Regular readers here know the issues involved in so-called “smart guns.” Besides all the obvious technical questions and inadequacies, one thing is indisputable: New Jersey State Senator Loretta Weinberg (above), via her law mandating the sale of smart guns, has done more to hinder their development and adoption in the US than any other single factor. Not that she’d ever admit to that, of course, even under direct questioning by Leslie Stahl (click image above to view last night’s ’60 Minutes’ segment). Instead, she deflects as much as she can, pointing the bony finger of blame at opposition from every hoplophobe’s boogie man of choice, the big bad NRA. Sorry, Senator, but to mix metaphors, that horse hockey just won’t fly . . .
The quote at the top is from Andy Raymond. The reason he had to break out the whiskey and the AR and take to Facebook to defend himself and his business was that no one wanted to see one store in Maryland activate Weinberg’s smart gun poison pill in America’s armpit. Threats and arson attempts are far beyond the pale, but firearms owners and 2A supporters, burned time and again by giving in to anti-gunners’ incrementalist disarmament long game, have finally learned — “common sense” regulation is a slow but direct path that ends at registration and, ultimately, confiscation.
We’d guess that the large majority of gun owners, while wanting a smart gun about as much as a fish wants a bicycle, have no problem with seeing them offered in their local gun store’s counter right between the GLOCKs and the Rugers. If there are those who want to buy a self-defense gun that’s dependent on unproven whiz-bang technology (guns that can potentially be remotely disabled), good luck with that. The market will decide smart guns’ viability. Just don’t presume to tell us that’s our only choice.