A New Day For Gun Violence Prevention

Last year at this time, I said that America was turning a corner on the gun issue, and the watershed events of 2008 confirmed that prediction.

The past year brought fundamental change to the way we understand and talk about gun violence prevention. The year also offered hope for the future, as the Brady Campaign endorsed - and our grassroots activists helped elect - Barack Obama as President of the United States, along with many other new officeholders who support taking steps to reduce gun violence.

Looking ahead to 2009, we are optimistic about making significant progress in our fight for common sense gun laws to help make our families and communities safer.

Reducing the toll of 100,000 Americans killed or wounded every year by gunfire - including 20,000 children and teens - is a concern of many of these new and returning officeholders. For the first time in decades, there is reason to hope that we can end the polarization in our politics that has kept us from enacting laws to reduce that terrible statistic, while also respecting Second Amendment rights as defined by the Supreme Court last summer.

President-elect Obama's statements were consistent - to gun owners, gun violence victims, and to all Americans - that he would uphold the Second Amendment and support common sense gun control laws that help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. We have no doubt that he will keep his promise. As then-Senator Obama said while accepting the Democratic nomination for President in Denver:

The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.

Looking back at 2008, the year began on a positive note on January 8 with President George W. Bush signing the first major new gun control law in a decade: the NICS Improvement Act. Passage of the Act was aided by the powerful testimony of families and survivors of the Virginia Tech massacre, as well as the persistent determination of members of Congress such as Representative Carolyn McCarthy and Senator Charles Schumer. This new law helps close a loophole in the Brady criminal background check system that allowed the Virginia Tech killer to buy the semi-automatic handguns he used in the worst mass shooting in modern American history.

While a few states have taken the lead to provide more records of prohibited purchasers to the Brady background check system since last January, too many states have not. Out of an estimated 2.6 million records of the dangerously mentally ill in this country, less than 20 percent have been provided to the Brady background check system so far. The 2009 legislative session offers states a new opportunity to do their part and make sure that dangerous people don't pass a Brady background check because of incomplete information, as the Virginia Tech killer did.

Last year's 110th session of Congress also bears some responsibility for this shortfall in records. Rather than appropriate funds for the NICS Improvement Act to help states forward more records of dangerous people to the system, Congress spent more time on second-guessing the gun ordinances of a local government instead. The Brady Campaign's U.S. Senate allies, however, successfully blocked efforts by some members of Congress to act as a super-City Council for the people of the District of Columbia.

In the spring of 2008, the nation marked the one-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre. On April 16, the Brady Campaign joined surviving victims and families of those killed in that terrible shooting - as well as activists from ProtestEasyGuns.com (a grassroots anti-gun violence organization founded by Abigail Spangler) - to observe the day. Events were held in over 100 cities and towns across the country in public squares, college campuses and even in front of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia on the evening of a debate between Senator Hillary Clinton and then-Senator Obama.

Activists gathered in groups of about 32 people, wore maroon and orange ribbons (Virginia Tech's colors) and rested on the ground in silent protest of the nation's weak gun laws, calling on their elected officials to close the gun show loophole. It was an amazing outpouring of grassroots support for stronger, common sense gun laws.

Powerful as that occasion was, an even more significant event for gun violence prevention advocates came in June when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. This landmark opinion fundamentally changed the way most people should now think and talk about the gun control issue - though not in the way many observers expected. It must be said, however, that two weeks before the opinion was handed down, the Brady Campaign correctly predicted the outcome of the Heller decision and what that would mean, as events in the Autumn would soon confirm.

While we opposed the Court's decision to overrule 70 years of precedent and over 200 years of Second Amendment history, gun violence prevention advocates praised Section III of Justice Antonin Scalia's decision to find a wide variety of gun control regulations "presumptively lawful" under the Constitution. Such laws include restrictions against carrying concealed weapons, laws against gun possession by felons and the mentally ill, laws against taking guns into "sensitive places" such as schools and government buildings, and laws that restrict "dangerous and unusual" weapons. Indeed, Justice Scalia stated that his list of "presumptively lawful" regulations comprised only examples, and was "not exhaustive."

The fundamental outcome of the Heller decision is that the Supreme Court made it clear that gun violence prevention efforts and the Second Amendment are compatible. The practical effect of this approach is that it takes the extremes of the gun debate off the table. On one hand, total gun bans aren't even a theoretical option anymore - a result that doesn't affect our work because the Brady Campaign doesn't favor such a policy. On the other hand, the preference of some in the gun lobby for any gun, any place, at any time, with few or no restrictions, is also off the table - a result that ironically leaves the National Rifle Association's leadership in a political box.

Why? After Heller, there is clearly a right to own a gun for self-defense in the home, while guns may still be regulated by our elected officials in order to protect public safety. Since the Supreme Court has affirmed the Constitutional right to own a gun while also affirming most restrictions on guns as "presumptively lawful," the doomsday scenarios advanced by the gun lobby of a slippery-slope to total gun confiscation are totally make-believe. The reality is that the Supreme Court's middle ground position is exactly where the American people are, and it has helped push the gun debate away from squabbling about 200-year-old history into practical discussions about how to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people today.

For example, a June 2008 CNN poll found that while 67% of Americans believe the Second Amendment guarantees each person the right to own a gun, 79% of Americans favor requiring gun owners to register their guns with the local government. That result tracks with polling of Election 2008 voters on behalf of the Brady Campaign by the Washington, DC public opinion firm Penn, Schoen & Berland. Voters in November supported common sense gun laws across partisan and ideological lines, and in all regions of the country. 83% of voters supported criminal background checks for all gun sales; 68% favored both gun registration and licensing; 65% favored banning military-style assault weapons; and 65% of voters favored requiring a five-day waiting period before purchasing a firearm. As Penn, Schoen & Berland concluded, "...sensible gun legislation provides a unique opportunity for the [Obama] Administration to build a bridge to moderate voters in both parties."

For these reasons, Election 2008 showed that winning the most significant Second Amendment case in American history actually makes it harder for the NRA bosses to terrify voters once again into believing that elected officials will somehow "take their guns away." Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox promised to spend $40 million in the election telling voters that Barack Obama was going to be "the most anti-gun President in American history" because he favored common sense gun policies. Most voters rejected the NRA's campaign as ridiculous, however, and instead listened to their own common sense, voting their hopes instead of their fears.

The National Rifle Association leadership took crushing losses on Election Day as a result. President-elect Obama defeated NRA-endorsed Senator John McCain in states from North Carolina to Nevada, New Hampshire to New Mexico, and dozens in between. President-elect Obama won 365 Electoral Votes, carrying my home state of Indiana - and even the NRA's home state of Virginia - for the first time any Democrat for president carried either state since Lyndon Johnson. NRA candidates lost not only the White House, but also eight competitive U.S. senate races - including New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon and very likely Minnesota - as well as over 20 competitive U.S. House races. No wonder the National Journal magazine rated the National Rifle Association among the "Bottom Five" least effective interest groups in the 2008 elections.

One of the reasons we won and the NRA bosses lost was because they were stuck in the old politics of division, portraying the gun issue as a false choice between the U.S. Constitution and gun violence prevention. Since the Supreme Court's landmark decision last June, however, it is clear that we can have both in this country. So today, with less than two weeks before President-elect Obama is inaugurated as America's 44th President, where does the gun violence prevention movement stand?

I believe our movement is in a stronger position to pass life-saving gun laws in 2009 and beyond, than at any time in decades. With Vice President-elect Joe Biden, White House Chief of Staff-designate Rahm Emmanuel, Attorney General-designate Eric Holder, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Homeland Security-designate Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Education-designate Arne Duncan, Secretary of Labor-designate Hilda Solis and other key Administration officials, gun violence prevention advocates are likely to have many friends in the Executive Branch of the Federal government for the first time in a long while. What's more, with over 10 new members of Congress endorsed by the Brady Campaign having just taken the oath of office, advocates can build on the successes of 2008 by working to create new problem-solving coalitions in 2009.

Make no mistake, however, there is much work to do. There are only a handful of national gun control laws on the books today, and even those have loopholes. To help keep guns away from dangerous people:

• We need to require Brady criminal background checks for all gun sales in this country, including at gun shows.


• We need to restrict access to military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.


• We need to limit bulk sales of handguns to cut illegal gun trafficking.


• We need to crack down on the 1.2% of corrupt gun dealers who account for almost 60% of crime guns in America.


• We need to give law enforcement agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) the funding and staff they need to disrupt the illegal gun trade.

It really is a new day for the gun violence prevention movement in America. Yet if we are to build on the successes of 2008 and take advantage of the many new opportunities ahead in 2009, we will need your help.

Please consider joining us in our mission to reduce the tragic toll of the 100,000 gun deaths or injuries Americans suffer every year by helping pass common-sense gun laws that help keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.

Happy New Year to everyone.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[DMeadows]

Hot off the AP wire: "Daschle out as health nominee due to tax problems"

OMG, Obama's lapses in judgement and decision-making on high-profile nominees is already growing into quite a lengthy one.

I SURELY hope his judgement and decision-making on RKBA and Second Amendment issues are MUCH MORE well thought through!

[DMeadows]

"biometric handguns can work up to the California standards and then became the standard weapon of civilians."
--jimtom

No law enforcement agency or military organization yet accepts even the "California standard", probably because it is either not proven reliable or proven substandard relative to mechanically secured firearms. It is completely reasonable to object to your idea to shove that standard down private citizens' throats. This specific issue is not about firearm power or caliber equal to military or law enforcement, but simply reliability. There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about having PROVEN reliabilty equal to military or law enforcement.

02011000

[fishyjay]

DMeadows: "No law enforcement agency or military organization yet accepts even the California standard"

Since jimtom is driving South (can't blame him) I will answer for him:

Law enforcement agencies and law enforcement officers DO accept the California standard...

...because the California standard means that actually using such devices is optional for them.

It's like me and tax increases: I support many types of tax increases...

...provided that they are all optional for me.

[twogunmojo]

addendum: either you are planning to pass some law and require everyone to bring in their current firearms and have them converted over to biometric guns or you are planning to outlaw the selling of non-biometric guns or a combination of both in order to achieve your goal of taking all guns away from everyone because there is no way to keep illegal guns from entering the country....its like trying to stop the flow of illegal aliens or drugs...you don't have the man power...will power...or the money....or the mandate to achieve your goal....

[twogunmojo]

so tell me shedances...if i am a crimnal what is to keep me from cutting off the hand or arm or trigger finger of the biometric gun owner and using their gun against society.....how long do you think it would take to circumvent this type of technology...and even if the gun is useless to me how does that render the ammo useless for my old school revolver....i guess shedances has never seen the movie "demolition man".....the movie was a poke at political correctness and how technology is its own worst enemy....in the movie everyone is lo-jacked with a bio-metric chip...without the chip you cannot access money or your car or any public services...this works great until the only criminal in the city learns that to get past the retinal scanner keeping him is prison is to tear out the eye of the warden....and he proceeds to go to the museum and steal the guns they have on display....

[ProGunAmerican]

Let me start out by saying..........hooooraaaaay, Blago is out! What a corrput, inept, incompetant jerk.

I also agree with others here, if civilians are going to be saddled with an unproven, unreliable, expensive technology, i.e smart guns, then the police and Federal LEO's should be stuck with it as well. Our lives are just as valuable as theirs. Once a "smart gun" fails a cop and that cop ends up dying, that will be the end of that, plus the parent company will probably get sued.

[DMeadows]

Correct. This specific issue is not about firearm power or caliber equal to military or law enforcement, but simply reliability. There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about having reliabilty equal to military or law enforcement.

[MycroftHolmes28]

Tell me shedances/jimtom...

Shouldn't we consider biometrics for knives as well to prevent innocent children like this from doing harm to others?

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/brother.murder.charges.2.921108.html

[DMeadows]

In the matter of securing firearms biometrically, and the problems it poses for for reliability in real-world environments, it is a fact that law enforcement thus far has not adopted any of it. One may be tempted to think that private citizens shouldn't be so concerned. After all, how often really does a private citizen face a situation where firearm reliability is directly at issue, compared to how often a LEO faces the same situation? Some enlightenment comes from looking at the rates of justifiable homicide committed by the two groups.

From the FBI's latest numbers (2001 to 2005) on justifiable homicides of these two groups(1)(2), a full one-third were committed by private citizens, two-thirds were committed by LEOs.

Obviously, private citizens aren't too far behind LEOs in the number of occasions when a trigger is lawfully pulled and the firearm needs to operate flawlessly.

--------------------------------------
(1)Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Law Enforcement, 2001-2005
URL:

(2)Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Private Citizen, 2001-2005
URL:

Please contact me if the included URL's don't appear.

[shedances]

Your URLs did not come through, Dmeadows; but readers can probably look these up for themselves, if interested.

I've been reading with much interest, this ongoing discussion over bio-authenticated (i.e., "biometric") firearms as a possible middle/common ground (post-Heller ruling) & as a way to our ongoing & at times graves concerns over gun-related violence & crimes in this country. Jimtom's ideas & recommendations for future manufacturing/engineering of biometric guns does have considerable merits, I feel. I say this in terms of 'timing,' too ... in our post-Heller environment; where we all have a duty to comply with the Cts. ruling, but also an equally important responsibility to prevent gun-related violence, no matter what the circumstances.

Also, in Jimtom's descriptions, he has outlined who could possibly bear the responsibility for this proposal in the state of California, for example; as well as the various controls that may need to be in place at several levels (including regulations & laws, & also a look at the enforcement issues that may be involved).

Last ~ the question of biometric type firearms for the civilian population vs. the nation's law enforcement is really a separate issue, IMO. What's available for enforcement measures isn't necessarily the same as what may be considered appropriate (or not) for home or self-defense/self-protection. I believe that even the Justices touched on this debate.

My two-cents.

Thanks, Jimtom ~ an intriguing discussion!

[shedances]

Deleted a word ~ should have read: "... & as a way to address our ongoing ..."

Gotta run now.

[fishyjay]

shedances,

While there are those here who will always oppose anything that sounds like "gun control" (have you noticed?) I am willing to look at reasonable compromises. On this issue that includes:

1) Inclusion of law enforcement guns. The case for doing so is clear: law officers shot with their own guns and accidents involving the children of law officers. The case against doing so is weak -- providing that such guns really do what their proponents claim. Why do we care? Because anything mandated for law officers HAS to work -- whereas there is great and justified mistrust by civilian gunowners of the motives and truthfulness of the sponsors of such laws.

2) Using such mandated technology as a replacement for some forms of gun control. We need to hear credible argument as to how such mandated technology will result in the repeal of some gun control laws and/or the abandonment of some gun control proposals by gun control advocates.

[DMeadows]

"What's available for enforcement measures isn't necessarily the same as what may be considered appropriate (or not) for home or self-defense/self-protection. I believe that even the Justices touched on this debate."
---shedances

Certainly, SCOTUS said the RKBA is subject to reasonable regulation. Such is the case with all of our rights, and overwhelmingly gun-rights advocates have always supported that. Remember, with Heller, SCOTUS didn't spank gun-rights advocates opposing a reasonable regulation. In Heller, SCOTUS spanked gun-control advocates arguing not only for unreasonable regulations but that the 2A is not an individual right.

It is unreasonable to require a feature on a firearm which may render it inoperable, unpredictably and outside the control of any lawful user. That is the core problem, and gun-rights advocates are only saying that what law enforcement and the miltary view as either reliable or unreliable is a reasonable criteria to hold all firearms to.

[MycroftHolmes28]

As the BC has claimed in the past, 20% of LEO's are killed with their own gun. This news account repeats that claim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkTRuouXSM0

So do you support or oppose that LEO's should be forced to use smart guns along with the general public?

[jimtom]

It's really too bad that the Agency was not able to provide more information regarding the detailed circumstances where citizens committed justifiable homicide. Perhaps such details are not readily available. A lot of the opponents of biometric handguns base their opposition on specific circumstances: weather related, dirty or injured hands/fingers, an assault under situations were the reliability of a biometric handgun could be in doubt, and so on. I've argued that I believe such situations are either rather rare or biometric handguns would still suffice. But it would be great to get some detailed ground truth.

How many justifiable homicides or handgun use by the victim not resulting in the death of the perpetrator were committed against home invaders?
How many were committed as a result of an assault that took place outside:
of these, how many were committed when it was raining, snowing, during a dust storm, when temperatures were so low that gripping a gun with the bare hand was infeasible, and so on.

I honestly don't think having this information is going to change the minds of any of the committed opponents (or possibly committed proponents), but at least we'd be arguing facts rather than suppositions.

[HisXLNC]

"I've argued that I believe such situations are either rather rare or biometric handguns would still suffice. But it would be great to get some detailed ground truth."

Just because something is rare, it doesn't mean it won't happen. Unless the government is going to be financially liable when someone dies in that rare case because their biometric handgun failed to function, there is no place for a biometric handgun, whether it's optional or mandatory to carry one.

[DMeadows]

"I honestly don't think having this information is going to change the minds of any of the committed opponents . . ."

That's not really the audience here I intend to influence. I'm after the lurkers and fence-sitters here who pay attention to who seems to have the most rational, sensible argument as they form their opinions. As long as I present my pro-RKBA views as both practical and rationally cohesive, and challenge anti-RKBA ideology and ideas where they are weak (which is practically in all aspects--it's a target-rich environment), I win.

[OdinsEye]

"I've argued that I believe such situations are either rather rare "

I don't care if they are rare. If I am faced with a situation where I am relying on a firearm, that firearm darn well better work and it better work with close to perfect reliability every darn time. That means when a home invader breaks in and I am in the kitchen cooking and my hands are covered in oil, grease, floor, meat, or marinade and I grab for the firearm at my waist, that firearm better flippin work. Or if I am dripping wet from a bath or shower or the hot tub and I grab the firearm, it had better work. If me and the missus are playing and I have astroglide, honey dust, or massage oils on my hands, that firearm better work. If I am working in the garage and have oil, grease, brake dust, fuel, sawdust, paint, etc. on my hands and I reach for the firearm, that firearm had better work. If I am attacked and wounded and have blood running down my arm, or if I get blood on me from tending to someone else who is wounded and I try to use the firearm for defense, that firearm had better work.

I am sorry that you are having such a hard time understanding this, but unless a biometric firearm can work under those circumstances and work 99.9999% of the time, then it may as well be a rock.

[MycroftHolmes28]

I hope you do realize that the engineers at S & W admit that their smart gun prototype can be deactivated by a garage door opener or TV remote.

I'll stick to my "dumb" guns, thanks.

[benEzra]

An optional built-in safety lock (a la current production Taurus, Glock, and S&W) provides nearly all of the real-world benefits of a biometric firearm, and very few of the drawbacks, at 1/20th or less of the price. When the gun is verified-unlocked and holstered, it will work with .9999 to .99995 reliability like a standard pistol, rather than like a delicate piece of consumer electronics. I personally much prefer a gun safe to an internal lock, but consumers have the choice of good internal locks RIGHT NOW.

IMO, the California reliability and durability standards are acceptable for a prototype, but not for a marketable firearm; three-nines reliability may be acceptable for a TV remote, but gun owners/users, both LEO and non-LEO, expect better than that.

I can think of at least two initially well-regarded consumer firearms that ultimately failed in the consumer market due to reliability/durability concerns, the Intratec TEC-9/DC-9 (with Intratec eventually going out of business) and the Smith & Wesson Sigma .380. Most gun manufacturers know better than to make an unreliable firearm, and .999 reliability in a centerfire locked-breech pistol or in a revolver is indeed unreliable.

[Thirdpower]

"it's wrong for a congressman from Florida or anywhere else to tell people in those states what kind of gun laws they should have."
-Brady Campaign spokesman Doug Pennington

Yet the first two things on the Brady Campaign wishlist are :

# We need to require Brady criminal background checks for all gun sales in this country, including at gun shows.

# We need to restrict access to military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Can we say double standard boys and girls? "Home Rule" only applies when it comes to anti-gun bills in the minds of gun grabbers.

[benEzra]

Bingo.

Around 44 states have considered AND REJECTED bans on protruding rifle handgrips and normal-capacity magazines nearly every year for two decades now.

Funny how home rule is so sacred when it involves enacting a gun ban, but so violable when it involves rejecting a gun ban, or setting CHL policy within the state's own borders.

[OdinsEye]

Biometrics need to work with any of these:

http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=shooting+gloves

http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=police+gloves

http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=tactical+gloves

[Thirdpower]

Sorry. That's a red herring. People can choose not to wear gloves. jimtomsaid so.

[OdinsEye]

JimTom needs to mingle with cops and shooters more.

[djkrlsn]

Gloves are not really an option at ambient temps of say -15 or -20 F--last time I checked skin will freeze to metal at the recent high temps in the upper midwest (like Chicago). That tells me that biometric systems utilizing palm/fingerprints are not a viable option where subzero temps are a fact every winter.

[ProGunAmerican]

You know what's amazing about the Benard Getz case? For 6 full months, there were no crimes on the NY subway, none, nada, zilch, zero. After this timeframe, the thugs figured no one would be carrying a gun, since Getz was arrested for his brave action. They were right, crime returned to the NY subway.

All the pro-gun folks here will be happy to know, I renewed my NRA membership today, bought another 2 years. I figure now is as critical as ever, since Obama will open up a major battlefront on guns, eventually.

[HisXLNC]

If a biometric handgun can take this level of abuse, I will consider it reliable:

http://www.theprepared.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90

[OdinsEye]

If it can do this AND meet the other criteria I and others mentioned, then it MIGHT be good enough to market as OPTIONAL .

http://springfield-armory.primediaoutdoors.com/SPstory11.php

[Sneaky]

Jimtom, Re: Criteria

The problem with your claims on what the average anyone might face in a defensive scenario is that you have not qualified your claims with facts. What is the average self-defense scenario? Where is it, regionally? Is this a function of local beliefs/legislation or because there is less/more need for self defense measures? Have you any personal experience with existing biometric technologies? What about firearms technologies? What is your background concerning gunfights?

You claim that gloves are unreasonable or that they can be taken off quickly. Have you ever tried this while under threat of severe bodily harm or death? You claim that blood/dirt is an unreasonable assumption. Have you ever grappled off of a training mat (most self-defense shootings are from nearly contact distance, after all)? Or, for that matter, have you ever had to defend yourself in real life (read: ever been jumped)? You claim bandaids are unreasonable. Ever cut/scrape/injure a finger/hand? benEzra wasn't making things up arbitrarily - he was listing real life and very common instances that must be considered when the subject of self-defense comes up.

[jimtom]

I believe the technical requirements in the California legislation satisfy real life requirements a potential victim would face in a confrontation with an armed opponent in the vast majority of cases.

The "average" self-defense scenarios, as defined by the International Defense Pistol Association, are "...simulations of actual or possible "real world" confrontations. These scenarios typically require shots from 3 - 20 yards and often require the shooter to change firing points and shoot from awkward positions." I never claimed bandaids are unreasonable. The California requirements mandate that the gun register a "true positive" for either hand so the issue of bandaids, cuts, bruises is a red herring. Self defense shootings, whether from three or thirty feet don't matter because the requirement is that the gun recognize the authorized user and arms in .5 seconds, less time than it would take to pick-up a gun and raise/point it to a firing position. In instances where the homeowner hears a burglar in another room, he/she has amble time to grip the gun and aim carefully (not to mention to call 911) -- unless the gun is in another room, but of course in this instance it wouldn't matter if the gun was biometric or not. If I've been"jumped" and if my arms are pinned I can't grab my gun and it doesn't matter if the gun is biometric or not, if can reach my gun with either hand, the gun will arm, whether it's biometric or not.

[MycroftHolmes28]

Do you believe that the police and military should be REQUIRED to use these guns?

Please explain.

[OdinsEye]

"The California requirements mandate that the gun register a "true positive" for either hand so the issue of bandaids, cuts, bruises is a red herring. "

How does working with either hand negate problems with bruises and bandaids?

"the requirement is that the gun recognize the authorized user and arms in .5 seconds, less time than it would take to pick-up a gun and raise/point it to a firing position."

Not true.

[Sneaky]

The technical requirements in the California legislation satisfy some, but not all, real life requirements. That aside, you've missed the point of several things I've stated.

First, anything covering the hand (everything from gloves to bandaids) is a possibility that must be accounted for; simply stating "it will work for the other hand" is not a good enough answer, because even injured most shooters are better with their strong hand than their support hand. I might have a mild burn that causes my strong hand to remain under a light wrap, but like hell if that should keep me from using a firearm in that hand. No red herring here, thanks. Second, your quote from the IDPA does not describe anything but distance and odd positions and does not address any of the questions I raised in my prior response. Third, getting jumped does not mean your arms are pinned; it means you're in a very sudden and violent confrontation, which I mention because these are exactly the situations that might lead the person on the receiving end to have to try to grip a weapon with a bloody and/or dirty hand (scrapes from walls, asphalt, etc.).

[Sneaky]

I stand by my prior statements, both because you have not addressed them and because I believe it will be many, many years (read: more than a decade) before anything remotely viable comes to light. You don't make a life-saving device or tool to the "average user". You make it to work, period, in the worst conditions imaginable, because God forbid someone find themselves in such a position at least they'll know their life-saving tool will still work.

If you really, truly want to do something about accidental (NEGLIGENT) firearm discharges, support educational programs concerning firearms safety. Help teach parents how to store firearms so that they're usable but as inaccessible to children as one can reasonably expect them to be. Help teach kids what to do if/when they find a gun, at their own or at someone else's house. This is a hardware solution for a software problem, and it could get people killed if they ever need to use the weapon.

[fishyjay]

That's great, jimtom. I now see no problem in mandating such guns for all LE officers, to remedy the very real "shot with own gun" problem. That will remove a crucial objection from civilian gunowners.

[OdinsEye]

As a LEO, I can absolutely confirm that the criteria benEzra and EmilyU listed are absolutely 100% spot on.

Blood, dirt, gun powder residue, water, oil, sweat, solvents, lubricants, these are all very valid concerns and if the technology does not work in all of these at least 999,999 times out of a million, then I don't want it on my duty weapon, nor do I want it on my personal firearms.

If I can't fire after switching hands and fingers, or if another LEO cannot grab my firearm and return fire, then I do not want this technology on my duty sidearm nor on my personal sidearms.

If I can't fire with gloves on or while wearing a bandaid, then I don't want this technology on my duty firearm, nor on my personal ones.

IMNSHO, any LEO who supports technology which fails the above is either a noob or mall security.

[DMeadows]

"either a noob or mall security"

Coincidentally, those are the same two categories that most gun-control advocates fall into. :P

[jimtom]

There really is nothing left to say regarding your objections. You want your guns unfettered, unchanged, and you're unwilling or unable to look at the big picture. People are dying needlessly, and biometric handguns, if they can meet the California criteria, will save thousands of lives a year. Police can choose them, or not. Two Chief's in California backed the biometric bill, none opposed it. Los Angeles County has the worst gang violence in the Country. Sheriff Lee Baca, Los Angeles backed the bill.

" In 2005, 595 California children and youth under age 21 were killed with
firearms.
" One-third of U.S. children live in homes with firearms. Almost half of homes
with children and firearms keep a gun unlocked.
" 68% of the attackers in school shootings obtained the attackers used handguns.
" Many young children, including children as young as three years old, can fire a handgun.
" A 2003 study of 117 firearms deaths in California revealed that 37% could have been
prevented by a personalized handgun.

Footnotes are available, but there isn't room to include them.

None of this matters to gun control opponents, who always develop scenarios that require a need for whatever gun control proponents would like to see modified or eliminated in existing guns. I'm sure you spin a scenario in which it is absolutely necessary to have a 50mm machine gun available instantly. Part of good citizenship is empathy, part of it is self-sacrifice. You fail both tests

[OdinsEye]

"In 2005, 595 California children and youth under age 21 were killed with
firearms."

Age 18 and up are adults.

"A 2003 study of 117 firearms deaths in California revealed that 37% could have been
prevented by a personalized handgun."

Let's see the study. And let's see if simply unloading the firearm or traditional methods of securing it would not have had the same effect.

"I'm sure you spin a scenario in which it is absolutely necessary to have a 50mm machine gun available instantly."

Machine guns are strictly controlled items requiring a lot of time and federal and state paperwork to obtain. Same for any firearm greater than 12.7 mm in bore diameter.

[OdinsEye]

"part of it is self-sacrifice."

Not when it comes to rights.

[fishyjay]

jimtom: "Police can choose them, or not. Two Chief's in California backed the biometric bill, none opposed it."

Only two backed it? You are not emphasizing the "police are exempt" feature enough.

None opposed it? Include police instead of exempting them and then let's see.

PS: Those two Chief's in California that backed the biometric bill -- how do the Mayors who appointed them feel about gun control?

[Sneaky]

I want my firearms absolutely usable in any situation where I might have to use it. I want my firearms as reliable as a machine can be expected to be. I want my firearms to be accessible to those who could save my life with them should I have to rely on someone else due to injury. Anything at all that impedes any of these three requirements is no-go in my and most other shooter's books.

Your bigger picture does not address very valid concerns by shooters (not just gun owners, but people who actually use their firearms). Not hypothetical maybes, not "pretend scenarios", but real life events. You refuse to address the issue of safety education. Heck, you refuse to even qualify your background on the subject so we as readers know what your own experience is with firearms and with violent conflict (yes, it matters). Good citizenship doesn't mean I sacrifice my ability to effectively protect myself as best as possible because it makes someone else feel good.

I've been accused by Kelli of being fairly cold-hearted before back on the Brady Campaign's own blog because I demanded to know statistics and whether or not they were significant. So here is my question to you, sir: will society benefit more from spending those monies on R&D for biometric recognition devices for firearms, or doing what actually needs doing to reduce crime?

Stop targeting rare accidents and start emphasizing education and training.

[DMeadows]

"50mm machine gun"
--jimtom

You mean .50 caliber machine gun. Anti-gunners talk about and wet their pants over that one, not a "50mm". There's no such thing, in the modern and common gun market, as a 50mm machine gun.

You are obviously a graduate of the Carolyn McCarthy Advanced School of Weaponry. Let me ask you a question that you may remember from your final exam: what's a barrel shroud?

[Thirdpower]

The problem w/ his claims are that they come from Brady Campaign 'factsheets' and Joyce funded 'studies'.

[Tencfan]

I'm not even gonna look at it, because i don't believe you. Another wild goose chase, compliments of Thirdpower. ~Kelli

The problem with this comment clearly shows that after two+ years of advocating for more gun control legislation, Kelli will not research both sides of the issue. Third is linking proof via video of how some politicians create laws on issues they know little about and the above is the typical reply (fingers in ears mumbling something). Much info has been shown by the pro-gun rights advocates here that debunk what Kelli believes to be true, yet she continues to argue the issue.

H.R. 17 sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD] is a national castle doctrine law being introduced right now that allows all law abiding citizens the security to protect their family and homes with the use of a firearm, a similar law we already have in Florida. Upon reading this bill, The Congress finds the following:
(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens. Remember when this gem came up a while back and the resident Brady supporter didn`t believe it?

[DMeadows]

Kelli raises a good question about ThirdPower's and others posts concerning corrupt politicians. She views it as an attempt to negatively portray all anti-gun folks. I think it's subject to interpretation, and here's how I interpret it:

Regulating civil rights is a very sensitive matter. Balancing the protection of exercise of rights with restrictions in order to protect others' rights requires politicians at the highest level of integrity and good faith. It is dangerous to entrust the regulation of your rights to corrupt politicians, or organizations of politicians that are tainted by even the smell of corruption. These types of posts call such politicians and organizations out, for the benefit of all people who are concerned with protection of their rights.

[molonlabe]

Distraught Father Kills Wife, 5 Kids, Self

(Jan. 28) - In one upstairs bedroom, the bodies of twin 2-year-old boys were found beside their dead mother. In another bedroom, 5-year-old twin girls and their 8-year-old sister lay next to their lifeless father.
Officers discovered the horrific scene after rushing to a home in Wilmington, prompted by the father's distraught letter faxed to a TV station describing a "tragic story" and a call to authorities.

http://news.aol.com/article/los-angeles-shooting-murders/319604

5th mass murder/suicide in Brady Campaign A rated California in a year.

Proof that there is a social component to violent crime/suicide and not a problem with implements??

[shedances]

According to that same article:

"[The father] got a state license to work as a security guard in 1989 and a permit to carry a gun as a security guard in 1993, but both expired in 2007, said Russ Heimerich, a spokesman for the state Bureau of Security and Investigative Services..."

[Thirdpower]

So even more evidence that licensing and registration don't work. Good point,

[molonlabe]

Your point?

Mine was to call attention to the fact that the social problems in our country have much more impact on crime than implements.

Your point was to call attention to the fact that LEO (current or former) are no better than average citizens, even though you advocate for them to be the Only Ones(tm) able to CCW?

Or was it to call attention to the fact that this individual was not a concealed weapoms carrier?

Care to explain?

[DMeadows]

So, this guy with homicidal tendencies got through Brady Campaign A-rated California's system for issuing carry permits?

Sounds like California could learn some lessons from the shall-issue states, and the Brady Campaign's state rating system needs a lot more credibility.

[MycroftHolmes28]

So do you believe that the state of California is partially liable for these deaths?

[OdinsEye]

So much for licensing and registration preventing crime.