lodestar smartgunz smart gun
Courtesy Reuters
Previous Post
Next Post

By Larry Keane

There is a media blitz afoot, pitched by developers of authorized user recognition technology equipped firearms; what the media refers to as so-called, “smart guns.” Several of these companies herald that this is the year when they will finally bring their product to market. It might be a little premature to start popping corks, though.

Despite reports praising companies preparing to launch options for consumers, and polling showing Americans may be open to considering this concept, one critical question remains: Are buyers willing to risk their life on authorized user recognition technology?

So long as the answer from firearm purchasers remains “No,” retailers will not sacrifice shelf space for an unreliable product consumers don’t want to buy.

Prove It

Morning Consult released polling of Americans’ relative “acceptance” of “smart guns” and pitches a rather optimistic outlook.

“After decades of delays and controversy over smart guns, 2022 could be the year that the new weaponry is brought to market.”

Stephen Sliwa, president of Colt Manufacturing Co., holds a prototype of the company’s “smart gun” at the Colt plant in West Hartford, Conn., Friday, Oct. 23, 1998. The small transponder Sliwa holds in his right hand communicates with a small radio transmitter within the gun to operate the trigger. The weapons are designed to be used only by the people who buy them. Sliwa says that production is still at least two years away. (AP Photo/Bob Child)

The article reports Americans are “interested” in “smart” gun technology and “support the development” of the firearms. Less than half, 43 percent, of those surveyed say they are “very interested” or “somewhat interested” in personalized guns equipped with authorized-user technology, while more than half, 54 percent, aren’t.

NSSF’s polling in 2019 showed that just five percent said they were inclined to purchase a so-called “smart gun” with 70 percent saying they still had concerns about reliability.

Firearms equipped with authorized-user technology involve adding electronics that, in theory, only allow a gun to be fired by a verified, authorized user after being unlocked by using either a fingerprint, a pin code, or through embedded field communication (RFID) connected to a smartphone or other Bluetooth device.

Firearm owners know that guns must work as designed each and every time. There’s no room for failure. Adding in electronics to guns adds points of failure and could have horrific consequences for those who rely on them for self-defense.

Smart gun prototype
Michael Recce, associate professor of information systems at New Jersey Institute of Technology and inventor of a “smart gun” technology holds a prototype of the gun with grip recognition technology, during a news conference in Newark, N.J., Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2004. New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey and other Democratic elected officials gathered at the New Jersey Institute of Technology Tuesday to announce a $1.1 million federal grant in a pending federal appropriations bill to help refine what they hope will become the first commercially marketable smart gun technology. (AP Photo/Mike Derer)

LodeStar Works Inc., is one developer working to hit the market this year. President and CEO Gareth Glaser is hopeful. Glaser said, “It’s been around a long time now. Everybody uses one form or another of authentication technology on their smartphone.”

The problem for developers lies in the fact that support for “technology development” does not equate to, “I will buy a smart gun.” Not to mention a firearm is incomparable to an iPhone or Bluetooth speaker. Phones and guns are completely different products and equivocating them is beyond tone-deaf to the firearm market that has seen elevated sales largely driven by concerns for personal safety.

If the facial or fingerprint recognition on your iPhone doesn’t recognize you, you’re inconvenienced. If your firearm doesn’t unlock in a time of need, you could be dead.

A Track Record of Failure

The hype for “The Year of the Smart Gun” began early. Leading up to SHOT Show 2022 in Las Vegas, these new companies were pitching their products as the “hot” new thing.

Armatix "smart" gun
Another hot new thing. (courtesy Armatix)

“Exclusive: Smart guns finally arriving in U.S., seeking to shake up firearms market,” read a Reuters headline. “‘Smart Gun’ Companies Aim For 2022 Commercial Release,” said another. “Are ‘smart guns’ finally arriving in the U.S.? Here is what we know,” was the headline from The Deseret News. The article began, stating as fact, that “Smart guns…will finally become available to American consumers after decades of questions regarding reliability.”

The Reload was the most measured and accurate. “‘Smart Guns’ Come to the Industry’s Trade Show Amid Hype and Skepticism.”

The history of this technology is not one of success, including being hacked and failing test runs.

A demonstration by LodeStar prior to SHOT Show 2022 failed too. A demonstration to show off the technology to shareholders shows an individual loading, chambering and clicking the fingerprint keypad on the side of the 9mm handgun equipped with the authorized-user technology.

“Alright, ready? Everybody got ears? Alright. Two rounds coming,” he says before firing. Only one round successfully fired while the demonstrator is visibly seen and heard pulling the trigger multiple times for the remaining round before the video abruptly ends. That’s during a controlled test under ideal conditions and in front of the media.

Gareth described LodeStar’s $895 public model saying, “We finally feel like we’re at the point where … let’s go public. We’re there.” A second “smart” gun manufacturer, SmartGunz LLC, is offering a $1,700 model for law enforcement and a $2,200 model for public consumers.

During the span of COVID record firearm sales, firearm industry survey data pegged the average purchase price consumers paid for their firearm at less than $600. SmartGunz exhibited at the SHOT Show, but didn’t display a working prototype. SmartGunz claims it will be equipping an unidentified law enforcement agency with its product, to test its reliability. We’ve seen other developers go that route only to have the prototypes quickly pulled from the field.

Testing reliability on law enforcement is interesting since the concept of “smart guns” was to reduce incidents of officers being shot by their own firearm in a struggle where they lose control of the gun.

In the 1990s, the Sandia National Laboratory surveyed law enforcement about their needs in a smart gun. Cops said the number one issue was reliability under all circumstances. The firearm must work when they need it to.

smart gun
Douglas Weiss, who works on the “smart gun” project at Sandia National Laboratories, holds a “smart gun” prototype and a computer chip in his Albuquerque, N.M., office Friday, March 31, 1995. The gun uses technology that recognizes the gun’s owner and prevents anyone else from firing the weapon. (AP Photo/Jake Schoellkopf)

LodeStar believes Americans would prefer to purchase their gun and forego purchasing a handgun safe to go with their normal, reliable firearm. That advice, though, runs counter to what the firearm industry and firearm safety experts advocate.

All firearms not in use should be locked and beyond the reach of those who shouldn’t have access to them. That also runs counter to laws in some states, including Connecticut, which requires firearm owners to lock their firearms in the home.

Glaser told Morning Consult the $900 price tag is only, “marginally more expensive than buying a regular firearm and a biometric safe to store it in.” Either he has faith buyers will shell out an additional $300 minimum on a gun safe or completely forego safe storage altogether.

Problematic Mandates

To be crystal clear, the firearm industry doesn’t now, and has never opposed the research and development of “smart” gun technology. What we believe is that the marketplace should decide if this technology is truly ready for market.

“Firearms are tools that are used in the defense of someone’s life and must work as designed each and every time. There is no room for failure,” NSSF’s Director of Public Affairs Mark Oliva told The Reload.

There are many issues surrounding this concept that I have discussed in the past. For a general overview of the subject, check out NSSF’s fact sheet.

What the industry opposes are “smart” gun mandates. President Joe Biden’s campaign website proclaimed his intentions on the fallible firearms, saying, he “believes we should work to eventually require 100% of firearms sold in the U.S. are smart guns.”

Mandating that firearms must be equipped with so-called “smart” gun technology raises liability concerns for manufacturers. Manufacturers must know that the firearm will work as designed each and every time. The technology, so far, isn’t able to show that when taking into account the effects of recoil on electronics, chamber pressures, and the thousands of pounds of energy generated at the muzzle.

State-level efforts are also problematic. In 2002, New Jersey passed a law requiring that once a “smart handgun” is sold anywhere in the country, they will be the only handguns legal to sell in New Jersey. The supporters of this mandate later acknowledged the law set back research and development on “smart guns” by more than a decade.

Loretta Weinberg smart guns
The legislative genius behind New Jersey’s “smart gun” mandate, State Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Teaneck (AP Photo/Mel Evans)

The law was rescinded in 2018, only to be replaced by a different mandate that requires New Jersey retailers to carry the product if it ever comes on the market.

It’s important to note that none of the companies that have tried to bring a safe and reliable authorized user recognition equipped firearm to market – and many have tried over the past quarter century – support mandates. They, like the firearm industry, believe the market should be allowed to work. If the considerable technological challenges can be solved and someone can bring a safe product to market, then consumers — not the government — should decide if that product meets their needs.

 

Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Previous Post
Next Post

67 COMMENTS

  1. Every politician demanding that smart guns be mandated should be guarded by men equipped with smart guns.

      • Smart guns are only 100% reliable in the science fiction movies where they appear in. But I’m still waiting for Star Trek Transporters and warp drive.

  2. “Less than half, 43 percent, of those surveyed say they are “very interested” or “somewhat interested” in personalized guns equipped with authorized-user technology”

    Put me in the very interested category of people wanting “smart gun” technology. For everyone else but me…

    • I’m “interested”. I would be perfectly willing to take a smart gun, and find how many ways I can defeat it and/or make it fail. I’m so interested, that I would go to the effort of starting a Youtube channel dedicated to exposing all the failures. Video titles might look like, “37 ways to defeat Smith & Wesson smart features.”

  3. “A second “smart” gun manufacturer, SmartGunz LLC, is offering a $1,700 model for law enforcement and a $2,200 model for public consumers.”

    Something tells me a roll-out will happen something along these lines :

    An inner-city PD decides to be a ‘trend-setter’, and with great fanfare, equips their patrol-people with the weapon.

    Several months later, they quietly drop the project, when officers start fleeing the department faster than they can recruit new cops.

    Of course, they will abandon that bad idea as quietly as possible.

    EDIT – On the plus side, the value of mechanical-only guns will skyrocket, and gunsmiths will be kept very busy keeping the old ones in good working order…

    • Nope, Beta testing should start right at the top… five years of sole firearm of Secret Service and Capitol Police.

    • Even if I wanted a smart gun Smartgunz LLC could kiss my ass. 1700 for LEO’s and 2200 for the peons? Eff the eff off!

      • Thats my problem too. I would love to own a ‘smartgun’ not to actually carry for my own protection but merely as a novelty piece.

        But at 2k a copy? seriously? not a bleeding chance in hell.

    • Geoff the half wit is fully vaxxed and boosted…and proud of it! That should tell you all you need to know about his intellect (hint: it’s bottom 1%).

      • avatar Geoff "A day without an obsessed, obviously brain-damaged and mentally-ill demented troll (who deserves to live in New Jersey) PR

        “Geoff is fully vaxxed and boosted…and proud of it!”

        Damn straight, little boy.

        Tell me, do you apologize to your (likely imaginary) ‘wife’ after you are, er, ‘finished’?

        You really should, you know, she deserves a real man on top of her, not a frightened little boy with nothing between his legs who does as a stranger orders him.

        Dance, troll. I order you to make an utter embarrassment of yourself in front of the great, wide-world… 😉

        • Lol. What? Sober up and try again, vaxx boy 🖕🤡.

        • See, just kick Geoff the half wit up and down the road a few times, and he skitters off like the coward he’s proven himself to be (over and over again). Take heed everyone…this is how you silence the whelps who think they’re relevant 🤣.

        • Geoff,

          He apologizes to Rosie on the daily, mostly because he CAN’T “finish”. MinorIQ and dacian the stupid rag on him about it at their daily circle jerks.

      • Whatsa matter, nameless, brainless, d***less troll? Got a case of the sadz because you can’t get enough attention?? Geoff and I no longer give you enough abuse to validate your stalking???

        Eff off, clown.

        • Lol. Oh no, Lamp the wife beater has decided to chime in. Dude take that remedial writing course. That’s an order! Also, you’re an idiot 🖕🤡!

  4. “Are buyers willing to risk their life on authorized user recognition technology?”

    IIRC, functionality isn’t at the core of “smart gun” laws. The fact that a “smart gun” is available for sale triggers “smart gun” laws. That is, once a “smart gun” becomes available in a state, from that day forward, only “smart guns” can be legally sold in the particular state. The “smart gun” laws are not anchored on what people are “interested in buying”.

    • I wonder how much these “smart” gun companies have held back for a rainy day. Can you imagine any insurance company willing to write a policy? Because, when not if, there is a failure to function, can you imagine the lawsuits? I’ll bet there’ll be a stampede to keep these companies from being allowed to be sued. I wonder if our “smart” gun legislators and “stop the gun violence cults can be held accountable.

      • “I wonder if our “smart” gun legislators and “stop the gun violence cults can be held accountable.”

        You mean, like, sue an entity for the failures of a third-party?

        Hhhhhmmm.

  5. The only smart thing my guns can do is go off with 100% reliability whenever the trigger is pressed.
    And jokes on you, things like my 100 year old k98 already do that. No need to get any smarter.

  6. Here is the first problem with “smart guns”:

    …unlocked by using either a fingerprint, a pin code, or through embedded field communication (RFID) connected to a smartphone or other Bluetooth device.

    All three of those methods entail SIGNIFICANT drawbacks if your application is extremely urgent self-defense:

    Fingerprint Recognition
    — requires manipulating a firearm unnaturally before gripping/firing
    — can fail to recognize your fingerprint
    — will not recognize fingerprints of other suddenly authorized users

    PIN Codes
    — requires manipulating a firearm unnaturally before gripping/firing
    — requires perfect dexterity/manipulation under extreme stress
    — delays other suddenly authorized users from firing

    RFID
    — requires batteries in your firearm which will fail at some point
    — requires an electronic signal (RFID) generator on your person
    — prevents other suddenly authorized users from firing

    I only foresee a very small number of applications where end-users will accept those significant drawbacks.

    • RFID could be easily jammed by police (for your protection).

      Also any thief could easily remove or hack the tech, so I don’t see it as much of an anti-theft device.

    • As a frequent rock climber, I would never trust a fingerprint activated firearm. Long climbing sessions wear down my fingerprints to the point that electronic fingerprint readers will struggle to see them for at least a couple of days.

  7. I have a smart phone. My second. Renee’ convinced me to buy my first when I had to return my agency PX when I retired. I’ve had to relearn how use a PX every time. John and Katherine gave me a smart TV for my birthday this week. Now I have to learn how to use that. I don’t need a “smart gun.” The firearm should be the simplest instrument to use when under stress and your death is the consequence of screwing that up.

    • “The firearm should be the simplest instrument to use when under stress and your death is the consequence of screwing that up.”

      Absolutely Correct!!

  8. “small transponder” It would be like carrying a square hockey puck around in a pocket. What a schmazoon!

  9. The second problem with “smart guns”:

    They require intricate, extremely robust, and extremely miniaturized actuators. I would be surprised if such actuators exist. And I would be floored if those actuators exist and are inexpensive.

    • avatar Geoff "A day without an obsessed, obviously brain-damaged and mentally-ill demented troll (who deserves to live in New Jersey) PR

      “They require intricate, extremely robust, and extremely miniaturized actuators. I would be surprised if such actuators exist.”

      Put it to you this way – How many times has an orbital-class rocket on a launch pad had to have a launch scrubbed because a valve was ‘sticky’ or inoperative?

      You would think a machine that costs eye-watering amounts of money would have such things tested many multiples of time before they were bolted on to that rocket, at the actuator factories and the rocket factory QC teams, considering the value of the satellite being launched…

  10. I highly doubt a truly reliable smart gun will be commercially available and affordably priced in my lifetime. (Who knows, maybe Elon Musk will tackle the challenge?) But I would insist on 2 criteria being met before I’d spend a nickel of my own money on one. First, it would have to be as reliable as that INOX is without the tech added (does look sharp with the blue grips, btw.). Even if my hands are dripping with blood or muddy. Second, it would have to be a closed system. No RFID. No Bluetooth. No chance for any hacker or government agency to turn off my gat without physically taking it away first. Then I’d consider owning A smart gun. Not about to give up any of my dumb ones though.

  11. The third problem with “smart guns”:

    The underlying technology of “smart guns” is susceptible to design errors and weaknesses.

    The first weakness is the fact that the firearm will require batteries. Batteries obviously run out of charge. Less obvious: batteries often fail to make good mechanical and thus electrical contacts–or outright corrode and make no contact at all. And we have not even considered how extreme temperatures may degrade battery voltage/capacity.

    The next weakness is RFID: ensuring good RFID signal which can overcome both unintentional as well as intentional jamming/blocking is a challenge. Preventing hacking can be challenging as well.

    The final weakness: of course fingerprint recognition requires a clean fingerprint reading window and that your fingerprints on your fingers are readable (versus not readable because you have gunk on your fingers or even because you are wearing gloves).

    • Am I the only one here who realizes that you might LOSE A FINGER during a fight for your life? Knives, guns, even blunt instruments can take a finger away. Or, an assailant who bites. It would be a bitch if an attacker bit your finger off first, knowing that you couldn’t use your weapon afterward.

      • Paul,

        Am I the only one here who realizes…

        I think you are. And you bring up a good point–illustrating yet another potential pitfall of a “smartgun”.

    • The fourth problem with “smart guns” is extra time to activate. The bad guy is not going to wait on activation to engage and the extra time spent, even though perhaps seconds, could cost dearly in collateral damage including death, pain and suffering.
      The fifth problem. If the owner drops the gun due to injury etc, is it possible for a bystander to use the gun?
      If a bystander cannot use the gun, then the show and someone’s life may be over.

      • “Smart guns” for thee(left) but not for me!
        And
        Don’t expect bad guys to carry “smart guns”.
        They may not be bright but they ain’t that dumb.

      • “The fourth problem with “smart guns” is extra time to activate. ”
        The functionality of “smart guns” is irrelevant; government is not interested in whether or not you can actually use a “smart gun”, for any purpose. The serious danger is state legislation mandating that no non-smart guns can be sold in the state once a “smart gun” is offered at retail. At the moment, it is possible that the one-half of states loving gun control will put such limiting legislation in place.

        Don’t think that your current firearm(s) is/are protected from such laws. It is an easy next step to ban the possession/use of all non-smart guns, while claiming that “we the people” do, in fact, have access to firearms IAW the Second Amendment. Any effect on illegal use of non-smart guns (gangs, criminals) is irrelevant to the mission: disarm the general public.

  12. All of the factors and considerations which I listed above mean that we are still a VERY long way away from “smart guns” being an excellent solution for many/most common use cases.

  13. Another [unintentionally] hilarious NSSF article: “Products Designed for Gun-Haters Aren’t the Best for Gun Owners”. Ya don’t say!

    Plus the obligatory “All [devices you may need to save your family’s life in a split second] should be locked and beyond reach” stance of NSSF – just like fire extinguishers, right? With “friends” like these . . .🙄

  14. Smart guns are much like covid vaccines, expensive, untold hours of research needed, and ultimately will fail to perform as advertised.

  15. After seeing what they did with the price of cars simply because of a chip making issue in the far east…why would anyone actually buy something like this?

  16. “smart guns” developed by almost smart people for a buck and marketed to stupid people who would think its smart.

  17. The only things I want “smart” on my small arms is three things.

    1. Shake awake
    2. Solar recharging
    3. Auto brightness, perhaps with an interface for NODS compatibility

    And a fourth that will likely never exist, fire & forget capability.
    2 out of 3 don’t require any ‘smart tech’ whatsoever.

  18. The gov just has to ban all arms and ammo imports, stateside manufacturing ask a handful of dictators to manufacture more then send $18 billion to be lost and stolen in Ukraine and the smart guns will magically become available, practical and viable. Just like electric cars. Or so they think.

  19. The smart part of a firearm is the trained person using it.

    If you fear dumb kids/people using your gun, train those people in the respectful and safe use of a firearm. Educate them as to the risks and responsibility. Make them smart.

    Next is a smart spoon to keep me from being fat, a smart shoe that will make me walk and workout, and a smart pencil to write notes for me…

    One can make a dumb gun in their own garage and fire bullets made for future smart-guns! We’ll need smart ammunition so rounds will refuse being fired through a dumb gun!

    As an engineer I design safe things—guns are extremely well designed and safe right now—very few guns going off accidentally…if the holder has at least an hour of training we can consider them smarter than the average smart gun—which seem to be uncertain of when to fire…lmao.

  20. Kinda relevant to the discussion…I purchased a Zore electronic gun lock when they were first offered. Liked it so much that I ordered a second one. Fast, easy and secure…until it stopped working a year and a half after purchase (I stopped using the second one when the first failed). The company has been out of business for the last two – three years. I offer this “No Shit I Was There” story in support of the commenters who have written that electronic devices require batteries and have circuits that are subject to random, unexplained failure….whether that failure is due to battery, electrical components, mechanical interfaces, corrosion, operator error or ???

    I will never trust an electronically activated firearm locking / unlocking device again…fortunately for me when it failed it was just a range day and not a Life or Death emergency.

    • OG
      I completely agree. I have 3 safes, no electronic locks involved, can not trust them. In my profession I constantly see electronics fail, even the most basic things in mild use situations. Some can be extremely hazardous, some just inconvenient. I’m not about to trust a firearm with “smart” tech.

  21. My firearms are already 100% smart, require no software updates, batteries, GPS or RFID.

    A “smart” gun depending on what technology is used will require more maintenance, as there will be more moving parts, a electrical system to make these parts move and will have limitations that “dumb” or analog firearms do not.

    EMP from the sun or other source, my analog firearm will still operate.

    Extreme temperatures play havoc on electrical components.

    Have you ever placed your RFID hotel key card near your phone or been near a magnetic environment?

    Rain or water on your circuit board? Rice is not going to get you back into the fight any time soon.

    Strong radio transmission? One of two things will happen depending on the frequency of the transmission. Either your firearm will be inoperable or it may negligently discharge.

    I’ll stick with the true smart guns I already have.

    • I was recently reading a comment that said people are afraid of “smart guns” because they’re old and don’t use much technology. The truth is the exact opposite.

      I live in a climate where it never gets humid or very cold. It gets hot outside, but the house is air-conditioned. I use my computer a lot, but never subject it to rain, mud, or sand, much less solvents, shock, or other conditions imposed on a firearm. Nevertheless, I am on my fourth laptop in five years, and this one started to shit the bed about two months ago. Yesterday it blacked out for half an hour when I really needed it for work.

      Putting that in my lifesaving equipment? No, and not for lack of experience.

  22. Yeah technology is great. That’s why you have to have a diagnostics machine when the car backfires.
    The chips the chips, we cant get the chips, might have some in a couple weeks if we get them at all.
    Technology is great.

    • possum, you talking potato “chips” or cow “chips”?
      Bet you can’t eat just one potato chip.
      Bet you can’t eat one cow chip!

  23. Consider this scenario.

    Cop gets caught off guard, his weapon is knocked away. Bad guy about to kill him with knife or gun. Civilian comes along, grabs cops gun. Both cop and civilian end up dead. Family of civilian instigate multi billion dollar lawsuit as a peaceable ordinary citizen is authorized by the Constitution and the smart gun didn’t recognize it. If a gun can’t recognize a good guy, it isn’t smart and not worthy of depending on for defense of life.

  24. Every police officer and federal agent should be equipped exclusively with smart guns. Think of the danger we’re putting them allowing criminals to take their gun and use it on them. What about the danger to the officers’ families by having them take home a gun that a child or distraught spouse might access and accidentally or purposely harm themselves or someone else? Police work is dangerous enough without issuing them bad equipment and endangering their lives and families. California even allows departments to issue guns that are ruled by the state to be unsafe since they aren’t of the Safe Handgun Roster. Our police deserve better.

  25. #1. To have genuine NEED of a firearm is to be in genuinely dire straits. It is contrary to the Second Amendment’s raison d’être for any legislation to artificially alter the operational capabilities of any firearm kept for purposes of personal protection, home defense, or self defense if it diminishes that weapon’s potential for operational readiness by even the most infinitesimally small degree.

    Anything more than ZERO impact on that firearm’s potential operational readiness contravenes 2A and is both UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNACCEPTABLE. The only acceptable failure rate is ZERO.

    #2. It IS NOT POSSIBLE to create a battery-operated firearm safety device that would not be susceptible to rendering the firearm unexpectedly non-operational due to battery exhaustion.

    #3. It IS NOT POSSIBLE to create a “smart” firearm that would be 100% IMMUNE to depriving its owner of its use in the unlikely event that its owner should need to use it weak-handed, with gloved hands, with hands coated with blood, mud, or other contaminant, or with fingerprints or other identifying physical features having been altered, either through previous “life” events (blisters or callouses from yardwork or occupation, burns in the kitchen, etc) or injuries sustained in the course of defending oneself.

    #4. It IS NOT POSSIBLE to create a “smart” firearm that would be 100% IMMUNE to depriving an approved alternate possessor (family member, significant other, friend, neighbor) of its use in the event that the weapon’s owner should be unavailable or incapacitated, and this approved alternate possessor finds it necessary to take up this “smart” firearm in their own self-defense, which might by definition extend to defending the incapacitated owner.

    #5. “Smart” gun is an oxymoron. Like “assault weapon,” “weapons of war,” and “high-capacity magazine,” it is an arbitrary and gerrymandered term that itself is being weaponized with the long-term objective of limiting the ownership and use of firearms by honest, law-abiding citizens for the overarching reason the Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment: to resist the encroachments of a tyrannical government.

    • Elon Muskox, you are exactly right. The left is chipping away from every angle to discourage,demean,slander the POTG and anyone considering a joining. They say they aren’t stopping POTG from gun ownership and some even say, “I support the 2nd amendment, but”—-enough is never enough for these people and POTG know this. Don’t be fooled POTG, for the left is definitely wanting to stop all gun ownership.

    • “Anything more than ZERO impact on that firearm’s potential operational readiness contravenes 2A and is both UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNACCEPTABLE.”

      This is the default claim of Second Amendment absolutists* (of which I am one). However, operationally, “shall not be infringed” does not exist. To my knowledge, no case, in all the time since the founding, has been based on our absolutist understanding. There is a reason for that, I am sure. The sound of “shall not be infringed” tickles our hearts, but advances “the cause” not one millimeter. That is our reality.

      *If one is an absolutist regarding the Second Amendment, one must also be an absolutist regarding all amendments – there can be no carve-outs at all. However, history and tradition, and court rulings have proven that there are exceptions/exemptions to every sentence in the constitution and amendments.

  26. “Smart guns” are a “dumb idea”. Firearms that you may need to rely on in an emergency should be HAMMER simple to operate, totally reliable, usable by you AND any authorized person in your house, and not susceptible to mechanical or electronic “glitches” (which ALL existing and prototype “smart guns”). As others in this thread have noted, the “smart” part needs to be the owner (which is why MinorIQ and dacian the stupid claiming to be gun owners would scare me, if I actually believed either one of them). If the state I’m living in ever mandates “smart guns”, I’ll promptly move. If the Federal fascists ever do it, I’ll ignore it. Fortunately, I have a basic supply of standard firearms (you can NEVER have “enough” firearms), so they can eff the hell off.

  27. To be honest, I think they’re overthinking “smart guns” by adding RFID or Bluetooth.

    This sort of thing could be accomplished with a keyed grip safety and a ring on your finger with a pattern in it, now that we can do some precision laser cutting on metal.

  28. “If It Can Be Programmed, It Can Be Hacked,” that maxim has held true since computers were first developed, and will remain true as long as they exist.
    Would you really trust the government to not include a protocol by which the government itself can shut your gun off, effectively disarming you?

    Fornicate That and Fornicate Joe Biden!

  29. The question that needs to be answered is “Why do we need smart guns”? Is there some overwhelming evidence that the “gun violence” problem is even remotely caused by a firearm being used by someone other than the owner? Sure, a firearm can be stolen and then used by someone else. How often has this ever occurred where a gun was stolen and then almost immediately used in a crime? Out of the tens of millions of those carrying firearms every day, how often has a firearm been taken from the owner and then immediately used? How often has an officer had their firearm taken from them and immediately used? On the other hand how often has an availible firearm in a house been retrieved by a family member and used for self-defense? Something prevented by a smart gun. Smart guns prevent officers from sharing a firearm in an emergency. They prevent sharing of guns for training on a range. Smart guns cannot be used with gloves. Smart guns must be ambidextrous. To save a life smart guns cannot be disabled by water, magnetic interference, radio signals, dust. dirt, mud, snow, temperature, rough use, dead batteries, etc. The actual problems with smart guns far outweigh the benefits claimed. The chance of a firearm being used by a child or other unauthorized user is easily handled by proper gun storage and locking devices. Smart guns are simply a solution looking for a problem.

    • “Why do we need smart guns”? Is there some overwhelming evidence that the “gun violence” problem is even remotely caused by a firearm being used by someone other than the owner?”

      You must be new here. If such a requirement saves even one life, the burden for gun owners is worth it.

      Now you know the full reason, so you can thoughtfully use the phrase, “If it saves only one…”.

      Besides, any person who wants to own a gun should be denied, based solely on that. Not to mention that “no one needs a gun”. And of course everyone knows that if you have a gun, you will likely have it taken from you, and used to kill you. Naturally, it goes without saying, “more guns, more violent guns committing crime”. No one can dispute that the rise in gun ownership causes a direct rise in every kind of crime. It is settled science that no “good guy with a gun” has ever stopped a “bad guy with a gun” from committing a crime, ever, anywhere.

  30. Connecticut resident Adam Lanza’s mother kept her firearms in locked storage in compliance with state law. Adam Lanza was able to work around that problem to acquire the firearms used to kill the students and staff at a local elementary school after killing his mother.

Comments are closed.