Oath Keepers who are members of any representative organization, such as the National Border Patrol Council, or of a police union, can urge leadership to issue resolutions opposing putting members and the public at risk by deploying with “smart guns.” Oath Keepers who are in “management” positions can likewise encourage the administrative hierarchy to adopt similar protective measures, as can Constitutional sheriffs and peace officers. [More]
My first Oath Keepers column notes a law enforcement exemption I can get behind because it works to our benefit in the long run.
3 comments:
Congratulations, David. :) At this rate, you'll soon be as busy as a one armed paper hanger. I had not been visiting the Oathkeeper's site for some time, but will have to resume doing so.
I don't get the fuss over smart guns. For one thing, it may well expand the market for guns; even soccer moms will carry. For the other, there are 300 million "dumb" guns in America. No way those will ever be turned in, no matter how much the prohibitionists may fantasize.
Paul:
There's a couple reasons. One is the impression that such technology will not be voluntary -- that regardless of its quality, citizens will find ourselves saddled with it.
Which leads into the second issue. The technology is not ready. It is not 'field ready' or cops would be lining up around the block. In the movie 'Dredd', the Judges' sidearms would -detonate- if an unauthorized user tried to fire them (a bit excessive, IMO). However, current smartgun tech is terribly untrustworthy -- I believe the last round of tests had a 10 percent false-reading rate, which translates to a 1 in 10 chance to not fire even if you're wearing your ring/bracelet/whatever.
Care to gamble your life and liberty on that? That you won't fall into that 1 in 10 chance?
Post a Comment