Assembly approves study of "personalized" handguns; sponsor says measure imposes no mandate

The Assembly passed Assembly number 11 91 B on a party vote after extended debate, approving a study directing the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) to evaluate the viability and testing criteria for personalized handguns.

Sponsor Mr. Boris said the measure — which he described as the Safer Weapons, Safer Homes Act — is intended to gather facts, not to impose new mandates. “The safer weapons, safer home act has been passed by this body twice before,” Boris said, adding the bill “directs DCJS to study personalized firearms to come up with viability tests, and to help inform the legislature and the entire state on the progress that has been made.” He told colleagues the bill gives DCJS two years to complete its work and that the report must be sent to leaders in both chambers.

Supporters said the study would provide data on technologies that may reduce accidental shootings and stolen‑weapon trafficking. Opponents framed the measure as unnecessary or constitutionally suspect on the floor. “I rise to explain my no vote,” said Mr. Angelino, who argued the proposal risks incremental restrictions on gun rights and stressed his oath to defend the Constitution. Other members noted existing state safe‑storage laws and questioned whether a state study was needed for technology the market already offers.

Members queried facts cited in the sponsor’s memo during questioning. When one member asked whether a cited figure of 300,000 stolen guns referred to New York or the nation, the sponsor said the statistic was nationwide. The sponsor also cited an officer safety statistic during debate: “nationwide, 10 percent of officers that are shot are shot with their own weapon,” he said as part of the rationale for examining personalized technology.

The bill’s language, as discussed on the floor, does not create a sales mandate, does not apply retroactively to existing firearms and authorizes DCJS (or a designate) to conduct the study and issue a report within two years. The clerk recorded a party vote; the chair announced: Ayes 91, Nays 48. The clerk stated that the bill is passed.

The study requirement means DCJS will be charged with defining testing criteria and reporting findings to legislative leaders; the transcript includes multiple floor requests for more data and for public engagement with manufacturers during the study phase. No regulatory changes were enacted on the floor at the time of the vote.

The Assembly proceeded to other business after adoption.