Sandy Hook Parents May Try To Sue Bushmaster With “Wrongful Death” Suit

Leave a comment

This is from Bearing Arms.

In a sane world the Bushmaster Company would not be responsible for the deaths.

But this is the land of liberal loons known as Connecticut.

The real problem is the Lanza family as they stood by and watched Adam’s mental condition deteriorate and did nothing.


Have you every heard of a automobile manufacturer being successfully sued because they built a car that was used in a criminal act?

Of course you haven’t. Occasional attempts as this sort of suit are viewed as little more than impotent protests, and are typically tossed out by judges long before a case can go to trial.

That is hopefully the reality that a Connecticut law firm is giving to the families of 10 Sandy Hook victims who are dropping hints that they file a wrongful death case against Bushmaster.

The parents of 10 children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School have filed or soon will file notices in probate court that they plan to make wrongful death claims on their children’s behalf.

Sources said several families met over the weekend with lawyers from Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, a Bridgeport, Conn., law firm, to discuss a potential lawsuit against Bushmaster, the North Carolina-based manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR 15 that A___ L____* used to kill 20 first-graders and six adults on Dec. 14, 2012.

There have also been discussions with other lawyers about filing a lawsuit against the town over security issues at the school on the day of the massacre or about suing the estate of Nancy Lanza.

Nancy Lanza doesn’t have much of an estate.

The largest possible target in terms of financial assets is Bushmaster… but the justification for the suit is weak.

The law firm would have to argue that Bushmaster (the manufacturer) is somehow directly responsible for the deaths of the children. This is a near impossibility in a rational world. Manufacturers sell to distributors. Distributors then sell to retailers. Retailers then sell to law-abiding customers, who must undergo a federal NICS background check.

At Sandy Hook, possession of the Bushmaster was ultimately obtained after all these legal transfers by the murder of the rightful owner, Nancy Lanza, the mass killer’s first victim.

While we understand that the families would like to be able to hold someone accountable for the murders of their children, the reality of the matter is that the person directly responsible for their deaths committed suicide just moments after killing the last of his victims, and the next most culpable person was also a victim.

No good can come of this possible suit. Let’s hope that the families refrain from filing such a case.


* Bearing Arms does not publish the names of mass or spree killers.


Photo Series Depicts The Absurdity Of The Weirdest Laws In America

1 Comment

This is from Elite Daily.

Here in Indiana it is against the law to eat onions on Sunday.

It is legal to have a duel in Indiana as long as the following conditions are met.

1- you notify and get approval from the Sheriff in the county of where the duel is to be fought.

2-You have to hold the duel 15 minutes before day break.

3- Have a medical doctor in attendance.

3- You and the other party have to chose seconds.

4-You must use single shots pistol or a swords.



Believe it or not, it’s against the law to walk around with an ice cream cone in your back pocket when you’re in Alabama.

It makes complete sense, though. Why would you want to do that to yourself? In addition, there are a bunch of other obscure laws that are currently being enforced around the United States.

In a recent photo series conducted by Olivia Locher, a handful of outrageous laws from Maine to California are visualized.

If you plan on traveling any time soon and engaging in strange activities, you’re going to want to know your rights first. Or the rights you don’t have, rather.

Check them out below!

It’s against the law to tickle a woman under her chin with a feather duster in Maine.

You can’t carry a violin in a paper bag while in public in Utah.

It’s unlawful to sell hollow logs in Tennessee.

You can’t wear transparent clothing in Rhode Island. I’m guessing they’ve had horrific experiences with that kind of stuff.

Serving wine in teacups while in Kansas is highly illegal. Mugs are fine, though.

In California, it’s against the law to ride a bike in a swimming pool.

Don’t walk around with an ice cream cone in your back pocket while in Alabama. That’d also be illegal.

If pickles don’t bounce in Connecticut, they’re not considered pickles.

In Wisconsin, it’s against the law to serve apple pie without cheese.

While you’re in Oregon, you can’t test your physical endurance or exercise while driving. Kiss your spring workout routine goodbye!

Don’t put coins in your ears while in Hawaii. That’s illegal, too.

In Texas, it’s unlawful for children to have absurd, obscure haircuts.

Wearing jeans that are form-fitting around the waist is considered unlawful in Delaware.

H/T: UFunk, Photos Courtesy: Olivia Locher




1 Comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

The resistance to tyranny continues.

Molon Labe.


While testifying before New Jersey lawmakers against a proposed ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds, gun range owner Anthony P. Colandro said, “I will not comply.”


Besides owning the Woodland Park Range in Woodland Park, NJ, Colandro owns a firearm training facility and is co-host of Gun For Hire radio.

According to, Colandro said a ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds would impact law-abiding citizens–rather than criminals–because it would turn “one million law-abiding, tax-paying citizens into criminals” if signed into law.

He then called lawmakers’ attention to Connecticut, and said, “One million gun owners in New Jersey are also going to say, like our brothers and sisters in the north, that ‘we will not comply.’ And I can tell you here and now, ‘I will not comply.'”

He added: “You can write these laws against us tax-paying, law-abiding citizens, but we’re not going to follow them.”

Conn. police refuse to enforce new gun laws (2 Updates)

Leave a comment

This is from

This development could lead to a peaceful way to handle a possible explosive situation in Connecticut.

There is a possible Comrade Governor Dannel Malloy could put together a Storm Trooper force with cops like this, and this. 


{Update Notice One. I just received word that the original source of this story, David Hardy, has stated that Tyler Jackson, the one who told him an open letter from 250 peace officers would be published soon, cannot confirm that his previous story is true. Hardy believes that this particular letter does not exist, although he is quite certain, as am I, that a significant number of LEOs in various agencies in Connecticut have vowed they will not enforce unconstitutional gun laws. Here is the original posting from Hardy, along with the latest update today.}

{Update Notice Two. No sooner had I written several apologies about erroneous information in this article than David Hardy received notice that Tyler Jackson had, indeed, published a report on the open letter from the Connecticut Peace Officers’ Association at, just as he had promised. Jackson did a phone interview with the Chair of the Connecticut Peace Officers’ Association about the open letter, who confirmed that 250 signatures were attached to the letter.}

A showdown is developing between a sizable number of Connecticut state police officers and the politicians who passed into law highly restrictive gun controlgun bans, and bans on high capacity magazines.

Gun rights legal expert and activist David Hardy reported Friday that 250 law enforcement officers in Connecticut have signed an open letter stating that they will not enforce the new anti-gun and magazine laws, which they consider to be a violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

A major news story on these developments is due to be published soon, but Hardy received an advanced notice via email from Tyler Jackson, the head of the Connecticut Peace Officers Association, the organization that sent the open letter.

According to Hardy,

Tyler Jackson has emailed me an interesting story, soon to appear online (I’ll link to it once it does)– the gist is that the head of the Connecticut Peace Officers’ Assn has released an open letter stating that the police will not “be party to the oppression of the people of the state by enforcing an unconstitutional law.” So far 250 LEOs have cosigned the letter.

Gun owners in the state have already ignored the mandate to comply with the new laws, refusing to register with the state government their possession of so-called “assault weapons” and forbidden magazines.

It is estimated that over 300,000 gunowners have practiced civil disobedience in refusing to register and give up the newly forbidden items. Only roughly 50,000 citizens in the state have complied.

But now these courageous citizens have key support in high places. With at least 250 law enforcement officers joining them in disobeying an unconstitutional law, the gunowners have a new weapon in their arsenal — the support of hundreds of police officers.

Hardy reported that with the lack of support of police, Connecticut faces massive civilian resistance, with police officers refusing to enforce a law that to most citizens crosses a line that is unacceptable in a free society.

If such a thing can happen in a deeply blue state in New England, what would law enforcement encounter if they attempted such an ill-fated attack on Constitutionally-protected rights in Texas, Wyoming, South Carolina, Utah, or Kentucky?

This is something that the political powers that be in government and law enforcement — and in the Courts — should think long and hard about before acting in such a knee-jerk fashion as Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have done.

(Hat tip to Sipsey Street Irregulars).


My latest entry is now available at my blog at The Liberty Sphere under the section, “Musings After Midnight.” It is titled, “The latest news from the underground patriot movement, including warnings of more gov’t harassment of conservatives, libertarians, and gun owners.


Read one of my most popular entries on my blog in the popular series, Musings After Midnight, titled, “The Stealth War.

My series “Musings After Midnight” is now indexed at my blog, The Liberty Sphere.

You may also wish to visit my ministry site at Martin Christian Ministries.



Connecticut Politicians Inch Closer to War on Gun Owners


This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

It seems the DemocRats in Connecticut are Hell Bent on causing a civil war in their state.

Comrade Governor Dannel Malloy is a brain dead DemocRat yes man that does not give a Damn about legal gun owners.

Could this be the “Second Shot Heard Around The World”?


By Rob Morse
Article Source



No, I don’t mean some place in the Ukraine. For some of you who went to public school, Connecticut is in the north-eastern corner of the US, but barely. I understand your confusion since Connecticut is closer to New York City than to the US. Let’s see how Connecticut politicians constructed a situation where honest gun owners could get shot by police. We can also prescribe a peaceful solution.

How did they get themselves into this mess? There was a huge outcry of public anguish and frustration after a crazy man murdered children at a public school in Connecticut. The media used that emotional reaction to sell its anti-gun bigotry. The media falsely claimed that mass murder by honest gun owners was increasing. Yes, it is bigotry. Bigotry is blaming the innocent, and a hundred million honest gun owners are innocent. That didn’t stop the media from blaming them. They blamed people like me. Maybe they blamed you.

– Politicians used a public tragedy for political gain. In an equally crazy reaction, politicians said they would do something, do anything, even if it made us less safe. They outlawed common firearms. Connecticut politicians ignored the rights of the minority in doing so. They also ignored the facts about mass violence. The reason is simple.

Connecticut politicians put their political careers ahead of public safety.

– Connecticut gun owners protested as the anti-gun bill went through the legislature, but they were ignored by the Democrat majority. After the Democrat politicians outlawed common firearms, the citizens returned the favor. Connecticut gun owners largely ignored the new laws.

– Politicians exposed their ill will. Some gun owners registered their guns as dictated. Others ignored the new regulations. Those who registered their firearms late were rejected and ordered to sell their firearms out of state or surrender them to police. That proves gun registration was never the point of the anti-gun legislation.

– Gun owners asked the state police if they would go door to door and seize firearms. The police said they would follow orders. Police spokesmen also questioned the patriotism of Connecticut gun owners. Wise policemen do not deliberately alienate and frighten honest citizens. Some Connecticut police are not that smart.

– Connecticut newspapers called for door-to-door searches and gun confiscation. That further frightened Connecticut gun owners. The idea of midnight no-knock raids frightens me too. It should frighten you.

– The gun law was challenged in court, but lower courts refused to enjoin the legislation until the appeal is completed. This means the legislature and police can trample the rights of Connecticut gun owners for years to come.

In total, legislators, judges and the media showed stunning bigotry and lack of respect for political minorities. Their bias is as blatant as watching a southern judge during the Jim Crow era.

Where we are today? Connecticut has an unenforceable law on its books. So many gun owners refused to follow the law that Connecticut does not have the physical or fiscal means to enforce their law. The ranks of law enforcement, the number of courts, and the number of prisons would have to grow ten fold. The costs of court trials and prison incarcerations are enough to bankrupt the state. There are other costs as well.

How could the situation get worse? Police have murdered innocent civilians during no-knock raids. It is a sad fact, but it has happened. Examples are here 1 and here 2and a video here 3. Though the media will try and cover for them, police and politicians will have blood on their hands if they injure civilian gun owners during firearm confiscation. Police violence will further heighten the fear felt by honest gun owners in Connecticut. Connecticut gun owners could try to defend themselves if people violently break into their homes. This could lead to further bloodshed for all concerned. Police and politicians would then be seen as murderous oppressors rather than defenders of a fair and impartial justice system.

Respect for Connecticut law enforcement and politicians would plummet even further. Law enforcement officers would lose community support. Crime and violence would increase.

That is bad.

The police could conduct door to door sweeps with armed and armored personnel carriers rolling down the street as they did after the Boston Marathon bombing.

Yes, Connecticut could become a police state over this politicized issue.

That is worse.

Is forced disarmament necessary? Going door to door in no-knock midnight raids is foolishly dangerous. It is also profoundly unnecessary. Honest gun owners present no danger to the public. They never did. If Connecticut gun owners are a threat at all, they threaten the public image of bigoted politicians who now look politically foolish and publicly inept.

How can this situation de-escalate peacefully? There are lawsuits in place against the Connecticut gun law. Let the judicial process work to protect the rights of minorities. Enjoin the law as the case slowly grinds its way through the courts.

The political solution is to lobby the legislators in person, and some online media have posted lists of legislators who supported gun confiscation. Some politicians view that publicity with alarm. They are wrong. You should not be a politician if you don’t want to see the faces of the people affected by your laws. An isolated and insulated ruling class is a sure way to violence.

Let the courts settle this.

MILLER: New Jersey bill is outright gun ban on .22-caliber rifles and leads to confiscation


This is from The Washington Times.

These Progressive Communist States are setting the stage for a Second American Revolution or maybe a Second Civil War.

How many Waco’s will happen in Connecticut  or New Jersey  before the residents stand up and say Enough?

Will Chris Crispy Creme Christie go along with this ban to cover his considerably large backside? 


Gov. Chris Christie’s state is ground zero for gun control legislation this year.

New Jersey has become ground zero this year for legislative battles over gun control.

The Brady Campaign ranked the state third in the nation for most restrictive firearms laws, yet anti-gun Democrats who control the legislature are determined to go all the way to gun bans and confiscation.


The New Jersey Assembly’s Law and Public Safety Committee was scheduled to hold a public hearing on Monday (postponed for snow) about a bill that reduces the maximum magazine capacity from 15 to 10.

Since the legislation covers both detachable and fixed magazines, it has the effect of to banning popular, low-caliber rifles.

The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs gave the draft legislation to top firearms experts in the country to determine what guns would fall under the expanded ban.

They discovered that the bill would affect tube-fed, semi-automatic rifles because the magazine cannot be separated from the gun.

Thus, the experts found that at least 43 common rifles would suddenly be considered a prohibited “assault firearm,” such as the .22 caliber Marlin Model 60, Remington Nylon 66 and Winchester 190.

Just having one such gun would turn a law-abiding owner into a felon overnight.

Possession of an “assault firearm” is a second-degree crime in New Jersey. The penalty is up to 10 years in jail and a mandatory minimum sentence of three to five years, with no chance of parole.

“This bill is a gun ban, there’s no question about that,” Scott Bach, the executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, told me in an interview.

“If it becomes law, it would have zero impact on crime because criminals don’t follow bans. It would only affect legal gun owners by essentially tying their hands when they need to defend their lives.”

Even worse, the bill has no grandfather clause and no amnesty period. So as soon as this legislation becomes law, everyone in possession of these rifles is automatically a felon and the guns are subject to seizure by the government.

Remember just last May, these same legislators were caught on a hot microphone saying, “We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”

Mr. Bach said, “For years anti-gun Democrats have claimed that they have no agenda to ban and confiscate guns. But last year their true agenda was revealed on that hot mic. This bill is another step in that process.”

The timing of this drastic legislation is not by accident. New Jersey Democrats are determined to make Gov. Chris Christie squirm. Their objective is to make the potential Republican presidential candidate choose between local emotional pleas and national pro-gun voters.

State Senate President Steve Sweeney has had families of Newtown, Conn., school shooting at public events over the past few weeks to encourage passage.

It’s most likely that this radical bill will pass the Assembly and the Senate in the next few months. So, Mr. Christie’s veto power is the only thing that can stop the outright attack on gun owners and the Second Amendment.

Read more:
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Hey Connecticut, 1933 Berlin called, they want their Gestapo back


Hat Tip To Bullets First.

It is time for our brothers and sisters in Connecticut to wake up before Reichsfuhrer Paul Vance and his Gestapo come calling.

What has happened in the Constitution State?

I hope they stand up and proclaim their freedom.


The powers that be in Connecticut have decided that little things like the Constitution and Rights have no place in the (ironically named) Constitution state.

When you have the Connecticut State Police spokesman, Lt. Paul Vance declare that anyone who voices opinions contrary to support of the new gun control law “sounds anti-American” one cannot help but hear shades of the Gestapo looking to root out any perceived opposition to the dictatorship.

Here is a quote from Lt. Vance during a phone conversation with a woman whose husband received a letter saying he must turn in or destroy his weapons because the authority didn’t get the paperwork in time:


“Ma’am, it sounds like you’re anti-American, it sounds like you’re anti-law.”

According to Vance, if you are not lock step in line with the government’s oppression then you are Anti-American.

When the caller, Ashley, responds to this notion by saying that Vance is a public servant and whose job it is to serve the people, his flippant and tyrannical response is this:

“I’m the master, ma’am. I’m the master.” (and by extension the people are HIS servants)

Vance would continue on to say that he will be sending officers door to door in order to confiscate all weapons that he deems “illegal”.

This is the same Vance who wanted to arrest people for tweeting, what he called, “erroneous” Sandy Hook information.

So, where does Connecticut stand. Does it support the Gestapo like tactics of Lt. Vance? Does it want to silence the freedom of speech right along with the freedom to keep and bear arms? Will it move forward with it’s door to door Final Solution?

For historical reference, from the Holocaust Encyclopedia:

On the night of February 27-28, 1933, a mentally disabled Dutch citizen set fire to the German parliament building. Hitler and his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, presented the incident as the prelude to an armed Communist uprising and persuaded the aging President Paul von Hindenburg to establish what became a permanent state of emergency.

This decree, known as the Reichstag Fire Decree, suspended the provisions of the German constitution that protected basic individual rights, including freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. The decree also permitted increased state and police intervention into private life, allowing officials to censor mail, listen in on phone conversations, and search private homes without a warrant or need to show reasonable cause.

Under the state of emergency established by the decree, the Nazi regime could arrest and detain people without cause and without limits on the length of incarceration.

In the months after Hitler took power, SA and Gestapo agents went from door to door looking for Hitler’s enemies. They arrested Socialists, Communists, trade union leaders, and others who had spoken out against the Nazi party; some were murdered. By the summer of 1933, the Nazi party was the only legal political party in Germany. Nearly all organized opposition to the regime had been eliminated. Democracy was dead in Germany.

If you replace the dates and the word Germany for Connecticut and have the mentally disabled citizen shooting up Sandy Hook instead of setting a fire, it’s pretty much history repeating itself word for word.

The all powerful regime in Connecticut has exchanged hatred of Jews for hatred of gun owners and will repeat the same tactics from 80 years ago in an attempt to exterminate them as well.

And do not expect the following not to come to pass, as it is all ready being encouraged in New York State by their own dictator, Herr Cuomo:

Essential to the intimidating effects of the terror was the willingness of many German citizens (whether out of conviction, greed, envy, or vengeance) to denounce their fellow citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish, to the police. The Gestapo could not have exercised such control over German society without the benefit of this steady stream of denunciations, many of which were entirely unfounded.

Even gun owners themselves, who felt compelled to follow the law (like Ashley’s husband) have done nothing more than tell the Nutmeg Gestapo of the guns they own. And just like Ashley’s husband, they have now given the Police the information needed to expedite the confiscation of said weapons.

My suggestion to the good people of Connecticut, get your heads out of your fourth point of contact and wake up. You are living in a state modeled after one that the entire world went to war in order to topple.

You best wake up soon.

And if you have a weapon that Connecticut wants, I suggest you don’t tell them…EVER.

Molon labe, bullets first.

Related articles


Connecticut Pols Shocked That ‘Tens of Thousands’ of Gun Owners Defy Registration Laws

Leave a comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

I am glad to see the gun owners of Connecticut politicians the middle finger.

Now come the next election these political thugs need to be shown the door. 

Earlier this month, I pointed to a 2011 Connecticut legislative report to make the point that anemic registration of “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines under a particularly stupid new state law demonstrated that gun owners were continuing a long and proud tradition of defying restrictions on weapons ownership. Now lawmakers and journalists in the state acknowledge the same phenomenon, and the mass scofflawry it represents, and wonder just what corner they’ve backed themselves into.

Three years ago, the Connecticut legislature estimated there were 372,000 rifles in the state of the sort that might be classified as “assault weapons,” and two million plus high-capacity magazines. Many more have been sold in the gun-buying boom since then. But by the close of registration at the end of 2013, state officials received around 50,000 applications for “assault weapon” registrations, and 38,000 applications for magazines.

Ummm. Errr.

As Dan Haar writes for the Hartford Courant:


And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.

“I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register,” said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature’s public safety committee. “If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don’t follow them, then you have a real problem.”


From a politicians’ perspective, this is a problem. The sheep are refusing to be herded. But this was a completely predictable “problem.” These laws always experience more defiance than compliance, in the United States and around the world. The reasons people resist restrictions on their ability to own weapons probably vary, but the empowerment that comes with owning arms probably plays a role, and government officials’ eternal and consistent lying about why they want to know who is armedcertainly does, too.

Of course, if you value liberty over government officials’ whims, and consider government to be little more than a protection racket with better PR, this is hardly a problem at all.

Mike Lawlor, an undersecretary in the state Office of Policy and Management and leading mouthpiece for this legislative disaster, pretends the “problem” could be solved by … writing letters.

The problem could explode if Connecticut officials decide to compare the list of people who underwent background checks to buy military-style rifles in the past, to the list of those who registered in 2013. Do they still own those guns? The state might want to know.

“A lot of it is just a question to ask, and I think the firearms unit would be looking at it,” said Mike Lawlor, the state’s top official in criminal justice. “They could send them a letter.”


But those letters are unlikely to be terribly intimidating, because a background check isn’t proof that somebody owns a forbidden rifle. They might have moved it out of state, destroyed it, lost it, or sold it privately in a transaction that won’t be regulated under state law until April 2014.

Ultimately, Lawlor compares the defiance of registration to that of speed restrictions on the roads. “Like anything else, people who violate the law face consequences. … that’s their decision.”

Nice spin, Mike. But speeding doesn’t leave scofflaws under threat of felony charges, armed, and pissed off at control freak government officials. You really should have seen this coming.



This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

Which laws on the book now or proposed laws would

stopped Adam Lanza from getting a gun and using it?


A report released Monday by Connecticut’s Attorney for the District of Danbury says all the guns and ammunition involved in the heinous crime at Sandy Hook Elementary were legally purchased by Nancy Lanza and then stolen by her son, Adam.

The report lists “a number of crimes” Lanza committed with the stolen guns—including the crime of “Murder Under Special Circumstances,” which was committed twenty-six times—and the report says Adam Lanza “was solely criminally responsible” for all these crimes.

According to State’s Attorney Stephen J. Sedensky III, the firearms found inside the school after the crime were a Bushmaster XM15-E2S, a Glock 20 in 10 mm, and a Sig Sauer P226 in 9mm. The Sig Sauer was never fired, and the Glock was the weapon Lanza used to take his own life after shooting innocents.

An Izmash Saiga-12, a 12-gauge semi-automatic shotgun, was found in Lanza’s car outside the school, and a Savage Mark II .22 rifle was found at Lanza’s residence.

Lanza used the .22 rifle to shoot and kill his mother as she slept.

All of the guns were lawfully purchased by Lanza’s mother, as was all the ammunition. Lanza then bypassed all gun control by stealing the firearms before using them to carry out his heinous crimes.

Because the guns were stolen, Senator Joe Manchin‘s (D-WV) failed gun control bill would have done nothing to prevent the crime at Sandy Hook Elementary.


Americans Doubt Reliability of ‘Smart Guns’; Won’t Buy Them and Oppose Their Mandate, NSSF Poll Finds

Leave a comment

This is from Buckeye Firearms Association.

Smart guns like Smart cars are a stupid idea.

I will not buy a smart gun.

I will oppose the attempt to mandate them.



NEWTOWN, Conn. — By a wide majority, Americans are skeptical of the reliability of technology intended to prevent all but authorized users of a firearm from being able to fire it. They also say overwhelmingly that they would not be likely to buy such a so-called “smart gun” and overwhelmingly oppose any government mandate requiring the use of this technology should it become available.

These findings were the among the results of a national scientific poll of more than 1,200 Americans conducted in October by McKeon & Associates and released today by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry. Although attempts to develop and market firearms equipped with authorized user recognition technology have been discussed for many years, the topic has been revived in recent months by some gun control advocates, remarks by President Obama and by the depiction of a smart gun in the latest James Bond movie.

Asked “How familiar are you with efforts to develop a firearm that will only fire for a specific authorized person(s)?,” only 20 percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat familiar with the concept of “smart gun” technology. When told that such firearms would incorporate biometric or radio frequency identification (RFID) with an activation system that would rely on battery power, 74 percent of respondents said that these firearms would not be reliable at all or very reliable. Only 16 percent thought “smart guns” would be very or somewhat reliable. Some 10 percent responded “don’t know.” Gun owners overwhelmingly (84%) believed a smart gun would not be reliable, while a clear majority (60%) of non-gun owners also believed they would not be reliable.

To the question, “How likely would you be to purchase a gun with smart gun technology that prevented it from firing except for specific authorized users?” an overwhelming 74 percent of respondents overall said that they would not buy or would not very likely buy such a firearm. Only 14 percent of those polled said that they were very or somewhat likely to purchase a “smart gun.”

Some 70 percent of the survey sample also said that did not believe that government should mandate that all firearms produced incorporate “smart gun” technology should it become commercially available. Only 17 percent approved of a mandate, while 13 percent didn’t know.

The poll conducted Oct. 7-8 has a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percent. Respondents self-identified as 25 percent Democrat, 23 percent Republican and 52 percent independent. As to ethnicity, 70 percent of respondents said they were Caucasian, 14 percent African-American, 9 percent Hispanic; and 7 percent, other. As to age, 17 percent of respondents said they were 18-30; 28 percent, 31-45; 33 percent 46-60; and 21 percent, 60 or older.

“The National Shooting Sports Foundation does not oppose the development of owner authorized technology for firearms and, should such products come to market, individuals should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to purchase them. However, we do oppose legislative mandates that would require manufacturers to produce only such firearms,” said Larry G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel. “We commissioned this poll to help determine where Americans stood on this issue. We are not surprised, frankly, to find that the majority of those polled were skeptical of this technology, although the margins were perhaps higher than even those of us familiar with the arguments would have expected. We are encouraged by the fact that seven out of ten of those surveyed did not believe the government should mandate the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach of so-called ‘smart gun’ technology.”



Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: