Anti-gun Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey’s proposed gun control legislation is even more absurd than we expected, suggesting that fingerprint recognition and RFID-activated firearms become the standard for so-called smart guns.

Apparently, it doesn’t get cold enough in Massachusetts for people to wear gloves, and people with dirty or injured hands don’t deserve to live if attacked.

Here’s the entire absurd proposal (PDF):

In the most recent James Bond film, Bond escapes death when his handgun, which is equipped with technology that recognizes him as its owner, becomes inoperable when it gets into the wrong hands.

This technology, however, isn’t just for the movies – it’s a reality. Technology currently exists to make handguns “personalized” and to ensure that they are only operable by authorized users. This technology presents a modern solution to the persistent problem of gun violence that is in the interest of, and should be embraced by, gun owners and safety advocates alike.

Personalization technology allows the purchaser of a gun to designate authorized user(s) who can operate the gun and would make the gun inoperable for all others. This would disallow criminals who steal handguns to be able to use them and would prevent small children who accidentally find a handgun from firing it. The bill would decrease accidental gun deaths significantly.

Personalized handguns are already being sold overseas and have been available for import in the United States since 2011. Additionally, several gun manufacturers are in the process of introducing this technology to the American market, and it is already on the market in some states. In October 2013, California approved the sale of one such gun, the Armatix iP1.

In response to the tragic school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, President Obama issued an executive order directing the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to conduct a study on the state of gun personalization technology. The report, which was released in June 2013, noted that three separate personalized handguns were in the process of being developed for commercial sale.

The Handgun Trigger Safety Act would mandate that, within two years of enactment, all newly manufactured handguns must be personalized, ensuring that they can only be operated by authorized users. Within three years of enactment, anyone selling a handgun must retrofit it with personalization technology before that sale can be completed; these retrofittings will be paid for out of a fund administered by the Department of Justice. The bill would also provide for grants through the National Institute of Justice to continue to develop and improve handgun personalization technology to simultaneously increase efficacy and decrease cost. This technology would protect law enforcement officers from having their guns used against them, would protect gun owners whose guns are stolen
from being used in a crime, and would protect children and teenagers whose lives are taken accidentally.

The Handgun Trigger Safety Act of 2013 would:

  •  Authorize grants, to be administered through NIJ, for further development and  improvement of personalized handgun technology.
  • Direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to create a safety standard for personalized handguns that all newly manufactured handguns will have to meet.
  • Require that all handguns manufactured in the United States two years after the date of enactment of the bill be “personalized handguns” and comply with the CPSC
    standard.
  • Require that any entity, whether an individual or business, selling a handgun, retrofit their handgun with personalization technology three years after the date of enactment of the bill. The retrofitting shall be paid for out of the Asset Forfeiture Fund at the Department of Justice. Cash confiscated by the Department of Justice, and proceeds from the sale of other confiscated property, is deposited into this Asset Forfeiture Fund, which is used to retrofit vehicles for law enforcement purposes, pay rewards to informants in illicit drug cases, and pay overtime, travel, and training expenses for state and local law enforcement personnel who assist the Department of Justice in forfeiture cases.
  • Hold gun manufacturers liable if they produce guns that do not meet the CPSC safety standard two years after the passage of the bill.

As we noted this morning when we heard the general thrust of Markey’s proposal, these technologies are not remotely viable for deployment. We noted that the most viable of these technologies fails every single magazine, or roughly ten percent of the time. That particular pistol—which we didn’t single out by name this morning—is the Armatix iP1. What is the gun that Markey singles out as his ideal?

The Armatix iP1.

Markey also fails to note that the Armatix iP1 is only functioning at this time (well, when it does function) as a .22LR. The company does not make a pistol in a recommended centerfire defensive caliber, presumably because the fragile technology shakes itself to pieces when shot in a gun with any measurable recoil impulse.

The real goal of Markey’s legislation is obvious.

He intends to force through a law to force gun manufacturers to try to build firearms that cannot be made, and stop the sale of all current handguns in three years, because they simply cannot be retrofitted with non-existent technology.

Markey’s bill is nothing more or less than a bill advocating for handgun prohibition, and is blatantly unconstitutional as a result.