Dems push smart tech handgun rules

[Electric Monk]

Source: The Hill

Democrats are looking to place new restrictions on who can use handguns.

The Handgun Trigger Safety Act introduced Tuesday by Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) aims to block criminals and children from using guns that do not belong to them.

Gun dealers would be required to install smart gun technology that fires only if it recognizes the shooter, such as the person who purchased the gun or someone they designate as an authorized user.

Some smart gun technologies use fingerprints, while others require the shooter to wear a bluetooth bracelet or receive a microchip implant that unlocks the gun.

The lawmakers also introduced a second bill that would provide $10 million annually in funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to research gun violence prevention and firearms safety.

The gun safety bills come on National Gun Violence Awareness Day.

Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/243756-dems-pushing-new-handgun-restrictions

---

Sounds like a good idea to me, but of course the gun nuts will fight it tooth and nail.

[Ahpook]

1. You know they will, but why?

What was it those assholes were saying about spying on us? If you're not doing anything wrong, don't worry about it.


It's a great idea that needs to be expanded. Required CE classes would be a good start as well.

[cstanleytech]

2. Ya well in this case I cant blame them if they fight it because it would be a nightmare

to implement it for the gun designs because most of them are purely mechanical and have zero electronic components.

[meow2u3]

3. Why is the NRA against smart handgun technology

when it assures that, if a legit gun owner's firearms fall into the hands of a criminal, a child, or someone else unauthorized, that person won't be able to fire the freakin' gun?

Is the NRA in favor of criminals or kids shooting someone with their own gun?

[cstanleytech]

5. meow, most of the guns made are totally mechanical and have zero electronics to interface with

and it would require gun makers to essentially stop producing alot of the guns and thats probably why SCOTUS would throw the law out because its just not practical not to mention it doesnt address the big problem of the millions of guns out on the market that wouldnt have such a device built in.
Sucks though because its a awesome idea when they do it in the movies but

[CreekDog]

13. most cars were purely mechanical but emissions requirements have required changes

and we all still drive.

times change, yes. last time i checked, guns were not some religious object that must never change.

[appal_jack]

19. Guns do not age-out like cars.

More than a few of the firearms I own were manufactured in the 1980's and 1990's, and one rifle is 1960's vintage. All work as well as the day they were manufactured. There are ~300 million other guns like these in the USA. A cumbersome requirement to add electronics to future firearms will do nothing to change this fact. My 1987 Ford Ranger had to retire to a scrapyard in 2004, all rusty and worn-out after well-over 200,000 miles. But I hope to pass the rifles and pistols from that time on to my grandchildren, all well-oiled and in working order.

Another impractical aspect of this inane gun control proposal is that with firearms, reliability and simplicity can be a mattter of life and death. When the ECM (i.e.- "computer&quot on that 1987 Ford Ranger failed, it needed a tow truck and a ~$500 repair. That was mighty inconvenient, but not disastrous. A failure of electronics at a time when firearms are needed for defense would be another matter entirely.

This dumb legislative proposal will cost Democrats votes. Is an impractical measure that will change nothing in the real world really worth getting out-voted on issues such as minimum wage, environmental quality, etc.?

-app

[ileus]

24. I have several from the 60's

They function just like the day my Grandfather bought them.

[happyslug]

26. Actually Guns do wear out, most barrels wear out after about 25,000 rounds

In most handguns that is a lot of rounds, but over times it will catch up with the best of weapons. That is what happened to the old Army Colt .45 Auto. None were purchased new after 1945, but even with qualification less then once a year (shooting less then 100 rounds per year), by 1980, 35 years later, that would have been 3500 rounds. If someone fired it 10 times a month for practice (Which you should do with the .45, more rounds the better), that is 120 additional rounds a year or 4200 additional rounds per year (Total 7700 per year). If the shooter is doing any DECENT number of rounds through that weapon (100 rounds per month, 1200 rounds per year, you hit 42,000 round (which means at least one, probably two barrel changes in that 35 year period).

Most of the other components of the Pistol (in fact any fire arm) would outlast the barrel (parts do break and are replaced, but those parts are known and kept in most armories to do such repairs).

As to "Age out" that is a marketing term, and does affect pistols. 40 years ago the Dirty Harry and the 44 magnum was all the rage when it came to pistols, then starting in the 1980s it became double column, double action automatics in 9 mm.

I work like to say this is a recent phenomenon, but if look at the dropping of Bows and Arrows in Combat you see it is NOT. Even after the introduction of both the Brown Bess and Kentucky Rifles, the Bow had advantages. Prior to the invention of the Percussion Cap in 1830, fire arms were know to be unreliable in wet weather. The Phase "Keep your Powder Dry" was important back then, In dry weather, firearms would misfire about once out of six shoots (and the black powder built out made them useless after about 30 rounds of ammunition, thus soldiers never carried more the 60 rounds prior to the 1830s).

Wet Weather affected bows, but since archers could keep their strings in their pockets and pull them out when it was time to use them, damp conditions had almost no affect on bows and even rain storms could be only a minor nuisance. Bows were also silent and range to about 100 yards against individual targets (a man), 250 yards against area targets (Men in a Formation). Bows could also provide overhead fire, something muskets could not (through Howitzers could).

As long as the Scots kept Archers around in the fights with the English, the Scots tended to win the battles (this was as late as 1715). When the Scots fought a Battle with the English and had no Archers, they lost badly (Cullodun in 1745).

Report on Cullodun in 1745
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culloden

Report on Sherrifmuir in 1715
http://www.scotclans.com/scottish_history/jacobean_scotland/1715_sherrifmuir.html

The Articles do not mention it, but the Highland charge succeeded in 1715, but failed in 1745 due to the lack of archers in the later battle. In traditional highland Charge, the well to do leaders, armed with armor, swords and shields, would charge the enemy. The archers would be in front shooting arrows till the side closed in, then the heavy infantry would charge by the Archers (or if on the defensive, the archers would retreat through the heavy infantry). Once behind the infantry, the archers would resume fire OVER the head of the Infantry, forcing the other sides to either keep their shields high for protection from the arrows, opening them up for full effect of the highland charge, or keep their shields down to fight off the highland charge, thus exposing themselves to arrow fire. At Culloden, no archers, thus the English only had to face their opponents charge and bayonet them as their came near. The English did not have to worry about overhead fire, for there was none.

The reason for this lack of Archers is complex, but one reason is Archers were seen as obsolete and something the poor did, not the "Middle Class" and thus out of style. In previous battles the poor had showed up with their bows and had been a factor, but a factor overlooked by the Nobles who did the actual highland charge. In Culloden the lack of archers turned out to be fatal and Style was a factor for the lack of archers in that battle (style along with class, for the English had adopted a policy of breaking up the Clans by separating the poor from the leaders of the Clans. The poor were kicked of their land and replaced with Sheep, for wool from Sheep was highly valued in Great Britain in that time period, thus Class was a factor as was style).

Another example of Style is the elimination of the Lance in the late 1600s, and its retention after 1830. In the 1600s firearms were all the rage, thus the pistol was seen as the natural replacement for the Lance. Pistols had longer range and could be used in one hand, the other hand could hold a saber. Along with this came a style of fighting where the Cavalry would fire their pistols into the enemy and promenade to the rear of the cavalry column to reload and re-fire. Big Style in Western Europe, but someone forgot to tell the Poles and the Russians who continued traditional Cavalry charges. Gustavus Aldophus, King of Sweden during the 30 year war, ran into this old fashioned style and found out it was more effective then the new style and reintroduced it into Western Europe in the mid 1600s but using those old fashion cavalry to defeat the new style cavalry. After the 30 year war, the Lance was again dropped in favor of the Sword and Pistol, but this time retaining the full fledged cavalry charge. This was the style of Cavalry till Napoleon, Napoleon saw that the lance equipped Polish Cavalry could operate as a second line in a cavalry charge, for you do not want any second line of troops firing weapons into the first line, but the lance gave such second line troops greater reach. Thus Napoleon reintroduced the Lance to Western European Armies, which retained them till WWI. Thus after disappearing in the late 1600s the Lance came back in the early 1800s and it is clear the reason for the disappearance was style more then effectiveness. With the invention of the Percussion cap in 1830, firearms became extremely reliable and it became foolish to charge infantry with cavalry unless the two formation just stumbled upon each other. Thus Cavalry became more and more mounted Infantry (Which is how most Cavalry was used in the US Civil Wars and the post Civil War Indian Campaigns). Some horse mounted fighting occurred, but mostly when troops stumbled upon each other (which appears to be the case with the Polish Cavalry of WWII when it came to Polish Cavalry vs German Forces in 1939). In such situations after about 1830, the Lance was retain more for show then actual combat usefulness, thus style over coming effectiveness.

Just pointing out Style affects weapons, even army tactics.

[appal_jack]

29. This is excellent and much-appreciated history! However...

A few counterpoints:

-Since I am a (small-time) firearms enthusiast and collector but not a millionaire, it is rather unlikely that many of my guns will see 25,000 rounds through them in my life time. I can hope for the money and leisure time to maybe wear out a pistol or three and maybe a rifle or two, but the safe will hopefully still contain a few family heirlooms long after I have the ability and inclination to enjoy them.

-Style does indeed affect weapons and even army tactics, but maybe less so for civilians? I admit to fitting your handgun style-change description somewhat, in that I do own 9mm double-stack handguns, and do not own a 44 magnum revolver (I was too young and poor to be buying firearms in the 1970's or 1980's). But I would feel quite well-defended in most worst-case situations I can envision if all I had was a 44 magnum and a few speed loaders. And of course much of the firearms world has moved on to striker-fired polymer pistols and the .40 caliber round, but that does not render my steel 9mm's useless either.

-All that said, there are some other style changes that really do affect civilian firearms users. Too many Enfields are sitting unused now that .303 ammunition is getting harder and more expensive to find...

Anyway, I really enjoyed reading your history and analysis of tactics and style. Thanks!



-app

[CreekDog]

27. you could grandfather in old guns and require it for manufacture of them in the future

at some point when it is feasible.

again, for some reason, you are saying that guns need not be treated like anything else in society that is regulated.

and your statement is a nonstarter.

[Skittles]

15. because they are ignorant and they represent ignorant people

[hack89]

18. The way it is being implemented is nothing more than a backdoor gun ban

one huge issue is all the guns out there right now. There are thousands of models of guns that are no longer made - what incentive do the gun manufacturers have to spend millions to design modification kits for all these guns to make them smart guns? They want to sell new guns. And what about guns whose manufacturers are out of business? How do those guns get modified? This is merely an attempted to make hundreds of millions of guns illegal.

If it was made optional or if older guns were grandfathered in then we could talk.

[Oktober]

30. If it relies on an electronic signal then that signal can be blocked...

Guns work fine as is and these electronic additions serve no purpose.

[Throd]

4. How much would that add to the cost of a typical revolver?

It sounds like the idea might have some merit, but what if the technology makes a gun something only the wealthy can afford?

[cosmicone]

6. Unworkable idea that will only inflame gun lovers

I am all for gun control but come up with something more practical. We are in the real world and not in Star Wars episode 7.

[sofa king]

16. Concur.

I'd rather see all handguns banned and everyone given a rifle than watch a thousand more kids a year get shot in the face because "the gun wasn't supposed to shoot."

The law of irony insists that the only time a smart gun won't shoot is when its owner really needs it.

[Shamash]

7. Really?

Something that is technologically impractical*, raises a whole bunch of legal questions, introduced on a symbolic day, by a minority party that has zero chance to get it passed. I guess some people just can't pass up a publicity op to gin up support from the gullible rubes. "Gun nuts" won't have to lift a finger to fight it. It will die an embarrassingly quiet death without any help, suffocated by the weight of its overreach and incompetence.

*Get back to me on whether it is practical once a majority of the police trust their lives to the technology...

[Duckhunter935]

10. Yep, just more showboating

[Township75]

8. A better idea is for everyone In tHe country to get a chip which monitors location. Then when any

Crime is committed police can know who was near the victim regardless of the type of crime and weapon.

[hughee99]

23. Body cams too. That way the police won't have to rely on witness testimony, they'll have the video.

n/t

[Duckhunter935]

9. I agree wuith the option and even incentives

Lets see the firearms buyers have a choice. I am all for choice!

It should be an available OPTION

[LanternWaste]

21. The safety feature should be an option, too.

The safety feature should be an option, too. Leave it to the buyers. Leave it to the market. Free choice, and we're all for choice... or some other bumper-sticker of the week we pretend is wisdom...

[appal_jack]

31. Sarcasm misfire?

LanternWaste, I'm guessing that you are being sarcastic, but you do know that many firearms without external safeties are sold across the world, yes? Here in the US, derringers and many revolvers come without an external safety that can be flipped on and off (the long, stiff trigger pull on an uncocked revolver serves as a safety of sorts). And of course, there is no law against lightening a trigger pull or even removing a safety if one chooses. I consider a good holster that covers the entire trigger guard to be an essential piece of safety gear, but plenty of people (foolishly, imho) pocket- or waistband-carry. The most popular family of semi-automatic pistols presently sold in this country, Glocks, have a 'trigger safety' but no safety lever (and thus a sizable history of waistband-carrying Glock users shooting their balls off). I'd say the market has indeed spoken...

So before you declare that you have the wisdom to regulate guns further, you might want to learn a bit about what's actually happening in the world. Did you go-off half cocked here?

-app

[petronius]

11. I think such technology should be available as an option to those who want it,

and manufacturers should feel free to produce it if they see a demand. (Side thought: perhaps gun control organizations themselves should get involved in supporting the R&D and even market development of the new tech?)

However, I don't support a bill to mandate the technology, not least because it seems to me that this is in that category of gun control legislation that is primarily intended to make gun ownership more difficult and expensive (perhaps prohibitively so), rather than anything else.

I also wonder just how much of an impact complete adoption of this technology would have. Clearly, guns satisfying this requirement would have a way to authorize a user; how many of the deaths and injuries cited in the intro to the bill involved a user who was or could easily have become the 'authorized user?' It seems to me that this would more likely be a very expensive, complicated, infringing sort of legislation with a negligible impact on public safety...

[madokie]

12. I think what we need to do

is raise everyones boat so there won't be so many people feeling they need to resort to using a gun to begin with

I own no guns and only owned one for a few days. Spent 15 months in Vietnam and its there that I realized I don't need a gun in my civilian life.

[Shamash]

14. +1 to that

[hack89]

17. Three simple requirements for me to support

make the technology cheap, 100% fail proof and easy to back fit to every existing gun I own (including my AR 15) and I will use it.

[NYC_SKP]

20. It should become required to all LEOs, city, county, state, and federal, as well.

That's just common sense.

Cops and soldiers are people too, just as liable to go postal as any citizen.

[Duckhunter935]

22. True

No special exemptions 😀

[NickB79]

25. "receive a microchip implant that unlocks the gun"

Technology that requires citizens to undergo a medical procedure to practice a constitutionally protected right?

I'll sell every gun I own and buy guns with these safety devices..............



Once my local and state police departments adopt them. If it's reliable enough for LEO, I'm on board.

[happyslug]

28. What about problems with fingerprints?

People like to be told that Fingerprints are available and never change. The problem is neither is true. If you use your hands in "rough work" your fingerprints will change over time. This has been a problem with rough carpenters (people who build homes) and farmers. Both use they hands a lot dealing with rough heavy objects, that will tear away at the skin.

People forget that even identical twins do NOT have the same fingerprints, the same DNA but not the same fingerprints. As each fetus develop inside the womb, the skin developed independently of each other. The same when your hands are used constantly with rough objects, the damage will done to your hands, and as your body repair each tear, your fingerprints will slowly change. Law enforcement says this is a minor problem for if a person's fingerprint shows up on a crime scene, it is their current print that matters not one taken 20 years ago. That is true for crime scenes but it may be a factor if fingerprints are how the weapon detects its rightful user.

A second problem came up after 9/11, people of oriental decent, have so light fingerprints that the then up to date electronic fingerprint system (the older ink base system could work around the problem but the electronic system had a several problems with such orientals).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lose-your-fingerprints/

http://www.forensic-medecine.info/fingerprints.html

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2010/April/Pages/FaceIrisandFingerprintBiometricsGoodEnough.aspx

Some courts have refused to permit fingerprints into cases, if the fingerprint in the crime scene is NOT a full print of the finger:

http://www.drtomoconnor.com/3210/3210lect03.htm