John Richardson notes that we need to be vigilant about last minute gun control from the Obama Administration, and he’s right. But this DOJ spec for what a smart gun would need to look like in order to be acceptable to law enforcement is telling, in that it rejects much of the gun control groups sacred cows about what citizens do and don’t need for self-defense. Let us look deeper:
Pistols shall be semi-automatic, recoil-operated, magazine-fed, and striker-fired.
I thought semi-automatic weapons only belonged on the battle field?
Class I magazines shall hold a minimum of 14 cartridges.
Class II magazines shall hold a minimum of 16 cartridges.
But I thought these dangerous high-capacity magazines were weapons of war only suitable for mowing down school children, and are thoroughly unnecessary for self-defense? Law enforcement isn’t just demanding a maximum of 10, it’s saying their minimum is 14.
The pistol shall fire with the magazine removed and a live round in the chamber.
Pistols shall not have a magazine disconnect which prevents the firearm from firing when the magazine is removed from the pistol.
Why do law enforcement and military leaders hate their own children?
Pistols shall not have a manual external thumb, finger, or grip-actuated safety device.
But I thought this was good and necessary? Several states laws say this is an unsafe design! But here we get to the “smart” part:
4.18 Security devices
4.18.1 Pistols shall have an integrated â€œlock-outâ€ security device as a permanent part of the pistol that disables the firing mechanism except when in the control of authorized individuals.
4.18.2 The security device shall be understood to include any externally worn items, such as rings, wristbands, or tokens that perform functions associated with the security device
4.18.3 The security device shall include a programmable authorization system that can be set to allow one or more operators to fire the pistol.
4.18.4 The security device shall not inhibit the operator from firing in either hand, one-handed or two-handed, with and without gloves, in any orientation.
4.18.5 The security device shall not alter the normal operation of grasping and firing the pistol as a pistol of the same design that is not equipped with the security device.
4.18.6 The security device shall not increase the time required by the operator to grasp, draw from a holster, and fire the pistol as a pistol of the same design that is not equipped with the security device.
4.18.7 The security device shall not emit audible sounds or visible signals.
4.18.8 If the security device may be susceptible to electromagnetic interference, either intentional or unintentional, the device shall be equipped with countermeasure detection technology that permits the operator to fire the gun when an attempt to block the authorization process is detected.
4.18.9 The security device shall covertly indicate when the pistol is ready to fire.
4.18.10 If the security device uses batteries, the batteries can be rechargeble but shall
4.18.11 Low power to the security device shall be indicated covertly with sufficient time to safely take action.
4.18.12 If the security device malfunctions, it shall default to a state to allow the pistol to fire.
4.18.13 The security device should be easy for an operator to quickly reset or disengage if there is a malfunction.
They also demand the following in terms of reliability:
5.2 Reliability and durability
5.2.1 Pistols shall exhibit a mean overall malfunction or failure rate of no greater than 1 in 2,000, or shall exhibit a mean rounds between failure of no less than 2,000.
5.2.2 Pistols shall be durable and exhibit no failures due to wear or damage for a total of 10,000 rounds. Parts may be replaced in accordance with the manufacturerâ€™s specification for regular preventative maintenance. The replacement of parts per the manufacturerâ€™s maintenance schedule does not constitute a parts failure. This durability specification also applies to the security device on the pistol as well as any periphery devices that may be required to be used with the security device.
Basically, if it’s not very Glock-like, in terms of design, operation and reliability, law enforcement doesn’t want it. Keep this in mind, folks, when the gun control crowd insists that civilians accept far far less than this. The reason they will insist that we accept less is because this specification is not possible to meet with any existing technology.