Democrat Proposes Smart Gun Mandate

California state senator Jerry Hill (D-Dist. 13) has introduced a bill to “mandate” smart guns as the only kind of guns law-abiding Californians can “sell, lend, or give” to another law-abiding Californian.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/03/31/democrat-proposes-smart-gun-mandate-for-law-abiding-citizens/

Paquette wrote:

California state senator Jerry Hill (D-Dist. 13) has introduced a bill to “mandate” smart guns as the only kind of guns law-abiding Californians can “sell, lend, or give” to another law-abiding Californian.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/03/31/democrat-proposes-smart-gun-mandate-for-law-abiding-citizens/

This is the bill they're talking about.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB678

Darth Cheney wrote:

Paquette wrote:

California state senator Jerry Hill (D-Dist. 13) has introduced a bill to “mandate” smart guns as the only kind of guns law-abiding Californians can “sell, lend, or give” to another law-abiding Californian.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/03/31/democrat-proposes-smart-gun-mandate-for-law-abiding-citizens/

This is the bill they're talking about.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB678

I already have a smart gun...

It sends a piece of lead at 2300 feet per second anywhere I tell it to.

Paquette wrote:Does anyone think the article accurately represents what is contained in the bill?

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Paquette wrote:Does anyone think the article accurately represents what is contained in the bill?

Article is way off as the bill in question specifically mentions "any safety" device.

Darth Cheney wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Paquette wrote:Does anyone think the article accurately represents what is contained in the bill?

Article is way off as the bill in question specifically mentions "any safety" device.

Are there a lot of guns manufactured that don't have any safety devices that would necessitate such a law?

Clicker wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Paquette wrote:Does anyone think the article accurately represents what is contained in the bill?

Article is way off as the bill in question specifically mentions "any safety" device.

Are there a lot of guns manufactured that don't have any safety devices that would necessitate such a law?

The only handguns I've seen that have no safetys are revolvers.
Most LEOs are only opposed to the "stupid" guns if they have to use them.  No one in their right mind agrees that such a weapon is reliable to the degree that LEOs need them to be.  This legislation is simply another LaLa land wet dream to cause Libs to get all Goo Goo eyed.

Paquette wrote:One again:

Does anyone think the article accurately represents what is contained in the bill?

Darth Cheney wrote:

Paquette wrote:One again:

Does anyone think the article accurately represents what is contained in the bill?

Oh please enlighten us...

Paquette wrote:One again:

Does anyone think the article accurately represents what is contained in the bill?

Darth Cheney wrote:

Paquette wrote:One again:

Does anyone think the article accurately represents what is contained in the bill?

The article exactly and accurately describes the California proposed legislation...

Do you have any other reading comprehension issues I could help you with?

Paquette wrote:Can you show me the language that mandates "smart guns as the only kind of guns law-abiding Californians can “sell, lend, or give” to another law-abiding Californian"?

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2015–2016 REGULAR SESSION

Senate Bill No. 678

Introduced by Senator Hill

February 27, 2015

An act to add Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 33700) to Division 10 of Title 4 of Part 6 of the Penal Code, relating to firearms.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 678, as introduced, Hill. User-authorized firearms.
Existing law generally regulates deadly weapons, including firearms. Existing law generally requires any firearm sold or transferred in this state to include or be accompanied by a firearm safety device.
This bill would make it a misdemeanor for a person to sell, lend, or give a user-authorized firearm that does not meet specified requirements. The bill would define a user-authorized firearm as a firearm that will only fire when activated by an authorized user. The bill would require that user-authorized firearms meet certain requirements and be tested and certified by the United States Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Digest Key
Vote: MAJORITY   Appropriation: NO   Fiscal Committee: YES   Local Program: YES  
Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.
Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 33700) is added to Division 10 of Title 4 of Part 6 of the Penal Code, to read:
CHAPTER  11. User-Authorized Firearms

33700.
As used in this chapter, a “user-authorized firearm” means any firearm, interchangeably referred to as an owner-authorized firearm, intelligent firearm, or smart firearm, that incorporates technology within its design and that is integral to the firearm, whether part of its original manufacture or retrofitted, that renders the firearm incapable of being fired except when activated by the lawful owner or other users authorized by the lawful owner. The technology may include, but is not limited to, biometrics, radio frequency tagging, touch memory, fingerprint recognition, palm print recognition, grip recognition, magnetic encoding, retinal recognition, iris recognition, and other means of utilizing biometric or electronic systems.

33701.
(a) A person who keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, or gives, lends, sells, a user-authorized firearm that does not meet the requirements of subdivision (b) is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) (1) A user-authorized firearm shall meet all of the following requirements:
(A) The firearm shall not fail to recognize the authorized user, and shall not falsely recognize an unauthorized user, more than one time per 1,000 recognition attempts.
(B) The time from first contact with the authorized user to use recognition and firearm enablement shall be no more than 0.3 seconds.
(C) The time from loss of contact with the authorized user to disablement shall be no more than 0.3 seconds.
(D) Enabling authorized user information shall be stored in the firearm as a permanent memory that is restored when power is restored.
(E) The firearm shall be capable of use by more than one authorized user and, if the firearm uses hand recognition technology, it shall recognize either of the authorized user’s hands.
(2) (A) The firearm shall be submitted to a laboratory certified by the United States Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) for testing and evaluation of all the various components of the engineered system of the firearm, including the firing mechanism, ammunition, safety mechanisms, electrical, and power components.
(B) The firearm shall be certified by ARDEC as reliably performing its intended functions and meeting all of the criteria standards specified in paragraph (1).
(C) The firearm shall be certified by ARDEC as having a proven system in its final form at a technology readiness level 9 as defined by the United States Department of Defense in its April 2011 Technology Readiness Assessment Guidance.
(c) A user-authorized firearm that is a handgun shall also comply with the requirements of Article 4 (commencing with Section 31900) of Chapter 4 and Article 5 (commencing with Section 32000) of Chapter 4.
(d) A user-authorized firearm that satisfies the requirements of this chapter shall not be required to comply with Division 2 (commencing with Section 23620).

SEC. 2.
No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

Paquette wrote:One again:

Does anyone think the article accurately represents what is contained in the bill?

Clicker wrote:

Paquette wrote:One again:

Does anyone think the article accurately represents what is contained in the bill?

You and I each oppose certain legislation, not because of what it actually says, but for what we think the effect will be.  Case in point I oppose the Cali gun law change because of what it might do and you oppose the Religious Freedom laws for the same thing, not what it says but what you think it will do. We both use the same "It doesn't say that" response to opposition to our fave laws.  

Paquette wrote:

Which religious freedom laws do you think I object to? I strongly support almost all of them but it does depend on the exact language of the law. Well intentioned but poorly written laws run afoul of another law, the law of unforeseen circumstances. I do not support vaguely written laws that are little more than lawsuit bait. Vaguely written laws invite slippery slope conspiracy theories but this bill isn't the least bit vague, it's extremely specific.

But at least you're admitting that this law does not do what Breitbart claims it does. You're just afraid that it might magically transform from a list of minimum requirements for smart guns into, well, anything that your imagination can think of. Breitbart doesn't claim this imaginary slippery slope theory that might happen someday, they're saying that this bill mandates smart guns now. I'm glad to hear that you think this article is dishonest.

The only thing this law does is set minimum operational standards a smart gun must meet. Standards that anyone who wanted to buy a smart gun would demand. If anything it makes selling smart guns harder, it certainly doesn't mandate them.

But I can understand your fear, even if it is misplaced with this bill. With all the wacked out gun control laws that have been suggested, it wouldn't surprise me if some idiot introduced a bill outlawing anything except smart guns. But even in the most liberal of states I doubt a bill like that would make it past committee much less through a vote on the floor. And then there is no way it would pass constitutional muster in the courts.