Holder: Maybe lawful gun owners should have to wear electronic bracelets to use them

posted at 8:41 am on April 8, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

How old am I? I’m old enough to remember when the only people on whom government wanted to put electronic bracelets were criminals. Attorney General Eric Holder testified yesterday on Capitol Hill about gun-safety programs promoted by the Department of Justice, which wants almost $400 million in the next budget for “common sense” regulations like electronic bracelets for firearms:

“I think that one of the things that we learned when we were trying to get passed those common sense reforms last year, Vice President Biden and I had a meeting with a group of technology people and we talked about how guns can be made more safe,” he said.

“By making them either through finger print identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon.”

“It’s those kinds of things that I think we want to try to explore so that we can make sure that people have the ability to enjoy their Second Amendment rights, but at the same time decreasing the misuse of weapons that lead to the kinds of things that we see on a daily basis,” Holder said.

First, the electronic bracelet concept has barely passed the theoretical stage, let alone made it into the commercial market. There is literally one pistol model being sold in one gun story in America which fits Holder’s “common sense” requirement. How exactly would that allow Americans to “enjoy their Second Amendment rights”?  Most gun owners — and there are over 60 million of them — handle and store their weapons safely. More people get murdered each year by body parts than by rifles, for instance, which had been the focus of gun-control efforts over the last sixteen months.

Drunk drivers kill nearly as many people each year as all firearms, and that figure may be seriously underestimated. Driving is already a government-regulated activity, so why not focus on installing breathalyzers in autos? Because when people need to drive, they don’t want a failing breathalyzer unit to keep their car from starting, and since most car owners don’t drink and drive in the first place, they don’t want to be treated like a criminal just to exercise their privilege of driving on public roads. Why should law-abiding citizens have to deal with the same kind of system malfunction at the precise moment they need a firearm to defend themselves or their families?

“Common sense” would be to leave law-abiding citizens alone. Of course, “common sense” would also be to not traffic rifles to drug cartels across the border into Mexico without any way to track them or retrieve them, so we know what role “common sense” plays in Eric Holder’s DoJ.

Update: I originally said that drunk drivers kill nearly twice as many people as those with firearms, but I was thinking specifically about handgun murders. I’ve changed the wording on that sentence; thanks to Tom W for the correction.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


So you’re saying 30,000 gun deaths and injuries is not significant? Your math adds a new dimension to your usual pedantry.
urban elitist on August 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Should HIV+ citizens have their abilities and freedoms restricted in an attempt to save 30,000 people from HIV/AIDS death and injury each year?
rogerb on August 8, 2013 at 7:56 AM

The funny part is the hope that not answering isn’t also an obvious answer. Don’t you have kids, UE?
(Hint: The readers understand that you think 30,000 is not significant.)
rogerb on August 9, 2013 at 7:33 AM

rogerb on April 9, 2014 at 9:07 AM

Don’t any of our resident (D)s want to explain how spreading HIV is completely unlike shooting someone and how dying from AIDS is more noble, less painful, and how its presence causes joy and happiness for families, schools, and communities?

rogerb on April 9, 2014 at 11:19 AM

Bracelets are too close to tattooing the information from the bracelets to the wrist of legal gun holders.

MSGTAS on April 10, 2014 at 10:46 AM

ANY . . . . . PRE-EMPTIVE … ACTION … taken by government to prevent criminals from committing criminal activity will always cost middle-class citizens ‘freedom.’
IT’S NOT GOVERNMENTS JOB . . . . . to prevent crime(s).

listens2glenn on April 10, 2014 at 2:10 PM