Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Technology, smart guns, GPS tracking and a better Second Amendment' Douglas A. Berman, Moritz Colleg

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://sentencing.typepad.com/senten...logy-smar.html

    I just noticed on SSRN this effective short article about the modern Second Amendment debated headlined "Public Safety and the Right to Bear Arms." I found the final paragraph of the piece especially insightful:
    [A better Second Amendment debate would not focus on whether the Amendment protects an individual right, but rather] would involve examining how best to recognize and protect the right while also allowing legislatures leeway to develop criminologically sound measures designed to limit, in so far as possible, access to weapons on the part of career criminals and those who are mentally unstable. Such a debate would involve recognizing that the right to have arms has been and remains part of the American Constitutional tradition, that it is valued by large segments of society and that the right sets real limits on governmental regulation. It also involves recognizing that measures designed to keep weapons out of undesirable hands are not necessarily inconsistent with this right. In the second half of the twentieth century, we were unable to develop this kind of debate on the national level precisely because of the effort to redefine the Second Amendment into meaninglessness, perhaps in the first half of the twenty-first century a greater willingness to recognize the Second Amendment will allow the dialogue to begin.
    I am eager to begin this dialogue, in part because technological advances are a potential "magic bullet" solution here. (Sorry for the bad pun.) Society is moving swiftly toward using technology like GPS tracking to deal with the risks associated with sex offenders, and I am troubled that we are not also moving swiftly toward using technology to deal with the risks associated with the misuse of guns.

    Interestingly, though apparently there was a lot of "smart gun" talk and research going on years ago, I have had a very hard time finding any up-to-date materials on modern smart gun technology research. For example, the NRA has this fact sheet and this article by David Kopel assailing smart gun technologies, but the NRA fact sheet was last updated in January 2000, and the Kopel piece is from January 2003. Disappointingly, this page from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence has over a dozen research reports, but none appear to discuss concepts of a "smart gun" or other technology-driven research seeking to reduce gun violence.

    Meanwhile, I found this interesting piece in Science Daily providing a positive view of smart gun technology, but it was written in 2005. Of course, 2005 does not seem that long ago, but it certainly is in the fast-moving world of technology. (Consider again the swift pace of GPS technology advances: in 2005, a car-friendly GPS device cost thousands of dollars, now such devices are available for under $100 and are becoming a standard feature in many vehicles.)

    Notably, I discovered that, in June 2001, the Bush Administration put out this very interesting document an "NIJ 'Smart Gun' Solicitation," which included this assertion: "NIJ is interested in bringing 'smart gun' technology to the law enforcement community as rapidly as possible, but in a manner that develops confidence in the technology through a clearly defined development, evaluation and demonstration process." So, apparently seven years ago there was a serious commitment by the Bush administration to bring "smart gun technology to the law enforcement community as rapidly as possible." Does anyone know how that's coming along these days?

    In my view, techonology could and should provide a much more refined and effective way to regulate an individual right to bear arms than, say, completely prohibiting all felons from having guns. An effective smart gun technology could and should be able to keep guns out of the hands of those who are unlikely to be able use guns safely — e.g., kids, illegal purchasers, those with a history of violence or mental illness, abusive spouses under an active restraining order — while ensuring that police officers and lawful gun owners have little reason to worry about their own gun rights and usage.


  2. #2
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    We don't need a better 2nd amendment. We need torestore our constitutional heritage before it's all gone, not the other way around. I may be the minority on this issue but if the founders wanted to start picking and choosing which citizens have rights and which don't, then they probably would have said so. The fact of the matter is, I don't want a government entity defining to me what "mentally ill" is as they can skew that phrase for the benefit of whatever garbage disarmament plan they wish to pursue. As for criminals, if we actually prosecuted criminals, had them serve full sentences, and restoredthe death penalty for capital offenses, most of that issue could be diverted..

    Oh yes, by the way, it is already illegal for "criminals" and the mentally illto purchase firearms... It is also illegal for anyone to knowingly sell a firearm to a known felon or mentally unstable person.

    We don't need a new 2nd amendment, we need to restore it and start fixing the justice system.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  3. #3
    Regular Member XD40coyote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    woman stuck in Maryland, ,
    Posts
    709

    Post imported post

    Smart guns will just make awife unable to shoot the intruder when her hubby isn't home, since the gun won't recognize her, only the hubby, and thus will not operate for her. Also none of us shooting enthusiests can go to a range and let a buddy shoot our gun and vice versa if the guns are "smart guns". Unless you can program them to more than 1 person. And oh, how about the additional expense of adding this technology, guns are already expensive for a good quality one. Might make it out of someones price range adding this on.



    But then this is what the gun grabbers want, to have less law abiding people being able to defend themselves and others against sleazoids.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    Last I heard, the entire package was too large to fit inside an automaticpistol. The technology could not be used on revolvers.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Drunk drivers kill far more people than firearms in the US and have consistently for nearly a century. There are lockout devices that check BAC before being able to start the car. Should we have a conversation with MADD about mandating this technology in all vehicles? Unlicensed/suspended drivers kill many people each year. Should the federal government mandate smart technology fingerprint readers in the steering wheel of all vehicles to prevent unlicensed/suspended drivers from driving any vehicle? Many cars are stolen and used in crimes. Should we mandate the same fingerprint technology such that the vehicle can only be operated by the registered user to prevent such stolen vehicles from being operated by criminals? Rented moving trucks were used to destroy the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City which killed 168 people and injured over 800 and to bomb the World Trade Center killing 6, injuring 1,042 and intending to kill up to 250,000 people by bringing down the north tower at peak business hours. Should we have GPS, and other implemented smart technology in trucks and background checks and for anyone wishing to use any vehicle capable of carrying such an explosive device? An effective smart truck technology could and should be able to keep trucks out of the hands of those who are unlikely to be able use trucks safely — e.g., kids, illegal purchasers/drivers, those with a history of violence or mental illness, abusive spouses under an active restraining order — while ensuring that lawful truck users have little reason to worry about their own truck rights and usage.

    I am eager to begin this dialogue. Society is moving swiftly toward using technology like GPS tracking to deal with the risks associated with sex offenders, and I am troubled that we are not also moving swiftly toward using technology to deal with the risks associated with the misuse of motor vehicles.


    Needless to say, I disagree with the OP premise. Not busting your chops Doug, just pointing out that we don't do that stuff with non-constitutionally protected rights and I'll be gosh-darned if I am going to support such a mandate or restriction on something God and the United States Constitution say that I have the right to keep and bear.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    Interesting

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Drunk drivers kill far more people than firearms in the US and have consistently for nearly a century. There are lockout devices that check BAC before being able to start the car. Should we have a conversation with MADD about mandating this technology in all vehicles? Unlicensed/suspended drivers kill many people each year. Should the federal government mandate smart technology fingerprint readers in the steering wheel of all vehicles to prevent unlicensed/suspended drivers from driving any vehicle? Many cars are stolen and used in crimes. Should we mandate the same fingerprint technology such that the vehicle can only be operated by the registered user to prevent such stolen vehicles from being operated by criminals? Rented moving trucks were used to destroy the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City which killed 168 people and injured over 800 and to bomb the World Trade Center killing 6, injuring 1,042 and intending to kill up to 250,000 people by bringing down the north tower at peak business hours. Should we have GPS, and other implemented smart technology in trucks and background checks and for anyone wishing to use any vehicle capable of carrying such an explosive device? An effective smart truck technology could and should be able to keep trucks out of the hands of those who are unlikely to be able use trucks safely — e.g., kids, illegal purchasers/drivers, those with a history of violence or mental illness, abusive spouses under an active restraining order — while ensuring that lawful truck users have little reason to worry about their own truck rights and usage.

    I am eager to begin this dialogue. Society is moving swiftly toward using technology like GPS tracking to deal with the risks associated with sex offenders, and I am troubled that we are not also moving swiftly toward using technology to deal with the risks associated with the misuse of motor vehicles.


    Needless to say, I disagree with the OP premise. Not busting your chops Doug, just pointing out that we don't do that stuff with non-constitutionally protected rights and I'll be gosh-darned if I am going to support such a mandate or restriction on something God and the United States Constitution say that I have the right to keep and bear.
    Ah, but you are forgetting the simple fact that guns are evil, and climb out of safes at night and kill people.

    Seriously, though, good post.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Rio Rancho, New Mexico, United States
    Posts
    348

    Post imported post

    If I remember a company by the name of metal storm was talking about making a gun that the user had to have a ring or something like that to use it
    A gun Owner Is A Citizen
    Anyone Else is a Subject

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •