Skip to comments.Are 'Smart Gun' Laws Constitutional?
Posted on 02/22/2014 7:21:09 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
A "smart gun," if you have not yet heard, is a firearm that uses some type of technology -- fingerprint recognition, etc. -- to ensure that it cannot fire unless it is being held by an authorized user. In 2002, New Jersey passed a law saying that once smart handguns become commercially available in the U.S., three years later gun stores won't be allowed to sell anything else.
Now a smart handgun is available in California, in the form of the Armatix iP1, a .22-caliber pistol that can't be fired unless the user is wearing the watch that unlocks it. But since the law's passage the Supreme Court has weighed in on the Second Amendment -- finding it to protect an individual right in Heller and then applying this protection against state governments in McDonald.
Can New Jersey's law survive a court challenge under this new regime? It'll depend on the makeup of the court that hears the challenge, of course -- the SCOTUS decisions thus far have involved sweeping bans on gun ownership and use, rather than just gun-store sales, leaving future judges some wiggle room. But there are signs in Heller that a law like this is not acceptable...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolicy.com ...
There has been a model out for a long time which requires the shooter to have a special ring before it will fire.
I can’t recall the model but the whole idea is just plain a bad idea for many reasons.
Now that I think about it, the gun which requires a ring to fire is a modification rather than an entire gun. Maybe just S&W revolvers but I am not sure.
“...requires the shooter to have a special ring...”
I wants my precious, I does.
But they don’t seem to know what the word ‘infringed’ means. Maybe they should ask an 8 year old child to look it up in the dictionary for them.
Any modification on only certain persons firing certain weapons is an infringement because a person cannot keep a weapon and bear it if he can`t fire it.
It might belong to his wife. During the Revolutionary War my ancestor`s wife and her son had weapons left in the house for protection when he went to Bunker Hill with his musket off the wall.
Of course it is unconstitutional because it RESTRICTS [infringes] THE USE and CONTROL [to keep = to control] OF A FIREARM>
Are “Smart Baseball Bats”Constitutional?
Criminals will have gun jammers. A POS solution to a non-existant problem.
And one ring to rule them all.
A 12 year old can make enough Molotov cocktails in a day to supply a battalion of insurgents for a campaign. Are they going to ban gasoline?
This is simply a gun tax that selectively denies the poor access to a fundamental, God-given and constitutionally-protected human right. If forced to pay extra for this destructive feature, I would then pay even more to disable the unwanted feature. The bottom line: “poor and minorities hardest hit” as is usual for leftist laws.
It is a technical absurdity that will be used by the gun grabbers if possible. There is no need for this thing, and the means to disable it will appear almost as quickly as it does. The government is certain to possess those means, and professional criminals will soon develop them.
Any gun law is a Declaration of War......
Oh the word criminals is loosely chosen here. The badged, political, military, and DemocRats and RINOs aka the power kooks.
If they can prove smart guns work, they will ban non-smart guns.
Sounds like it about time for voters in every state which has the initiative process to place a vote before the public to require local and state police forces and state protection details to deploy only smart gun technology. There cannot be a reason for government officials to operate with out of date technology. The safety of the public and of the police force depends on it.
All my guns require my brain to be in control of my trigger finger in order to fire. None have discharged without this sequence of events. If my brain becomes incapacitated I probably would have lost the watch anyway.
I will not obey an unconstitutional law. “Shall not be infringed”
I would suggest looking at the “militia” part of the 2A which was not erased by Heller and McDonald. Were have an individual right to possess firearms, and we also have a right to possess firearms which are suited for a militia.
A “smart gun” is unsuitable for a militia because it prevents a combatant from picking up the weapon of a fallen comrade and using it to press the battle forward against the enemy.
I think “assault rifle” bans and magazine capacity limits fail on the same ground. They make a weapon less useful to a militia.
Given that it adds cost, and that cost differential could deny someone the ability to own a firearm... yes, definitely unconstitutional.
This is the same as the government regulating the type of speech allowed under the first amendment. Mandating these types of restriction is a clear second amendment infringement and you’ll get the same situation as in Connecticut many times over.
The pistol in question was a prototype double stack 9mm built as a technology demonstrator by Colt. I don't remember if it actually functioned or not, but I would never bet my life on it working in the gravest extreme. If you want to see how well these “smart” guns are received, inflict them on your local and state cops — if you dare.
The Magna Ring was for S@W revolvers. just do a google search and one well find a lot of info
Gonna create a whole new black market of "stupid" guns because you can be sure they will insist anyone who owns pre-smart gun weapons will be "asked" to relinquish them.