Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns New Handgun Bill in U.S. House

Childproof Handgun Act of 2001<P>To ban the manufacture of handguns that cannot be personalized, to provide for a report to the congress on the commercial feasibility of personalizing firearms, and to provide for grants to improve firearm safety.<P>Mr PASCRELL (for himself, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mrs.MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. WEINER, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, and Mr. BARRETT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.<P>SEC.2 BAN ON MANUFACTURE OF HANDGUNS THAT CANNOT BE PERSONALIZED.<P>(a) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is ammended by inserting after subsection(y) the following:<P>(z)(1) It shall be unlawfull for a licensed manufacturer to manufacture a handgun that cannot be personalized.<P>(2)Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any manufacturer for an individual acting under authority of the United States or and department or agency of the United States, or of any State or any department, agency,or political subdivision of a State.<P>(b)PERSONALIZED DEFINED- Section 921(a)of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:<P>(35)The term "personalized" means,with respect to a handgun, that integral to the handgun is a device or feature that--<P>(A)allows the handgun to be fired only by a particular individual,<P>(B)is not capable of being readily deactivated;and<P>(C)may allow the handgun to be personalized to an additional individual.<P>(c)PENALTY- Section 924(a)of such title is amended by adding at the end of following:<P>(7) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(z) shall be fined not more than $10,000, imprisoned not more than 18 months, or both. The fine otherwise applicable under section3571 shall not apply to an offense under section 922(z).<P>(d)EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 5-year period that begins with the date of the enactment of this act if the report required by section 3 states that the technology to peersonalize firearms will be commercially feasible by the end of such 5-year period.<P>Well gang, what do you think? If there was a way to reliably make sure that your handgun fired only when you were in posession of it and maybe one other person of your choosing, would you be in favor of it? <BR> This bill was introduced, and I am sure that is stands a snowballs chance in @%** of passing but would you go for it if the technology existed.<BR>Regards<BR>Keeb

Yes, it stands such a chance of getting out of commitee. No, I wouldn't have one. What good is a gun if another person can't take it up if you're unable.

No I would not be in favor of this. The best saafty device on any handgun is training and common sense. This technoligy could fail you when you need it and not alow the gun to fire for you. <P>------------------<BR>

OF COURSE NOT, KEEB! from the simple standpoint of safety it's an stupid idea that creates a less safe situation, not improved safety. How do you train anyone before they get a handgun of their own? With this system, you can't. <BR>From a simple shooter's point of view, what good is a fine handgun if you can't hand it to a freind on the range and say, "Here, try this beauty out."

What can we do to defeat this measure?

The thing the criminal anti-gun politicians don't understand is stuff like this only begs to further the non-responsibility of others. When such a law is enacted, it takes away the responsibility of the owner/shooter. Firearms safety is no longer a concern, heck the gun is safe from everyone else, right? "Smart gun" stuff only takes away the personal responsibility one would other wise have learned. Then in the end, because the new generation has become ignorant of firearms safety, therefore declared incompetent, would be incapable of owning guns, then they win. We lose. Sounds as though they are going after furture generations. We got to beat this bill. And while you're at it, teach responsibile gun handling to others, take other shooting, join the NRA, etc. ~~~Suluuq

That would pretty much take care of gun swapping, wouldn't it! And so much for passing your personal sidearm down to your son or daughter, etc,etc. Hell, you couldn't even trade the sucker in for a new one.... it's unusable. The gun dies. Most definitely fits the definition of "infringement" from my angle. What we need is gun law eradication, not more of the S.O.S.

Hell no!!!!! Only an idiot (or hermit) would agree to this. Why buy a weapon that my wife can't use too? Also, what guarantee do you have that these things won't fail @ a bad time? (or dare I speculate on the Big Brother factor-disabling weapond remotely).

Good evening gang,<BR>I absolutely agree with Suluug. There is no substitute for knowledge and personal responsibility. I am an NRA instructor, and when I speak with people who may not be knowledgeable about firearms, I tell them that I started teaching my daughters about gun safety and let them handle the guns in my presence when they were six years old. It took the curiosity away and therefore the desire to "explore". Some of these people look at me like I should be arrested for child endangerment but it works. Education is the answer, not banning or instilling hysteria. Unfortunately we are fighting an uphill battle because lies are easier to believe than actually using their brain housing group and admit they are wrong.<BR>Keeb

Keeb... thats another thing we agree on. Eliminate curiousity. Teach responsibility, let them handle it in your presense, let them participate. This eliminates the natural curiousity. ~~~Suluuq

This shows you that there is a serious political problem in our country. To half the people, this kind of stuff would make since (cause it just wouldn't affect them and seems right). To the half who own guns, it's crazy.<P>Blammer, you notice all of those folks are from the very metropolitian parts of the North! Folks just don't understand that guns have a legitamite purpose there.<P>Keeb,<BR>You're right about safety and education. The number one gun safety issue today is storage. A lot of people just aren't safely storing their guns. Not just unloaded and out of the way, but now they need to be locked. <P>Let's all write our reps to defeat this bill! It really does matter.

there was a time when people could hang their guns in an open rack onthe wall, or stack then in a corner of a closet, or above a door, or where ever, in open sight. And NO ONE killed other kids in school because of it. <BR>Nowadays, all we see are guns protrayed wrongly in the entertainment business, cause its 'cool'. And kids learn the wrong message. Politicians take adventage of this. Clinton wants it, so she can have an excuse to use against us. Now guns have to be stored in vaults, and/or have trigger locks. <BR>The difference is responsibility and respect for safety. We had it then, we don't have it now. ~~~Suluuq

I posted this under the 2nd Amendment board but it seems appropriate here.<P>Got the new Gun Tests magazine yesterday and the inside front cover has a rather interesting blurb. Forgive me for paraphrasing it but will try to get the gist of it right.<P>Seems about 30 House Democrats want the party to drop gun control as a Democratic plank. They analyzed their failures in the last election and they said that �this gun control thing� keeps popping up. I.e, they get hammered on it a lot as gun owners tend to vote strongly against those Democrats who favor it.<P>This is a good thing because it might get them off of our backs. However, the down side is that it might make some Democratic candidates more attractive to folks who voted against them solely for the gun issue. Not that I hate the entire Democratic platform, but we might get many more moderate Democrats in office who seem to be okay but who then might vote strictly along party lines for some of the more left leaning social and economic policies of the Democratic party.<P>Maybe we should encourgage them to become far more rabidly anti-gun for our own good? Strange business, politics.<BR>

Now here's an interesting twist on the quesiton, what about an owner-recognition HOLSTER? I just got the new Shooting Times and there's an article in there about Uncle Mike's fingerprint ID holster. It has a fingerwell on the outside where you place your index (trigger) finger during the draw. It releases the gun if it recognizes you. <BR>It's aimed at cops' duty guns, but I wonder. Is this a good alternative...optional, of course?<BR>My answer is, as something people might want, fine. As a government mandate, never. <P>Talker

A quote from a local radio show.<P> "Blaming guns (handguns) for gun violence is like blaming spoons for Rosie O' being fat".<P>6X6

Talker,<BR>The owner ID holster sounds like another answer to a problem that does'nt exist. The biggest problem I have with it is what about us folks up here in the great white north? It gets cold up here in the winter as you well know. Cops wear gloves when they are outside. If for some reason they had to draw their weapon, how is the holster going to recognize the print through the glove? TRAINING,TRAINING,TRAINING IS THE ANSWER!<BR> As far as a house gun is concerned, what if you are not home but the wife is and she finds herself in need of it? She wont be able to access it. As far as "safely stowing" a firearm is concerned, a lot of people say that you should stow the empty gun in one place and a loaded magazine in another to ensure that a nosy toddler won't ferret out the pistol and put a hole in somebody. While this effort toward safety is laudable, it makes for an all-fired slow gun drill when Raffles is crawling through the bedroom window. Keeping the gun under lock and key poses the same problem: "Now where did I hide the key?" A sharp first grader will be able to tell you where it is,just as he is an expert on what part of the closet the Christmas packages are kept. <BR> You can't hide a handgun where it will be instantly available and yet inaccessible to a child. The only solution is to educate your children as soon as they are weaned to respect all guns, and to keep hammering that lesson into them as long as they live with you. You cant do this with the neighbor's brood so I taught my daughters that the guns are family business and that no one else needed to know about family business. I have never had a problem with my daughters or any of their many friends that used to visit.<P>Keeb

I'm with you on that Keeb. The more I thought about the holster idea, the more hype I saw. Nine times out of ten, it would be in the way. The tenth time, you're right, training is a better answer. It's a solution to a problem that has already been solved. <P>And add this to the mix, some gunwriter needed to put something on paper for his editor and on deadline. something all of us need to remember whether it's a gun rag or a TV news program. Forget truth. The reporter or writer asks himself first, "What will get published/on the air?"<P>And that's what he writes. <P>Talker

Interesting. Could you please put this on the second amendment forum?