“Enact the Advancing Gun Safety Technology Act to authorize an Attorney General pilot grant program funding development of gun safety technology, including smart guns, user-authorized handguns, childproof guns, and personalized locking devices.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Independently verified via the primary bill texts on govinfo.gov. DeSaulnier is the lead sponsor/author of the 'Advancing Gun Safety Technology Act', introduced and reintroduced across two Congresses: H.R. 6697 (118th Congress) and H.R. 4918 (119th Congress), each with Reps. Lofgren and Beyer as cosponsors. Both bills carry the exact promised aim: authorizing the Attorney General to carry out a pilot program to make grants to entities to develop gun safety technology, and both name the promised technology categories (smart guns, user-authorized/personalized handguns, childproof guns, and personalized locking devices). As the lead sponsor who drafted and reintroduced the measure, he actively led and drove the effort well beyond a single supporting vote, which is textbook CHAMPIONED (+0.75). It falls short of FULL because the bill has not been enacted (introduced and referred to committee only). This is the same label the standard would assign to any lead sponsor of either party. Two independent primary sources support the outcome; congress.gov returned 403 but the govinfo HTML texts are authoritative and confirm every element.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.