search
top

California Assembly Passes Smart Gun Legislation

Passed 41 to 30.  This law actually stipulates biometric technology, which I don’t think will ever be reliable enough.  As might be expected, law enforcement is exempt.

13 Responses to “California Assembly Passes Smart Gun Legislation”

  1. DirtCrashr says:

    Oh God we’re doomed. Somebody please invade California and free us from these drooling idiots.

  2. As might be expected, law enforcement is exempt.

    Police are some of the very few potential users for a “smart gun”. The guns are issued by the department who presumably would have spares if one malfunctioned and needed to be fixed. They often also have backup guns (which presumably would be a “dumb” gun) if there’s a problem with the “smart” gun.

    Police are a a greater risk of having their guns snatched by criminals than private citizens, since it’s not uncommon for police to get into struggles with criminals. A “smart gun” might well save a policeman’s life.

    For private citizens who just want to shoot at the range, hunt, fend off criminals or tyrants, or other legitimate uses…”smart” guns don’t make much sense at all.

  3. Maxpwr says:

    The reason cops are exempt is because once the government mandate guns with electronics inside them, someone will invent a transmitter to remotely turn off or disrupt the electronics and render the guns useless.
    A gun ban without banning guns.

    Welcome to Hell.

  4. RedneckInNY says:

    Personally, I’m hoping California sinks into the Pacific Ocean under the weight of all those idiots with shit-for-brains. Either that or a Tsunami/Superquake combination. An act of God for the heathens.

  5. BC says:

    It’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that any hare-brained gun control proposal will fly through the California legislature. The Assembly and Senate districts here are gerrymandered to hell, so since nobody ever has to attract moderate voters to win you end up with the Batshit Brigade from both parties running the show. And there are more D districts than R districts.

    It’s also a sad fact that the state-level pro-gun groups here couldn’t hit a cow in the ass with a shovel, and the NRA’s interest in the state is largely limited to waving the bloody shirt of California-style gun control for fundraising purposes. Sure, it’ll occasionally send in attorneys to participate in can’t-lose preemption lawsuits, but it’s otherwise done pretty much fuck-all for California gun owners. There hasn’t been any kind of organized pushback against any of this crap since the super-new-and-improved assault weapon ban back in 2001.

    At this point the gun-grabbers could probably get D.C.-style prohibition in California, if they wanted it.

  6. So the one group most likely to be targeted for a gun hijacking and who would most benefit from biometric technology is exempt.

    Ahrnold, you shud be ah-shamehd of youhself!

  7. Rob K says:

    And something they really don’t get is that it’ll be cracked in a matter of minutes. This is just a form of DRM and no DRM has stood up for very long. How in the world do they expect to use electronics to control a simple mechanical device? So defeatable and for the same reasons as micro-stamping.

  8. Sebastian says:

    They don’t really care how lame the technology is. Reducing crime isn’t its purpose. It’s purpose is to reduce the number of gun owners.

  9. BobG says:

    “They don’t really care how lame the technology is. Reducing crime isn’t its purpose. It’s purpose is to reduce the number of gun owners.”

    And that correctly sums up ALL “reasonable gun control measures” right there…

  10. Alcibiades McZombie says:

    Now the gun manufacturers might as well boycott. Very few of them will be able to comply anyway.

  11. Sebastian says:

    This law is identical to New Jersey’s. As soon as the AG makes a declaration, which is required to be made as soon as there’s a single smart gun sold to the public, that’s the only kind of gun you’ll be allowed to buy.

  12. chris says:

    i know that its illegal to secede from the US, but is it legal for the US to revoke a states statehood?

    i think we need to put that on the ballot in november

  13. Linoge says:

    Just because a concept does or does not work has never stopped Kalifornistan politicians from doing their damnest to subjugate, control, marginalize, and criminalize firearm owners – see “microstamping”.

    A move like this would certainly cause firearm manufacturers to simply stop selling in this worthless state… the cost of production would just be absurd. Of course, given that is what the state government wants in the end, they win regardless.

    You have no idea how happy I am to be leaving this state before too long…

top