Obummer/DOJ issue "smartgun" guidelines

[98Z5V]

Seriously.  Just a stroke of a pen...

 

Department of Justice issues voluntary smart-gun guidelines

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/20/department-justice-issues-voluntary-smart-gun-guidelines.html

Published November 20, 2016

 

The Obama administration on Wednesday announced a series of specifications for smart-gun manufacturers, born out of the president’s January executive action aimed at curbing gun violence.

But there’s a catch to the new set of guidelines: They’re voluntary.

“This project was designed to spur the growth of enhanced gun safety technology – and not to mandate that any particular individual or law enforcement agency adopt the technology once developed,” the Department of Justice wrote in a blog post.

The DOJ’s National Institute of Justice developed the specifications, which include recommendations for how smart guns should be able to be unlocked and a default state that would allow guns to fire if the technology malfunctioned, engadget reported.

The White House said the specifications are meant to ensure that smart-gun technology “available to law enforcement agencies is safe and reliable” and to demonstrate that a demand exists for weapons with enhanced safety features.

Officials also said they hope the specifications will give manufacturers guidance about the basic requirements that law enforcement agencies expect from the technology.

But critics of the DOJ’s baseline specifications quickly emerged, with the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action penning an essay Friday that questioned what, if anything, the Obama administration’s smart-gun effort accomplished.

“But it appears the president hopes to portray the publication of the document as a ‘win’ during his waning days in office,” the piece stated.

The NRA-ILA memo also called into question the basic practicality of smart guns if, as the DOJ admits in its own recommendations, the technology has the ability to fail.

“Any firearm that won’t fire when it’s needed just isn’t ‘smart,’” the NRA-ILA wrote. “And any ‘security’ system that defaults to turning itself off during a problem just isn’t secure.”

As part of his January executive action, Obama directed the government to review the availability of smart-gun technology on a regular basis.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[blue109]

Voluntary....for now. Hope nobody takes that bait and sets a standard

[unforgiven]

Just like the digi trigger no thanks not me. I'll run what I brung.

[DNP]

What's the thought from an LE stand point?  Would you like a duty gun that could only be fired by you?  I'd be afraid of the malfunctions, but the way tech is going I would bet they could make a pretty reliable system. To me it seems like having to worry a little less about weapon retention could be a good thing. I don't want to see anything forced on anyone and I am in no way supporting guidelines (which don't really need to be there if they're only "suggestions"). Just curious what the guys that carry everyday and put themselves into dangerous situations regularly had thoughts on a smart weapon as a duty firearm. 

Edited November 21, 2016 by DNP

[planeflyer21]

7 hours ago, DNP said:

What's the thought from an LE stand point?  Would you like a duty gun that could only be fired by you?  I'd be afraid of the malfunctions, but the way tech is going I would bet they could make a pretty reliable system. To me it seems like having to worry a little less about weapon retention could be a good thing. I don't want to see anything forced on anyone and I am in no way supporting guidelines (which don't really need to be there if they're only "suggestions"). Just curious what the guys that carry everyday and put themselves into dangerous situations regularly had thoughts on a smart weapon as a duty firearm. 

Yes and no.

One of my colleagues was on the board that wrote the accepted Use-of-Force POST guide, for use by private prisons in Arizona.  The "approved methods and tactics" taught to cadets (in every form of LE) are arrived upon by a simple method:  what gives us the best bang for the buck.  This is done on an agency by agency basis.  POST has a huge encyclopedic host of tactics that may be used, however, paying people to train to become proficient in all of them is cost prohibitive.  A physically fit state trooper in a small, wealthy state will get much more comprehensive training across the approved Use-of-Force spectrum than will the part-time cop in Sheavesville County, population 3,500.

Time and time again, when training LE, we hear them say "We aren't approved for non-POST techniques."  Some get shown the massive missive of POST, then ponder "Why wouldn't they teach us that?" Some don't care, having an inherent trust in politically-motivated supervisors trying to save a buck by cutting corners wherever possible.

If a firearm could only be fired by its assignee (or fellow team members), 100% reliably, sure.  

But the same was said of aircraft and fly-by-wire technology.  There never is a 100% reliability on any system, mechanical or electronic.  Which is why the new aircraft equipped with fly-by-wire control systems have mechanical backups.

I'd be willing to bet a chicken dinner that we will soon see mechanical redundancy in automobiles/trucks too, following the recent hacks of Jeeps and other vehicles.

For the most part, public firearms training isn't mandated and, even where it is mandated, retention techniques are not a part of the required curriculum.  The prevailing attitude seems to be "Since it is a burdern on my time and finances, it isn't worth learning."

Even in LE, large swaths of the community have no exposure to retention or disarmament techniques, due to bureaucratic decisions.  When I went through Arizona COTA such training had been discontinued as "too time consuming/too expensive".  Fortunately our class commander (former Army SF guy) felt we needed it, so we learned what the formerly approved tactics were.

Rant off.  

[392heminut]

Personally, I wouldn't carry any kind of gun with smartgun tech and wouldn't have when I was still active either, I just can't put my trust in something that could disable my gun when I needed it, no matter how slim the chance. Protecting my gun was ALWAYS in my head and still is. I took advantage of every bit of retention training I could and it actually paid off one night! I'm not gonna bore you all with the details but when that person made the grab for my gun I went into autopilot and the next thing we both knew is I was on top and the grabber was back down on the ground looking up at me, gun still in it's holster right where it was supposed to be.

I agree with Jon that the majority of those who carry concealed are severely lacking in gun retention training and most don't even ponder the concept! Boggles my mind I tell ya! One of the first things I was told at the academy was "there will ALWAYS be at least one gun at every call you answer, YOURS!" That was the point where I decided if someone was going to use my own gun on me they were going to have to put up on helluva fight to get it! I feel it's my own personal responsibility to keep control of my weapon, not depend on some piece of technology.

Edited November 24, 2016 by 392heminut