This is nothing new. Anti-gun rights politicians are trying to jam SB 293 through the California legislature again, a bill which would add the owner authorized requirement to the "safe handgun roster" requirements. To all of you in free states, what the "safe handgun roster" does is define the features required by handguns to be eligible for sale in the state of CA. These requirements make California a market where many new handguns are ineligible for sale to regular people. Law enforcement officers are exempt from the "safe handgun" requirements.
This is a concept that anti-gun people regularly return to, because they think that it will solve a lot of gun control problems. First, stolen guns cannot be used by criminals because the guns are paired with an owner. Second, children cannot accidentally shot themselves or others. Third, the anti-gun people think that this technology can never be defeated.
All three of these assumptions are wrong, as this study shows:
But there are some real problems with this concept, the greatest problem is that guns with this technology have a real product liability risk. What if a gun should fire, but does not? What is a gun should not fire. but does? It is very telling that many law enforcement agencies have already indicated that they will not use owner authorized handguns: office safety would be compromised.
That should tell gun owners all they need to know about owner authorized handgun technology.