The push to REQUIRE all firearms dealers to have a SMART gun available.

[pudly]

Translation: I will not state any position on the matter.

-Peter Visclosky

 

[david890]

Let me guess, brad dave n 4never. mayb alp.

Are you having a stroke???

 

[actaeon277]

Pete's reply

Congressman Visclosky letterhead
Dear Thomas:

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to H.R. 6080, the Modernizing Firearm Technology Act. I appreciate hearing from you.

Introduced by Rep. DeSaulnier, H.R. 6080 would require federal firearm licensees with a retail establishment to display and sell at least one personalized firearm. Personalized firearms, which are also referred to as “smart-guns,” are firearms that can only be fired by an authorized user due to technological features integrated into the firearm, such as radio-frequency identification (RFID) chips, fingerprint recognition, magnetic rings, or mechanical locks. Federal firearm licensees found in violation of this measure would incur a $1,000 annual fine.

H.R. 6080 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, where it is currently pending consideration. The measure has no cosponsors and a companion measure has not been introduced in the Senate.

You should know that in January 2013, the Obama Administration directed the Department of Justice to review existing and emerging gun safety technologies and then issue a report on their availability and potential use. Most recently, in April 2016, the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Defense released a report that outlined strategies to expedite the employment of gun safety technology, as found in personalized firearms. The report stated that this type of technology “holds great promise” and by “incorporating electronic systems into a firearm’s design, manufacturers can give gun owners greater control over how a weapon is used, both by limiting who can fire the gun and by making a gun easier to retrieve if it is lost or stolen.” However, specific to your concerns, the report stated that, while it recommends the development of new technology, it does not recommend
“a mandate that any particular individual or law enforcement agency adopt the technology once developed.”

Thank you again for contacting me. Be assured that I will continue to monitor H.R. 6080 with your views in mind. Do not hesitate to let me know if you have any other questions or concerns.
Sincerely,


Peter J. Visclosky
Member of Congress

]Translation: I will not state any position on the matter[/B].

-Peter Visclosky

True. Didn't state his position. But he's never met a gun control law he hasn't liked.

 

[2A_Tom]

I know. I like to hit him each time one comes up. My emails usually start out with You took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Pete's reply

Congressman Visclosky letterhead
Dear Thomas:

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to H.R. 6080, the Modernizing Firearm Technology Act. I appreciate hearing from you.

Introduced by Rep. DeSaulnier, H.R. 6080 would require federal firearm licensees with a retail establishment to display and sell at least one personalized firearm. Personalized firearms, which are also referred to as “smart-guns,” are firearms that can only be fired by an authorized user due to technological features integrated into the firearm, such as radio-frequency identification (RFID) chips, fingerprint recognition, magnetic rings, or mechanical locks. Federal firearm licensees found in violation of this measure would incur a $1,000 annual fine.

H.R. 6080 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, where it is currently pending consideration. The measure has no cosponsors and a companion measure has not been introduced in the Senate.

You should know that in January 2013, the Obama Administration directed the Department of Justice to review existing and emerging gun safety technologies and then issue a report on their availability and potential use. Most recently, in April 2016, the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Defense released a report that outlined strategies to expedite the employment of gun safety technology, as found in personalized firearms. The report stated that this type of technology “holds great promise” and by “incorporating electronic systems into a firearm’s design, manufacturers can give gun owners greater control over how a weapon is used, both by limiting who can fire the gun and by making a gun easier to retrieve if it is lost or stolen.” However, specific to your concerns, the report stated that, while it recommends the development of new technology, it does not recommend
“a mandate that any particular individual or law enforcement agency adopt the technology once developed.”

Thank you again for contacting me. Be assured that I will continue to monitor H.R. 6080 with your views in mind. Do not hesitate to let me know if you have any other questions or concerns.
Sincerely,


Peter J. Visclosky
Member of Congress

By the looks of this Pete really earned that F from the NRA.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Again, as an FFL, you can deny any sale you wish, for whatever reason you wish (or so I've been told). No need to go beyond what that law requires, and that's *ONE* smart weapon for sale.

I really am sorry I didn't see this while david890 was still a member in good standing.

First, my formatting was intentional, and his removing it is not appreciated. Second, changing my text and not noting that he had done so, to me is almost the same as changing Churchmouse's name on a post. I will not say to what he changed it. Third, please note how free he is with MY money... Wants me to sell that abomination with no profit whatsoever. At least my intent was clear... I'm pricing the bloody thing so it won't sell, because yes, Fourth, it is within the rights of a business owner, not only a FFL, to deny any sale he/she wishes... today. Who knows what rule they'll try to put in place tomorrow? If they can define any part of my inventory, make marketing decisions for my business, what makes anyone think they could not make a rule defining my pricing structure? My intent by the sign I described is to have EVERY FFL do similarly, and quickly put the manufacturer out of business. Yeah, they'll sell one gun to every FFL in the country. And not one red cent after that in income. Out of business in less than a year.... maybe in six months. Depends how long it takes to roll out purchases. Conversely, some might be willing to pay the $1000 fine "annually" to not carry that gun, which would deny the company any revenue at all. Once the company is out of business, sitting on inventory that no one wants, they'll have three choices: 1) Eat the losses. 2) put those guns in PD/military hands (only to have them shove them up the rude end of whoever distributed them.) 3) GIVE them to the American people. Free. Sure as hell no one wants to buy them.

And that totally discounts the very likely scenario in which someone figures out how to disable and remove the computer from the gun and make it just like everything else on the market now.

But either way, when that company goes out of business, no one else is going to want to make the same mistakes they made, offering a product no one wants.


Blessings,
Bill

 

[jbombelli]

In your scenario, Bill, government subsidies would likely prevent that manufacturer from having to fold. Then the race for government subsidies to cronies would be on, and more laws would be coming.

 

[Bill of Rights]

In your scenario, Bill, government subsidies would likely prevent that manufacturer from having to fold. Then the race for government subsidies to cronies would be on, and more laws would be coming.

They could, I suppose, pull an Obamacare and force every household or every citizen to buy one... Yeah. Sure they could.

Somehow, I don't see that result happening. One way or another, ain't nobody wants to buy something that doesn't work reliably, on which to stake his life.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[pudly]

I would put the techno-gun (note that I don't call it "smart" by any stretch of the imagination)

I just re-read this post. Don't you know? A gun is "smart" because it may refuse to fire even when functional. Pttuiii...

 

[actaeon277]

If people really wanted smart guns, you wouldn't have to REQUIRE businesses to stock them.

 

[pudly]

If people really wanted smart guns, you wouldn't have to REQUIRE businesses to stock them.

Not true at all. Some people would buy them now. See the Samsung Notes 7 thread for examples of people who want the latest whizbang, are willing to pay for the privilege and are willing to risk problems. There is only one reason that folks aren't exercising their free market rights and that is government (of course). Folks don't want to be the ones that trigger that law in NJ that forces all sales to be smart guns.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If people really wanted smart guns, you wouldn't have to REQUIRE businesses to stock them.

Liberals: Ideas so good they have to be mandatory!

 

[Shalashaska]

New Jersey and a few other states have something like this: law that says within X years of smart gun tech becoming available, only smart guns can be sold. Someone made one recently so now their clock's ticking. Never mind that the technology is still very unreliable and expensive (I'm talking $2k for a .22 pistol)

 

[pudly]

New Jersey and a few other states have something like this: law that says within X years of smart gun tech becoming available, only smart guns can be sold. Someone made one recently so now their clock's ticking. Never mind that the technology is still very unreliable and expensive (I'm talking $2k for a .22 pistol)

NJ is the only state with this law.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

You're incapacitated.

Your wife/friend/child can't use your "smart gun" to save your lives.

You all die.

Scene.

--

That's the only argument required.

 

[gregr]

H.R. 6080: Modernizing Firearm Technology Act

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr6080/text


(1)Each licensed dealer shall maintain a personalized handgun in the sales inventory of the licensed dealer, prominently display a personalized handgun at the location specified on the license to deal in firearms issued to the licensed dealer under this chapter, and offer a personalized handgun for sale to members of the public who are not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun.
(2)Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a pawnbroker or a person who deals in only antique firearms.




Smart gun bill introduced in Congress

Unreasonable requirements by government for dealers are yet one more gun control scheme, period. The so called smart gun technology is too unreliable, and there are too many unknowns about it I believe, for most, if not all serious gun owners to be able to trust it. This overbearing government is pressing WAY too hard against the Second Amendment, and it needs to stop, now!

 

[actaeon277]

Unreasonable requirements by government for dealers are yet one more gun control scheme, period. The so called smart gun technology is too unreliable, and there are too many unknowns about it I believe, for most, if not all serious gun owners to be able to trust it. This overbearing government is pressing WAY too hard against the Second Amendment, and it needs to stop, now!

Of course.
It was just like Washington DC which had made so many roadblocks and wrong turns, that people gave up before they started.
Read about Emily Miller. She had a series of articles about trying to get a gun to protect herself.

 

[courier6]

This is absolutely disgusting, once these become "viable" we will see dems pushing to outlaw all "non-smart" guns.