Holder: We Want to Explore Gun Tracking Bracelets


PDA






JRH6856
April 7, 2014, 09:15 PM
http://freebeacon.com/issues/holder-we-want-to-explore-gun-tracking-bracelets/

"Attorney General Eric Holder said on Friday that gun tracking bracelets are something the Justice Department (DOJ) wants to “explore” as part of its gun control efforts.

When discussing gun violence prevention programs within the DOJ…"

If you enjoyed reading about "Holder: We Want to Explore Gun Tracking Bracelets" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Strahley
April 8, 2014, 12:16 AM
The Justice Department has requested $382.1 million in increased spending for its fiscal year 2014 budget for “gun safety.”

And most likely, not a dollar to be spent on public awareness trying to encourage people to practice safe gun handling/storage

MEHavey
April 8, 2014, 01:31 AM
And as YoungSon notes -- fresh back from another tour in the sandbox:

"...Which, then you probably could create a jamming system to make the firearm completely inop........."

USAF_Vet
April 8, 2014, 02:08 AM
GPS trackers worked so well when Holders DOJ gave guns to Mexican drug cartels.

Bexar
April 8, 2014, 02:21 AM
I think it's written in the New Jersey gun law that as soon as "Smart guns" become practical all handguns in New Jersey sold after that must be smart guns.

Ryanxia
April 8, 2014, 08:21 AM
Bexar, I believe you're correct.

This will certainly be a battleground in the coming future. The one good thing is just about every technology can be broken, hacked, has a weakness, and whatever flaws we find with this technology if/when it becomes even close to viable, will be a major defense point against it. Also pushing cops to have to have them first will hopefully be a good conversation starter. :D

oneounceload
April 8, 2014, 09:46 AM
http://freebeacon.com/issues/holder-we-want-to-explore-gun-tracking-bracelets/

“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.”

Now here is a solution for a yet to be incurred problem.......

The Justice Department has requested $382.1 million in increased spending for its fiscal year 2014 budget for “gun safety.”

Maybe they should use that money to keep violent criminals in jail instead of releasing them early?

:cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::banghead::banghead::banghead:

19-3Ben
April 8, 2014, 09:50 AM
I don't even know what to say. Stupidity abounds in Washington.

MagnunJoe
April 8, 2014, 09:52 AM
DOA like most anti gun crap that comes out of Washington.

GAF
April 8, 2014, 09:58 AM
A hackable technology that will not do a thing to prevent gun violence.

Tirod
April 8, 2014, 10:15 AM
Ok, lets look at the reality. An RFID chip in the bracelet will do it. The gun detects a valid encoded ID and unlocks the action to fire.

Already in use with fob keys for cars. Existing technology. Not so dead in the water in terms of tech, it's already in use.

What the agenda meisters really want is to turn OFF your gun with a master disconnect signal.

The unintended consequences are that hackers can mess up anybody's best laid plans, and the system won't work that way. Adding electronic reception of signals to enable or disable a gun is a two edged sword.

And, unfortunately, we have already seen that some makers will provide firearms to the military and LEO's which will enable them to be free of the restriction. Which will put them in the spotlight even more than now, having full auto M16's easily available for the stealing from their patrol car.

Imagine a shadowy crowd of non gun users attempting to follow a foot patrol officer thinking there will be no shoot outs in their vicinity, along with gangstas looking to snatch a gun they could use, using a cop's gun they can. They left that stuff out of "Judge Dredd." It would make a great parody. The endless speculation and possibilities are even worse than a TEOTWAWKI thread.

We won't buy them, and we would disable them. It would make even more gun users criminals without fixing any of the societal problems. Kind of like Connecticut. That worked well, right?

CoalTrain49
April 8, 2014, 10:21 AM
EH is just another adm. bag man.

Every time he opens his mouth he hurts the team.

EH and everything he says is now totally irrelevant.

He will be lucky to keep his job until the next election.

wally
April 8, 2014, 11:15 AM
How about criminal tracking bracelets?

He will be lucky to keep his job until the next election.
Not a chance of him leaving, the media is willfully blind to anything that reflects badly on Obama and his cronies.

Midwest
April 8, 2014, 11:22 AM
Before this thread gets locked ...............


Lets change the title of the thread from "Holder: We Want to Explore Gun Tracking Bracelets"

To

"Citizens of the U.S. : We want Holder to come clean on 'Fast and Furious'"


ok....now you may close the thread.........


.

GarySTL
April 8, 2014, 11:26 AM
After the FBI, Secret Service, and HS test the system for 5 years it might be sold for civilian use. :-)

Hurryin' Hoosier
April 8, 2014, 11:44 AM
Will Holder issue these bracelets to the Mexican drug cartels?

Geneseo1911
April 8, 2014, 12:13 PM
research opportunity:

Which of Obama's donors/buddies own the company that's going to get this 2 million dollar grant to "research" these RFID guns?

MEHavey
April 8, 2014, 12:28 PM
I don't think the Peanut gallery has grasped the portent of post #3 above.

Every civilian-bracelet activated firearm could be selectively jammed at the flip of a switch.
Who needs confiscation after that? All you have left is an expensive doorstop.




But after all, it's for your own safety (...and those of "the children"), right?

gspn
April 8, 2014, 12:33 PM
I look forward to reading all of the responses to this one...there are so many things wrong with the plan that there is no way I could think of them all on my own.

In addition to all of the immediate problems with the plan I also had this thought...the same government that can't protect our critical infrastructure from an EMP, wants to push everyone toward guns vulnerable to the same. Then when all the lights go out nobody has a way to protect themselves.

Bexar
April 8, 2014, 03:08 PM
What about twelve gauge shotguns? All feel good legislation kind of gets thrown out the door when some guy in a gun-free zone Navy Yard in a gun restricted city goes human hunting at will while the local PD tries to find it's backside and get their donuts and coffee to go. I can just see a bunch of duck hunters picking out their Mossy Oak bracelets to go duck hunting with. Not only that but how many lives do they think these bracelets are going to save when guns have saved far more lives by running off or capturing violent felons thousands upon thousands of times every year. I'd like to have every Congressional gun control debate opened with the reading of the U.S. Justice departments findings and the CDC report Clinton in his presidency and then Obama had commissioned at millions of taxpayer dollars but a mighty Oops!!! came out of the Oval office when the findings were presented to Himself by the commission he had us pay for. I'd like to look under that Oval office rug and pull out that report which is probably next to that lump in the carpet where the Benghazi and Fast and Furious investigations have been swept.

Colt45
April 8, 2014, 03:14 PM
Holder gets the first one issued for the Fast and Furious fiasco.

SeaDan
April 8, 2014, 04:08 PM
So a database of RFID or other gun owner bracelets is not the same thing as a gun registration database?

No Wait! That IS the same thing!

A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf and will bite you as soon as it can.

rdhood
April 8, 2014, 04:34 PM
Okay guys, I don't know where to go or even if this belongs here. Today I was over at Redstate.com, and clicked on the article talking about Holder and his gun bracelet.

Instead of immediately getting the webpage, I get the following:

"Careful now!

This website could not be displayed by Firefox because it is not consistent with Mozilla's corporate values. May we suggest another site instead?

Click anywhere to continue. "

Has anybody seen this? Is it time to dump Mozilla and Firefox? Now, they were probably reacting to redstate.com, but redstate's views and articles on gun ownership are the same as most law abiding gun owners. I am concerned that this is the start of Mozilla censorship.

Drail
April 8, 2014, 05:36 PM
I am sure the Feds feel that if they can switch off your car's ignition or your cell phone - why not your gun?

Bob2222
April 8, 2014, 05:46 PM
Does anyone else remember the mandatory 1974 automobile seat belt ignition switch interlocks? Most of the circuits were probably disabled before most of the cars so equipped were even delivered to customers. IIRC, this lasted a few months before congress did away with the requirement.

I can't imagine how this idea can possibly work with a simple machine based on centuries-old technology that's designed to be completely disassembled for cleaning.

Does Holder even understand how a gun works?

Bexar
April 8, 2014, 06:01 PM
Does anyone else remember the mandatory 1974 automobile seat belt ignition switch interlocks? Most of the circuits were probably disabled before most of the cars so equipped were even delivered to customers. IIRC, this lasted a few months before congress did away with the requirement.

I can't imagine how this idea can possibly work with a simple machine based on centuries-old technology that's designed to be completely disassembled for cleaning.

Does Holder even understand how a gun works?
Probably not...but I'm sure one or several of his tax payer paid highly trained SWAT or Special Forces 24/7 bodyguards can give him a primer lesson on how they work. Problem is he and the other gun control freaks don't have to know how guns work. They just need to know how to work the liberal vote.

Follow the comments on some of the liberal websites forums on gun control. The stupid will stun and nauseate you.

Midwest
April 8, 2014, 06:04 PM
Okay guys, I don't know where to go or even if this belongs here. Today I was over at Redstate.com, and clicked on the article talking about Holder and his gun bracelet.

Instead of immediately getting the webpage, I get the following:

"Careful now!

This website could not be displayed by Firefox because it is not consistent with Mozilla's corporate values. May we suggest another site instead?

Click anywhere to continue. "



Has anybody seen this? Is it time to dump Mozilla and Firefox? Now, they were probably reacting to redstate.com, but redstate's views and articles on gun ownership are the same as most law abiding gun owners. I am concerned that this is the start of Mozilla censorship.
Sounds like the site was hacked.....

.

dook
April 8, 2014, 06:08 PM
I have a better idea. Why not put tracking bracelets on all politicians, bankers and media moguls so that we the people will know where they are at all times. If they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't mind.

barnbwt
April 8, 2014, 06:20 PM
I'll let Mr. 'Vast Discretion' Holder answer for me;

"YOU DON'T WANNA GO THERE!"

TCB

vamo
April 8, 2014, 06:30 PM
Okay guys, I don't know where to go or even if this belongs here. Today I was over at Redstate.com, and clicked on the article talking about Holder and his gun bracelet.

Instead of immediately getting the webpage, I get the following:

"Careful now!

This website could not be displayed by Firefox because it is not consistent with Mozilla's corporate values. May we suggest another site instead?

Click anywhere to continue. "



Has anybody seen this? Is it time to dump Mozilla and Firefox? Now, they were probably reacting to redstate.com, but redstate's views and articles on gun ownership are the same as most law abiding gun owners. I am concerned that this is the start of Mozilla censorship.

Sounds like the site was hacked.....

Not to drive things off topic, but I think its important to clarify so people don't all go uninstalling firefox at once. This is probably retaliation by redstate.com for the recent firing of mozilla's CEO. If you don't know the story you can google it, not gun related.

newfalguy101
April 8, 2014, 06:30 PM
Issue them to LEO's for the BETA testing...................that'll put an end to the program

SFsc616171
April 8, 2014, 07:53 PM
Dear Eric Holder,
1. I refuse.
2. This kind of technology only works when, anyone knowledgeable of firearm mechanics, cannot by design, disassemble that firearm. How can YOU stop that, when you cannot keep terrorist Jihadis from possibly killing me?
3. You cannot disable a revolver with technology, as you could a semi-automatic pistol, especially striker-fired, with any kind of electronic device.
4. Again, I refuse!!

pharmer
April 8, 2014, 08:12 PM
Typical lefty bovine excrement. Guns that won't work unless they get a gov't approved signal. Sort of like most folks hanging around the local "gov't benefit service center." 300 million guns in America and growing daily. Dry up the ammo/components: would be just like drying up gasoline, car ain't much use without it. Look for these tools to attack from that front using the EPA. Joe

oneounceload
April 8, 2014, 09:13 PM
I imagine a huge increase in used gun prices if it ever did come close to reality

bushmaster1313
April 8, 2014, 10:15 PM
Bad guys will be required by statute to count to ten (one Mississippi, two Mississippi . . .) if the targeted victim needs change batteries on their bracelet or gun.

Speedgoat
April 8, 2014, 10:17 PM
Firearms have always been, as far as the 'personal realm' goes, mechanical in nature, I don't really like the idea of them gumming them up with electronics, more stuff to potentially fail on a personal belonging that is more likely than most others to be 'when you need it your life depends on it'.

Deaf Smith
April 8, 2014, 10:37 PM
Holder seems to not see those words in the 2nd Amendment... that is.. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Not even the 1st Amendment has those words.

Now if people want to buy Magna triggers or bracelets trigger locks or whatever, fine, but only as a choice they make, not some government mandate.

Shall not be infringed is kind of hard to interpret to mean anything but to keep ones little socialist hands off it.

Deaf

RetiredUSNChief
April 9, 2014, 12:08 AM
“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.”

Except that the ultimate stated goal of gun control isn't about ensuring only law abiding citizens have guns...it's about ensuring law abiding citizens don't have guns in the first place.

Which makes this statement a bald faced lie.

JRH6856
April 9, 2014, 12:15 AM
Except that the ultimate stated goal of gun control isn't about ensuring only law abiding citizens have guns...it's about ensuring law abiding citizens don't have guns in the first place.

Which makes this statement a bald faced lie.
But the statement says nothing about "law-abiding citizens." It is about people "lawfully in possession of a weapon." Which mans that as more law-abiding citizens; are added to restricted classes, or more types of weapons are made illegal, all they will have to do is flip a switch to deactivate the weapons. As noted, RFID technology is proven and in used daily. The only researchy needed is how to best utilize it in the best interestes of government.

Ignition Override
April 9, 2014, 12:25 AM
It's from the White House Cabinet's long checklist of items which, for the moment, are designed to distract the public from the widespread dissatisfaction with the cost increases and job losses (even lack of job growth) caused by the failed ACA, "Obamacare".

All new gimmicks used for what they label "gun control"- Instead of Criminal control-with which to rally the public also simply reflect their anxieties about losing the Senate majority in this fall's elections.

Shanghai McCoy
April 9, 2014, 12:42 AM
Issue them to LEO's for the BETA testing...................that'll put an end to the program
Yep, my thoughts too...

JSH1
April 9, 2014, 07:51 AM
Only $2 million is for smart gun technology, the bulk of the money is to support NICS background checks ($100M) and school safety programs ($150M). There is a link to the actual document in the story but here it is again:

http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2014factsheets/gun-safety.pdf

sarge83
April 9, 2014, 08:16 AM
Why not just make gun owners wear the star of David or tattoo us. Other totalitarians have went this route, much cheaper with the same affect. Holder is without a doubt the worst and most corrupt attorney general to every have held office. He makes Reno look competent.

Carl N. Brown
April 9, 2014, 08:38 AM
Does anyone else remember the mandatory 1974 automobile seat belt ignition switch interlocks?

The potential for disaster there is illustrated by the current hullabaloo over auto ignition switches that wear too easily under the weight of key chains, resulting in deaths attributed to the ignition switching off while driving. A seatbelt interlock would also be subject to wear and tear. Not everyone can afford a new car every couple of years or so like Congressmen and executive branch government officials.

The Glock is one of the most successful firerarms of all time, in part because of the low parts count (what is it? 34 parts total?) KISS Keep It Sweet and Simple for reliability. More complication, the more potential for failure.

The "smart pistol" has been quoted at $1400 with $400 for the activator bracelet. If the $1800 smart pistol became mandatory, the incentive to make convetional firearms in underground workshops would be tempting. In Australia, the outlaw motorcyle clubs build MAC10 clones in garage and basement workshops and I'll bet the raw materials don't cost more than $100 per gun.

This is like legal marijuana with a $300 an ounce tax: the black market there will not disappear at those prices. What is the point in stimulating support for a black market in guns?

"`He that is born to be a man,' says Wieland in his Peregrinus Proteus, `should nor can be anything nobler, greater, or better than a man.' The fact is, that in efforts to soar above our nature, we invariably fall below it. Your reformist demigods are merely devils turned inside out."--Edgar Allan Poe in Marginalia 1844

Ryanxia
April 9, 2014, 08:50 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there only 2 options with this technology if the electronics fail?
1) Electronics fail/short out, gun becomes a normal gun
2) Electronics fail/short out, gun does not work at all

So either everyone would find a way to short them out, or they would have a much higher risk of failure.

Also, if it ever became law (like in NJ where it would be instantly) what are the ways they could check if a gun were in compliance? (on the street/ out in the field general compliance checks I mean)

jbrown50
April 9, 2014, 09:29 AM
But the statement says nothing about "law-abiding citizens." It is about people "lawfully in possession of a weapon." Which mans that as more law-abiding citizens; are added to restricted classes, or more types of weapons are made illegal, all they will have to do is flip a switch to deactivate the weapons. As noted, RFID technology is proven and in used daily. The only researchy needed is how to best utilize it in the best interestes of government.
Yes, RFID technology is proven and is used daily but I know four friends and relatives who've had to have their automobiles towed in because the key chip technology malfunctioned. When I need my gun to defend myself it can't be at a time when the volatile electronics technology decides to malfunction.

The problem with Holder is that he believes more in banning or nullifying so called evil guns than in attacking and curbing the root causes of crime. All of the energy, money and time put into removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens can be channeled towards cracking down on drug traffickers, improving education, job training, and emphasizing family values and discipline....... but, because so much of this economy is supported by infusions of money gained through criminal enterprise, corruption, the prison industry and illegal immigration, there is little incentive for corrupt politicians like Holder to do things the right way.

Ryanxia
April 9, 2014, 09:44 AM
The problem with Holder is that he believes more in banning or nullifying so called evil guns than in attacking and curbing the root causes of crime. All of the energy, money and time put into removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens can be channeled towards cracking down on drug traffickers, improving education, job training, and emphasizing family values and discipline....... but, because so much of this economy is supported by infusions of money gained through criminal enterprise, corruption, the prison industry and illegal immigration, there is little incentive for corrupt politicians like Holder to do things the right way.
It's because they don't care about crime, crime is just an excuse to disarm the American people. Crime/safety is just the easiest/best avenue to do this. It's happened countless times in history.

RetiredUSNChief
April 9, 2014, 09:51 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there only 2 options with this technology if the electronics fail?
1) Electronics fail/short out, gun becomes a normal gun
2) Electronics fail/short out, gun does not work at all

So either everyone would find a way to short them out, or they would have a much higher risk of failure.

Also, if it ever became law (like in NJ where it would be instantly) what are the ways they could check if a gun were in compliance? (on the street/ out in the field general compliance checks I mean)

This depends on how the device is designed to function. Which, in turn, is based on the design "failsafe" condition.

The problem here is who decides what that "failsafe" contition is...the end user who is concerned that the gun function as a gun when he needs it or gun control advocates whose concern is that the gun NOT function unless al "safety features" are 100% operational and in effect.


Given who would makeing these types of decisions on a safety device/gun control measure that nobody want's installed on their gun anyway, which way do you think the failsafe will be designed?

:scrutiny:

Spats McGee
April 9, 2014, 11:01 AM
Maybe my tinfoil hat is a little too tight, but I can't help but believe that the DOJ will want to put an external "kill switch" (no pun intended) on these so that they can just turn off civilian firearms when they see fit.

CoalTrain49
April 9, 2014, 12:20 PM
It's from the White House Cabinet's long checklist of items which, for the moment, are designed to distract the public from the widespread dissatisfaction with the cost increases and job losses (even lack of job growth) caused by the failed ACA, "Obamacare".

All new gimmicks used for what they label "gun control"- Instead of Criminal control-with which to rally the public also simply reflect their anxieties about losing the Senate majority in this fall's elections.

People certainly get worked up when someone like the now defunct AT starts trying to generate some love for the party. What EH says has about about as much credence as any other politician on his way out. The dems now own gun control and hope that it will be enough to keep them afloat. From everything I've seen coming from congress it's a dead horse.

Lex Luthier
April 11, 2014, 09:55 AM
Holder, Sibelius, Hillary C., Kerry, Reid et al will go down in history as the most deleterious administration in US history.

DaisyCutter
April 11, 2014, 01:53 PM
A couple thoughts:

RFID works in cars, fine. A firearm is exposed to more heat, scrubbed in solvent, and subjected to repeated explosive charges & mechanical collisions. The operating environment is not conducive to electronics. There will naturally be a power source, which will need replacement, and the access point will be contaminated with solvents/oils/dirt. When solid state laser/ray-guns and Star Trek phasers are developed, then incorporate fobs and bracelets.

Secondly, there is a "coverage" issue. My cell phone doesn't get reception in many of the places I need my gun the most. I don't foresee soldiers running to the highest hill-top and waving their rifle awkwardly over their head, hoping to get enough signal bars to fire it...

I'd suggest worrying about something relevant. Microchipped conventional firearms just aren't feasible. Incorporating a control device into a CPU driven future energy weapon will be feasible if/once the weaponry advances that far.

I'll volunteer to beta test the first bracelet fob activated 40-watt phased plasma rifle on patrol... And I'll have my trusty cumbustion driven lead projectile shooter as a back-up.

goon
April 11, 2014, 11:17 PM
Put my name at the top of the list... Right after the Secret Service tests them for ten years and makes the frequency they operate on public.

Guy B. Meredith
April 12, 2014, 12:43 AM
Forget the chip and the hacking. Just open the firearm, remove the offending electronics and

1. Remove any action blocking hardware if present or jam in place any enabling linkages
2. Wire directly to the trigger if electric activation is still needed.
3. Do a Youtube instruction video on the process of dumbing the "smart gun."

With an electronic gizmo there are two switches in series--the electronics and the trigger. Just eliminate the unneeded extra switch.

This stuff really needs to be heavily circulated to get political attention.

Eb1
April 12, 2014, 01:17 AM
Forget all that.
My guns are already smart. They just sit there until I decide to shoot them.

My wife and daughter would have been raped and dead if this stupid idea was in affect.

Aventurero
April 12, 2014, 06:41 PM
Politics as usual. I don't believe that Obamacare has anything to do with it as much as misguided politics in regards to guns and the 2nd Amendment.

barnbwt
April 12, 2014, 07:12 PM
"RFID works in cars, fine"
Baloney. My Dodge loses its 'fobick' signal somewhat regularly (even when it's not draining batteries at a hilarious rate), causing me to have to lock/unlock the vehicle before starting it again --at least the engine won't shut off when it happens while driving :D. It is a 'sufficient' technology, but hardly a flawless one. And it's still extremely vulnerable to hacking and jamming, regardless (a CCW'er with a pinging device could be detected and recorded/decoded from a surprising distance; at that point the recorded signal can be played back from an emitter to either unlock or lock the gun, however the thing is designed). But don't worry; we have 'laws' against jamming and hacking technology ;)

"Forget the chip and the hacking. Just open the firearm, remove the offending electronics and..."
Nah, they'll just put ink-charges inside them, like bank bags or school fire alarms :D

TCB

DaisyCutter
April 12, 2014, 09:36 PM
^ Why did you buy the smart Dodge in the first place? It seems contradictory to your "logic".

Ghosth
April 12, 2014, 09:46 PM
When I saw that Hornady had come up with a gun safe that uses a RFID bracelet, key fob, card, or pin # I knew that it would not be long before they'd be wanting to put the same idea to work on guns.

The problem is bracelets, key fob's, cards can be stolen, people can be pressured or tortured the id #. That is just as true for the guns themselves as it is for lock boxes.

The only answer IMO is fingerprint or DNA both of which must have a thermal sensor. So that just cutting off a finger doesn't get it to work.

But even if they do develop the tech to do exactly that to each new gun. I'm sure someone would develop a solution to crack/hack/break it.

When are our representatives going to get smart enough to realise that you can NOT legislate morals. And there is NO substitute for them.

tactikel
April 12, 2014, 10:05 PM
What Guy said, a firearm is a very simple mechanical device. It is a dream that "Progressives/Liberals" have that they can "turn off" the guns from those they fear. I can remove any device inserted to disable a firearm in about 15 minutes. If that will trigger a remote alarm and alert drones is another story! :what:

HexHead
April 12, 2014, 11:03 PM
I'll just keep my dumb guns.

Guy B. Meredith
April 13, 2014, 12:22 AM
FYI Many of us don't HAVE fingerprints; seniors, dish washers, fisherpersons ( ;) ), etc. I don't. I found I can't use airport baggage lockers as they require a fingerprint.

So now poor fragile elderly people ( :D ) have to lug heavy baggage from one place to the other or just sit in one place and starve at the airport.

barnbwt
April 13, 2014, 01:01 AM
"If that will trigger a remote alarm and alert drones is another story!"
You'll know when the gem in your hand starts blinking :D

Anyone agreeing for software (different from fixed electro-mechanical system) to be placed in their gun would do well to remember the iPhone terms of use jail-breaking/bricking fiasco some years back (not too many years back, in fact)

TCB

barnbwt
April 13, 2014, 01:08 AM
"^ Why did you buy the smart Dodge in the first place? It seems contradictory to your "logic""

Ironically, because I wanted a manual transmission over the lazy automatic :D. Irony further compounded by the manual transmission in the Challenger being a hydraulically-assisted fly-by-wire contraption. But even though it's parsed by computers, the car more closely does exactly what I want it to. I'm not sure you can even buy a decent car anymore without a bunch of electronic bells and whistles (literally). I think even KIA's have power windows, locks, and seats nowadays.

Further evidence of RFID incompetence (by Dodge, at least) would be that the exterior door sensors occasionally get stupid and don't recognize the key right away, resulting in me muttering progressively louder "Open the pod-bay doors, HAL." :banghead:. Dodge has issued recalls or TSBs on I think all RFID sensors/components in the doors at this point (and an unofficial 'known issue' regarding the ignition system sensor I mentioned already). Not uncommon for some owners to return from work to find their doors unlocked, windows down, or trunk unlatched, either :rolleyes:

In short; it works, but I wouldn't trust it with something as serious as a gun

TCB

JSH1
April 13, 2014, 09:14 AM
RFID works in cars, fine. A firearm is exposed to more heat, scrubbed in solvent, and subjected to repeated explosive charges & mechanical collisions. The operating environment is not conducive to electronics. There will naturally be a power source, which will need replacement, and the access point will be contaminated with solvents/oils/dirt. When solid state laser/ray-guns and Star Trek phasers are developed, then incorporate fobs and bracelets.

There are plenty of electronic devices currently attached to guns that do just fine: Flashlights, lasers, sights, etc.

Secondly, there is a "coverage" issue. My cell phone doesn't get reception in many of the places I need my gun the most. I don't foresee soldiers running to the highest hill-top and waving their rifle awkwardly over their head, hoping to get enough signal bars to fire it...

There is not a coverage issue. None of the smart gun technologies currently being devolved use cellular technology. The whole "The government will just send a signal to turn off our guns" is typical garbage from the tinfoil hat brigade. The technologies currently being developed rely on either the gun identifying the owner using biological ID from physically touching the grip, or ID using a ring or bracelet containing a RFID chip. No cell signals required.

Pilot
April 13, 2014, 09:18 AM
There are plenty of electronic devices currently attached to guns that do just fine: Flashlights, lasers, sights, etc.


Yes, but the gun will still fire if those electronic devices malfunction, batteries die, etc. There is enough that can go wrong with a mechanical device without electronics. "Smart" technology just adds another critical point of failure to a firearm.

What if your wife needs to use your gun? Will she be left vulnerable because her fingerprints, or bracelet doesn't match yours?

JSH1
April 13, 2014, 10:02 AM
Yes, but the gun will still fire if those electronic devices malfunction, batteries die, etc. There is enough that can go wrong with a mechanical device without electronics. "Smart" technology just adds another critical point of failure to a firearm.

There is a difference between what is technologically possible and what is desirable. There are electronics subjected to environments much harsher than those of a gun that work day in and day out. Electronics could be made to work in guns, though I understand that many don't want electronics in guns.

I could see benefits from electronic triggers. The trigger pull would be light and consistent and the trigger could be placed anywhere on the gun without a physical linkage between the trigger and firing pin. In my opinion that is the way to do smart guns right. Replacing the mechanical systems instead of trying to add additional electronics into that system.

What if your wife needs to use your gun? Will she be left vulnerable because her fingerprints, or bracelet doesn't match yours? Most of the technologies being worked on enable multiply users.


EDIT: I would also like to point out the the title of this thread is wrong. Holder didn't say anything about tracking guns or gun owners.

GAF
April 13, 2014, 10:22 AM
Smart guns will give you hand cancer;)

JRH6856
April 13, 2014, 11:31 AM
EDIT: I would also like to point out the the title of this thread is wrong. Holder didn't say anything about tracking guns or gun owners.

No, he didn't (at least nopt that I can find). Blame the author of the referenced article for that bit of hyperbole.

barnbwt
April 13, 2014, 11:41 AM
"The trigger pull would be light and consistent and the trigger could be placed anywhere on the gun without a physical linkage between the trigger and firing pin. In my opinion that is the way to do smart guns right. Replacing the mechanical systems instead of trying to add additional electronics into that system."

Fully Electronic Smart Gun + 2 Wires + Diode Alternator = Stupid Machine Gun

And that's why the ATF has been quite reticent to approve electronic trigger designs (and especially electronic primer ignition designs)

EDIT: Yes, electronic triggers have a world of potential, from true customizability, to 0-100lb pull, to flinch detection and prevention (goes off before you can flinch). Alas, the ATF has thoroughly chilled research and development in this area of technology.

TCB

Pizzapinochle
April 13, 2014, 11:57 AM
Forget the chip and the hacking. Just open the firearm, remove the offending electronics and

1. Remove any action blocking hardware if present or jam in place any enabling linkages
2. Wire directly to the trigger if electric activation is still needed.
3. Do a Youtube instruction video on the process of dumbing the "smart gun."

With an electronic gizmo there are two switches in series--the electronics and the trigger. Just eliminate the unneeded extra switch.

This stuff really needs to be heavily circulated to get political attention.
You are really obsessed with spreading stuff you have no idea if it is true....

JSH1
April 13, 2014, 12:09 PM
No, he didn't (at least nopt that I can find). Blame the author of the referenced article for that bit of hyperbole.

I do blame the author of the original article and the website that published it. Considering it has been almost a week since that article was posted and the site has not issued a correction or retraction I have to assume that this was not a mistake but an intentional effort to misinform and stir the pot. Which means freebeacon.com is not a news source but a source for propaganda. They are not the only source that has recently been spreading this lie, foxnews did as well as have many right wing talk radio stations. My boss came into work last week parroting what he heard on the radio about how Obama wants to make all gun owners wear tracking bracelets.

I also blame you since you are the one that forwarded that article to this board without doing any fact-checking.

barnbwt
April 13, 2014, 12:20 PM
Well, he is basically describing how a car is hot-wired; it is true that you can bypass any electronic lock this way. The only reason it's harder now for cars is because integrated electronics operate engine timing, none of which is present or really possible for gun designs (unless you want a servo motor dropping your tilt-barrel 1911)

As with all other electronic security devices, the only real way to prevent their bypass is to restrict access (safes, cars, doors) which doesn't really follow for something like a gun that users will want to be capable of servicing. A smart drop-in trigger module like a Timney that is not user-serviceable might be a possibility, though.

TCB

JRH6856
April 13, 2014, 01:56 PM
I also blame you since you are the one that forwarded that article to this board without doing any fact-checking.

Fair enough. I got the link from the NRA which shared in on FaceBook. At the time, I couldn't find much else (but I figured when I posted it here, there would be more than just me looking.) Since that time, the NRA has shared three more stories on the subject:

Eric “Fast and Furious” Holder Pushes to Track American Gun Owners (http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/michaelschaus/2014/04/08/eric-fast-and-furious-holder-pushes-to-track-american-gun-owners-n1820036) (Townhall Finance, April 08, 2014)

Smart Guns are Dumb (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375360/smart-guns-are-dumb-charles-c-w-cooke) (National Review, April 9, 2014)

Holder Floats Taxpayer-Funded "Smart" Gun Research (http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2014/4/holder-floats-taxpayer-funded-) (NRA-ILA, April 11, 2014)

As noted in the last, “Some commentators concluded that Holder endorsed "gun tracking" technology. Whether or not he specifically had that in mind, it does serve to raise questions about where such technology could lead or, more to the point, where gun control supporters would want it to lead.” Everyone is, of course, free to make up their own minds. Make of it what you will.

Guy B. Meredith
April 13, 2014, 09:40 PM
Pizzapinochle,

Well, prove it is not correct. Provide one design that cannot be defeated. Should be easy, right?? Uh, right?

I have an obsession about people accepting that tech is infallible and the tendency to play the game, play within the box instead of going outside the box.

Jorg Nysgerrig
April 13, 2014, 09:56 PM
Enough. Yet another thread turned smart gun rant.

We are once again reminded that we are truly honored to have some of the world's foremost experts on how to defeat all manner of electronic devices whether or not those devices even exist yet.

If you enjoyed reading about "Holder: We Want to Explore Gun Tracking Bracelets" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!