Posted on 04/22/2009 8:28:23 AM PDT by mbynack
On Tuesday, April 28, the Senate Public Safety Committee will hear Senate Bill 697.
SB697, authored by State Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-7), would prohibit the sale of handguns other than "owner-authorized (or ‘smart’) handguns" -- that is, handguns with a permanent, programmable biometric feature that renders the firearm useless unless activated by the authorized user. No proven, viable handgun of this type has ever been developed. The bill would require the California Attorney General to report to the Governor and Legislature on the availability of owner-authorized handguns; once the Attorney General finds that these guns are available, only “owner-authorized” handguns could be approved for sale in California.
My thoughts exactly. If the cops use them, I’ll use them, but not before, thank you very much.
This is more gun owner harassment! It is another cockamamie idea like serial numbers on bullets.
Libs like smart guns, but hate smart bombs.
Mmm’kay.
A million new criminals are now created.
“No proven, viable handgun of this type has ever been developed.”
Nuff’ Said
Dumb guns a much safer, they can’t figure out how to shoot by themselves.
Nothing that outrageously expensive users fee's and/or permits for firearms couldn't pay for until doable. : (
Lets see how soon the LAW ENFORCEMENT officers start using “smart” guns. If they don’t you know it is a bogus bill.
So what does the bill intend on doing to all the other hand guns already in circulation? How does it prevent criminals from buying older guns out of the backs of vans that came from other sources?
Does neither, meaning it only punishes the law abiding good citizens of California.
I’d like to see a ‘smart governor” bill passed.
I hope someone at the hearing stands up and asks how this plays against the recent 9th circuit court decision incorporating the 2A against the states (Nordyke v. King).
Seems like a shame to waste time & state resources on something that will never pass constitutional muster.
...and the police state rolls on....
I would voluntarily buy one of these if 1) it wasn’t too expensive, 2) it had a false negative rate of absolutely zero percent. I like the idea that, if stolen, the gun would be useless to the thief.
Go to protect yourself, and I won’t accept that your gun can say “Sorry, you are not the owner” because a smudge or something kept it from reading your biometrics properly.
A californian here needs to contact his state rep and have inserted a requirement that, for the safety of the owners, any technology must have a zero percent false negative rate.
guess the libs will ban backs of vans next.
rotten gun grabbers!!!
A biometric device would be electronic and therefore susceptible to electronic countermeasures...
Either by radio-jamming (radio interference), or by EMP... such firearms would be able to be remotely disabled in a time of... uh... “crisis”
Also, it would be difficult to be certain that the biometric electronics were free of “back-doors” event logs, GPS, etc.
The biometric device could easily be built with a micro-receiver, so the device could be selectively disabled by whomever.
That’s not to say that is their intent, it’s just to state the kinds of things that could be done with electronics in a firearm.
Besides the civil liberties concerns of authorities being able to remotely disable firearms, likely when they would be most needed to defend one’s family from a riot or natural disaster, there is also the fact that there is no such thing as a 100% secure system.
So, due to mistaken identity, your firearm might be disabled when they meant to disable a criminal’s on the run. Of course, they’d not likely know which gun the criminal has, so could not disable by address.
There is also the problem of the system being hacked... Then the next time some professional-grade thugs are about to run a home-invasion, they just simply exploit the hacked system to make sure the home-owners are defenseless.
OK, so maybe I projected a bit in to the future here...
But what I have written above is not hyperbole. It absolutely could be done, and WOULD be exploitable, and subject to abuse. This system is especially dangerous with a comprehensive gun registration database (No way to keep those 100% secure either).
IMO, it should NOT be done. It is not safe, and the risks far outweigh the benefits.
A few thoughts...
The police will be the first to adopt this - it completely eliminates the threat of having your own firearm used against you. If you lose your pistol, you don’t have to worry about arming your suspect with anything more than a 24 ounce club.
And if this passes, give it 2 years before pistols are available. CA just told firearm manufacturers that CA will be a completely captive market to the first company to create this technology. That is a BIG financial incentive to design and build just such a product.
The neat things about smart guns is that they are electronic and electronics can be disabled. Whenever the government wants to.
Jocelyn Elders(An A*ss from the Past) was consulted
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.