Key Points
- Assemblyman David DiPietro (R-147) opposes Assembly Bill A1191, which would study “smart guns” that could help prevent accidental shootings and possibly some school shootings. He says it’s “another pathway for government control over lawful gun ownership.”
- But DiPietro introduced a six-week abortion ban and a mandatory ultrasound requirement – laws that impose government control over women’s medical decisions.
- For DiPietro, government intrusion into guns, even safer guns, is unacceptable, but government intrusion into a woman’s reproductive rights is acceptable.
In Buffalo, a 4-year-old child was shot inside a home on Bailey Avenue and rushed to Oishei Children’s Hospital for surgery, according to police. Investigators later executed a search warrant at the child’s home, and Erie County Child Protective Services became involved. The child survived. But the circumstances were familiar. A young child. A gun. And questions about how the firearm was accessed.
In Albany, a 3-year-old boy was shot by his 6-year-old brother inside a home, according to police. The shooting was accidental. The children found the gun. And again, no criminal. No gang. Just access to a firearm inside a home.
These are not rare events. They happen quietly. Often inside homes. Often involving family members. Often involving guns that were loaded and unsecured. Incidents like this happen again and again. The Everytown for Gun Safety reports that hundreds of children in the United States gain access to unsecured guns every year, often inside their own homes. Many of those incidents end in injury or death.
There is a simple question that follows: What if the gun had recognized that the child was not the owner, and simply would not fire?
That is the idea behind smart guns. The goal is not to ban guns, but to prevent unauthorized use and accidental shootings.
But Assemblyman David DiPietro (R-147) opposes smart guns. DiPietro who is Republican Whip, recently posted on Facebook, his opposition to Assembly Bill A1191, “The Safer Weapons, Safer Homes Act”. He posted, “In reality, this bill is just another grab for power and control over New Yorkers who lives under an ever increasing burden of tyranny.”
Assemblyman David DiPietro (R-147) opposes them. DiPietro, who serves as Republican Whip, recently posted on Facebook his opposition to New York The bill would study smart-gun technology and establish safety standards. But even studying safer guns is too much for DiPietro. He posted, “In reality, this bill is just another grab for power and control over New Yorkers who lives under an ever increasing burden of tyranny.”
Rather than tyranny, the The Safer Weapons, Safer Homes Act” directs New York State to evaluate personalized or “smart” firearms that can only be fired by authorized users. The bill requires New York to develop safety and performance standards, determine whether the technology is viable and reliable, and, if it meets those standards, create a public roster of approved smart handguns. The measure does not ban traditional firearms. Instead, it prepares the state to identify and potentially promote safer gun technology aimed at reducing accidental shootings, theft, and unauthorized use in homes.
Safer Guns
Smart guns are equipped with biometric or electronic safeguards that allow only an authorized user to fire the weapon. The gun itself becomes the safety, rather than relying on a separate lock or safe. It is not a ban, confiscation, or restriction. It is technology designed to prevent unauthorized use. The idea is similar to safety features already used in cars, phones, and other consumer technologies.
The potential impact extends beyond accidental shootings in homes. In many school shootings, the gun used was taken from a parent or family member. According to the United States Secret Service report, Protecting America’s Schools, most school shooters obtained guns from home or relatives. If a gun only worked for the authorized owner, some of those shootings might never occur. While smart guns would not prevent every tragedy, they could prevent some.
Incidents involving children and unsecured guns are not rare. Everytown for Gun Safety has documented hundreds of cases where children gained access to unsecured guns each year, a record 411 incidents in 2023 alone. These incidents often occur inside homes and frequently involve family members. They represent a recurring pattern that smart-gun technology is specifically designed to address.
The Safer Weapons, Safer Homes Act
But what does the “Safer Weapons, Safer Homes Act” actually do? The legislation directs New York State to evaluate personalized or “smart” guns that can only be fired by authorized users. The bill requires the Division of Criminal Justice Services to:
- study the technological viability of “personalized” (smart) firearms,
- develop safety and performance standards,
- determine whether the technology is viable and reliable, and
- create a public roster of approved smart handguns
The measure focuses on evaluation rather than mandates. The measure does not ban traditional guns. It does not mandate smart guns or confiscate weapons. Instead, it prepares the state to identify and potentially promote safer gun technology aimed at reducing accidental shootings, theft, and unauthorized use in homes.
In short, New York State would simply study whether safer guns are possible. The legislation is limited in scope and focused on research and standards.
You might expect that promoting safer guns would draw broad support. But DiPietro disagrees. His opposition centers on concerns about government control and reliability. These concerns form the core of his remarks on the Assembly floor.
DiPietro on the Assembly Floor: “Another Grab for Power”
“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Another grab for power and control over New Yorkers who have done nothing wrong. That’s what this bill is. This bill is about studying so-called smart guns. But we all know where this goes. First, you study it. Then you say it’s viable. Then you say it’s required. Then you say that only these types of firearms can be sold. We’ve seen this movie before. This is another step toward limiting Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
And let’s be clear — criminals do not follow laws. Criminals don’t care what technology you require. Criminals will still get illegal guns. Criminals will still commit crimes. So who does this affect? Law-abiding citizens. This affects the single mother who wants to protect herself. This affects the homeowner who wants to protect his family. This affects the farmer who wants to protect his property. And now we’re going to tell them that they must rely on technology that may or may not work.
Let’s talk about reliability. When someone breaks into your home at 2 a.m., you don’t want to wonder whether your firearm is going to recognize your fingerprint. You don’t want to wonder whether a battery is charged. You don’t want to wonder whether a computer chip is going to malfunction. You want something that works. Every single time.
Law enforcement knows this. That’s why police departments are not lining up to adopt smart guns. Because they understand reliability is everything. But here in New York, we’re once again experimenting with the rights and safety of law-abiding citizens.
This bill doesn’t stop crime. This bill doesn’t make criminals safer. This bill doesn’t make communities safer. This bill simply creates another pathway for government control over lawful gun ownership. We should be focusing on criminals. We should be focusing on illegal guns. We should be focusing on enforcing the laws already on the books. Instead, we’re studying more restrictions on people who already follow the law.
That’s why I rise in opposition to this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.”
DiPietro’s assembly speech says nothing about accidental shootings, nothing about children accessing guns, nothing about school shootings, and nothing about the families affected by those tragedies.
No Government Intrusion Except…
DiPietro claims that the “Safer Weapons, Safer Homes Act” is a form of government overreach and a slippery slope toward tyranny, but his legislative history shows he is not opposed to government intrusion into people’s lives. For instance, he has supported laws imposing direct government control over personal medical decisions.
In 2019, DiPietro sponsored A5389, which would require testing for a fetal heartbeat before an abortion, effectively banning most abortions once cardiac activity is detectable, around six weeks of pregnancy. He has also repeatedly sponsored the ultrasound-informed consent bill, including A6818 in the 2023-2024 session and A3694 in the 2025-2026 session, which would require women seeking an abortion to receive a medically unnecessary ultrasound and be given the opportunity to review the image before providing informed consent.
DiPietro brands safer gun technology as government tyranny while championing government intrusion into a woman’s most personal decisions.
Around Western New York
Ken Kruly writes in Politics and Other Stuff about Buffalo’s fiscal problems in his latest post, “Buffalo is broke; the options for returning to fiscal stability are limited”. He details the history of financial mismanagement and the limited options going forward. Maybe it’s time for the Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority to transition from its current advisory role to a fiscal control role.
In the Political Post, a weekly political newsletter from the Investigative Post written by Geoff Kelly, continues its coverage of the Erie County Sheriff’s Office and its narcotics chief, D. J. Granville. He was involved in a multi-car accident two years ago when he crashed his county-owned vehicle into seven parked cars. He is retiring from the Sheriff’s Office to accept a private sector opportunity.
Aaron Gies, St. Bonaventure University professor and contender for the Democratic nomination in NY23 Congressional District, has filed nominating petitions with the Board of Elections. He submitted over 8,000 signatures – more than six times the needed 1,250. NY23 is currently represented by Republican Rep. Nick Langworthy.
