for stuff like this.
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Old February 21, 2014, 02:38 AM   #16
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 203
Yes, New Jersey has a law that specifically mandates that when at least ONE gun is available for commercial sale IN ANY STATE that incorporates "smart" technology, then all handguns sold in New Jersey must incorporate "smart' technology. Yes, there is such a gun built by a German manufacturer, in .22LR only, that it can't apparently find a market for in Germany. it is, however, on the California Roster of "Not Unsafe" Handguns, and is available for retail sale in at least on LA area gun store. I've read that some senator in Jersey has asked the AG to certify that the requirements of the law have been met, and that the law is now in effect. Sad to say, all you people in New Jersey won't be able to prepare for any such determination by buying guns now, since, as I understand it, it takes months to just get a purchase permit. By then it will be too late. I also suspect that, notwithstanding the immediate elimination of all handgun sales in the state, the local courts will rule that gun sales are subject to regulation in the public interest, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in (dicta in) Heller. Not that I am buying such nonsense, I just think the New jersey courts are absolutely opposed to the possession of firearms by the public and will do anything and everything it can to assure that they are banned.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old February 21, 2014, 09:44 AM   #17
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 884
I feel bad for the people of New Jersey. Hopefully the courts realize how dumb this is.
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Old February 21, 2014, 10:34 AM   #18
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,380
Quote:
Separately, Markey and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) are asking President Barack Obama to insert $10 million of funding into his forthcoming budget for research on gun violence. The two lawmakers sent the president a letter last week calling on funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to “conduct scientific research on the causes and prevention of gun violence
There's the real reason behind it.
They know a smart gun isn't feasible, but, it makes a good cover story for a request for a $10 million handout.
Hal is offline  
Old February 21, 2014, 10:58 AM   #19
Ruger480
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2013
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 343
Quote:
That would actually surprise me a little if it were true. It seems like most of the companies or individuals that make them are relatively small and without much financial backing. I seriously doubt that any gun manufacturer would be for stuff like this.
Sorry, I wasn't clear on which manufacturer I was talking about. I too doubt that any gun MFG would want to mess with it. I was referring to the companies that make the tech (watches and gun parts).

I seem to recall some debate about a national ID card during the last Pres. election. I can't find it now but I remember the CEO of the company who made these IDs getting up on stage to explain why he thought they were so great. Of course he would want the country to adopt them, it would be great for his company.

So, the long winded explanation (sorry) to my thought was that the people who make this crap to put on guns are the ones pushing to get bills passed in support of such junk.

PS. Just because your not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you
Ruger480 is offline  
Old February 21, 2014, 11:45 AM   #20
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,115
Major companies were interested in smart guns. Taurus funded some NJ research IIRC. Colt made a major push to adapt its failed Colt 2000 as a smart gun.

The reasons for such interest:

1. To keep selling products if the standard ones were banned. Folks might have to replace current guns.
2. Market research demonstrated a significant market of folks who wanted a handgun but were worried that the kid or someone unauthorized would get the gun. Thus, having such in the product line would bring new sales.
3. It would be attractive to the law market and thus bring in very large replacement orders for agencies.

The tech back in those days never worked and agencies were dead set against them.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 21, 2014, 04:32 PM   #21
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,353
Quote:
Colt made a major push to adapt its failed Colt 2000 as a smart gun.
One of several reasons Colt went into bankruptcy.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old February 21, 2014, 10:07 PM   #22
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 884
Quote:
1. To keep selling products if the standard ones were banned. Folks might have to replace current guns.
I'm not so sure about that one. As S&W and Ruger have shown recently with CA's microstamping laws, it would seem that there is a line drawn that manufacturers will not cross. I'm betting that smart guns, like microstamping, fall far beyond that line.
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Old February 21, 2014, 10:33 PM   #23
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,489
Quote:
Colt made a major push to adapt its failed Colt 2000 as a smart gun.
IIRC, Zilkha still owns Colt, and they're known for cozying up to Charles Schumer among others. I wouldn't be surprised if they rushed in to try and fill the "gap" made by manufacturers who voice opposition to the idea.

As it is, the bill doesn't have a number yet, so we don't know if it has any cosponsors. A few of the same old hardliners will back it, but it's just too loopy to pass in open assembly.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 21, 2014, 10:37 PM   #24
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 1,195
I don't see this being used by LEO's, or others for long. It uses an active RFID. Bad news is there are very simple techniques that can disrupt the link, turning it off even for the authorized owner. I can't imagine a PD selecting a weapon a Sophomore Engineering student can deactivate from 100 yards away.

25 years ago someone tried using magnet rings to activate a pistol... Didn't look like that caught on then.

Another nonstarter.
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابي
TXAZ is offline  
Old February 21, 2014, 11:59 PM   #25
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,353
Quote:
I wouldn't be surprised if they rushed in to try and fill the "gap" made by manufacturers who voice opposition to the idea.
I would be very surprised. They're selling every 1911 they can make and don't have the capital for a major expansion. And, they already tried once which only hurt them. I think they would also be leery because a lot of gun owners would potentially boycott their product. I would.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12785 seconds with 7 queries