Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Fri May 13, 2016, 06:26 AM May 2016

California Ruling Could Pave the Way for Smart-Gun Mandates [View all]

A federal appeals court in California is expected to rule soon on whether states can force firearm manufacturers to incorporate safety devices in their products, a development that could have broad effect on whether and how quickly President Barack Obama’s recent calls for more “smart guns” takes effect.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which covers a wide swath of the West, is weighing a challenge to a California law requiring manufacturers to make handguns that won’t fire a bullet left in the chamber if their magazines are detached, and that will indicate when a bullet is in the chamber.

The two safety measures were invented more than a century ago. But the ruling, which could come any day, is likely to inform any efforts by states to mandate newer technology promoted by the Obama administration that prevents a gun from firing unless in the hands of an authorized user.

“How the Ninth Circuit rules here will have a huge impact on the ability of any state to require any kind of smart gun technology,” said Adam Skaggs, senior counsel for Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun-control group.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/california-ruling-may-suppress-smart-gun-technology-1463096189
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»California Ruling Could P...»Reply #0