Smart Guns Are Coming to the U.S. This Year
- Thread starter Tsing
- Start date
Grimlakin
Forum Posting Supreme
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2019
- Messages
- 8,783
- Points
- 113
Now that I'm back on a computer.... allow me to expand on the way it works.
1. Gun registry would be online. All 'legal' and non 'grandfathered' firearms would be registered in this database. To be clear only antique firearms would be grandfathered as anything with a serial would need to be registered in this national database.
2. Selling a gun to another individual as a private seller would invoke a nominal charge against this national database... I'm thinking between 5 and 25 dollars. This fee would track the ownership and responsible party for a firearm.
3. Firearm laws would be MUCH more open. I'm sure some limits or licensing levels would need to apply as they do today but by necessity overall they would be MUCH more open.
4. All non collector firearms would have liabilities associated to them. If a firearm registered to the owner is used in a crime but NOT by the owner and outside of say a 48 hour (or reasonable duration further arbitrated) without being logged as stolen/missing then the owner shares liability for whatever happens with that firearm.
5. To protect owners from liability they can insure the firearm. Insurance costs would be determined by private industry. Insurance would cover self defense use and use if stolen that sort of thing. It protects the owner from legal use and illegal use by a third party.
6. Collection firearms would have to undergo inspection to confirm that they are unable to fire without mechanical fixing. It might be easy but criminals looking to steal firearms are not looking to take the time to 'fix' a gun to make it able to fire. Where as collectors can do this and only enable the guns to fire while they test fire or before a sale.
Then once these guns are properly registered and insured costs can be lowered to insure a weapon with thinks like safes, trigger guards, and smartgun setups. And whatever else the insurance/tech comes up with.
1. Gun registry would be online. All 'legal' and non 'grandfathered' firearms would be registered in this database. To be clear only antique firearms would be grandfathered as anything with a serial would need to be registered in this national database.
2. Selling a gun to another individual as a private seller would invoke a nominal charge against this national database... I'm thinking between 5 and 25 dollars. This fee would track the ownership and responsible party for a firearm.
3. Firearm laws would be MUCH more open. I'm sure some limits or licensing levels would need to apply as they do today but by necessity overall they would be MUCH more open.
4. All non collector firearms would have liabilities associated to them. If a firearm registered to the owner is used in a crime but NOT by the owner and outside of say a 48 hour (or reasonable duration further arbitrated) without being logged as stolen/missing then the owner shares liability for whatever happens with that firearm.
5. To protect owners from liability they can insure the firearm. Insurance costs would be determined by private industry. Insurance would cover self defense use and use if stolen that sort of thing. It protects the owner from legal use and illegal use by a third party.
6. Collection firearms would have to undergo inspection to confirm that they are unable to fire without mechanical fixing. It might be easy but criminals looking to steal firearms are not looking to take the time to 'fix' a gun to make it able to fire. Where as collectors can do this and only enable the guns to fire while they test fire or before a sale.
Then once these guns are properly registered and insured costs can be lowered to insure a weapon with thinks like safes, trigger guards, and smartgun setups. And whatever else the insurance/tech comes up with.
Grimlakin
Forum Posting Supreme
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2019
- Messages
- 8,783
- Points
- 113
You can't have near unrestricted gun sales and no registration or accountability. There needs to be some level of accountability. You can own all the guns you want just keep them out of hands of bad or Loco elements. And report them missing or stolen asap. If you can't or won't do that then suffer the consequences.
DrezKill
FPS Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2019
- Messages
- 2,972
- Points
- 113
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that would be a fantastic story!
I still don't understand how this bullsh1t works. I've heard quite a number of stories of similar situations. Dude breaks into your house, injures himself, but then he gets to sue you?! Illegal robbery failed, so now they turn to legal robbery.
Riccochet
FPS Regular
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2019
- Messages
- 1,802
- Points
- 113
That's all fine and dandy, in some other country. Most of what you posted is unconstitutional.
Brian_B
FPS Enthusiast
- Joined
- May 28, 2019
- Messages
- 7,831
- Points
- 113
Catalytic converter thief crushed to death by Toyota Prius
CHARLOTTE, N. C. (WSOC/CNN NEWSOURCE/WKRC) - There's been a surge in the theft of catalytic converter thefts recently. That's partly due to supply chain issues and the increasing value of the precious metals used in the exhaust system devices. During an apparent theft attempt in North Carolina...
local12.com
By a Prius, no less.
Brian_B
FPS Enthusiast
- Joined
- May 28, 2019
- Messages
- 7,831
- Points
- 113
I think it's along the same vein that you can go get a rifle and go out into a public space to shoot people so long as you can claim self-defense
Zarathustra
Cloudless
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2019
- Messages
- 4,133
- Points
- 113
It really depends on who is interpreting the constitution that day.
While many (including notable constitutional scholars) interpret the second amendment as being completely without limits, there are also plenty of other legal experts and constitutional scholars who interpret the intent of our founding fathers to be much more limited.
A lot of it hinges on the opening part of the amendment "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" seemingly limiting the right to "well regulated militias".
Many notable constitutional scholars, including supreme court justice John Paul Stevens thus interpret the 2nd amendment to read:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed."
There is more to it than that though. Even if you discount all the talk about "well regulated militias", all the amendment guarantees is that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It leaves the details very vague. It doesn't explicitly say that people shall be able to keep and bear ALL arms, ALL the time. It seems a rather extreme position that putting any regulations at all around the right at all is a violation of the right.
Even the pre-eminent right in the bill of rights, the right to free speech/expression, has some limitations. This is often described as the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" exception, and most people seem to agree with that exception.
If we can limit people from calling "yelling fire in a crowded theater" a violation of their their freedom of speech, it seems like we should also be able to prevent Billy Bob from owning a howitzer and requiring him to be licensed and trained in order to carry a firearm, without violating his second amendment rights.
I think too much of the gun debate focuses on the differences between the extremes. The side that opposes all private ownership and use of firearms vs the other side which thinks that no rules regarding firearms what so ever are acceptable. Most people are somewhere in the middle on this subject, and depending on who you trust as your constitutional scholar most of those positions are perfectly constitutional. There is no one interpretation of the constitution. It is written very vaguely, and part of that is on purpose, to allow the political process of any given period of time to interpret it and make rules that make sense for the time.
The founding fathers were brilliant men, and they realized full well that they were not able to foresee the future hundreds of years in advance in order to create the perfect constitution, which is why they intentionally wrote many aspects of it at a very high level and created a process under which it could be amended if deemed necessary.
I guess my point is, blanket calling it "unconstitutional" is a problematic way of thinking about the constitution when in reality the document leaves very many questions unanswered and open to interpretation.
The constitution will be interpreted and re-interpreted time and time again in order to deal with new societal issues as technology and culture changes over time. That's how it was designed.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Messages
- 3,284
- Points
- 113
Not to mention, a horrendously bad idea.
It's an urban legend. There is no evidence of anything of the sort happening. The most popular story that makes the rounds is the one where a criminal broke into a house via skylight and breaks his leg coming down on a coffee table and then sues the homeowner for placing it there. There are many variations of this story told over the years and none of them have turned out to be true.
DrezKill
FPS Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2019
- Messages
- 2,972
- Points
- 113
I sure hope that's true. I really can't see how it would ever be possible for a robber to sue the homeowner of a house they tried to rob and injured themselves in. But I've been surprised before.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA wooow!Catalytic converter thief crushed to death by Toyota Prius
CHARLOTTE, N. C. (WSOC/CNN NEWSOURCE/WKRC) - There's been a surge in the theft of catalytic converter thefts recently. That's partly due to supply chain issues and the increasing value of the precious metals used in the exhaust system devices. During an apparent theft attempt in North Carolina...
By a Prius, no less.
Brian_B
FPS Enthusiast
- Joined
- May 28, 2019
- Messages
- 7,831
- Points
- 113
I found one. But only one.
Premises Liability - Unbelievably, Sometimes A Trespasser Can Sue A Homeowner - News
For a lot of homeowners, there’s a bit of folklore that gets around about the frightening case of a home intruder breaking into a house, getting injured somehow, and turning around...
Also, in CA, I don’t know if any suits have been tried or won, but it’s legal for an intruder to sue a homeowner in civil court if the homeowner attempts to use deadly force to protect their property but there was no loss of life threatened by the intruder. Would be a tough one to try successfully, but CA decided it needed to be on the books just in case we ever went Wisconsin or something
DrezKill
FPS Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2019
- Messages
- 2,972
- Points
- 113
What the fuuuuuuuuuuuck, you're not even allowed to set booby traps?! Are we allowed to set up defenses like automated turrets? I'm gonna guess no. That is very disappointing.I found one. But only one.
Premises Liability - Unbelievably, Sometimes A Trespasser Can Sue A Homeowner - News
For a lot of homeowners, there’s a bit of folklore that gets around about the frightening case of a home intruder breaking into a house, getting injured somehow, and turning around...www.justicepays.com
Also, in CA, I don’t know if any suits have been tried or won, but it’s legal for an intruder to sue a homeowner in civil court if the homeowner attempts to use deadly force to protect their property but there was no loss of life threatened by the intruder. Would be a tough one to try successfully, but CA decided it needed to be on the books just in case we ever went Wisconsin or something
Home Alone is not an ideal example of home defense, I guess.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Messages
- 3,284
- Points
- 113
In states with castle doctrine laws that wouldn't fly as the home owner/occupant can reasonably assume the intruder is there to do them physical harm.
Brian_B
FPS Enthusiast
- Joined
- May 28, 2019
- Messages
- 7,831
- Points
- 113
I don’t think it’s ever been brought to trial in CA because you can claim the intruder was unexpected, surprised you, and you feared for your life because of that. Seems like one of those carebear laws where someone just wanted to write it to sound good but it has no practical use. Because we should be protecting the friendly criminals.
Zarathustra
Cloudless
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2019
- Messages
- 4,133
- Points
- 113
It sounds like the City of San Jose is going to give us the opportunity to learn what the courts think of mandatory liability insurance for firearm ownership.
Gun Rights Group Sues San Jose Over Liability Insurance Ordinance
A gun rights group and a gun owner have filed a lawsuit against a California city for a newly passed ordinance requiring citizens to obtain firearm liability insurance and pay an annual fee.
sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Messages
- 3,284
- Points
- 113
You can't use California courts as a barometer for the court system in other parts of the country.
Brian_B
FPS Enthusiast
- Joined
- May 28, 2019
- Messages
- 7,831
- Points
- 113
This is true, but I think something like this, if brought up, would easily jump into Federal jurisdiction and could eventually hit the Supreme Court if the city wanted to push it that far. But it would likely make it's way through the State system first, and even there the odds of the law being allowed to stand are anything but a certainty. CA is a big state, and while the Assembly and population tend to lean liberal (very much so in some parts), the vast majority of the geography does not, which tends to help temper such things out - not entirely, but to some degree.
It's also not just insurance, there is also a fee for gun ownership -- the city claims will be paid to a non-profit which benefits gun violence victims. It sounds like it may be optional/voluntary, but the wording isn't clear.
I can't see it standing, and I think the City knows this - they just pushed it through for the political message; knowing it will get struck down. In a city like San Jose, just having voted for it will likely get you re-elected, the matter of the law standing or not is ... not pertinent to the politicians. It amounts to the same thing as taxation for free speech or a poll tax, at least based on the current prevalent interpretation and expectations of the Second Amendment by the higher Federal courts.
The horrible thing is that the local politicians are saying this law would have prevented something like the Gilroy Festival Shooting (which was very near San Jose). But this only affects folks who legally own, and register, their firearms. State law does not require long rifles to be registered, and I would say there are an awful lot of non-legal firearms in California (recognizing the CA has different laws regarding the legality of firearm ownership than many states), including the one that was used in the Gilroy shooting. So yeah, this would have had zero effect on the Gilroy shooting... but hey, so long as you can score political points, I guess the truth doesn't matter so much.
My opinion, this law will have the exact opposite effect that proponents of the law intend - it will drive more illegal and unregistered gun ownership than it will help curtail any gun violence, and will just re-enforce non-responsible gun ownership. But it will have the effect the politicians voting for it do want - which is just to get re-elected.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Messages
- 3,284
- Points
- 113
That's just it. Most of these political maneuvers are about securing votes and political clout. The politicians do not give a **** what's best for the population. If they did, California wouldn't have run itself into the ground. It wouldn't have some of the strictest gun control in the country and some of the highest violent crime rates.