DOJ Looks to Use ‘Smart’ Guns in Gun-Control Policy

By Woody published on in Firearms, News, Videos

Attorney General Eric Holder told a House appropriations subcommittee last week that the Justice Department is looking into gun-controlling bracelets as part of its overall gun-control efforts.

The Justice Department has requested $382.1 million in increased spending for its FY 2014 budget earmarked for undefined gun-safety initiatives.

In his remarks (shown in the video) the AG said, “I think that one of the things that we learned when we were trying to get passed those common sense reforms last year, Vice President Biden and I had a meeting with a group of technology people and we talked about how guns can be made more safe.”

“By making them either through finger print identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon.”

“It’s those kinds of things that I think we want to try to explore so that we can make sure that people have the ability to enjoy their Second Amendment rights, but at the same time decreasing the misuse of weapons that lead to the kinds of things that we see on a daily basis.”

In your view, should the House give DOJ $2 million the agency is asking for in “Gun Safety Technology” grants? Does new technology — such as the ability to unlock a safe with a fingerprint scan and RFID-equipped bracelets — have any place on firearms? Would GPS tracking chips help solve gun-theft crimes, or merely make it easy for gun confiscations to happen in the future?

Let us hear your thoughts in the comment section.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (72)

  • Der Doktor

    |

    While I am not opposed to the idea of exploring new technology such as this, I completely and utterly detest government intervention and mandating of such technology. Because you know damn well that if the anti-gun crowd in the government had their way, they would make it mandatory for any and all firearms to have such technology implemented.

    Reply

  • Victor

    |

    Again to impose is another word to force or obligate laws on law abiding citizens those of us whom have not broken any laws are made to suffer for criminal acts where is the sense in that Liberals looking to strip what little freedom we have left as American’s, “God Bless America” .

    Reply

  • AE7GK

    |

    A responsible gun owner secures his/her firearms. I do in different ways for different reasons. If the US AG is seeking $380M researching this, it will be mandatory which is unconstitutional. There are a number of companies researching the same kind of locks, which are voluntary, therefore constitutional. The government mandating these locks on new guns is an end run, purposely trying to violate the constitution by playing semantics.

    Reply

  • Jonny

    |

    Are we supposed to wear these bracelets 24/7 and while we sleep in case of a self defense emergency? “1 second Mr badguy I must first locate my RFID bracelet before I am capable of defending myself. I noticed you aren’t wearing yours.” Also what happens to all the guns that don’t have this “smart” technology? I’m not turning in my guns to be converted, and where does the money come from to complete this plan? It only makes sense if all guns are made this way. All the guns in the world! Because a criminal will simply use an unmarked gun anyway. This leaves the people once again at an inconvenience and a disadvantage with no real safety.

    Reply

  • Robert

    |

    Being a gadget geek, I have installed 3 ( basement 1st &2nd) fingerprint safes and in an attempt to make myself confident in their ability to work when required, have tried each of them out at-least 100 times. They have worked each time. To the point I am getting ready to install then on the outer doors of my home and shop building. I am not saying that we need to put them on guns, but to dismiss the technology with snarky remarks does disservice to their usefulness. At some point in time, people might wish to buy their guns with this technology installed..

    Reply

  • AE7GK

    |

    No, No, No, No – and just in case I wasn’t clear: NO!!!

    I have at least a dozen reasons why this is a bad, stupid and dangerous idea, but one says it all-

    Heller v. DC:
    “… the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional…”

    Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, in contempt of the Constitution, with contempt for the People.

    Reply

    • John

      |

      This man was appointed to uphold our laws, but he is nothing more than a criminal in a suite that needs to be arrested and jailed for gun running to Mexican drug cartels. i.e. Fast and the Furious . Ask him about that?

      Reply

  • junk yard dog

    |

    I might agree with doing this only after all law enforcement and military have the same.
    If the technology is proven to work for them then I guess it is good for us.
    That should slow them down in there madness.
    No law should be imposed on the people that the government is exempt of obeying.

    Reply

    • Robert

      |

      jyd, I agree with you, but I am willing to bet that if this were to happen, the hardcore owners would find another reason to say no.
      For one thing gun theft would drop appreciably, second it would be useless for someone to grab your gun and shoot you. Oh, for the tough guys who say it can’t happen to them.. there is always some one out there who is as tough or tougher. Back to point, the worst they would be able to to do is pistol whip you.

      Reply

  • Tigerbeetle

    |

    Not only “NO!” But H*** NO!

    Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.


− 5 = four