A California initiative would set new standards for gun safety in the state. The Gun Violence Prevention Act has been proposed for inclusion on the November 2024 general election ballot by Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen.
The law would dictate that, starting a year after passage, all new firearms sold in California would include an integrated trigger lock and storage system. The lock could be biometric, according to the proposal. By five years later, all firearms would be required to have biometric locks.
The plan is to ensure that only the licensed owner or other approved users can access and use the firearm. According to Rosen, an inoperable firearm due to biometric trigger locks could reduce accidental shootings, especially by children, and curtail the violence stemming from firearm thefts.
Biometric firearm companies are marketing guns with removable biometric trigger locks. Biofire is spearheading so-called smart-gun technology, while Identilock and Bison are working on biometric trigger locks.
The debate over digitally locked guns continues. An election win in California would be the highest-profile advancement for the technology in the United States.
The state house is controlled by Democrats, a party that generally favor heavier regulations on personal weapons, but any gun issue on a ballot tends to pull opposition Republicans to the polls.
The state of New Jersey, on the opposite U.S. coast, has tried for many years to impose biometric and other locks on personal weapons , but the efforts have been thwarted by opponents of gun regulations.
Source: Biometric Update
Beverly Crawford-Westre is a freelance journalist and communications executive.
Become a Patron!
Or support us at SubscribeStar
Donate cryptocurrency HERE
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on SoMee, Telegram, HIVE, Flote, Minds, MeWe, Twitter, Gab, and What Really Happened.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.
MORE FALLOUT FROM THE IMPOTENT SECOND AMENDMENT
America was sold down the river when the 18th-century founding fathers replaced Biblical responsibilities (based upon the moral law of God) for Enlightenment rights, and nothing demonstrates it better than the Second Amendment.
Think about it: The Amendment WITH the wording “shall not be infringed” is the MOST infringed, licensed, and limited Amendment of the entire twenty seven. Furthermore, a future generation of our posterity is likely to see the Second Amendment whittled away entirely or repealed altogether. This is inherent nature and danger of optional Enlightenment rights versus non-optional Biblical responsibilities, such as the following:
“Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword [or today’s equivalent] in their hand … this honor have all his saints. Praise ye Yah.” (Psalm 149:6-9)
“But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house [beginning with spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)
Which is more potent: 1) An optional right, or 2) A non-optional responsibility?
Which is more likely to be infringed, licensed, and ultimately abolished altogether?
Which did the pre-Second Amendment Americans look to for their authority to bear arms, with little or nor infringement?
For more, listen to “The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight,” delivered at the Springfield, Missouri Firearms and Freedom Symposium, at Bible versus Constitution dot org. Go to our Video page and scroll down to title.
See also online Chapter 12 “Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on the top entry on our Online Book page and scroll down to Chapter 12.