On Wednesday, Congressman John Tierney (D-MA) introduced H.R. 2005, the “Personalized Handgun Safety Act of 2013”, mandating “personalized handguns” (more popularly, but less accurately, referred to as “smart guns”). From Boston.com’s “Political Intelligence”:
The bill, the Personalized Handgun Safety Act of 2013, mandates within two years that newly manufactured handguns be equipped with the technology that allows the guns to only work in the hands of their owners or other authorized users. Manufacturers that do not meet the standards could be held liable. And individuals or businesses selling older handguns must have them retrofitted with personalization technology within three years after the bill is enacted, at the expense of the federal government.
More details can be found on Rep. Tyranny’s . . . uh, Tierney’s website.
In the most recent James Bond film, Bond escapes death when his handgun, which is equipped with technology that recognizes him as its owner, becomes inoperable when it gets into the wrong hands. This technology, however, isn’t just for the movies – it’s a reality.
He seems to have jumped to the “it’s a reality” conclusion even more quickly than the rabidly anti-gun government of New Jersey, which has had such a law on the books for years, but has not yet put it into effect, pending the state determining that the technology has sufficiently matured.
Interestingly, in referring to the Bond movie (see National Gun Rights Examiner Dan’s article about 007’s “smart gun”), Tierney touches on an aspect of the legislation that will surely sink it if it’s not removed in the amendment process. Actually, Tierney’s press release makes another, more direct reference to it:
This technology would protect law enforcement officers from having their guns used against them . . .
The problem is that government hired muscle, whether “international men of mystery” secret agents, or the more pedestrian cop on the block, tend to have no interest in trusting their lives to complex, failure prone, possibly battery-dependent (depending on the version of “smart gun” technology being discussed) technology that is designed to make the gun not fire, unless everything goes smoothly (a happy state of affairs that tends not to apply to gun fights).
New Jersey’s “smart gun” law, for example, exempts “Only Ones,” presumably because proponents of the legislation could not get police groups to endorse it (or even refrain from actively opposing it), without such an exemption.
The thing is, one does not need to be an “Only One” to have the right to choose not to gamble one’s life on delicate, failure prone technology–technology that even if it works as designed, could make firing the gun with an injured hand (or one’s non-dominant hand) impossible, or that could conceivably be shut down with a “kill switch,” used by the government or by some other entity that wants you defenseless.
- Are you going to tell them, John, or should I?
- ‘For the children…’
- The idiocy of ‘smart guns’
- Gun ‘safety’ regulation, VPC style
- A government monopoly on force . . . at the flick of a switch
- Biometric ‘Skyfall’ gun neither new nor ‘smart’
- Biden not intelligent enough to reject ‘smart guns’
- H.R. 2005: To provide for the development and use of technology for personalized handguns…..
- The Guns of Tomorrow