Lawmaker pushes gun control bill using technology that doesn’t exist

By Jack Minor –

 

 

In a new twist on the gun control issue a Democratic senator from Massachusetts wants to mandate guns be sold with technology that doesn’t exist.

 

Sen. Edward Markey introduced a gun control bill that would require all new guns sold to feature technology personalizing them so that they can only be used by its owner or other authorized persons.

 

Markey claimed her bill would reduce the number of policemen killed in the line of duty since any of them are killed by their own guns after a perpetrator takes it from them during a struggle. She also claims it would make it impossible for children.

 

The bill would require all new firearms to feature the personalization feature within two years of the bill’s passage. While most laws feature a grandfather clause, Markey’s bill does not and would require all existing firearms, regardless of age to be modified and retrofitted with the new technology before it could be sold to a collector or other person. The requirement would effectively destroy the collectible value of any historic firearm.

 

There is just one problem with Markey’s bill, the technology to do so does not exist and current attempts to develop such a gun are unreliable, which could prove problematic for the legitimate owner.

 

Recognizing that gun control is a losing issue politically, gun control advocates frequently dispute claims they are anti-Second Amendment claiming they support gun ownership. Recently they have begun to shy away from the gun control label, attempting to claim their restrictions are “gun safety” rather than gun control.

 

The change in terminology came about following a pair of Supreme Court decisions that held the Second Amendment which uses the phrase “the people” is just as much an individual right as the First Amendment right to free speech and freedom of the press that also use the words “the people.”

 

The problem is while politicians may think simply passing a law can fix a problem, the technology required in Markey’s bill does not exist yet and the legislation will not automatically create it. The Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts said that Markey’s smart guns “only work correctly in the movies.”

 

“No technology should stand between a lawful gun owner using his/her firearm,’’ the group said in a written statement. ‘‘We also find it more than disingenuous that a senator with very little knowledge of firearms, who has worked to stifle the Second Amendment, would offer mandated technology that gun owners have not asked for, nor supported.’’

 

Markey’s move is part of a recent strategy by gun control advocates to use regulations to effectively ban firearms such as imposing a tax per bullet that is so high it makes purchasing ammunition cost-prohibitive.

 

In 2011, the Greeley Gazette reported that Sarah Brady, Chair of the Brady Campaign, a staunch gun control group, claimed that during a meeting in the White House, President Obama came in to see her to “fill us in that it [gun control] was very much on his agenda” and telling her “I just want you to know we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Trackback  •  Posted by editor@greeleygazette.com in General News category

 
  • SH says:

    It does seem to exist since one type is already for sale in California.

  • Michael says:

    If it’s to protect cops from being killed with their own gun, then just put it on cops’ guns. How loud they will wail.

  • Bud Darvis says:

    Fools. What good will that do. A drunk who owns a gun can still use it. What they really need is a breath analyzer attachment. That way the gun can not even be removed from the holster or wherever its kept. That will also reduce accidental shootings by police of innocent standers-by, if they are unable to draw their hand-gun until after the gun itself has analyzed their breath and confirmed they are alert and ready to engage in their official activity soberly.

    It probably wouldn’t be a bad idea, either, to have the doors of Congress set up with breath-analyzers, so no one can get in there half-soused or under the spell of the grape. No telling what crazy things they might do, what incoherent legislation they might pass, if they’ve been drinking.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not forgetting about those religious nuts who don’t just cling to guns but to “their” religion – as opposed to the President’s, I suppose. I suggest all church doors, or perhaps just the pews, be set up with breath analyzers. You don’t want some drunk disrupting Holy Service or a good sermon, or going into the kids’ area.

    Breath analyzers on guns, churches, and Congress. America will be a better place for it.

    And a smoke detector in the Oval Office in case someone gets the craving for a very, very unhealthy, cancer-causing cigarette. That’s bad, too, you know, probably worse than weighing in a few extra pounds because of extra muscle mass working hard to make enough to feed your family and give the other half of your pay to the geniuses in Washington.

Please leave a reply...



You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>