California Lawmaker Wants To Require 'Smart Guns' Once Technology Is Proven

Updated: Tuesday, April 15, 2008, 8:58 am -- Blogger Don Surber asks a very good question. He notes that there are 1,300 DUI deaths in California each year. Why isn't the California legislature, he asks, using technology that exists today to test drivers for their alcohol levels, instead of pushing technology that does not yet exist to "save" the lives of 60 people per year?

********
A California assemblyman, claiming he only wants to save lives, is very sure that smart gun technology is around the corner. As a result, he has introduced legislation stating that once the technology is proven, it will be required to be available in California within 18 months.

The idea behind "smart guns" is that biometric chips buried in the firearm recognize its owner -- and only its owner -- either via fingerprints or perhaps a transponder worn by the owner via a wristband or wristwatch. The thinking is that if the gun is stolen, or a bad guy gets ahold of it, the firearm is useless.

But the lawmaker, in his zeal, creates a mess of unintended consequences. What about a situation where in a home invasion the head of the family (assuming he or she has taken the lead in defending the family) is injured and cannot fight. It falls to the spouse or significant other, or even a child, to take up defense of the family.

But if the firearm won't operate because "the owner" is no longer in control of the gun, and family members are killed because of this technology won't permit them to defend themselves, California Assemblyman Mark DeSaulnier and anyone else who votes for such a bill will be responsible for their deaths.

"I'm here to try to save lives," he says. Right.

Sadly, Assemblyman DeSaulnier's actions are going to get people killed. Specifically, his actions are going to get families killed.