|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 20, 2014, 01:15 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 988
|
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 |
February 20, 2014, 02:31 AM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
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.
|
February 20, 2014, 08:29 AM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
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:
Last edited by KyJim; February 20, 2014 at 08:58 AM. |
|
February 20, 2014, 12:42 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
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?
|
February 20, 2014, 01:50 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Markey is pandering to the anti-gunners in his home state of MA. His proposed legislation will go nowhere.
|
February 20, 2014, 01:56 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
The whole idea is a bunch of Malarky.
|
February 20, 2014, 02:13 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,944
|
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 |
February 20, 2014, 02:41 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 988
|
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 |
February 20, 2014, 03:03 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 20, 2014, 05:43 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Quote:
|
|
February 20, 2014, 06:32 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
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.
|
February 20, 2014, 06:55 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 988
|
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 |
February 20, 2014, 07:47 PM | #13 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The comments section are a hoot!
|
February 20, 2014, 07:54 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 23, 2013
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 720
|
Quote:
|
|
February 20, 2014, 08:10 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 988
|
Quote:
__________________
Semper Fi Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms |
|
February 21, 2014, 02:38 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
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.
|
February 21, 2014, 09:44 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 988
|
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 |
February 21, 2014, 10:34 AM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
Quote:
They know a smart gun isn't feasible, but, it makes a good cover story for a request for a $10 million handout. |
|
February 21, 2014, 10:58 AM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 23, 2013
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 720
|
Quote:
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 |
|
February 21, 2014, 11:45 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 21, 2014, 04:32 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Quote:
|
|
February 21, 2014, 10:07 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 988
|
Quote:
__________________
Semper Fi Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms |
|
February 21, 2014, 10:33 PM | #23 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
February 21, 2014, 10:37 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
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.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
February 21, 2014, 11:59 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|