In another affront to the Second Amendment rights of Marylanders, a Democratic state representative in Maryland has pushed a bill seeking ...
In another affront to the Second Amendment rights of Marylanders, a Democratic state representative in Maryland has pushed a bill seeking to add embedded trackers in firearms.
State congresswoman Pam Queen, a member of the Maryland House of Delegates, filed HB 704 on Feb. 6. Her bill mandated that an “embedded tracker” be added to firearms before they can be transferred in a sale. HB 704 also outlined that the tracking device is to be embedded in such a way that removing it will destroy the firearm’s functionality.
Aside from the tracker, HB 704 also mandated that gun sellers provide “certain information” to the Maryland Department of State Police (MDSP). Moreover, it also required the MDSP to “establish a certain database” of firearm owners in the Old Line State.
If HB 704 becomes law, the said database will contain the names and addresses of parties in the firearm transfer, the firearm’s manufacturer and serial number and the unique information found in the embedded tracker.
“There is a rebuttable presumption that a person who sells, or otherwise transfers, 10 or more firearms within a 30-day period has engaged in a bulk firearm transfer,” Queen’s bill stated.
Larry Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Federation (NSSF), dismissed the delegate’s proposal in a statement.
“Legislative proposals like this could be laughed off as unserious, just one-off attempts to score political points,” he wrote. “No one in the firearm manufacturing world is laughing, though. This is demonstrative of just how far anti-gun lawmakers will go to eliminate Second Amendment rights – even at the cost of privacy and Constitutional rights of those who lawfully own firearms.”
Keane: HB 704 proposes “sci-fi” technology to track guns
The NSSF executive pointed out that anti-gun lawmakers in Maryland such as Queen are proposing such laws “so government officials could track [firearms’] whereabouts at all times.” Aside from being unconstitutional, the idea behind the law is not even technologically possible.
“The technology doesn’t exist and there’s no foreseeable way to create this sort of reliable embedded tracker that could withstand the pressures and energy created and harnessed by a firearm. This is one of the key technological reasons why authorized-user recognition technology has not been successfully developed,” he wrote.
“What this bill does would be nothing short of state authorities peering into an individual’s gun safe. The state would also know when and where a firearm would be moved – whether that’s for hunting, a day at the range target shooting or when and where an individual is legally carrying a firearm for licensed concealed carry.”
Keane also elaborated on why HB 704 is unconstitutional.
He said that the bill requires gun owners to forfeit their right to privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment since the state, through the MDSP, would automatically collect and store their information in real time. The bill would also put into question the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which protect due process, as the government would collect information on Americans who simply exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
Ultimately, Keane noted that Queen’s proposal “would have a chilling effect on the exercise of Second Amendment rights.” He noted: “Marylanders would be less likely to lawfully purchase a firearm to avoid the invasion of privacy.”
According to the NSSF executive, the closest existing technology to what Queen is proposing comes in the form of RFID emitters in firearm stores. He noted, however, that these RFID emitters are used solely as an internal tool to track store inventory.
“No personal information about the consumer purchasing a firearm or ammunition product should be electronically retained or stored by the merchant through the use of an RFID device affixed to the product or its packaging. The simple action of ‘turning off’ the RFID tag coupled with physically ‘taking it off’ the product at the point of sale is essential to ensure consumers’ rights.”
No comments