By Peter Gunn
There is a constant push from Anti-gun Legislators and their “Gun Safety” supporters to legislate into existence a new form of electronic gun control; the “Smart Gun” The idea is a firearm that can only be fired by its owner through some sort of recognition technology. The stark reality is that aside from some hastily assembled prototypes and one model designed and built in Germany, a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world, they are not commercially available. Hollywood has featured guns with this fictional technology in movies from James Bond to Judge Dredd. Unfortunately, these politicians are unable to discern the difference between the science fiction on the silver screen, and the reality of the world around them. Their delusion is so complete, that not only are they in favor of this technology, the want to MANDATE it so that the ONLY firearms free American citizens can own are these as yet non-existent guns. Their argument is this technology could prevent a child from accessing the weapon and thus prevent a tragedy. Perhaps it could, but that is not why they want it.
The question we should ask ourselves, is why would a group of people who in their hearts are opposed to the very idea of a civilian owning a gun, suddenly be in favor a owning a “smart gun”? Simple, they see it as a new level of control. Incidentally, they also want all old guns retrofitted with the technology and want federal funding to reimburse gun manufactures for offering free retrofits.
The Smart gun pictured above, relies on a radio transmission between the watch and the gun. According to its manufacturer, the gun can be programed to ONLY shoot at a “permitted” target. In essence, a smart gun could be as useless for self-defense as a banana. Since the gun can be turned on and off using a radio signal, it means it can also be disabled by other radio signals, not just the one on the watch. A device could easily be constructed by someone OTHER than the owner to render the gun unusable. It really doesn’t matter if the device is held by a group of criminals about to invade your house, a group of Jihadists, or broadcast from an armored military vehicle (ours or someone elses) across a large area, the point is that a “smart gun” can be rendered completely useless and thus it is not an acceptable for the purposes enumerated by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, and as confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Right to Keep and Bear arms presupposes that the arms kept and borne can be used to defend Americans anytime they are needed (that is why they can be borne as well as kept). The Supreme Court has upheld that the central component of the Second Amendment was individual self-defense. Since a “smart gun” could be rendered inert by an attacker through external means it is absolutely unacceptable as an arm satisfactory to the purpose of the Second Amendment.
The Founders intention, as made very clear in the writings of the time, was to enable citizens the ability to mount an armed resistance to a tyrannical government. If our current government were to successfully mandate that the only firearms citizen were allowed to own carried this technology, and it also had the ability to render the firearms inert, it could then disarm the citizenry at will, and thus remove the check on governmental power that the Second Amendment provides.
Clearly, these Anti-gun politicians understand this as Law Enforcement (such as the Capitol police, Secret Service etc.) and the Military are by and large exempted from these laws. The message here is that Smart Guns are not adequate to protect the politicians, but are just fine for your family. If these arms are not reliable enough to protect a cop on the beat, then how can they be reliable enough to protect a citizen? Simple: They can’t.
Is there a market for “Smart guns”? Of course there is, but it is likely to be a very small segment of the gun buying population. It seems the Anti-gun politicians agree or else they would trust the free market to decide the viability of such firearms. Instead they wish to force the technology on people who do not want it. Despite portrayals to the contrary, it is the Mandates that the Pro-Second Amendment groups oppose, not the technology.
The States that have “smart gun” laws, have a built in countdown to them; as soon as a “smart gun” hits the market, the clocks starts ticking down until the “smart gun” is the only kind of gun that can be sold in that state. This leaves the Pro-Second Amendment people only one choice; prevent the guns from being marketed in the U.S. If the Anti-gun politicians really thought this technology would save children’s lives and should be developed, then they would repeal all of these time-bomb style laws and mandates and trust citizens to decide for themselves if this technology is right for them. Unless of course, they have a different motive for wanting these “smart guns” mandated by law.