For decades, politicians on every level have shown contempt for the Second Amendment, that portion of the U.S. “rule book” prohibiting all forms of government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
From forced “background checks,” to “waiting periods,” to “red flag laws,” to San Jose, California’s, new “mandate” that residents buy “gun-owner liability insurance” or be denied their right to exercise gun-backed self-defense, the political vectors of attack on that right are myriad and metastatic.
And one of the most loudly buzzing recent leftist proposals is to force folks who want guns to have to buy a specific kind of gun.
It’s the so-called “Smart Gun” that is “biometrically tied” to the owner.
One need not move beyond the point of this being mandated as the only “allowed” type of firearm to oppose the concept. The “mandate” is a threat, coming from politicians backed by government guns, against those who want to peacefully acquire a tool.
That threat is immoral. Period.
But, beyond that, and even beyond the plain language of the Second Amendment that bans government infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, there are the new, practical points about “Smart Guns” that just have emerged.
Last week, we lambasted reports of a new “smart gun” that Reuters raved about in a glowing ‘exclusive.’ Reuters reporter Daniel Trotta wrote that the third-generation prototype fired ‘without issue’ during a live-fire demonstration for investors and the media.
Well, Mr. Boch and company have discovered more about this “demonstration…”
Now though, additional footage of the event has since surfaced that shows the LodeStar Works gun couldn’t manage to fire two rounds without an issue during one of the exercises.
And Boch adds this about Trotta and his Reuters piece:
Perhaps he ducked out to use the restroom during some of the live-fire demonstration. Or maybe Reuters used some creative editing in their video (not embeddable) from their report to conceal the reliability issue the gun revealed at the event. After all, the mainstream media are big cheerleaders for the pro-gun control narrative.
In his piece, Boch highlights a vid from PA 6ABC reporter Christie Ileto, showing the “test” of the LodeStar gun:
In the Christie Ileto video from 6ABC, the range officer says he’s going to fire two rounds. The first round breaks as expected. Then the RO presses the trigger again and…nothing. And again. No bang. It had become a dead trigger after a single shot. Clearly, in this instance, LodeStar (didn’t) Works.
And here's that video:
During a demonstration to share holders last week, the operator clicks the key pad on the side of the 9mm smart gun. Once unlocked, the smart gun is operable. @Lodestarguns @6abc https://t.co/gVzML0sARg pic.twitter.com/c8O8zNbp6i— Christie Ileto (@Christie_Ileto) January 18, 2022
Does anyone think that the government will use the same unreliable weapons they want to force on us?
Boch’s piece points this out, as well, noting that Mr. Trotta mentioned in his Reuters piece that “law enforcement” agents are “beta-testing” LodeStar’s gun. Wrote Trotta:
Four-year-old LodeStar Works on Friday unveiled its 9mm smart handgun for shareholders and investors in Boise, Idaho. And a Kansas company, SmartGunz LLC, says law enforcement agents are beta testing its product, a similar but simpler model.
But Boch observes the key:
LodeStar Works didn’t say which ‘law enforcement agents’ were conducting the testing, or at least that didn’t make it into the Reuters story. But in the video, it’s hard to miss the pistol the range officer chooses as his personal defensive sidearm.
The range officer didn’t have one of the LodeStar Works pistols on his hip. Instead, he packed a full-size conventional GLOCK with a +2 magazine extension.
And he adds what many of us might:
That image speaks a thousand words for which gun the range officer trusts with his life.
Again, the practicality or efficiency of this “Smart” weapon is not really relevant. The political force is the disqualification. But every additional aspect of this “Smart Gun” idea – from its unreliability, to its potential to allow for misuse of personal information – is a disaster.
Which likely will see politicians continue to push it.