White House Smart Gun Report A.K.A ObamaGunCare


I downloaded the report and could not go past the introduction without having a good laugh. I decided I had to share it with my readers.
Smart Gun Report 2016

Numerous industries have found ways to integrate modern electronics into older mechanical systems without undermining the quality of the product. In automobiles, for example, owners rely on a range of computerized systems—from anti-lock brakes to airbags—that operate instantly and provide far greater protection to drivers than earlier, less sophisticated systems. Such advancements have been possible due to sustained investment by private companies—and, at times, support and direction from government actors

I guess the White House has never heard about the concept of recalls because the technology was not quite operating as promised? Just yesterday Nissan is recalling 3 million vehicles due to problems with the airbags. And this is for a technology first patented in 1951 and operational in US Vehicles since the 1970s. 


Firearms manufacturers will need to decide whether to make similar investments here. To achieve the innovations that the President seeks, one or more companies must 2 decide that the benefits of enhanced gun safety technology exceed the costs of researching, developing, and marketing such technology.

No, Firearm Manufacturers will decide their production on what Gun Owners want, not a veiled threat from the Executive. Free market and all that.


Federal, state, and local governments can support this effort in two ways: by lowering the cost of bringing new technology to market, and by exercising their collective purchasing power, where appropriate, to spur development.

Oh sweet baby Jesus. After 7+ years in power, they still do not get how business work. You as government don’t have the purchasing power leverage to influence new design. You can only do that by imposing a legal mandate. 


Over the next six months, the Administration will partner with state, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies to establish the specific conditions under which they would consider purchasing firearms with advanced gun safety technology.

They tried this during the Clinton Administration and failed. So unless they manage to change the laws about bidding and Washington decides to waste taxpayer’s money on subsidizing the purchase of very expensive smart weapons, I don’t see this going very far.


This partnership will result in the drafting of voluntary “baseline specifications” that will outline—for the first time—a clear description of what law enforcement expects from smart gun technology, particularly with regards to reliability, durability, and accuracy. These baseline specifications will serve several purposes. First, they will provide clear guidance to potential manufacturers about what government purchasers require in their firearms. Second, these specifications will serve as a standard against which existing technology can be measured, making it possible to identify what research and development gaps remain. And finally, this process will allow federal, state, and local governments to demonstrate that demand for these weapons may exist—if certain operational requirements are met.

So, the government is gonna tell you how they want the guns to work and give you the standards on how they will be built… because governments are so good designing and building quality small arms in an inexpensive manner, right? And after we have the design of the seven pound, ten shot, .32 acp smart Glock, we will tell you this is the gun you must buy for your cops. 


We expect that these specifications will be demanding. Law enforcement agencies cannot and should not equip their officers with firearms that make them, or the communities they serve, less safe.But by inviting law enforcement professionals to develop specifications, the Administration can lay the groundwork for expanded use of gun safety technology in the near future. 

Anybody else got a good laugh out of this? Every single mechanical or electronic gun safety has been thoroughly rejected on principle by law enforcement at all levels. If this is what the administration is counting on as a way to pressure manufacturers and gun owners, they are indeed deluded. 


To be clear, this report calls for the development of new technology—and not a mandate that any particular individual or law enforcement agency adopt the technology once developed.

Not that you could mandated it anyway without having a full-blown epidemic of Blue Flu.


To be clear, this report calls for the development of new technology—and not a mandate that any particular individual or law enforcement agency adopt the technology once developed. By spurring the growth of enhanced gun safety technology, the federal government seeks to expand, not constrict, consumers’ choices when deciding what firearm to purchase.

“If you like your gun, you can keep it.”


So be ready for the Administration to spend a crap-load of taxpayers money on another study on something that will not go anywhere.


Owner/Operator of this Blog. Pamphleteer De Lux. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

Recommended Posts


  1. It the government wants to develop standards for government owned firearms, that is entirely within their authority. But then the authority stops right there. The only place the government can rightly mandate the use of smart gun technology is with their employees, namely law enforcement and the military.
    Granted, that might create a challenge when those employees decide to either find another employer or even a different line of work. A friend of mine who is retired from law enforcement has commented that many departments are already starting to have problems recruiting personnel.
    Can you imagine what will happen when you couple the “Ferguson effect” caused by lack of support from the public and the chain of command and then being required to use firearms that cant be relied on.

  2. The anti-lock brake analogy is a terrible one.

    The vast majority of drivers have no clue how to properly perform in an emergency situation and statistics showed this with anti-lock brakes. When they first started to become prevalent, insurers gave discounts because they anticipated lower losses due to the technology. However, the discount went away when statistics showed no difference in accident rates. Why is this? Hardly anyone understands that anti-lock brakes do not make the car stop shorter or more quickly — they keep the wheels turning so one can brake and turn at the same time. So, why does this matter? The vast majority of drivers’ accident avoidance technique is to simply slam on the brakes in a straight line, thus negating the maneuvering advantage of being able to brake AND turn at the same time.

    I think a similar thing will happen with “smart gun” technology. It would not prevent poor gun-handling techniques, negligent discharges, or accidents when folks “demonstrate” or show off their guns. All of those are related to improper behavior/performance.

    • Quite right, not to mention things like airbags and anti-lock brakes are a more-or-less passive system, from the driver’s point of view. They operate, as intended, with little or no interference or activation from the driver, and — again, as intended — they operate the same for any driver, not just the owner of the car.

      A “smart gun”, on the other hand, operates (as designed) only on active interference from the user, who is also the owner of the gun. Where the airbag is designed to deploy automatically at the moment of collision, a “smart gun” is designed to not deploy unless and until the safeties are overridden and the device manually activated.

      Equating the two is idiotic at best, manipulative at worst.

      If we wanted to make airbags the way they want to make “smart guns”, you’d scan your thumbprint and enter a PIN code (known only to the owner of the car) to deactivate the safeties on the airbag, and then press a separate button to deploy and inflate it, all in the 60 milliseconds before impact.

  3. Braden Lynch : April 30, 2016 at 4:53 pm

    No technology will ever work because it cannot ever judge intent or justifiable use.

    It will of course refuse a good guy who is an “unauthorized user” and deny them a life saving tool. It is a simple unavoidable aspect of the technology. Think of officer down situations, Good Samaritans and sometimes even family members. What about ex-cons who could not have a legal firearm yet still have justifiable self defence incidents?

    The British would have loved smart gun technology that would have prevented the colonists from firing on the Redcoats. As the representatives of the crown, they should not have been viable targets per any smart gun system. This is why smart guns fail out of the gate.

    It is possible that in the future, shooting agents of the state is the moral and a necessary thing to do. Think of the Gestapo. What about murderous youth? If I have to shoot a homicidal 12 year old, so be it. So no IFF system will ever be desirable. It would exclude the thugs of the government and those we must deem to be dangerous in the moment. No silly electronics can make these types of determinations.

    We are independent citizens that must reserve the right to arms to rebel against a tyrannical government so no smart gun system is appropriate. We face the wrath of the legal system if we act criminally, but prior restraint is not an appropriate step by the government.

    Their proposed “smart guns” are a dumb solution in search of a problem and are not ever going to work. The few lives it might save will fail compared to the lives and freedom it will cost.

    You adopt it with your SS detail first, POTUS. I didn’t think so.

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .

%d bloggers like this: