“Below is an important message from one of our highly valued sponsors, Tracking Point,” an Independence Day email from a national gun rights group begins. “Please read it carefully as they have some special information to share with you.”
They do, about their precision guided firearm, how it works, how their supply is “extremely limited,” and how you can “get your chance to get behind one soon!”
So what is it and why would we want to?
“Developed by military experts and over forty engineers, TrackingPoint precision guided firearms virtually eliminate shooter error,” the ad claims. “Their Tag-Track-Xact system more than doubles the proficiency of a skilled shooter by maximizing accuracy, taking into account a slew of variables such as wind speed, air pressure, and temperature. Such unprecedented accuracy enables shots at distances many shooters have never before attempted – up to 1200 yards.”
What’s not to like?
Well, while the right hand is providing American riflemen (albeit well-heeled ones, if you take a look at some of their prices) a chance to apply for one of their limited supply systems, the left hand is urging the government to adopt its patented technology for the Holy Grail behind the ultimate purpose of so-called “smart guns,” the ability for “authorities” to turn them off. Automatically.
“TrackingPoint patents technique to disable guns near schools and ‘gun free zones,’” Steve Johnson of The Firearm Blog reported on Tuesday.
“The invention uses a GPS or mobile phone towers to determine location, sensors to determine orientation and a mobile/radio network connection to download a list of’ ‘gun free’ locations from a central database,” he explained. “Tracking Point Chairman John] McHale suggests that a ‘Gun Free Zone’ database could be maintained by the BATFE.”
And the justification for doing this?
“In recent years, individuals have used firearms to kill or wound multiple victims in school environments, in movie theaters, and so on,” the TrackingPoint patent application explains. “While such pre-defined areas may prevent lawful gun owners from carrying their weapons in such areas, a criminal may ignore such restrictions, carrying weapons into such zones.”
So the solution is to place further infringements and not-insubstantial expenses on those who are “lawful”? And TrackingPoint thinks that those relying on body counts and infamy will rush to make sure they only use weapons that can thwart their whole reason for going on a rampage?
This has the potential to be much more insidious than the Armatix abomination that has caused such a furious backlash among gun owners. And while many of the same objections remain, along with plenty of new ones, the gun-grabber agenda does, too.
While some may be inclined to dismiss any dangers as far-fetched, first, the company is run by some very shrewd people who have been successful both at developing innovative technology and at raising significant capital. Plus, precedent has already been set to pave the way to enable mandatory infringements, and objections be damned, in legislatures and the courts.
A “law,” such as the one in New Jersey requiring that all guns sold employ such technology once it becomes available on the market is hardly inconceivable, nor is a lawsuit against such a mandate being turned down on the rationale that there is a compelling state interest and it does not completely take away options for armed defense. Then, all the Supreme Court has to do is nothing, refuse to grant cert, let the decision stand, and not say a word.
To be clear, this article began noting a gun rights group advertising tie-in. I purposely did not name them because there is no indication this represents anything other than them doing what they can to raise much-needed revenues to provide much-needed efforts on our behalf. The ones getting the real benefit from a perceived relationship with those protecting the right to keep and bear arms appear to be those who are attempting to override a core purpose of that right, as a last-resort deterrent against “rulers” who have slipped their Constitutional chains and gone rogue.
Some gun owners have expressed opinions, based on pure speculation, that this could be a defensive move by TrackingPoint to lock others out from being able to exploit such technology, and that this is therefore protective of our rights. That presupposes there is only one way to achieve such a goal and that these guys (and any future owners) are in business to spend significantly and needlessly, and ignores their justifying rhetoric in the patent application. Gun Rights Examiner approached Tracking Point public relations mid-afternoon yesterday to invite a for-the-record comment addressing concerns raised. No reply has been received at this writing.
[Thanks to Jerry Henry for the tip.]
If you're a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream press, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (David Codrea) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit "The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance."
Sure we won Heller and McDonald, but what have the black robes done for us lately? My latest GUNS Magazine "Rights Watch" column is online, and you can read it well before the issue hits the stands. Click here to read "Full Court Press.”
My latest JPFO Alert notes, true to their "Every Day is Opposite Day" natures, “progressive” champions of “common sense gun safety” are upping the physical danger for everyone around them every time they hold one of these stupid publicity stunts. See “Gun ‘Buyback’ Endangers Public in Order to Score Political Points.”
Don’t like the latest Supreme Court ruling? My newest entry in The Shooter’s Log recommends “To Prevent Another ‘Abramski,’ Get in the Fight.”