California senate bill No. 697: Owner authorized handguns

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0651-0700/sb_697_bill_20090227_introduced.pdf

This bill would provide that commencing 18 months following the
Attorney General’s reporting that owner-authorized handguns are
available for retail sale, as specified, a handgun would be unsafe if it
was not owner-authorized, as defined, and would provide an exception
to these provisions for the sale, loan, or transfer of handguns
manufactured in or imported into this state prior to that date, as specified.

The bill would specify requirements that owner-authorized handguns
would be required to meet in order for the Attorney General to determine
that owner-authorized handguns are available for retail sale, and in
order to comply with certain safety standards, as specified.
The bill would require the Attorney General, commencing July 1,
2010, and every July 1 thereafter through 2015, to report to the Governor
and the Legislature regarding the progress made on the availability for
retail sale of owner-authorized handguns, as specified.

By expanding the application of provisions of law that define a
criminal offense, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would also provide that, commencing 18 months following
the Attorney General’s reporting that owner-authorized handguns are
available for retail sale, as specified, any person who intentionally
disables or circumvents the technology of an owner-authorized handgun
is guilty of a misdemeanor.


No gun safety equipment can compensate for an irresponsible or careless owner,
or one who is determined to cause mayhem.

Never mind the pool of "unsafe" handguns out there that can be abused:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=216846&mesg_id=216846

But what do you expect it's California. There are so many things wrong with this it's not even funny.

If this passes there's going to be a handgun panic buy... Just bloody great....

Speaking of which, does anyone actually know of a company that offers an "owner authorized handgun"?

Given all the hype about police officers getting shot with their own guns why is it that if this is such a great idea, all these laws exempt police weapons?

About 18 years ago, the government forced S&W to market pistols with magazine disconnects under threat of withholding Federal law enforcement agency contracts, yet the DOJ and FBI made sure their guns didn't have them.

In particular the "safe handgun" requirement does not apply to them, so any extension of that (like this bill) wouldn't apply to them either.

such a firearm for fear of lawsuits when it failed to function in an emergency, this would effectively eliminate the sale of new firearms in California. Smith and Wesson installed an internal lock on the side of their revolvers, and this simple safety measure has caused a lot of controversy.

The issue of the internal lock that S&W added to their revolvers is one that has generated far more heat than light on the internet over the last several years. Initial resistance was mostly split along two lines: The first was aesthetic; the new lock appeared as an ugly little metal zit on the side of the gun just above the cylinder release, complete with an inscribed "L"-and-arrow indicating which direction to turn it to disable the gun, and a Rube Golberg-esque flag that popped up to indicate that the gun was locked. The second was philosophical; people refused to buy a gun that had a feature that was such an obvious nod to the anti-gun crowd and could render a sidearm inert at a time when it was needed most.

The issue was complicated when, after a year or so, rumors began to trickle down about revolvers that had spontaneously locked themselves when firing. Several prominent gun writers pooh-poohed these claims in print, predictably resulting in incendiary internet diatribes about "paid shills of the gun industry". The argument has smoldered fitfully along ever since.

Recently a thread on ARFcom, complete with pictures, concerning yet another spontaneously-locked revolver has triggered yet another flareup of "See? I told you so!" on the web, including posts from people on Evil Black Rifle gun boards who are no more likely to carry a S&W revolver than they are to sprout wings and fly.
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2008/05/lock-mess-monster.html

I remember one time at the pistol range a shooter said his S&W lock had malfunctioned and did anyone have a key. I did and the key unlocked his revolver. The range master told me that he thought the shooter had just forgot that he had locked the gun. Who knows. (My carry weapon, a snub nosed S&W revolver is a pre-lock model.)

Basicly it's a computer inside the gun that only allows "authorized" users to use the weapon. Anyone who is not authorized cannot use it.

In "shoot 'em up" the bad guy's used these kinda guns, theirs used a finger scanner. I've seen others like a ring or something that activates it.

ends Quote from my son's hunter safety class "safety's are mechanical devices that can fail so always maintain control of the muzzle"

so dont count on it to fire or not to fire

You have to love this, from the proposed code:

(1) The firearm shall not fail to recognize the authorized user,
and shall not falsely recognize an unauthorized user, more than
one time per thousand recognition attempts.
(2) The time from first contact to use recognition and firearm
enablement shall be no more than 0.5 seconds.

So, the device could add as much as half a second to the critical period of time between when you decide you need to use your weapon, and the time you can put a bullet in the air. And you have to live with as much as a .1% chance your gun won't work at all when you need it. The bill implicitly acknowledges the obvious fact that adding complications to any system makes it slower and less reliable (as anyone who uses Microsoft Windows knows so well).

Fuck that! A handgun is a critical piece of equipment for someone who is using it for self-defense. If these silly proposals didn't exempt guns used by police officers, they'd never be taken seriously by anyone.

you need to shoot people .5 seconds faster than you do now? And a .1% chance that your gun won't go off the first time (and if it doesn't you just press the button again) is too much to save the life of a child who picks up your unattended gun or to prevent it from being used to kill a cop after a burgler steals it?

Guess you've made where you stand clear.

As described by Gavin De Becker in "The Gift of Fear", typecasting is the implication that someone who won't
go along with what you want them to do is somehow morally deficient for not doing it.

Or in other words:

"Well, I have never heard such an insensitive statement in my life! You just don't care
about all those innocent lives that this might save!".

Who needs logic when you've got high dudgeon?

Rather an obvious schtick if you search her posts..

Been that way for a long time.

I don't see any offsetting benefit for my sacrifice of a half-second of time when I need time the most.

This is going to cause reliability, ergonomic, and price problems. .5 seconds isn't bad, but that's if it actually works.

How about instead of storing it in condition one("cocked and locked") you store it in condition 3 (Empty chamber, hammer down, safety on, with a magazine in the gun)?

How about you buy an inexpensive safe and bolt it down rather than hide it under your bed?

We need common sense, not laws and fancy guns