Well, they already do that
Except that headline isn’t reality (“journalism”), what Chucky wants is:
. . . that contract to include two safety provisions the winning bidder must develop “smart gun” technology, and must cut off business ties with the “1 percent” of gun dealers that sell guns to criminals.
October 26th, 2015 at 7:21 pm
“must cut off business ties with the “1 percent” of gun dealers that sell guns to criminals.”
Well, since no honest firearm dealer intentionally sells firearms to criminal organizations (unlike BATF) that’s totally moot.
I didn’t think that Schumer and his ilk could get any stupider, but…
October 26th, 2015 at 7:22 pm
“Sen. Chuck Schumer said Friday he wants the federal government to use its “massive purchasing power” to put the financial screws to gun manufacturers who deal with shady weapon sellers.”
Does he mean those sellers that are licensed and regulated by the Federal government?
October 26th, 2015 at 7:54 pm
I think he means gun dealers like the United States government who sell guns to countries like Mexico where they rush right out the gate to the cartels?
October 26th, 2015 at 7:56 pm
And after that 1% gets cut-off, the next 1% will be the highest 1% and get cut off and then the next 1% until there is no one left to sell to. Chuck Schumer you ingenious bastard. Good thing dumb American voters are no good at math so they won’t figure out your scheme until it’s too late.
October 26th, 2015 at 8:38 pm
The 1% would hae to include the federal government, wouldn’t it? Our government sold guns to the Mexican Drug Cartels. It also sold or gave guns to various “Free Syrian Army” groups that were fronts for Islamic Terrorists. The thousands of guns the feds gave, sold, or otherwise sent to these scum must make our governement the top 1% of the 1% supplying criminals with guns.
October 26th, 2015 at 11:11 pm
As someone that used to manage contracts for the USAF, I know that provisions like these are licenses to extract endless amounts of money from the US Government.
For example, the response to the “cut off the 1% of dealers clause would be a cheerful requirement to the government to certainly comply, once an unambiguous and clear identification of these ‘merchants of death’ has been made and certified by any senators or representatives in their personal capacity as assertions of fact. Meaning that these individuals would have to do so without the protection of their offices, and be liable for libel… and until then business will continue as usual to all FFLs that have not been shut down by the BATFE for violations of any regulation.
Secondly, the requirement to “develop smart gun technology” sounds like a R&D contract, and seems like a reasonable candidate for a cost plus fixed fee contract, which is a typical contract fee structure when the there is a lot of risk in the development cycle. Furthermore, the contractor could insist on an independent evaluator, to be subcontracted by prime contractor, to verify that the smart gun technology developed meets the requirements of the user community. And so R Lee Ermy, Ted Nugent, FPSRussia, Caleb Giddings, Hickok45, Cam Edwards, Tamara Keel, and every other gunblogger and YouTube video sensation will be getting a quarterly paycheck to evaluate the latest offering and tell you how it sucked. Meanwhile, the pistols for the military will be manufactured, paid for and delivered.
October 27th, 2015 at 8:45 am
And then so-called “smart gun” technology will be forced upon the civilian gun owning population which will allow remote control shut off and remote detection of firearms which thereby kill sales of all non-“smart gun” firearms and allow for civilian disarmament.
October 27th, 2015 at 8:52 am
Will my 1917 Lee Enfield be retrofitted with smart gun technology before its centennial?
October 27th, 2015 at 9:58 am
I’m willing to go out on a limb here and say that no handgun manufacturer able to fill an order for the US Army is going to be willing to risk a boycott of the majority of its customers (US gun owners). Gaining an order of 100,000 while losing 500,000 or more in civilian sales just isn’t good business.
October 27th, 2015 at 11:32 am
And then so-called “smart gun” technology will be forced upon the civilian gun owning population which will allow remote control shut off and remote detection of firearms which thereby kill sales of all non-“smart gun” firearms and allow for civilian disarmament.
And we’ll be paying 15 year-old gamer geeks to hack them for us.
October 27th, 2015 at 2:48 pm
@rickn8or gets it, any smart gun tech will be easily defeated in the hardware or software.
October 27th, 2015 at 2:57 pm
Good luck hacking that. And they’ll make it a crime to hack it to defeat the technology thereby making every gun owner a criminal. Just what they want.
October 27th, 2015 at 3:14 pm
And they’ll make it a crime to hack it to defeat the technology …
If you are already at the point where you are hacking your own guns, you are already well past the point of caring what the government says is “illegal”.
October 27th, 2015 at 3:42 pm
I don’t see your logic. I’d care what the government says or doesn’t say is illegal because I don’t want to go to jail for possessing a firearm which is illegal. We must oppose all efforts to have this forced upon us by government. These things will not be able to be hacked by anyone but the government and they will be able to be remotely detected and disabled by the government.
October 27th, 2015 at 3:57 pm
Maxpwr, all it would take is one “disloyal” engineer to dump the design info on the Internets and techies everywhere would be racing to see who hacks it first.
And what Professor Hale said.
October 27th, 2015 at 4:26 pm
And then the government sues that manufacturer for designing and marketing a faulty and fraudulent product and goes out of business. Meanwhile the government mandate to use smart-guns remains.
November 2nd, 2015 at 2:07 am
Seems like a bill of attainder to me, Chuck.
I know you were sleeping when they taught Constitution, but really.