Ignorance of basic security principle

I can’t recall anyone every accusing our anti-gun opponents of being well-informed or smart. And there is good reason for that. We have a lot of evidence they the have no clue in regards to criminology, constitutional law, firearm terminology, existing firearm law, or how firearms work.

Robb Allen seems to be leading the mockery (and here, and here) this week but there is no shortage of things to be mocked and people mocking them.

But the ignorance and stupidity go much deeper and has far greater consequences than a few idiots who think a barrel shroud is “the shoulder thing that goes up” or don’t know that bullets, not cartridges, leave the muzzle of a gun.

It is nearly a fundamental tenet of security that if the bad guy has physical control of your hardware and essentially unlimited time then there is no security mechanism that cannot be defeated. Yet Democratic Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts has introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate demonstrating that he is entirely ignorant of this basic security principle:

S.2068 calls for grant money, up to $2 million, for companies, individuals, and states, to research technology that would lead to the personalization of firearms.

A personalized handgun, according to the bill, is a firearm which:

  • enables only an authorized user of the handgun to fire the handgun;
  • was manufactured in such a manner that the firing restriction described is incorporated into the design of the handgun;
  • is not sold as an accessory;
  • and cannot be readily removed or deactivated.

The bill calls for institutions such as schools and companies to apply for grants for technology to personalize both new and old firearms.

The plan, according to the text of the legislation, is to completely transform the firearms industry with regard to handguns over the next several years.

According to the bill, “Beginning on the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, no person may manufacture in the United States a handgun that is not a personalized handgun.”

It says later that, “Beginning on the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, no person may distribute in commerce any handgun that is not a personalized handgun or a retrofitted personalized handgun.”

The law would essentially make it illegal to make or sell a gun that is not personalized, new or old.

If this became law and was not gutted by the courts it would stop the legal sale of handguns in the U.S. to private citizens. I cannot imagine that is is possible to build such a gun let along retrofit existing guns to function this way. Hence it would not be possible to legally sell a handgun.

Probably the easily way to defeat such technology is to provide a false “authorized user” signal. At some point in the mechanism there will be a sensor that obtains information about the user. If this sensor is replaced or bypassed then fake data can be supplied such that the “authorized user” always appears to be present.

If for some reason that method is not practical then the mechanics of the firing mechanism can be attacked.

Any such gun will have to have a power source, probably a battery. The power source can either be removable or it can be easily destroyed hence removing the source of power. Without power the device must fail in such a way that it cannot be fired or else the “firing restriction” mechanism would have been “readily deactivated”.

The “firing restriction” can work in one of two ways. It could be something that blocks the firing mechanism in some way like a firing pin or hammer block on many guns. Or it could be something that is removed from the firing mechanism in some way like a transfer bar on some guns.

In either case jamming the “firing restriction” in the position where the gun is operational will deactivate it.

In any case the only thing Senator Markey has done with the introduction of this bill is demonstrate, yet again, that the anti-gun conspirators, like most criminals, have crap for brains.

10 thoughts on “Ignorance of basic security principle

    • Not just Markey.
      As far as I’m concerned there are probably only 3-4, at most, that shouldn’t be booted for violating their oaths.
      The vast majority of them should flat out be hanged for treason.

  1. I don’t particularly care about the details, or how ignorant some legislator may be; government has no business legislating design features. We’ve gone along with helmet laws, seatbelt laws, air bag and crash test laws, and thousands of other laws ostensibly designed to force safety on us.

    The concept has been widely accepted if not embraced, and so here we are, having lost the principled argument long ago, for having never made it. Now the Dark Side has a convenient weapon against the second amendment. I don’t think for a second that anyone believes this is a good idea, except as a back-door attack on the right to self defense.

    FDR of course did one similar back in 1933/34 with the NFA. It wasn’t a gun ban, mind you. Oh no; it is a tax, don’t you know. A revenue raising measure, and everyone knows the government needs revenue (nod nod, wink wink).

    That’s the old Progressive play, and we’ve either tolerated it (product safety laws) or we’ve eaten it up like hungry puppies pretty much all along the way.

    This new “smart gun” nonsense isn’t a gun ban. Oh no; it’s a “product safety mandate” and we all want safety, right? You don’t HATE safety, do you? And look; it has the word “smart” right in it, so you know it has to be good.

    The technical details of it are irrelevant. Actually that’s not entirely true; the more irrational, stupid, aggravating and insane the details, the better, because it more effectively frustrates, angers and intimidates people that way, which is and always has been the one and only point of it. If you’re frustrated, angered and intimidated, you are OWNED.

    Are we understanding this yet? We’ve been played like bloody violins for over 100 years and so now who do we really blame for it? It keeps working and working and working, and so why would you expect it to stop?

  2. Ummm… Let me see, it can’t be an accessory, AND it must be able to b retrofit… Sure, no problems there, none at all.

  3. It certainly is possible that Markey is merely ignorant. He certainly comes across as having about the brain power of a diced turnip, every time I see him on TV. (Which is all too often, since the local TV news comes from Boston.)
    But it is entirely plausible that this thing is deliberate. He certainly is a typical Massachusetts communist, hostile to all forms of liberty.
    The amazing irony is that it is a civilian disarmament attempt in Massachusetts that precipitated the American Revolution, and even more ironic that this event is still celebrated annually in Massachusetts. http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/revolution1793.jpg.html

  4. “It certainly is possible that Markey is merely ignorant. He certainly comes across as having about the brain power of a diced turnip…”

    People of Earth!

    If you’ve ever seen a person hypnotized, an otherwise perfectly intelligent and capable person doing utterly silly things as a result, taking commands through subtle gestures and even defending their utter silliness, you are in a position to understand perfectly what is happening.

    It’s very, VERY simple once you realize that it is entirely possible (and quite probable) that what you think of as your “will” is not your own. The only thing that holds you back in that realization is the disturbing nature of the thought. You WANT to believe some things while you WANT NOT to believe other things.

  5. Pingback: SayUncle » While we’re at it, everyone gets a unicorn

  6. I might have said this before, but if these devices were really any good, and could possibly be made to work as touted, they should go to cops first, as they are the ones who have to get within bad breath distance of bad guys who wish them ill, and who have guns on their hips while at such distance. The retention holster is the only workable version of this concept. My Uncle was PD and caught a car thief who he had met many times before, and started to arrest him, except that time the thief just did not want to go to jail that day (maybe he had a lunch date). Thief got Uncle’s gun, Uncle got a bullet perilously close to the spine, and walked around with it for 30 years.
    Much like we can believe Global Warming is real when Al Gore starts acting like it’s more than a scam for him to sell carbon indulgences, I’ll believe the personal gun is more than a scam when the cops us them. Until then, it’s a way to make sure “Die Juden sind sicher waffenlos.”

  7. Doesn’t a standard gun lock meet all the criteria? A seller can mandate that the lock only be sold with the gun, not as an accessory. It’s personalized by virtue of the key and/or combination.

    The removed and deactivated issue is unclear – anything that absolutely can’t be removed or deactivated = not a gun. Presuming that some level of removal/deactivation is allowed, moving the gun lock from the gun to the trash should be legal.

    • Nope. The last requirement on the list is “and cannot be readily removed or deactivated”.

      So that ends up being “not a gun”.

Comments are closed.