Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Missoulian:

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled against state laws designed to buck federal gun rules — but advocates welcomed the court’s decision for leaving open the possibility of an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday agreed with a lower court’s decision against the 2009 Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which also has been adopted in other pro-gun states. The laws attempt to declare that federal firearms regulations don’t apply to guns made and kept in that state.

The Justice Department successfully argued that the courts have already decided Congress can use its power to regulate interstate commerce to set standards on such items as guns. Some gun control advocates sided with the federal argument, saying that “firearm freedom acts” would allow felons to obtain guns without background checks and make it harder to trace guns used in crimes.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association said it had expected the appeals court would rule against the law.

The group’s president, Gary Marbut, argued in the case that he wanted to manufacture a small, bolt-action youth-model rifle called the “Montana Buckaroo” for sale in Montana. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms pre-emptively told Marbut such a gun would be illegal under Montana law.

“This was about as good of a ruling as we could have expected from the 9th Circuit. We must get to the U.S. Supreme Court to accomplish our goal of overturning 70 years of flawed Supreme Court rulings on the interstate commerce clause,” Marbut said in a release. “Only the Supreme Court can overturn Supreme Court precedent.”

The state of Montana has intervened in support of its law. The case also attracted the support of Utah, Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Marbut said the federal government has become a “monster,” that abuses the interstate commerce clause to intrude on states.

Yes.  The federal government has become a monster.  Justice Clarence Thomas is said to be the modern day jurist of the tenth amendment.  But he may be alone, and turning to the monster to slay the monster is bad form and unwise.  It is more likely that they will simply bow to stare decisis and make matters even worse by giving the commerce clause more modern legs, or refuse to hear the case, letting the Ninth Circuit’s decision stand.

And this notion that the Ninth Circuit only did what they could do is ridiculous.  The Ninth Circuit has come down with many a decision that was overturned by the Supreme Court.  For once, when it actually had to do with liberty and freedom the Ninth Circuit had the chance to do something right – and failed again because they’re all losers.

As I’ve said, nullification laws have the legs under them that the states put there.  Montana could have incorporated the company (perhaps they already have) and then arrested federal employees who attempt to enforce federal laws (and thrown them in with the general prison population).

The monster will never admit that he is a monster.  He wants you to fear him and bow to his monstrous intentions and behavior.

Kurt Hofmann:

If true–if Christie really believes that this will be enough to appease gun rights advocates–he is adding insult to the injury of the extremely draconian anti-gun bills he has signed, like the one that enables the federal government to disarm anyone it chooses, simply by designating political enemies as “suspected terrorists.” One would certainly hope that gun rights advocates are both far too intelligent and far too proud to be bought off that easily.

Yes.  Read all of Kurt’s assessment of Christie’s recent pandering in his rejection of the ban on .50 rifles.  I am equally unimpressed.  Recall that we’ve discussed Chris Christie before.  Chris Christie is a gun grabber from way back who made his fame in New Jersey by supporting the assault weapons ban.

David Codrea notes another source that points out that Christie opposed concealed carry in New Jersey and is admitted to support strict gun control.

Chris Christie is of the get the hell off the beach crowd of obnoxious, loud mouth, blow hard, windbags who like to run the lives of other people.  However, that’s not what’s really wrong with him.  I may be a loud mouth too, but at least I’m not a totalitarian.  But it would be just like the dead elephant party to nominate this man for national office.

In an article similar in spirit to those here at TCJ, Paul Markel at Ammoland writes on California Compliant Firearms: Enabling Bad Behavior.

Whatever area of business or politics you examine, when you get down to the nitty-gritty, the back room deals, its all about control. Who is in control? Who will control whom? When a state legislature passes some type of arbitrary ruling that a firearm must be configured this way or cannot be configured that way, they are exercising control. They are forcing private enterprise, and that is what gun companies are, into a position of even greater subservience and submission. Do these bureaucrats do so from genuine interest in public safety? If you answer honestly, it is no. Then why do it?

There is this little thing called precedence. You could also use the terms “establishing a narrative” or “setting the tone”. When a group of politicians get together and “set the terms” for how firearms can and cannot be manufactured they are essentially setting a precedent …

Gun registration is an excellent example of fallacy being presented as fact. In certain states, New York for example, lawful citizens must ‘register’ their handguns with the state. Because of this precedence, citizens in New York have a misconception that this registration policy is universal throughout the United States. Thanks to Hollywood, non-gun people or new gun owners assume that they have to ‘register’ their guns or that everyone who owns a gun must register it with the state …

When it is suggested that firearms makers refuse to make guns that ‘comply’ with the thoughtless and empty regulations of certain states the word “fair” gets thrown around. It’s not ‘fair’ to punish the citizens for the actions of their government some will say. Why should we be punished? To that question I would ask, who elected and continues to elect the politicians who pass these empty, feel-good laws? If not the citizens of the state, then who?

Corporate executives will attempt to placate ‘hot-headed’ customers who question their motivation and spinal status regarding the sale of “compliant” guns. These professional businessmen will explain that it is “complicated” and not so black and white …

For the “it’s complicated” crowd I would offer this. Every time you comply, every time you take the “reasonable” approach, you perpetuate and enable bad behavior.

I’m sympathetic to the objection that in rejecting compliant firearms we’re punishing people who didn’t vote the totalitarians into office.  But in the end, innocent people always suffer in the wake of bad decisions.  Consequences is no respecter of persons.

“Hot heads.”  I guess that’s what they think.  We bloggers and gun owners who reject compliant firearms and lobby for companies to relocate and allow states to feel the affects of their actions, while also voting with their own dollars to shutter businesses who go along to get along with the totalitarians – we’re just hot heads.

We aren’t well considered, thoughtful, free market practitioners of liberty, we’re hot heads.  So be it.  They can call us whatever they want.  We must follow our conscience whether they consider that to be principled or hot headed and spiteful and non-pragmatic.

As one more leverage point for principled gun owners, friends don’t let friends enable bad behavior.  Just say no to compliant firearms.

News from what was once the land of liberty, the home of the venerable John Adams, who along with Abigail fomented a revolution against the tyrant.

State lawmakers looking to balance safety with the rights of gun owners and the state’s burgeoning gun industry spent Friday listening to folks from both sides of the issue.

Michael J. Ball is a Marine Corps veteran and head of the student shooting club at the University of Massachusetts. He said everyone wants safety, and gun owners are willing to work to make sure the mentally ill and criminal can’t get their hands on firearms.

“I think there is common ground,” Ball said.

The hearing, held at the American International College’s Griswold Theatre, is the latest in a series of public forums on a number of proposed changes to the state’s gun laws. Proposals include requiring gun owners to buy insurance, limiting magazines to seven rounds, down from 10, and limiting gun buyers to just one gun purchase in 30 days.

Massachusetts legislators filed 60 pieces of legislation in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting. This legislative committee’s job is to whittle that down to a package of workable laws, probably by fall.

About 150 Smith & Wesson employees had lined up outside the theater for seats nearly an hour before the forum began. The venue seats 500.

William Innocent, of South Hadley, whose grandson Sheldon Innocent was gunned down in a Springfield barbershop in 2011, called for the state to search for a way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and away from the mentally ill or suicidal. The shooter, an escaped inmate, was trying to kill someone else out of revenge.

“I just hope we all, gun owners and non-gun owners, can work together to stop gun violence,” Innocent told the packed auditorium.

[ … ]

On Thursday Smith & Wesson president and CEO James Debney told The Republican the company wanted to ensure its voice — and the voices of its 1,500 employees — were heard at the forum.

In remarks to the panel Friday morning, Debney described Smith & Wesson as “… an industry leader that is committed to safety,” selling only through federally licensed dealers and including a lock with each firearm. Citing the company’s large number of employees, Debney said the company hopes to remain in the city for a long time.

Founded in Springfield in 1852, Smith & Wesson has more than 1,600 employees, including 1,500 production workers at its sprawling firearms plant on Roosevelt Avenue. The company has a $77.5 million annual payroll.

In terms of any new gun regulations, Debney asked the state not to infringe on residents’ Second Amendment rights. Instead, the executive suggested that Massachusetts report mental health data to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Massachusetts requires the collection of mental health records for an in-state database, but does not require those records to be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Other Smith & Wesson employees also spoke against laws that could erode gun owners’ rights. David Findlay, of Athol, an engineer for the company, said, “The real issue is how we deal with mental health in this country.”

A revolver assembly worker for the company told the panel that he makes objects that either function or fail. “Violence is from the heart,” he said, making the argument that only people can be blamed for gun violence.

Springfield Mayor Domenic J. Sarno called for limits on magazine capacity, but prefaced the request with a nod to Smith & Wesson. “They are a responsible employer,” Sarno said of the company. “They are a good corporate citizen.”

“No one is looking to take away anybody’s Second Amendment rights,” Sarno said.

And another state lawmaker said the same thing: “One thing we want to stress,  it’s no one’s intent to step on anyone’s 2nd Amendment Rights,” said State Representative Harold Naughton.

Debney also said in his prepared remarks that:

“Massachusetts is our home,” said Debney at the company’s sprawling Roosevelt Avenue factory. “All you have to do is look behind you at the hundreds of (computer numerically controlled ) milling machines. They are not going anywhere.”

Earlier this year, Texas Gov. Rick Perry specifically lobbied gunmakers in Connecticut and New York state to relocate to Texas. Debney said he gets numerous solicitations form states all over the union.

“We are not listening,” he said. “It all happens here.”

But Debney acknowledged that any firearm restrictions would further cement Massachusetts’ reputation as an “anti-gun” state. There could be a consumer backlash against Smith & Wesson similar to the hate which flowed from gun owners after Smith & Wesson cooperated with Clinton-era gun restrictions.

“It almost took down the company,” he said. “We won’t make that mistake again. At the end of the day, shooting is a passionate sport.”

First of all, a quick note to Sarno and Naughton.  Stepping on second amendment rights is exactly what you intend to do, and you’re both liars.  As for Debney, his issues are more complicated.

He has his feet in two worlds.  He makes it clear that S&W is staying put.  They are in Massachusetts to stay, says he.  On the other hand, S&W won’t make the same mistake again.  Of course, the mistake to which he is referring is aligning themselves with Bill Clinton’s gun control, a mistake which almost killed the company.

But times have changed.  Firearms companies can no longer simply make it clear that they oppose additional gun control.  Magpul knew better and is moving from Colorado, and so did Beretta who is moving from Maryland (and they had better not lollygag and delay as they seem to be doing – we’re watching).

Gun owners won’t send money to companies who will give tax revenues to totalitarian states.  This is the reason Remington will eventually have to move from New York or perish in spite of the silly article they persuaded National Review to do praising the company.

Here’s a note to Debney.  You won’t win.  Massachusetts is too far gone, and the statists have too much sway to turn back the tide of gun control.  Gun owners won’t approve, and Smith & Wesson will suffer from the decrease in revenue.  Gun owners never forgive and never forget.  Our actions are based on principle and well grounded in the soil of moral economics.

Make your decision now.  You can relocate to a free state where the workers are non-union, the people loyal and the land vibrant, or you can stay put and die on the vine.  As for me, I have two Smith & Wesson weapons, both of which I love.  I had intended to buy more, but if Smith & Wesson stays in Massachusetts, I won’t spend another penny of my hard earned money on revenue for Massachusetts to enact more gun control.

Time is of the essence.  South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas and a host of other free states beckon you.  You will soon reach the point of no return, where you have spent too much energy and time on trying to ameliorate an unmanageable situation in Massachusetts.  Your time is better spent on calling the board of directors together and forming a strategy for survival.  Your future depends on it, and you must move quickly.

Alice Johnson at Creative Loafing:

We cannot reconcile our differences in this nation with firearms. We cannot reach a level of mutual respect if one side always brings guns to the conversation. We cannot shoot away our fears.

On a fundamental, visceral level, George Zimmerman was afraid of Trayvon Martin. He was afraid of the parts of Martin he did not understand — the cultural influences, the profoundly different views of the world they lived in.

Zimmerman brought a gun to the encounter and Martin died.

There are six steps in Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s philosophy of nonviolence. The last — and by far the most important — is reconciliation. It is impossible to find reconciliation with one’s opponents with a gun.

She later talks about “reconciliation between human beings that would make a gun superfluous.”  Oh my.  It sounds like Alice is a sophomore liberal arts student who believes she can fix the human condition with enough therapists and courses in gender studies, psychology and literary deconstruction.  Bless her heart.

I’ll always bring a gun, so there will be no reconciliation.  That’s fine with me, as I have no desire for reconciliation with enemies of liberty and anti-constitutionalists.  Alice will have to come to terms with always being at odds with me.

Prior: No Compromise On Gun Rights

David Codrea:

The final 60 to 40 cloture count that brought the confirmation vote to the floor was enabled by the flipping of Republican Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who changed her vote today to join five other Republicans, John McCain of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. That some of these ended up holding out against Jones on the confirmation vote does not alter the fact that their cloture vote enabled the confirmation.

David is correct.  Don’t let a ‘no’ vote on Jones fool you.  The cloture vote nonsense is a misdirect and tactical trick to get the Senate to a 50 vote majority rather than 60 or more votes to stop a filibuster.

I expected this from McCain and Graham, both of whom are enemies of America, but I had hope for Kelly Ayotte.  As it stands now, she has proven that this isn’t even about whether the ATF should exist, whether they deserve funding, or whether federal firearms laws are constitutional.  These are second order questions.

What Kelly Ayotte has said with her vote is that it’s acceptable to her to have a criminal at the head of the ATF, a man who helped organize and arrange the deception of the American public in Fast and Furious and the deaths of U.S. border patrol agents and Mexican authorities (we are still counting the affects) – all for the purpose of justifying more gun control on the American people.

Ayotte cannot undo this vote, she cannot go back.  She cannot turn this around, she cannot reverse history.  She has declared herself an enemy of gun owners everywhere, forever.  McCain and Graham were already there years ago.  Ayotte is in horrible company.

David Codrea:

State Senate Minority Leader and gubernatorial hopeful John McKinney can expect no help from the Connecticut Citizens Defense League due to his anti-gun legislative actions, CCDL President Scott Wilson announced in a press release today from Groton.

“Senator McKinney was instrumental in implementing a historic gun control law with zero consideration for the constitutional rights of law abiding gun owners,” the head of the state’s largest grass roots gun rights group explained. “With his deliberate act of siding with gun control supporters, there will be no support from CCDL for his run.”

“[O]ther elected officials who went along with the Senate leader and voted in favor of the gun control law could expect the same from the organization,” the release pledged … If he still wins the primary or there is no primary, we will not vote for him in the election.

Good for them.  This may seem like a counterproductive scorched earth policy to some, but it’s precisely this objection that got us where we are today.

Conservative and libertarian voters have gone along to get along and voted for the best thing out there for decades under the assumption that less evil is better than more evil.

But over the course of these past decades we have seen our leaders equivocate, modulate, prevaricate, and adjust, adapt and modify their views to suit the Washington elite.  As long as the inside-the-beltway talking heads are happy and our leaders stay in power, the only thing that changes is that we see less respect for our rights and liberties as time passes.

This slow roasting process has just about killed the ideological foundations of our republic such that thinking men and women have been replaced by corrupt, ignorant and self-serving politicians who would sell the souls of their mothers as long as it suited their purposes.

So compromise hasn’t done conservatives and libertarians any favors.  It has harmed the cause of freedom.  Gun owners in Connecticut are saying the same thing I’ve said concerning politicians like Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan (who will never get my support because of their support of universal background checks), Marco Rubio (who will never get my support because of his sellout on immigration), and any of a host of ignominious political animals in Washington and at the state level.

Finally, the voters in Connecticut know what we all do instinctively.  It’s better when you don’t fill in the gaps for the failures of our leaders.  In the end, it’s better when people feel the consequences of their actions – there is no surer teacher than consequences.

Besides, I am no advocate of national action to undo the results of totalitarianism in Colorado, New York or Connecticut.  While I appreciate that there are some in Colorado, for example, who want the courts to overturn their obscene gun laws, in the end they are not the court’s problem.  The obscenities started on the state and local level, and they must be dealt with at the genesis of the problem.  Totalitarians must be dealt with face to face.

The problems belong to Connecticut, and gun owners are trying to see that they are addressed there.  I wish them success.  May God be with them.

Read it all at Examiner.

Prior: Ms. Magazine Does Guns

The Daily Beast has what we can only hope to be the final installment of Heidi Yewman’s month with a gun.  I’ll quote extensively from her article because we learn some very important things about Heidi.

Ms. Magazine ran my initial post on the experience on June 12. More than 2,000 commenters responded to that article—most of them angry gun-rights advocates saying how stupid I was; one even suggested that I put the gun in my mouth. Most of them missed the point entirely: the experiment was designed to show how easy it is to obtain a gun without being required to know how to use it.

In a nutshell she tells us just how and why she did what she did.  Her presuppositions are summarized for us, and it gets even clearer as the article continues.

I knew going into my 30-day experiment of living with a gun that I was putting my family and myself at risk.

Only two days into my experiment I went to breakfast with my two kids and some friends. After eating and shopping, my gun with me the entire time, I was anxious to get home to enjoy the warm weather. I put my purse on the counter and then spent the next hour out on the back deck. Walking into the kitchen to refresh our drinks, I noticed my purse with the 9mm Glock still inside it. I’d forgotten to lock it up! Panic set in as I realized my teen son was playing videogames just 10 feet away. What if he’d decided to get the socks I’d bought him from my purse while I was out on the deck? Thoughts raced through my mind and I pondered how I’d just straddled the fine line between being a responsible gun owner and an irresponsible idiot whose 15-year-old just accidentally shot himself or someone else with my gun.

A gun in a home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member than kill someone in self-defense. With over 200 million guns in our country, most in our homes, it’s no wonder that over 19,000 people in America die from suicide and accidental death by a gun every year. So I decided to keep the gun in a locked safe when I was home. But that didn’t seem to soften my worry and overall anxiousness.

Heidi just knew beyond all doubt that she would put her family at risk by even having a gun, and her actions became a self-fulfilling prophesy by admittedly being stupid.  Of course, this is the perfect pretext for citing all of her data on gun deaths.

I’ve said before that you could blindfold me at the doorway to my home and I could lay my hands on every weapon in my home and tell you whether each one has a round chambered.  If you cannot do that, you should reconsider whether you have a gun.  Additionally, if you decide to carry, openly or concealed, you should engage in self training for that responsibility before doing so.

The self training can seem a little overboard at first, but you must master the mechanics, whereabouts, condition, operation and location of your weapons, and become somewhat obsessive over their proper care, including trigger and muzzle control.  This obsession doesn’t have to go on forever once you have engrained those choices and behaviors as habits.  If Heidi had done this her actions would have led to a completely different experience.

But this isn’t much different than the freedom to purchase and climb ladders from which the fall will kill you, drive an automobile recklessly, or take medications in a dangerous manner.  Guns are no different, but as I observed in my earlier article on her, she spends no time on the danger she causes to others on the road, or conversely, the danger they cause to her and her family – all without proper training by the state.

How accessible should the gun be when I’m home? A few nights ago, my son came home late, forgot his key, and knocked on the door. My first thought was, “Should I go get the gun?” I didn’t know who was on the other side of the door, and I was scared to find out as adrenaline surged through my body. I’m glad I didn’t get the gun because when I opened the door, I would have been a nervous, untrained mom pointing a gun at my son. The wrong split-second decision on my side would have been deadly.

Since having the gun I’ve had two repairmen, a carpet cleaner, and a salesmen in my home. If the gun’s for self-protection, it’s not going to do any good in the safe, but it’s not really practical to have the gun pointing at them as they work. How else would I eliminate the element of surprise if I were attacked? Suspiciousness and fear of people is new to me, and I don’t like it. Living with a gun has not been easy. There’s more worry, more responsibility, and higher risk for everyone who is in my home, especially my family.

Why would anyone voluntarily point a gun at their son, or a carpet cleaner or salesman?  This is stupid, high risk behavior, not to mention illegal.  As for the possibility of an attack on your person, one can carry concealed or openly as I do.  That way it is readily accessible if you need it.

The urine smell was particularly strong in the grimy, dimly lit downtown parking garage’s stairwell. I was late for a meeting and barely noticed the large man enter behind me. When I got to the second floor I became nervous, and the Oprah episode where a man attacks a woman alone in a situation just like this played in my head. I thought about the 9mm in my purse as I clumsily continued down the stairs in my skirt and heels. He followed me. I looked back at him so he knew I knew he was there (like Oprah’s expert suggested.) I thought: “Should I pull the gun out? Should I point it at him?” I realized the gun wouldn’t do me any good because he was behind me. My heart racing, we finally got to the lobby door where the man simply passed by me. I’d grown paranoid. He wasn’t the bad guy I perceived him to be, and the gun did not make me safe.

No.  You should not unholster your weapon (that’s brandishing) or point it at him (that’s assault, which includes perceived threat), both of which are dumb, dangerous and illegal.

I played two tennis matches with the gun in my backpack next to the court, and I went to three parties in homes where children played just feet from the pile of guests’ jackets and purses, including mine with the gun inside.

Then you intentionally endangered those children and you didn’t have to.  You could have kept the firearm on your person.  You should have left it in a locked car or carried it in a holster designed for weapon retention.

I learned guns are heavy and hard to conceal. And a seatbelt goes over the gun on your hip when you drive, making me wonder what happens if I get in an accident—does the gun crush my hip or does the impact squeeze the trigger and shoot me in the leg?

No, having a car accident doesn’t make your gun go off.  Guns can in fact be annoying to carry, but they don’t have to be.  You could have chosen to get a small J-frame .22 WMR or .38 revolver and an ankle holster.

As I said before, the drama is exhausting and breathtaking.  But the thing that really worries me isn’t that she has a gun.  It’s that bimbos like this can purchase an SUV the size and weight of my Ford F150 and drive it down the road with screaming kids in the back whilst jabbering on the cell phone attached to her ear, after qualifying with a driving test that a monkey could be trained to take.  Makes you stop and ponder, no?  It’s one reason I drive so defensively on the road nowadays.

Well, you’ve heard enough.  Heidi went into the experiment choosing to endanger herself and others, be irresponsible, and conclude that we should all be controlled in the same way she needs to be.  It’s called by various names, e.g., reasoning in a circle, assuming the consequent, etc., and it’s perfectly innocent and benign as long as you don’t try to prove anything that way.  Heidi has proven nothing except her own predilections and predispositions.  What she says basically has no bearing on responsible gun owners.

Prior: Ms. Magazine Does Guns

Perspective from Illinois:

Chamber President Doug Whitley said most businesses currently have policies that prohibit guns at the workplace, including the parking lot. When the concealed-carry law was being debated, Chamber of Commerce members mostly were concerned about being able to control their parking lots, Whitley said. The law, which went into effect earlier this month, ended up having a provision that allows a permit-holder to keep a gun in his or her vehicle while at work, even if the vehicle is on a company lot.

“The problem is, you always have the risk that someone goes postal, and they go out to the car and have easy access to a weapon,” Whitley said. “Of course, the hunter wants to be able to take the gun to the plant, and leave work and go directly to the duck blind.”

So if someone “goes postal” (I think that’s a stupid phrase used by ignorant people), we can surmise that the Chamber of Commerce would rather innocent people perish at the hands of the shooter rather than have a weapon for self defense.

No wonder Chicago’s crime problem is so bad.

Motherboard:

The technology is here. So-called “smart guns” are being programmed to recognize a gun owner’s identity and lock up if the weapon ends up in the wrong hands. Entrepreneurs and engineers have been developing technology to make safer guns since the early ’90s, and by now we’ve got working prototypes of guns that read fingerprints, hand grips or even sensors embedded under the skin. But after 15 years of innovation, personalized guns still haven’t penetrated the marketplace.

Why? Smart guns are caught in the crosshairs of a heated debate over guns, for one thing. Pro-gun groups see it as an attack on Second Amendment rights and, you know, freedom. Anti-gun groups worry that if guns are safer it will inspire more people to buy them. Perhaps more troublesome is that consumer demand just isn’t there. “The gun industry has no interest in making smart-guns. There is no incentive for them,” Robert J. Spitzer, a political science professor at SUNY Cortland told the New York Times.

No incentive? What about saving lives?

Some people argue that even if all guns came equipped with the latest personal lock technology, it would only make a tiny dent in gun violence, since the vast majority of gun deaths aren’t caused by accidents, but by people firing their legal weapon. Still, the flood of tragic news of senseless preventable violence keeps the smart gun conversation kicking. Interest in the technology saw new life in the wake of Sandy Hook. In response to the tragedy, President Obama called for research into gun safety technology, offering prizes to companies that developed affordable personalized guns. The Sandy Hook Promise Innovation Initiative is also working with Silicon Valley to offer grants for new gun safety technology.

But the problem isn’t coming up with ideas. There are already numerous startups developing biometric technology—sensors that identify fingerprints, hand geometry, eye scans and other biological features to authenticate the owner of a gun a la James Bond’s gun in Skyfall that’s been coded to his palm print.

The problem is getting anyone to buy them. A group called Safe Gun Technology developed a functioning prototype of biometric fingerprint recognition technology in 2008, and recently tried to crowdfund the money to build a market-ready version. The Indiegogo campaign fell $48,000 short of its fundraising goal.

Robert McNamara, cofounder of TriggerSmart, a startup that uses radio frequency identification (RFID) to match owner and gun, has tried to convince the gun manufacturers to license the product, but none have agreed. If the gun industry won’t budge, it could take a government mandate to get people to buy personalized guns.

Rep. John Tierney of Massachusettes is taking on that fight.

Gosh, if someone could have just seen this coming.  Really seen this coming.  You know, really, really seen this coming.  I mean, just flat out, seen this for what it really is.

Of course, there are other gun owners to hear as well.  Regarding Tierney’s fight, bring it!  We’ll see just how well that “government mandate” works out.