‘Undetectable’ Guns, Micro Drones and Apolitical ‘Gun Violence’ Research — TTAG Daily Digest

AG Sessions Undetectable Guns

courtesy reuters.com

U.S. will prosecute makers of ‘undetectable’ plastic guns: Sessions

Making a truly undetectable gun has been illegal since 1988 . . .

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions warned on Thursday that anyone who uses a 3-D printer to make an “undetectable” gun will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, a day after his department asked a court not to block the public from downloading blueprints for the guns.

“We will not stand for the evasion … of current law and will take action to ensure that individuals who violate the law by making plastic firearms and rendering them undetectable, will be prosecuted to the fullest extent,” Sessions said in his Thursday statement.

High-tech alert system and micro-drones among Houston anti-gun violence panel’s recommendations

From micro-drones to safety corridors, a wide range of recommendations were announced Wednesday by Mayor Sylvester Turner’s commission against gun violence.

Formed in the wake of national “March for Our Lives” rallies, the commission on gun violence brought together 37 individuals from across the greater Houston area, including several high school students.

Over the past 60 days, the commission studied a variety of issues related to gun violence and came up with a list of recommendations.

The recommendations range from objectives aimed at reducing school violence to domestic violence in neighborhoods.

Among recommendations for reducing school violence, technology will play a major role. They include a so-called digital sandbox, where blueprints and drawings of school districts and school buildings will be available for quick usage by local and federal authorities. They also include things like micro-drones that can be used in schools to clear venues and to help support law-enforcement.

Gun violence research being done at Arizona State University without politics

Pull the other one, it’s got bells on . . .

A study like this has been virtually unheard of until today. That is because if there was research being done, it usually came with an agenda and a plan to prove either pro- or anti-gun results.

“A lot of what has occurred in the past 20, 30 years and what we know about guns is generally pretty stunted,” explained Jesenia Pizarro with ASU’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice. “Because there has not been a lot of public money going into this.”

Pizarro is now one of the 20 researchers working to fix that with a new $5-million grant from the National Institutes of Health to get the facts.

Federal judge accused of threatening ex-girlfriend with gun in front of son

Why do these stories always seem to have a Florida byline? . . .

A federal judge was arrested Tuesday night for threatening his ex-girlfriend with a gun in front of their son, authorities said.

According to an arrest report, the victim went to Timothy Robert Maher’s home in El Portal to pick up their son. The former couple has joint custody of their son.

Police said the two lived together for nearly four years before they separated in April.

Authorities said the victim texted Maher, 51, when she was outside his home.

He then came outside carrying their son on his left arm while he had a holstered pistol on his right hip, the report stated.

According to the report, Maher got close to his ex, shined a flashlight in her face and told her, “I’m going to show you what pain is about.”

courtesy linkedin.com

Gun advocate shares views on California’s ownership laws

“Guns are the most controversial subject in this country, especially California,” said Danielle Rudolph, retail sales director at Poway Weapons & Gear Range, while speaking at the Conservative Order for Good Government’s luncheon in Rancho Bernardo on Tuesday.

“We love responsible gun owners,” Rudolph said, claiming California’s new gun laws are making things “more dangerous” for those who follow the law.

“It’s kind of scary, how they are trying to get rid of more and more guns,” she said, citing how only 731 handgun models among the 3,500 on the market are on a state-approved roster. Rudolph said the year before 935 were on the roster.


  1. avatar Dog of War says:

    Federal judge accused of threatening ex-girlfriend with gun in front of son

    But I was told that only the government could be trusted with guns. My mind is blown!

    And as for the idea of using ‘micro drones’ for security… that’s appositely laughable. Does these idiots think that they’re living in a Star Wars movie? I follow the latest news on drone technology and there’s not a damn thing currently in production that could be used for what they are suggesting.

    1. avatar Ingenero says:

      Another way to spend your money on the military-industrial complex courtesy of uninformed commissions! Guess they’ll cost 20 times as much as normal drones and just fly into walls at every opportunity.

      Blueprints, great idea, drones? Sounds like some nutcase spending too much time watching NCIS or some other silly crime show, but such is much of the electorate. Wish someone had suggested doing away with gun free zones, but I think they’ll genetically engineer flying pigs first.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        “military-industrial complex” – progtard much?

        1. avatar anonymoose says:

          I like Ike.

        2. avatar Nanashi says:

          The term was created by President Eisenhower in his farewell address (at the latest).

        3. avatar Nate says:

          The term existed before Eisenhower. it was precisely used in the 1940s and before that close if not identical phrase constructions date back to WWI. the term does not mean what libtards assert it does.

          It is actually progressives who support military industrial complex a sit it is and end point of all statist systems.

        4. avatar Ingenero says:

          Exactly. I have zero problem with gun or defense companies, but there are people who specialize in idiotic overpriced junk for police and the military, get overpaid for it, and have a constituency to try to get more money. “Micro-drones” sound like they would fill the bill. Some people need to know their history…the idea that police and military expenditures are always beyond question is not really conservative, and criticizing stupid costs is.

        5. avatar Wade says:

          Open your mind brother. I am no progressive at all, but the Military Industrial Complex is real. That does. It mean it is 100% bad terrible yuck. Anything unchecked or misguided is has potential to be a problem.

        6. avatar Big Bill says:

          Wade: Please, when you use voice-to-text, check what’s in the text, and correct as necessary. As it is, your posts border on incomprehensible.

        7. avatar Chris T from KY says:

          It all depends on what you mean by the “military industrial complex”. I Would like more people to see the entire speech that he made, not just referencing this one sentence. President Eisenhower was referring to how government money through the military is being used in many places that it shouldn’t be. One of those areas was in giving Pentagon money to colleges and universities for research.

          Through the decades colleges and universities have received billions of dollars from the defense department. They can complain all they want about wars, arms Manufacturing, and it doesn’t matter what president or what party is in charge. There are very quiet when asked about all the money they receive from the Pentagon for “research”.

          The anti-war academic types are hypocrites. I remember all the squealing like stuck pigs, they made, when they’re Pentagon money was going to be cut from their university budgets.

    2. avatar CC says:

      Pizarro is an associate professor and is conducting this study alongside emergency room doctors, social workers, etc. — people who are involved in the chain of events when a shooting occurs.

      Oh boy. her CV is SJW in the extreme. You can bet there will be no parsing of criminals vs non criminals. To social workers and doctors there is no difference. A criminal shot by another criminal is a “victim” of gun violence instead of a victim of criminality. And a person with multi-centric stage 4 cancer who ends their life with a firearm will be a “gun violence victim”

      Pizzaro is on the record opposing gun abvialbilty for law abiding citizens. she has a ton of “research” an studies and claims that never once mention DGU.

      Claims owing a firearm makes your commission of gun violence more likely (when in fact DGU studies show exactly the opposite, that firearms prevent more violence).

      Fanbase includes PBS’s Megan Thompson who has made some of the most idiot and ignorant statements on firearms and gun control

      Here is an entire study she co-authored that does not mention prior criminality of gun criminals. In fact the study is in Newark NJ where all but a tiny fraction of murder victims are criminals themselves, mostly career criminals — this doesn’t make it into this study.

      Here is a gem, “policy implications” are increased gun control, ie less liberty for everyone, as opposed to targeting actual law breakers and increased punishment and removal form society of the actual offending group:

  2. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

    @ “Federal judge accused of threatening ex-girlfriend with gun in front of son”

    Is this a ‘Mental Health’ issue?

    I truly hope my cheese remains squarely on its cracker(s).

    1. avatar Richard Wise says:

      It doesn’t sound like mental health was a factor in this case.

      I don’t understand the “cheese and crackers” statement. Could you clarify?

      1. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

        Cheese\crackers = Elevator does not go all the way up, a malfunction = thought process = perhaps not stable = possible mental Health issue.

    2. avatar Big Bill says:

      The linked article doesn’t mention any friction between the involved parties at all. We are left to believe that the judge simply decided to start using guns in a threatening manner for absolutely no reason at all, other than an unsuccessful attempt at a restraining order (by whom?) and a “domestic violence with children” case with no details about anything that might indicate what was going on.
      This is what passes for “journalism” today. If a gun is involved, details are unnecessary.

      1. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

        @BIG BILL,

        ” … judge simply decided to start using guns in a threatening manner for absolutely no reason at all …”

        There was a reason, that said, was it a ‘valid reason”, or in the case of ‘Mental Health’, was it a ‘reason’ that a ‘reasonable person’ with a healthy/sound mind would make?

        This is a Federal Judge, a Judge nonetheless. **Any person** making a decision such as described in this article (if it’s true), who is tasked with Judging others on a grand scale, should at the very least, go stand in the corner or have a seat at the kiddie-table while the true adults resolve this.

        Judge or not, what kind of a decision is this?!?

        As previously posted, “I truly hope my cheese remains squarely on its cracker(s).”

  3. avatar former water walker says:

    Why oh why has Trump left that blithering idiot Sessions in place?!? Lazy? Distracted? He’s worse than Omarosa…😦😩😡

    1. avatar Ingenero says:

      I’ll give him this – it is the law (if stupid) and it deflates a leftist talking point. And given that I haven’t heard of a truly undetectable firearm, it’s a pretty easy promise. Even if it’s a stupid thing to waste breath on, given that I’d be shocked if there were ever any prosecutions based on this. Who wants a plastic gun? Even criminals would be better off stealing one or having a straw-buyer. Or just making one from the hardware store…it’d be cheaper and less likely to explode in their faces. Have the same rate of fire too.

      1. avatar Bob Jones says:

        Sessions is following the law, as is his job. Nothing wrong with his action on this matter. People who don’t like the law can write their Representative or Senator.
        We do not want to encourage AG’s to selectively enforce or make their own laws, like Holder did.

        1. avatar Nanashi says:

          No, he’s following an illegal and intolerable act written by the NRA. Regardless of what campaign conservative Ronald Reagan wrote on it, the (supreme) law of the United States in the Constitution which says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        2. avatar Nate says:

          Not “”written by the NRA. Why can you be depended on to spout nonsense? The bill was going to pass banning all plastic guns even if they had metal for metal detector detection, it had overwhelming support in House and Senate, and the NRA stepped in and pushed the bill back limiting the prohibition only to near 100% plastic guns.

          You take an NRA victory for the Second Amendment, where a much worse bill was a slam dunk to pass, and the NRA successfully limited its impact, and turn it into some kind of NRA betrayal? Your posts show you don’t know a thing about the history of US gun legislation, or the vote strength of various bills and amendments.

        3. avatar Bob Jones says:

          Nana….If you don’t like the law, contact your Representative or Senator to get the law changed. Sessions is employed by the Executive Branch of the government and is mandated to enforce the laws enacted by the Legislative Branch.

        4. avatar Nanashi says:

          So the NRA rewriting a bill means they didn’t write it? And so what if it had support in house and senate? Did NRA actually not have any of the clout they claimed to have with the PotUS (so Reagan’s gun control love was 100% his own?) Did half the legislature care so little about the NRA’s opposition they’d pass it anyways (Why do I need the NRA if they can’t stop such a horrible bill without sell outs?)?

          Beside that, they sold it to their membership on a promise it would never impact existing guns. They have then repeatedly pushed for renewal every time it looks like it would impact existing guns, outright breaking that promise.

          “is mandated to enforce the laws enacted by the Legislative Branch.”

          He’s also obligated to protect and defend the Constitution. In a conflict the SUPREME law takes priority.

        5. avatar Bob999 says:

          Every few weeks I see leftist trolls on this site trying to divide the gun community with anti-NRA BS. You would think they would have better things to do with their miserable lives.

        6. avatar HP says:

          Ah, Nanashi, lying again. It’s becoming one of those things, like water is wet, the sun it hot, and Nanashi is lying.

        7. avatar Big Bill says:

          “Did NRA actually not have any of the clout they claimed to have with the PotUS”

          The NRA doesn’t make those claims; it’s the left who claims the NRA owns legislature.
          Your lies are so transparent I’m surprised you get paid for them.

        8. avatar George from Alaska says:

          Nate summed it up correctly. The NRA is smarter than your average bear. Start reading all the history of these bills and the politics that go along with them.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Jeff Sessions Leftard RINO.

      1. avatar Richard Wise says:

        If he said, “We will prosecute anybody who commits murder with a firearm,” would you scream about him being anti 2nd ammendment? He’s promising to enforce a law that’s been around for decades….. If you missed the subtlety, then you got played by a politician.

        3D printed guns aren’t “undetctable” and none of Defense Distributed’s designs qualify as an “undetectable firearm” as defined by law.

    3. avatar barnbwt says:

      Why oh why does Trump keep directing Sessions to pursue gun control?
      -No Fly No Buy
      -Silencer wipes
      -Solvent traps
      -Bump stocks (or rather, ‘rate-increasing devices’)
      -Farther-reaching background checks
      -3D printed guns (though this is essentially mooted by the proposed ITAR changes currently percolating)
      -‘Undetectable’ guns (3D printed guns 2: Electric Boogaloo)

      Why it’s almost like he might actually be from New York City or something…

    4. avatar JF says:

      I think I see the “method ” in Session’s madness. He knows no 3D printed firearm with today’s technology is truly undetectable. So, to appease the demons on the left, he tosses a bone. Kind of like WLP of the NRA had tried with bumpstocks.

  4. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…“A lot of what has occurred in the past 20, 30 years and what we know about guns is generally pretty stunted,” explained Jesenia Pizarro with ASU’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice.”

    She spelled Slanted wrong.

    Tilted Left would have been an acceptable option too.

  5. avatar Gralnok says:

    Well, aside from obvious potential for abuse, thereby turning Houston into a Big Brother state, the micro drones might be a good idea for helping to assess an active shooter situation. Of course, that would mean they need pilots for each one of them, or swarm programming, which I’m not sure can be done easily. Then again, I’m far from a robotics expert.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      Swarm programming has been around for a few years now.
      A visit to Youtube will help you see it.

      1. avatar Gralnok says:

        I suspected as much. At least this time I was aware of and planned on my own ignorance. 😋

  6. avatar ollie says:

    Mass Hysteria is driving the school safety crisis. There are 130,000 primary and secondary schools in the USA.
    There have been 4 majors shootings at these schools in the last 20 years. Which means the odds of any school being attacked are 1 in 32,500. Extremely remote. Trying to make those 130,000 schools “safe” would waste billions of dollars as potential assailants would be certain to find weak points to attack.
    People should accept the fact that bad shit is going to happen from time to time and nothing can truly prevent it.

    1. avatar Nate says:

      The number of school shootings and the number of victims of school shootings has fallen on 40, 30, 20, 10 year metrics — take your pick. Yet probably 90% of Americans think they are up. It is media phenomena driving a profound cognitive bias where most people complete reverse the trend.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        “It is media phenomena driving a profound cognitive bias where most people complete reverse the trend.”
        IE ‘fake news,’ as much as I hate how often that idiotic term gets trotted out. Propaganda is a better one.

  7. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    The omission of the amount of PRIVATE money going into gun research is likely a form of bias in its self.

    1. avatar Nate says:

      About $50 million a year from gun control advocates going into academic research. Bloomberg bought and paid for the entire new John Hopkins “research”/gun control operation via a $300 million dollar endowment.

  8. avatar S.Crock says:

    Trump is not a friend of the second amendment. Sessions is not a friend of liberty period. It is a pipe dream to think anything pro gun will come from the trump presidency other than 2a friendly justices. Don’t get me wrong, that alone is big but reciprocity or the HPA are dead and gone. Republicans in general don’t have the backbone to advance the 2a on a big federal scale.

    1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

      Was it really Trump’s fault that HPA or reciprocity didn’t get advanced or was it Congress and Speaker Ryan along with Majority Leader McConnell’s fault? I’m leaning towards the legislature as being at fault, if they had passed the legislation DJT would have signed it.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        The legislature was listening to the people in the media who were shouting that school shootings are THE major concern of ‘the people.’
        And that ‘something’ must be done about this concern.
        In the face of that fake news, the legislature wasn’t going to pass HPA or reciprocity.
        And that’s got nothing to do with Trump at all.

  9. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Yeah but do the plastic guns they’ll charge you for that can go through metal detectors cost more than you make in a month?

  10. avatar JOHN B THAYER says:

    The government (law enforcement) should stay out of domestic disputes except in cases of excessive violence.

    An old joke illustrates how it used to be.

    “Officer, my husband hit me!”

    Police officer:
    “What did you do to make him have to do that, ma’am?”

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Ok, but if she cuts his balls off and sets him on fire, his abuse is an affirmative defense in her trial.
      And so is it for anyone else that comes over and kicks his skull in.
      Or maybe the max charge is misdemeanor animal cruelty, with a penalty of no greater than $50. After all, he sure ain’t a man, not even a good dog.

  11. avatar el Possum Guapo says:

    Prosecute for an undetectable gun, say what, it’s undetectable. I hate drones. “I’m going to show you what pain is.” As he fast draws his appendix carry…. It’s a trap. Everytime I sneak onto the neighbors porch to eat their cats food I get shot at or a boot thrown at me. If they dont want me to eat the cat food, why do they keep putting it out there?

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      “As he fast draws his appendix carry….”
      You might want to read the liked article.

  12. avatar RedRed says:

    Making a truly undetectable gun has been illegal since 1988 . . .

    Show me in the Constitution where it states that guns must be detectable. This is just another unconstitutional law by the Federal Government that ignores the Constitution, which is supposed to place limits on it!

    1. avatar HP says:

      The question I’d like answered is “has anyone actually ever made a (functioning) fully undetectable firearm?”

      Pretty sure if someone had, by now it would have been refined and there would be plenty of them out there. But I’m unaware that one exists.

      Seems to be like if the government passed a law saying “It is illegal to kill Wooley Mammoths! Violators will be prosecuted.”

  13. avatar Joseph says:

    Sessions is a fucking idiot along with being a traitor.

  14. avatar ollie says:

    Frankly, why does anyone other than a criminal or government assassin need an undetectable firearm ?

    Paranoia is getting way out of hand. Some of you dudes need to cut back on your weed consumption.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      Why does anyone “NEED” a 30 round magazine? Or a dozen AR15’s? Or a Barrett 50 cal? Or 50,000 rounds of ammo? See the slippery slope? The 2A doesn’t contain a provision for We the People to justify anything to exercise our RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Otherwise it would be the Bill of Privileges. How about this..instead of compromise, capitulation and agreement on what’s “reasonable” and “common sense”, adopting the policy of “not one more inch”? That way, we preserve the few rights we still have.

    2. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Unless it’s incorporeal and invisible, it’s not undetectable.

    3. avatar Scoutino says:

      Why does anyone other than assassin need a suppressor?
      What does need have to do with it? Frankly.

  15. avatar A Deplorable says:

    This kind of micro-drone?


    This is a “scare video” created by The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots in 2017. The technology to do this exists now. The hell with worries about “undetectable firearms”.

  16. avatar W says:

    Sad state of affairs. US will prosecute anyone who makes an undetectable gun. Suppose that’s fair. However, US Attorneys have for ages declined to prosecute straw buyers who obtain guns illegally for their boyfriends. So, making one is zero tolerance. Giving one to a known felon, well, …

    1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      Your average felon is not a threat to the state and justifies its existence.

      The free-thinking patriot is since his love of country and freedom can not be bought.

      1. avatar K2 says:

        Candidate for Best Comment of the Year

  17. avatar K2 says:

    “A lot of what has occurred in the past 20, 30 years and what we know about guns is generally pretty stunted,” explained Jesenia Pizarro with ASU’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice.”

    I’m throwing the BS Flag on Ms Pizarro. Every year since thr Federal Governmant stopped giving grants for gun research, more papers have been published than the year before. Unfortunately, Bloomberg has paid for much of the research. Probably more than 10 times the 5 million granted by the NIH.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email