Obama touts ‘smart gun technology’ in gun control push
President Obama will host a “gun control summit” for state and local officials in the White House sometime in late May. On the agenda: expediting the development of smart gun technology and his most recent executive fiat — announced on Facebook — giving the FBI more access to the mental health records of Social Security recipients.
Obama’s fascination with “smart gun technology” was evident in January when he directed the Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice departments to conduct research into identifying the requirements smart guns would have to meet in order for federal, state and law enforcement to purchase and use them effectively.
The reasoning goes like this: If there was a market for smart guns, manufacturers would dedicate more time and resources into developing them, producing them and selling them to the general public.
The hope, some say fantasy, goes like this: Smart guns will reduce accidental shootings and make it more difficult for criminals to use stolen or unregistered firearms to menace the general public.
Some manufacturers have designed firearms that recognize biometric data, such as a fingerprint or the size of a hand, so that only the licensed owner of the gun can fire it. Other smart guns contain geolocation technology so a missing or stolen gun can be tracked.
“As long as we’ve got the technology to prevent a criminal from stealing and using your smartphone, then we should be able to prevent the wrong person from pulling a trigger on a gun,” President Obama said on May 3. “Many gun injuries and deaths are the result of legal guns that were stolen, misused, or discharged accidentally.”
All this is easier said than done and, of course, a smoke screen designed to create enough smoke and mirrors about these magic guns that gun control advocates and their TV-educated rabbits will see the wisdom in further restricting “non-smart” guns because — dontcha know? — people don’t kill people, guns do.
“Obama did not point out that smart guns using biometric readers may not simply be hard for criminals to shoot, but hard for their owners to shoot as well,” notes Breitbart’s AWR Hawkins on April 29. “This is because biometric readers have had trouble reading blood-caked palm prints and mud covered fingerprints. So, a law abiding gun owner under duress in his or her own home may quickly find that Obama’s smart guns are actually too dumb to shoot when needed.”
For more, go to:
PISTOL-WHIPPING THE PENTAGON
Surplus M1911A1s: Where there’s a ‘shall,’ there’s no ‘may’
As discussed here late last year, there is an amendment in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would allow firearm collectors to purchase vintage 1911 pistols through the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP).
Of course, that same amendment was in the 2016 NDAA but the Pentagon did not follow through. Thus, the 100,000 surplus M1911A1 handguns the U.S Army has lying around were not transferred to the CMP to be inspected, processed and sold.
As with the 2016 amendment, the 2017 amendment was sponsored by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.). Congress is expected to consider the amendment by the end of May.
Rogers told Marisa Endicott of Medill News Service on May 4 that the proposal will save the government money. It “will eliminate the unnecessary costs the federal government is paying for storage” of the guns while enabling the nonprofit CMProgram to sell them.
Will the Pentagon follow through? Well, where there’s a “shall” rather than a “may,” there’s a way. Rogers said this year’s version of the amendment will force the Pentagon to act with the change of a single word from “may transfer” to “shall transfer.”
For more, go to:
Connecticut: No restraint in diluting Constitutional rights
Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy signed a bill into law on May 5 that, according to Tara Dodrill of Inquisitr.com, “makes it a whole lot easier for the government to take your guns away.”
The new law gives gun owners 24 hours to turn their firearms over to authorities if they are subjected to a temporary civil restraining order, regardless if they committed a crime, regardless how spurious the order might be.
Previously, Connecticut law did not require a citizen to turn over firearms to authorities unless a “full restraining order” was issued by a judge. Bill proponents said it can take up to 14 days for a full restraining order to be issued, so it is safer for all involved if anyone named in a temporary order be relieved of their firearms.
The new law requires a full hearing on the firearms surrender order within seven days of the filing of the temporary restraining order. But many gun owners fear getting surrendered firearms back from local officials will be like pulling teeth from a grizzly.
Legal Connecticut gun owners maintain the new law, yet another wildly inappropriate response to the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, infringes on a citizen’s right to due process.
“I do feel that essentially this is not a case of protection but a bill that is aimed getting guns out of people’s hands by whatever process necessary,” State Senator Joe Markley told Dodrill.
For more, go to:
A RECORD OF THE RECORDS
April is 12th straight month of record-setting gun sales
According to the FBI, it ran 2,145,865 checks through the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) in April — 400,000 more than the previous April record set in 2014 — marking the 12th record-setting month in a row.
The trend of record-setting months began last May, the FBI reports. Since then, according to NICS, records have been set for the most checks in a day, month and year. Thus, according to the Associated Press, 2016 is on pace to pass 2015 as the best year on record for gun-related background checks.
“This record setting firearm sales trend will continue all the way to Election Day,” said Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation in a press release “If Hillary Clinton wins, firearm sales will really go through the roof. Gun owners and people concerned about personal security have lost trust in the political class to protect their rights.”
OK — so maybe this isn’t news anymore, but this “non-news” is important to document in contemporary context because, you never know, years from now, historians and sociologists may look back and learn that, yes, once upon a time rank-and-file peaceful, law-abiding citizens legally purchased firearms, not just criminals and crazies.
For more, go to: