# GPS Tracking of Firearms in Mass



## SFC JeffJ (Apr 14, 2011)

Massachusetts Moving Towards Requiring Mandatory GPS Tracking Devices in Firearms
URL: http://fleming-hayes.com/2011/03/ma-...s-in-firearms/

I'm guessing it's a tactic just to keep new firearms out of their state. Doubt it passes though.

Jeff


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 14, 2011)

I wonder if they will ever equip cop guns with tiny cameras and memory chips.
That way there could be a clip of each bullet that was fired.
The tech has gotten so small it would not be a problem I think.

Kinda like dashboard cams, for the purpose of documenting shoots.


----------



## lklawson (Apr 14, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> I wonder if they will ever equip cop guns with tiny cameras and memory chips.
> That way there could be a clip of each bullet that was fired.
> The tech has gotten so small it would not be a problem I think.
> 
> Kinda like dashboard cams, for the purpose of documenting shoots.


If you only wanted a "snapshot" of each time the trigger was pulled, the tech could be about the size of an accessory (under frame, picatinny mounted) flashlight, or laser.

But even that adds size and weight to a firearm.  It adds extra expense to an already expensive piece of equipment.  It immediately makes 90% of duty holsters non-functional because most of them don't fit accessories.  The accessory would be comparatively "fragile." No one cares if the lens for a flashy gets a slight scratch.  Even the lens for a laser can get a minor scratch and not dramatically affect the results.  A camera lens, on the other hand...  Also, the proposed camera would have to be supplied with batteries which will run down, even on "standby" mode.  Additionally, gunshots can put out quite a bit of gunsmoke.  Some powders/primers burn dirtier than others but even with clean burning stuff, after 5 or 7 rounds sometimes there is a definite "haze" in your line of sight.  And then there's muzzle flash.  And then there's tying the shutter to the trigger.

Not saying it's impossible, by any means.  But I am saying that there are a lot of issues to consider.  Doubtless I have missed half of them.  And then there's the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 14, 2011)

I don't think there's much to this.

http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S01224



> SECTION 1. A special commission after this referred to as the Global  Positioning System Locators in Firearms Study Commission, is hereby  established for the purpose of making an investigation and study  relative to the feasibility of placing Global Positioning System (GPS)  locators in firearms.
> 
> The  Global Positioning System Locators  in Firearms Study Commission shall consist of 7 members; the House of  Representatives Chair on Public Safety and Homeland Security, the Senate  Chair on Public Safety and Homeland Security, one member of the  Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, appointed by the  Secretary of the Executive Office and Public Safety and Security, one  designee from the Gun Owners Action League (GOAL), one Chief of  Police from a city or town, appointed by the Governor, one designee from  the City of Boston Mayors Office, appointed by the Mayor of Boston,  one designee appointed by the Boston City Council.
> 
> The  commission shall report to the general court the results of its  investigation and study, together with drafts of legislation necessary  to carry such recommendations into effect by filing the same with the  clerk of the senate before the bill filing deadline for the 2013-2014  general court session.



A) It's just a 'study'.
B) It was referred to the "Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security."

Not a proposed law.  Not even feasible as I see it, from a political or technical standpoint.

Not worried about this one.


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 14, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> I wonder if they will ever equip cop guns with tiny cameras and memory chips.


 
The police will never support this.  It only adds a problem to a situation where a problem previously did not exist.  Furthermore, every time someone tries to bring up such legislation, it raises a big protest from law enforcement agencies, and each time, the people who propose such laws attempt to put in exemptions for law enforcement in order to keep them quiet, which defeats much of the original purpose of the legislation.  

Thus, the legislation then becomes a piece of hypocritical garbage.  


In a firearm, you have a piece of machinery that needs to be able to contain an explosion of tens of thousands of pounds per square inch.  For some duty rounds, such as the 357 SIG, we're looking at up to 40,000 psi. 

These kind of pressures mean that the weapon is going to be undergoing a lot of shaking, vibration, etc., and that would easily disrupt any such fragile items inside, as lklawson explained.  The only way you're going to be able to make something withstand that kind of impact / jarring / etc., is to make the device so sturdy, that you're now looking at black box-types of devices, which are very heavy, and bulky.  



> Kinda like dashboard cams, for the purpose of documenting shoots.


 
Dashboard cameras are mounted on a relatively stable platform.  They're not going to be jarred around like they would on a firearm.  Imagine this, that if you took a dashboard cam, and battered it repeatedly with a significant impact, what would happen to the camera?


----------



## Skpotamus (Apr 17, 2011)

Re: camera's

For handguns it'd be a bit more difficult due to size and holster setups, but in 2008 they tried to do this in DC with a setup they had at the time ( http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/05/08/gun-mounted-cameras-coming-soon-to-dc-police/ ), but got shot down.  

For long guns they've already had some training companies mount cameras on their AR's to film the shooters themselves to demo techniques (magpul).  There are actually some companies making cameras for this very purpose right now http://www.advancedtaccam.com/ 

If they actually decided to camera up all the officers, what they'd probably do is something like this new reality show I've seen commercials for (police POV http://www.trutv.com/shows/police-pov/index.html), where the officers wear a small headband with a camera.  

Would definitely change the way a lot of officers act.


----------



## delaford321 (Jun 23, 2011)

Whatever side you're on, this is an intrusion for freedoms and doesn't even need to get started. Law, study, whatever.


----------

