OC for ME
Regular Member
Soon to be mandatory? CA is the most likely to mandate such a device.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Biometric gun lock has a fingerprint scanner
- Thread starter OC for ME
- Start date
Maverick9
Regular Member
What about a bloody finger print...d'oh, nope!
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Wishful thinking?
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
It occurs to me that, absent government meddling, I would fully expect such technology to become ubiquitous in a free market, such a market providing the best possible environment to allow the evolutionary perfection of such a product.
Of course, "perfected" implies high reliability, and I also think a great degree of choice and flexibility are important. For instance, should the device fail (run out of battery power or something), into what mode should the weapon failsafe? This answer is going to depend greatly on the weapon's intended application, as well as its user's preference. For instance, a weapon intended for self-defense should probably fail into a fireable state, and a range toy should probably fail into a "safe" state.
Imagine, for the sake of argument, that such technology existed in some form which was highly reliable, and in the rare cases where it did not function, it would render the weapon fireable. (I do doubt that fingerprints would be the likely mechanism for such highly-reliable and necessarily fast biometric identification, but the exact technology is irrelevant.)
Given the above, and no reason to fear that such a device could be "used against" its owner by prompting legislative mandates, I suspect the great majority of carriers (especially open carriers) would avail themselves of such firearms. Really, what's not to like?
Now, this isn't some switchback approach to a defense of such mandates. It's more a lamentation that there are indeed folks who so poorly understand the nature of power and incentives that they would endanger such a future by proposing mandates at all, which in failing to manifest serve only to chill market demand for such technology, and should they manifest could be fully expected to induce lack of competition, complacency, and ultimately technological stagnation.
Of course, "perfected" implies high reliability, and I also think a great degree of choice and flexibility are important. For instance, should the device fail (run out of battery power or something), into what mode should the weapon failsafe? This answer is going to depend greatly on the weapon's intended application, as well as its user's preference. For instance, a weapon intended for self-defense should probably fail into a fireable state, and a range toy should probably fail into a "safe" state.
Imagine, for the sake of argument, that such technology existed in some form which was highly reliable, and in the rare cases where it did not function, it would render the weapon fireable. (I do doubt that fingerprints would be the likely mechanism for such highly-reliable and necessarily fast biometric identification, but the exact technology is irrelevant.)
Given the above, and no reason to fear that such a device could be "used against" its owner by prompting legislative mandates, I suspect the great majority of carriers (especially open carriers) would avail themselves of such firearms. Really, what's not to like?
Now, this isn't some switchback approach to a defense of such mandates. It's more a lamentation that there are indeed folks who so poorly understand the nature of power and incentives that they would endanger such a future by proposing mandates at all, which in failing to manifest serve only to chill market demand for such technology, and should they manifest could be fully expected to induce lack of competition, complacency, and ultimately technological stagnation.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Well, don't wear any Band-aids!
Rusty Young Man
Regular Member
Then make sure the "biometric lock" scans for FINGERPRINTS and not DNA (you share the same DNA with identical twins, but have different prints).
Of course, said locks are prone to failure in the most dire circumstances. Best safety mechanism: a safe human operating the gun.
Last edited:
Aknazer
Regular Member
Honestly, not only do I have no problem with such things as this lock, I'm glad to see such things coming out. Imagine this compared to the current basic trigger lock that is easily defeated. For those that have a desire for such things the development of this technology is great even if this particular model isn't up to par of where some would want the tech (but we can't get there without development). Hell, I don't even have a problem with the "smart" guns that we've seen.
My issue is pretty much what marshal said. While I might not want such a thing, there's nothing wrong with others developing such things in a FREE society. The problem is when politicians meddle in such things. This leads to people being scared of the tech, not because the tech is inherently bad (though a specific model might be), but because a politician might decide to try and mandate it when you either don't want it, can't afford such a thing, and/or it isn't up to your quality standards before you would be comfortable using it.
In regards to this particular item, I think it's a good thing given that places like CA you're already supposed to have such a device on your gun. Sure this "can" break, but you "could" misplace the key to a standard one as well. Thus so long as reliability issues are worked out I see this a good thing. The only danger in developing items like this is from politicians trying to mandate the use of such things.
My issue is pretty much what marshal said. While I might not want such a thing, there's nothing wrong with others developing such things in a FREE society. The problem is when politicians meddle in such things. This leads to people being scared of the tech, not because the tech is inherently bad (though a specific model might be), but because a politician might decide to try and mandate it when you either don't want it, can't afford such a thing, and/or it isn't up to your quality standards before you would be comfortable using it.
In regards to this particular item, I think it's a good thing given that places like CA you're already supposed to have such a device on your gun. Sure this "can" break, but you "could" misplace the key to a standard one as well. Thus so long as reliability issues are worked out I see this a good thing. The only danger in developing items like this is from politicians trying to mandate the use of such things.
OC for ME
Regular Member
There is no mention in the law that requires the key to be removed from the trigger lock/locking device.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=25001-26000&file=25100-25135
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=25001-26000&file=25100-25135
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Well said.
I've considered getting a The GunBox, which I think is an interesting implementation of some current technology in a gun safety device. They use RFID readers, fingerprint scanners, motion/vibration sensors which can active an audible alarm and GPS trackers.
I'd be interested to see how "modern technology" might be used to improve retention holsters. I don't think fingerprint readers would be of much use but maybe some other technology could improve simplicity and speed of drawing from a retention holster.
Hmm, isn't that an idea. Mandate government agents use "smart holsters" XD Hook it to their body cam so that in order for their holster to release the firearm, it must be receiving signal from the camera that it's operational and recording. No accountability, no draw. Hmmmmmmmm. Probably not a good idea, but interesting train of thought.
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
Free market principals should doom this product to the scrap heap of history.
RFID can be hacked, but, a fingerprint cannot be hacked.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/15/galaxy-s5-fingerprint-reader-spoof/
Any sales, even statistically insignificant sales, will prompt legislation to mandate these products in anti-liberty state legislatures; CA, NJ et al.
This could spawn a surge in the buying of handguns for home defense, the product makes the gun a one owner gun and unusable by any other family member in a SD situation.
The product owner/developer, a self described gun owner, citing Brady Bunch numbers, places him in the category of "liberal with a gun."
RFID can be hacked, but, a fingerprint cannot be hacked.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/15/galaxy-s5-fingerprint-reader-spoof/
Any sales, even statistically insignificant sales, will prompt legislation to mandate these products in anti-liberty state legislatures; CA, NJ et al.
This could spawn a surge in the buying of handguns for home defense, the product makes the gun a one owner gun and unusable by any other family member in a SD situation.
The product owner/developer, a self described gun owner
, citing Brady Bunch numbers, places him in the category of "liberal with a gun."
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
This one, perhaps. Certainly not any and all such products.
The constant threat of mandates doesn't constitute a "free market".
Aknazer
Regular Member
"...The person knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child's parent or legal guardian..."
A reasonable person should know that if you leave the key in the locking device then the child is likely to gain access to the firearm. So while it might not directly say you have to remove the key, the law indirectly says that you need to remove the key. And then there's this
"...The firearm is locked with a locking device, as defined in Section 16860, which has rendered the firearm inoperable..."
And it wouldn't be too hard to say that a lock with the key sticking out of it doesn't render the firearm inoperable.
davidmcbeth
Banned
I got a fingerprint technology gun ... found it next to a dead guy....thanks dead guy!
1245A Defender
Regular Member
Well,,,
David,,, You Are a Hoot!
and lotsa fun,,, very thoughtful too.
Glad you were a wise guy and got that gun off the street, thinking of the children no doubt...
Hope you took the dead guys finger too...
David,,, You Are a Hoot!
and lotsa fun,,, very thoughtful too.
Glad you were a wise guy and got that gun off the street, thinking of the children no doubt...
Hope you took the dead guys finger too...
oddMichaelThompson
New member
The gun has the fingerprint keypad
I think that it is normal for the gun safes to have the fingerprint key pad which is the most advanced technology in the field of locking. The fingerprints keypad also has many different types. Some require you whole five fingers to press other just requre one finger. They both allow you to quickly opening the gun safe and access the firearm.
I think that it is normal for the gun safes to have the fingerprint key pad which is the most advanced technology in the field of locking. The fingerprints keypad also has many different types. Some require you whole five fingers to press other just requre one finger. They both allow you to quickly opening the gun safe and access the firearm.
OC for ME
Regular Member
A deflection regarding the letter of the law.....directly speaking.
Aknazer
Regular Member
How is it a deflection? Just because it doesn't say that the key must be removed, but rather is vague enough to cover such a situation without being overly vague?
OC for ME
Regular Member
The law is not vague.
http://www.thepresstribune.com/keywords/ken-skogen
Gross negligence is not contained within the text of the law.
This law is about as anti-liberty and anti-citizen as they come.
Aknazer
Regular Member
I'm not following you here. Section 25105 (d) says that the gun must be rendered inoperable, so how does a key sticking out of the lock render it inoperable? Also how does a case about a cop not being charged have anything to do with this? That is more of an issue of the "thin blue line" or whatever term you want to use for cops protecting cops.
Also please explain to me how this is anti-liberty (ignoring how it isn't evenly enforced). From my understanding, it isn't a crime to simply have your weapon "improperly" stored. It is only a crime when a child gains access to said weapon AND either hurts theirself or does something illegal with said weapon. Maybe I'm missing something, but the only thing I really see as anti-liberty is them holding you accountable if someone else's child gets ahold of the weapon while at your house. I don't see it as anti-liberty for punishing you for effectively enabling your child's misdeeds.