Tucson, AZ voting on banning mandatory smart gun law

[Aim1]

Senator admits that the technology isn't ready yet but said with a mandatory requirement the technology would be perfected.

Just how many lives have to be lost in the evolution of this technology to become workable would be acceptable?





http://tucson.com/news/local/govt-a...cle_cb03507b-93ca-51b9-a9e4-197cbe62a84b.html

State senators say 'smart' gun technology unproven, potentially dangerous

• By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services 1 hr ago
  

PHOENIX — Saying the technology is unproven and potentially dangerous, state senators voted Thursday to block any state or local law that would restrict gun sales to "smart'' firearms.

There are situations where the gun owner has been incapacitated, he added. "You might want a friend or a relative nearby to be able to use the weapon. They would not be able to use it if they were not part of the system.''

But Farley said the federal government mandated installation of seat belts in vehicles in the 1960s, long before they were as effective as they are now. "And it saved lives even before it was perfected.''

 

[Twiki357]

Tucson… Arizona’s San Francisco / Sacramento. This smells of gabby giffords and mark kelly and their anti-gun organization.

I don’t see it going anywhere in the AZ legislature.

 

[Zoogster]

Dangerous technology. The last thing I would want is a gun that does not recognize who I am because it got wet and ruined the electronics, I have blood or dirt or something else on my hands from a life an death situation preventing it from reading my hand properly, or it fails to read properly for any other reason.

Many men have cut up hands on a regular basis with imperfect fingerprints from either career, hobbies, or various chores. Some men always have slashes going through their prints, and such technology would often fail to read their prints. An office worker turned politician that rarely gets more than a paper cut may not even realize that is an issue.

 

[armoredman]

First, please, is Tucson, not Tuscon...*sigh*. Was hatched there MANY years ago. And the seat of government for Arizona is Phoenix. Tucson was the state capital decades ago, but not in my living memory. Yes indeed, Tucson is very left, as is most of Phoenix, due to all the Calirefugees and Chicago expats moving in, ruins everything. But Tucson has been Democrat for a very long time.
The legislation being considered doesn't mandate so-called "smart gun" tech, it outlaws it from being mandated ala New Jersey style. The normal state pre-emption law wouldn't cover this one, so this is a needed move. Our state legislature is pretty solidly conservative and has been for a long time, which shows with our firearms related law becoming better and better every year. I hope this one goes through.

 

[armoredman]

[Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson] Farley countered, in essence, that guns without this technology are essentially defective products because of how dangerous they are. That should make the sale of anything other than smart guns illegal, he said.
"You can't buy certain car seats that have proven defective,'' Farley said, adding that the Consumer Product Safety Commission bans the sale of items that cause death and injury. "Sometimes, when there's the possibility of saving innocent lives, you have to mandate something in order to make it happen.''

Only thing from Tucson, (not TusCon), that is relevant. The legislation being moved is GOOD, stops not just New Jersey style "smart gun" mandates, (not covered under our preemption law), but any tracking devices or guns that broadcast when fired. The Leftist liberal quote above is a typical Tucson leftist - was hatched and raised there many moons ago.

 

[FROGO207]

Those that want this technology can already get it (sort of). I am sure they can volunteer be the beta testers for us all----If they dare to touch a firearm that is!
IMHO we would be much further ahead safety wise if we were to mandate intoxilyzer interlocks in all autos with the output of a fail/attempt to operate sent to the local authorities along with GPS data to locate the violator as they drive around. Enough convictions and local idiot politicians would be shamed out of office leaving the responsible level headed (I hope smart) ones behind. Talk about a common sense idea.

 

[bearcreek]

Tucson… Arizona’s San Francisco / Sacramento. This smells of gabby giffords and mark kelly and their anti-gun organization.

I don’t see it going anywhere in the AZ legislature.

Did you read the article? The legislation being proposed is literally the exact opposite of what you seem to think it is.

 

[bearcreek]

The title of this thread is extremely misleading. It's not Tucson government that's voting on it, it's the Arizona state government. They're also not voting on a "mandatory smart gun law", they're voting on a law that would ban any regulation making them mandatory. Pretty much the complete opposite of what the thread title says.

 

[Tirod]

Out of a sense of politeness has anyone PM'd the OP? Some don't frequent the site as much as others, tho, and rarely check. Secondly, a more direct method would be to report the post to at least get a moderator involved should they desire to.

We have all glanced at the news in the past and the MSM doesn't always make things clear about what's going on, especially political news. The OP resolving a misleading intro would fix it.

 

[bearcreek]

We have all glanced at the news in the past and the MSM doesn't always make things clear about what's going on, especially political news. The OP resolving a misleading intro would fix it.

That's true generally. In this case all you have to do is read the headline. It says, in big, bold letters "State senators say 'smart' gun technology unproven, potentially dangerous". It's rather baffling actually, how the OP came up with what he did from that article.

 

[MedWheeler]

Yeah, were I a mod, I think I'd close this and invite the OP to open a new thread on it after some review and clarification.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

As an Arizonian I've found Tucson/Tuscon is a remarkably effective shibboleth.

Mike

 

[Yo Mama]

The title of this thread is extremely misleading. It's not Tucson government that's voting on it, it's the Arizona state government. They're also not voting on a "mandatory smart gun law", they're voting on a law that would ban any regulation making them mandatory. Pretty much the complete opposite of what the thread title says.

This is correct, and everyone needs to CALL CALL CALL Governor Ducey at 602.542.4331 NOW!!!!!!!!

 

[Yo Mama]

First, please, is Tucson, not Tuscon...*sigh*. Was hatched there MANY years ago. And the seat of government for Arizona is Phoenix. Tucson was the state capital decades ago, but not in my living memory. Yes indeed, Tucson is very left, as is most of Phoenix, due to all the Calirefugees and Chicago expats moving in, ruins everything. But Tucson has been Democrat for a very long time.
The legislation being considered doesn't mandate so-called "smart gun" tech, it outlaws it from being mandated ala New Jersey style. The normal state pre-emption law wouldn't cover this one, so this is a needed move. Our state legislature is pretty solidly conservative and has been for a long time, which shows with our firearms related law becoming better and better every year. I hope this one goes through.

Hey Brother, I'm worried more and more it's getting closer, and we didn't get a few bills out this year that should have. Kate McGee, Frank Pratt, and Bob Worsley defected on a few of the bills. The challenge appears to be in the Senate where there are only 17 Rs, and we need 16 to pass anything, it only takes one or two to mess everything up, where as the house has a bit more comfortable margins. Every bill in the Senate this year was like 14 to 16 or 16 to 14. Real close, to close.

Do you get the AZCDL updates? The last few have been disappointment after disappointment with these people not really standing up for gun rights.

Oh, and we also get the Americans for Responsible Solutions in our state with 15 million anti-gun dollars.

 

[armoredman]

I saw that - we need to really hold some feet to the fire election day and let them know we will do so. I get the AZCDL updates, awesome people. Ms. McGee should probably change her party affiliation to D, more in line with their thinking, I'm afraid.

 

[wahsben]

Smart guns are dumb.

 

[BigFatKen]

In 1991 I cut my thumb carelessly cutting an apple for deer during Wisconsin's nine day hunt. With the hunt starting, I did not get proper attention. It healed in a half inch scar on front of thumb. Finger skin has 5X the nerves of arm skin. As the years passed, the scar got smaller until there was just a "bullseye" type set of fingerprint ridges in the middle; about 4mm wide. It would grow until it got hard in the middle and hurt tender tissue below it. I clipped it off with a nail clippers until I went to a dermatologist many years later.

He cryogenically removed growths on arm, as pre-cancerous. He had me just take the pain. Not bad. When he got to thumb, he said the 5X thing and said it required a numbing shot or I would not stand the pain and move my hand, ruining the procedure. That worked and when it healed, thumb scar is all gone. As I got fingerprinted in Florida in 2002 for CCW, my prints would have had the scar. Now prints are like new, I suppose. Doubt if that means anything.