Are 'Smart Gun' Laws Constitutional?

RealClearPolicy's The Mark Up ^ | February 20, 2014 | Robert VerBruggen

[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...

[Chode]

i heard that...

[Starstruck]

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.

[B4Ranch]

I will not obey an unconstitutional law. “Shall not be infringed”

[CurlyDave]

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.

[ThunderSleeps]

Given that it adds cost, and that cost differential could deny someone the ability to own a firearm... yes, definitely unconstitutional.

[JMS]

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.

[MasterGunner01]

“There has been a model out for a long time which requires the shooter to have a special ring before it will fire.”

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.

[riverrunner]

The Magna Ring was for S@W revolvers. just do a google search and one well find a lot of info

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&ved=0CFEQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPersonalized_gun&ei=IOQJU5H3MYrkyAGC-YDoAQ&usg=AFQjCNHFN9UBPwJJ—c5wtQMckcsGqYRWg&bvm=bv.61725948,d.aWc

[trebb]

...that once smart handguns become commercially available in the U.S., three years later gun stores won't be allowed to sell anything else.

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.

[MasterGunner01]

Indeed, Colt also had its own “smart gun” design based on the Colt 2000 9mm pistol. Here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/791413/posts