Department of Justice issues voluntary smart-gun guidelines

Discussion in 'In the News' started by UtiPossidetis, Nov 20, 2016.

  1. UtiPossidetis

    UtiPossidetis American

    3,187
    247
    63
    The Obama administration on Wednesday announced a series of specifications for smart-gun manufacturers, born out of the president’s January executive action aimed at curbing gun violence.

    But there’s a catch to the new set of guidelines: They’re voluntary. “This project was designed to spur the growth of enhanced gun safety technology – and not to mandate that any particular individual or law enforcement agency adopt the technology once developed,” the Department of Justice wrote in a blog post.

    The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action wrote an essay Friday that questioned what, if anything, the Obama administration’s smart-gun effort accomplished. “But it appears the president hopes to portray the publication of the document as a ‘win’ during his waning days in office,” the piece stated.
     
  2. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    3,268
    527
    113
    Lame duck. Lame plan.

    I think that is another part of the Obama legacy that will vanish soon.
     

  3. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    At least voluntary beats goverment force every time
     
  4. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    This is great.

    Basically, a glock that performs like a glock, except smart. No one will meet that criteria for years and years.
     
  5. UtiPossidetis

    UtiPossidetis American

    3,187
    247
    63
    If you read the blog post from the DOJ they start off by saying that the initiative is a joint venture with the DOJ, DHS, and DoD. However, later they say "The baseline specifications were drafted by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) – DOJ’s research, development and evaluation agency – in partnership with a team of firearms experts at DOJ and DHS. " Seems DoD dropped out - or did not endorse the final specs.

    Baseline specifications are available in PDF format here: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250377.pdf
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2016
  6. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,642
    1,714
    113
    Except when it isn't smart any longer. Which makes no sense to begin with.

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20161118/federal-smart-gun-standards-set-a-high-bar

     
  7. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,543
    687
    113
    Wow. So if a 10 year old kid got hold of Daddy's "smart" .45 pistol, the kid could easily deactivate the kill switch and make the gun fire.
    He would just have to know what button to push or whatever.
    Which I'm sure he could find out with Google and YouTube, or a visit to the gun maker's site.
     
  8. AtlPhilip

    AtlPhilip Proud GCO member.

    7,950
    104
    63
    This is no different than his previous executive order, which meant nothing. He committed them to look into the feasibility and nothing more. And every single one said, "Ok, done. Next."
     
  9. UtiPossidetis

    UtiPossidetis American

    3,187
    247
    63
    Well.....the specs say only 9 & 40 need apply. No 45 smart guns. Another reason to consider 45s IMHO.
     
  10. phaed

    phaed Active Member

    9,360
    2
    38
    the government should definitely use these weapons. :rotfl:
     
  11. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    Maybe We should make a law that forces all goverment agents and contractors to use these guns :-k

    :rotfl2::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
     
  12. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Exactly. You have people clamoring for "smart guns" but the government itself puts out a document which says basically a smart gun should be as reliable as a dumb gun and should default to being a regular old dumb gun is what we would want.

    That is renders the entire "smart gun" argument as invalid, or at the very least stupid. Oh I could pay $600 for a regular glock, or $1200 for a government recommended smart glock which operates nearly identically. No one will build such a thing. Any state proposing such a smart gun mandate should be pointed to this government recommendation and use it as a baseline, which will never be met.
     
  13. GAfirearmsReference

    GAfirearmsReference Weapons Law Booklet

    1,056
    32
    48
    From what I've been reading about "smart gun" technology that is supposed to recognize the fingerprint (or other prints across the user's skin, maybe on the palm or whatever), its full of flaws and failures. If your hand is wet with oil, sweat or blood, the gun won't read your prints. Think of how likely it is that you'll be punched, stabbed, or otherwise injured in by your assailant before you have a chance to draw your gun. If you grab your pistol a few seconds after your attacker hit you across the face with a crowbar and broke your nose, and you reached up there to your face first and got your dominant hand covered in blood-- your gun is now disabled and will stay that way until you clean and dry your hands!

    For what it's worth, my iPhone 5S has the fingerprint-touch ID unlock feature, and it doesn't work with gloves (even thin driving gloves), it doesn't work if the phone is wet (even slightly damp like mist or condensation), it doesn't work if my hands are wet, and even when "I think" conditions are ideal, it won't recognize my thumb print on the first try about 10% of the time anyway!
     
  14. GAfirearmsReference

    GAfirearmsReference Weapons Law Booklet

    1,056
    32
    48
    Before we have smart guns imposed on us ("us" being this minority of Americans who own firearms. "Us" being a widely-condemned and hated minority in the eyes of the leftist elites who push for total civilian disarmament)...
    ...let's try SMART IGNITIONS on cars!
    Stick your finger into a scanner on your vehicle's dashboard.
    The scanner confirms your identity and checks you against a database maintained by the government (and insurance companies) to make sure that (1) you're still a licensed driver whose license is not expired or suspended or revoked, and (2) that you are an approved driver of the vehicle in question (the insurance companies would want this).
    Heck, maybe the scanner could also check your blood pressure, pulse, and sniff your skin for alcohol or drugs!
    Then, only if everything checks out, will the car start.

    If "smart guns" are on the horizon, "smart ignitions" on vehicles ought to be too, and let's make that first.

    After all, motor vehicle crashes kill about 10X as many people as guns do, if you don't count gun suicides. Just comparing fatal crashes to gun murders or fatal gun accidents.

    I don't like the idea of EITHER system, but IF the government wants to try something, let it try cars first. That way, we ALL have some skin in the game, and the government isn't tempted to use this scheme to oppress what it sees as a minority group that can be abused without great political repercussions.
     
    Phil1979 likes this.