In late November, the National Institute of Justice, part of the U.S. Department of Justice, released a document entitled, “Baseline Specifications for Law Enforcement Service Pistols with Security Technology.” Meaning: Smart gun technology.
This is a move by the Obama Administration to address gun violence in U.S. by using the technology in law enforcement. After the document was released, The New York Times quickly published an opinion piece implying that smart gun technology is ready for the market and that the NRA has put the kibosh on production.
Smart guns, to boil it down, use technology to enable a specific user to fire the gun. This technology can employ fingerprint matching, a radio frequency device or other technology. Sounds great, right? But there are logistical problems.
As Daniel Payne of The Federalist points out, at least one of the guns, upon testing, had a tendency to jam, terrible double-action trigger, problems with the radio frequency and a high price tag. This is not a safe substitution for guns on the market now.
If you assume only you can use your firearm, and there are problems firing the gun, or if then someone else is able to fire the gun, like your children for example, it’s dangerous. Could people become complacent thinking only they can fire their guns? What if the gun owner is wearing gloves? One can use one’s imagination about what could go wrong.
The Times opinion piece reads in part:
“The National Rifle Association gun lobby was quick to sneer that the guidelines, issued on Nov. 16, ‘were a desperate effort by Mr. Obama to claim a win during his waning days in office.’ Actually, the guidelines reignite the promise of smart guns—a promise cut short 16 years ago when the NRA led a boycott of Smith & Wesson after the gun manufacturer pledged in a White House agreement to explore smart-gun technology.”
And here is the NRA’s response to the NIJ’s document:
“At the end of the day, though, two required specifications seemingly would render the whole exercise moot. The first requires the system to ‘default to a state to allow the pistol to fire’ in the event the ‘security device’ malfunctions. The second requires the operator to be able to ‘quickly reset or disengage’ the security device if a malfunction occurs. And that, of course, says it all when it comes to the supposed ‘wisdom’ of ‘smart guns.’ Any firearm that won’t fire when it’s needed just isn’t ‘smart.’ And any ‘security’ system that defaults to turning itself off during a problem just isn’t secure. A lot of busy people with important duties thus spent their valuable time (to say nothing of taxpayer resources) running around in circles, so President Obama could pretend he was being proactive on ‘gun safety.’”
And here is the NRA’s official stance on smart guns:
“The NRA doesn’t oppose the development of ‘smart’ guns, nor the ability of Americans to voluntarily acquire them. However, NRA opposes any law prohibiting Americans from acquiring or possessing firearms that don’t possess ‘smart’ gun technology.”
Will smart guns chip away at the Second Amendment? In my opinion, the NRA fears that a mandate of smart guns is an authentic possibility.
Again, let’s extrapolate: Only a certain segment of the population would be able to afford these expensive guns. The bad guys may find ways to hack them. The government may find a way to disable our technology, i.e. our smart guns. I’m no conspiracy theorist, but the potential to curtail the Second Amendment exists.
Technology may eventually solve these riddles. But until then, let’s hope the NRA doesn’t let up on this or else we wonder if smart guns will chip away at the Second Amendment.
