Smart Gun Technology: Why Criticism Doesn’t Matter

The recent commercial availability of the Armatix iP1 pistol has stirred a number of emotions and raised various criticisms of the technology, but any cool-headed evaluation of the situation will lead to the inevitable conclusion that none of it matters.

Earlier this year gun rights advocates convinced a California store to pull the iP1 out of the display case, and more recently a Maryland gun dealer was the victim of death threats for suggesting that the iP1 should be available for purchase. Part of the controversy has been a New Jersey law passed in 2002 which requires that once “smart gun” technology becomes viable and commercially available all new handguns sold in New Jersey must use this technology. Thus, making the iP1 available in California or Maryland might trigger this law into taking effect and leave New Jersey gun owners in a lurch. Therefore, a proper “pro-gun” position is to boycott a new gun—so the argument goes.

First of all, as with any other market product, if there is a demand it will be sold, legally or illegally. The above tactic is only a delaying action. In this instance it may work long enough to force a repeal of the law, as New Jersey democrats seem to be willing to do, since the very existence of the law seems to be inhibiting the sale of the desired technology.  It is a useful focus of attack for the NRA since it has publicly stated that it does not oppose the technology but, rather, mandates that require its use. However, the New Jersey law, and the controversy surrounding it, should be viewed simply as a sideshow.

Any gun law that would effectively eliminate purely mechanical firearms from the marketplace has no hope of passing constitutional muster. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. (2008), the landmark Supreme Court ruling that overturned D.C.’s handgun ban, the language is clear and direct. On pg. 57 the ban is criticized for disallowing

an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose

and goes on to state on pg. 58 that:

Banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

Purely mechanical firearms are arguably an entire class unto themselves, but, more importantly, since they are the “preferred firearm” for self-defense, they certainly can not be banned. The follow-on case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, Illinois, 561 U.S. (2010), extended this logic to the state level by, finally, “incorporating” the second amendment under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Most recently, a federal judge overturned Chicago’s ban on firearms transfers within the city, stating:

This right must also include the right to acquire  a firearm, although that acquisition right is far from absolute: there are many long-standing restrictions on who  may acquire firearms (for examples, felons and the mentally ill have long been banned) and there are many restrictions on the sales of arms (for example, licensing requirements for commercial sales). But Chicago’s ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms

While the New Jersey law is concerned with the selling of a particular class of firearm and not outright banning its ownership, the judicial precedent is firmly in place to overturn even that restriction, since it would make it unduly difficult for individuals to acquire the most popular firearms available for self-defense.

This is why the criticisms of “smart gun” technology are irrelevant. The technology is here and will only improve. There will likely be some market demand and some weapons will be sold. Boycotting and threatening gun dealers into avoiding selling these weapons is not only futile in the long term but runs counter the spirit of any consistent pro-gun stance. The New Jersey law is unfortunate, but the more reasoned response is to allow it to be triggered and then have it overturned in court, creating yet another pro-gun precedent. In fact, it is possible that precisely this fear has led former advocates of the law to suggest repealing it.