Smoking Gun
By Frank Miniter | Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Few would care if the “smart gun” debate was only about
the emergence of proven, reliable guns theoretically capable of recognizing an
“authorized” person. Most gun owners would shrug and say that if it makes
someone feel better to have the uncertainty of a battery put into an otherwise
proven mechanical device—a tool that’s designed to save their life—that it’s
their money and life.
But the American free market is not a given in this
debate; rather, gun
control’s clammy grip is all over
this technology. Anti-freedom politicians and groups like to frame this as a
debate over “gun
safety,” even as they see “smart
gun” technology as a means to ban guns as we know them. They even see this
technology as an opportunity to insert bureaucrats’ wagging fingers into the
innards of our firearms.
Still, even though the “smart gun” is being wielded as a
political weapon by those opposed to the American peoples’ Second
Amendment-protected freedoms, opposing “smart gun” technology overall would
seem to be a stand against freedom in the marketplace. That is why the National
Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade
association for firearms manufacturers, have long since published statements on
their websites clearly stating that they are not opposed to “smart guns,” but
are opposed to laws that make such unproven technology mandatory.
The trouble is, given the so-called “mainstream” media’s
ignorance of guns and their well-documented left-of-center political leanings,
it has been difficult to get this very simple point articulated honestly to the
American people.
This brings us to where we are right now. The gun
companies you are familiar with don’t see a lucrative market for these products
and are loath to begin the political two-step with the anti-gun movement on
this issue. Nevertheless, “smart guns” are being developed, as a number of
small companies—many of which haven’t ever made guns before—are putting
research and development dollars into them. Many of these companies seem to
view possible political mandates as a win-win for them, which, of course, is a
gross misunderstanding of the American gun owner.
With all that going on, protecting our freedom means
helping more people learn the truth about this potential, so-far-unproven
technology. The good news is that, as the NRA has proven again and again, good,
old-fashioned American freedom is always a winning argument—if you can get the
truth out.
To do that, here are five things you need to know.
The American free market is not a given in this
debate; rather, gun control’s clammy grip is all over this technology.
1. The Threat Is Real Given the rhetoric from
the anti-gun movement on this topic, it’s not just some conspiracy theory for
you to worry that some in the government would, if they could, make it illegal
for gun dealers to sell anything but “smart guns.” After all, this has already
happened. In 2002, “The Childproof Handgun Bill” was signed into law in New
Jersey. The law stipulates that when “smart gun” technology becomes available
in the American marketplace, within three years all new handguns sold in the
state must be so-called “smart guns.” Such a mandate would, by definition, be a
massive gun ban, as all handguns currently available would be illegal to
sell.
The media has finally started acknowledging this. Even a “60 Minutes” story reported by Lesley Stahl last November admitted it. In fact, enough people
in the media are finally reporting that this law has helped to impede this
technology that Stahl asked the New Jersey State Senate Majority Leader,
Loretta Weinberg (she was an original sponsor of the New Jersey bill), about
the law’s unintended consequences. Weinberg said she would consider repealing
the law, but added she’d only do this on the condition that the NRA agreed not
to impede “smart gun” development. Talk about a disingenuous and very loaded
political condition!
When Stahl asked, “If the law were completely repealed,
do you think that the gun lobby would then let this go forward?” Weinberg said,
“No.”
Obviously, the political opportunism from some anti-gun
politicians hasn’t yet been tempered with reason.
Meanwhile, New Jersey’s “smart gun” mandate has prompted
gun owners to oppose the sale of “smart guns” in the United States. Gun owners
opposed two attempts, for example, to sell the German Armatix iP1 “smart gun”
in California and Maryland because such sales would have triggered the New
Jersey gun-ban law.
2. The “Smart Gun” Debate Isn’t About Gun Safety People
who know little about firearms might now ask: Why not mandate that a new safety
measure be put on every gun sold? Stahl, for example, compared smart gun
mandates to mandatory seatbelt laws.
First of all, it’s not possible. There are thousands of
different gun makes and models sold today in many different sizes and actions
to consumers, who buy what fits their individual needs or wants. No new and likely
patented technology is going to fit all of those old and new designs.
Also, batteries go dead, temperature or moisture can harm
electronics and many “smart gun” designs, such as Armatix’s iP1, require that a
person wear a watch, bracelet or other device. Who wants to look for a ring or
watch while in the throes of a home defense situation?
The known facts, coupled with likely future scenarios,
show that one consequence of such a mandate would be making good people less
safe.
Stahl tried to counter these basic realities by
speculating. In her “60 Minutes” story, Stahl said, “Smart guns could curtail
the number of suicides, and cut down on the resale of stolen guns, estimated to
be 230,000 every year. What good is a gun no one but the owner can fire? And
they would help on-duty cops.”
Actually, the so-called “smart guns” now in development
wouldn’t necessarily stop criminals from repurposing guns or even stop those
who wish to commit suicide. All they would need to do is steal the ring or
bracelet as well. Or they could remove the electronic impediment built into the
“smart gun.” Guns are basically simple mechanical tools. Removing the “smart
gun” technology and enabling the firearm likely wouldn’t even take advanced
gunsmithing skills.
Also, reporters like Stahl, and the “anti”-movement in
general, seem to be completely ok with the fact that none of these “smart guns”
have been proven to be reliable or even safe. They haven’t even been vetted in
the marketplace, as they are being prevented from entering the marketplace by
threats of mandates from anti-gun politicians and groups.
America’s 1st Freedom Guns & Gear Editor
Frank Winn is one of the few people to ever test the Armatix pistol, having
done so last May (see his full report
here).
His conclusions:
·
Since the Armatix pistol is only chambered in
.22 Long Rifle, its utility for self-defense, even if it were reliable, is
questionable.
·
The pistol initially required a full 20 minutes
to pair with the watch, even with the aid of an it pro trained in its use.
Without pairing, the Armatix functions like any other handgun, capable of being
fired by anyone.
·
Once paired, a “cold start” still requires a
minimum of seven push-button commands and a duration of 12 seconds before the
gun can be fired.
·
While the gun holds a maximum of 11 rounds
(10+1), the best our experts could manage was nine consecutive rounds without a
failure to fire (and that happened only once). Three or four misfires per
magazine were common, despite using various brands of ammunition.
·
Although the Armatix has a decent single-action
trigger, it has the worst double-action trigger we’ve ever tested, requiring
more force than any other pistol we’ve fired.
·
The pistol must be within 10 inches of the watch
during “start up.” This slows and complicates the use of the pistol if one hand
is injured or otherwise unavailable.
·
All this malfunction comes at a high price: At
$1,798 ($1,399 for the base pistol and another $399 for the enabling watch), it
costs more than three times the cost of proven, reliable pistols like Glocks
and Smith & Wesson M&Ps, made in true self-defense calibers.
Obviously, the market needs to be allowed to judge such
technology without the interference of government mandates and other political
threats. If ever perfected, there might be some small niches in the market that
would be willing to try this emerging technology.
While the (Armatix) holds a maximum of 11 rounds ...
the best our experts could manage was nine consecutive rounds without a failure
to fire (and that happened only once).
Meanwhile, there are other real safety concerns. Might a
new gun owner—someone who hasn’t taken an NRA-certified gun-safety
course—decide to leave a “smart gun” sitting out because they think it can’t be
fired? No experienced gun owner would give that kind of trust to even a
mechanical safety or lock. It would be unfortunate if such technology led to
gun owners ignoring proven gun safety rules.
3. Gun Rights Aren’t Impeding This TechnologyStill,
many in the media are spinning the facts by reporting that gun-rights groups,
not the threat of government mandates, are what is impeding the development of
this technology. The Washington Post’s Michael S. Rosenwald, for example,
wrote: “The National Rifle Association and other gun groups fiercely oppose
smart guns.”
To be clear, the NRA opposes smart gun mandates, not the
technology itself. Similarly, the NSSF’s senior vice president and general
counsel, Larry Keane, told me that “most firearms manufacturers have been
reluctant to invest R&D dollars in smart gun technology because gun control
advocates want to make the technology mandatory. If that happens, new guns will
become prohibitively expensive, which is part of what these groups want.”
Oddly enough, at least one anti-gun group actually
opposes this technology. In a long list of criticisms of “smart guns,” The
Violence Policy Center worried, in an internal background paper, that
“[p]ackaged with a strong sales pitch, [smart gun] technology could penetrate
new markets for a gun industry.” So this anti-gun group is worried that “smart
guns” might make gun ownership more commonplace by making guns more acceptable
to current non-gun owners? They actually list this as a reason to oppose this
technology.
4. The Obama Administration Has Shown Its Anti-Gun
Hand In April 2013, then-Attorney General Eric Holder said while testifying before a U.S. House of
Representatives appropriations committee: “One of the things we learned when we
were trying to pass those common-sense reforms last year, Vice President [Joe]
Biden and I had a meeting with a group of technology people and talked about
how guns can be made more safe by making them either though fingerprint
identification, the gun talks to a bracelet that you might wear, how guns can
be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon. It’s
those kinds of things that I think we want to try to explore so that people
have the ability to enjoy their Second Amendment rights while at the same time
decreasing the misuse of weapons that lead to the kinds of things we see on a
daily basis, where people, kids especially, are struck down.”
Though Holder’s rambling, ungrammatical response showed
he didn’t have a firm grasp of firearms technology, like other gun control
advocates he saw possibilities in using emerging technology to control guns. He
realized that if “smart gun” technology were mandated, it could further impede
the market and give the government the chance to put its regulatory fingers in
the workings of every gun sold.
When Holder said as much during a behind-closed-doors
meeting at the National Institute of Justice (the research, development and
evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice), W.P. Gentry, the
president of Kodiak Arms and the developer of a “smart gun” called the
Intelligun, told me, “I looked Holder right in the eyes and told him if he
mandates my technology, I’ll burn it down. I told him I’d destroy my ‘smart gun’
technology before I let the government use it against the American people.
Other gun manufacturers backed me up.”The president of Kodiak Arms and the
developer of … the Intelligun, told me, “I looked Holder right in the eyes and
told him if he mandates my technology, I’ll burn it down.
The president of Kodiak Arms and the developer of …
the Intelligun, told me, “I looked Holder right in the eyes and told him if he
mandates my technology, I’ll burn it down.
5. A Different Future For “Smart Guns” So
that’s how the current debate over “smart guns” is being spun into a narrative
that’s convenient for the anti-gun crowd. Until the spin is taken out of the
debate and only the truth remains, this issue will likely continue to be caught
in the teeth of anti-gun politics.
Still, there is an interesting side street to this debate
that more people should be aware of. Until now the debate has mostly focused on
the real threats and desires of how the anti-gun crowd would like to use such
technology to infringe upon, or even take away, your right to bear arms. But
what if coming gun technology were instead used solely as a way to keep the
government honest?
Eric Lichtenberg, president and founder of Lichtenberg
Research and Design, who worked as a contractor on the Intelligun, brought up
this point when I interviewed him for my book, The Future of the Gun. He said,
“Think about this: A smart gun could theoretically prevent a bad guy from turning
a cop’s gun on police officers. For that to happen this technology needs to
prove itself enough for police officers to feel completely comfortable with
trusting their lives with it—that could obviously take a long time and a lot
more research.”
The downside is that anti-gun politicians and groups
would surely insist that such technology be made mandatory for private
citizens’ firearms. A Pandora’s Box worth of trouble might present itself then,
as mandatory electronics could theoretically be used to track or even turn off
anyone’s gun. That’s pretty sci-fi, but if anti-gunners are now demanding that
an unproven, untested, currently unavailable, freedom-inhibiting, expensive and
unrealistic technology—“smart guns”—now be made mandatory, they’d certainly
view other technological advances with the same political opportunism.
Additionally, if “smart gun” technology was made
mandatory, what would be the fate of the guns already owned by law-abiding
Americans? Is it really much of a stretch to think that some politicians would
attempt to make these “not-smart” guns illegal and subject to confiscation?
Of course, stubbornly opposing technological advances
because they can be used nefariously is a stand against freedom in the
marketplace. That is why the NRA doesn’t oppose technological advancements, but
opposes only mandates and other infringements on our rights.
With all this in mind, this discussion is important to
gun rights because in the coming years, in one way or another, some companies
or governments are likely to move forward with this technology. When it comes,
we have to be prepared for it. Otherwise, gun owners might find themselves
behind the curve on a savvy, though very disingenuous, media campaign run by
anti-freedom folks advocating for some type of technological control of our
rights.
As a final thought, whatever the future of such
technology placed in guns might be, one thing is sure—until our police forces,
and even President
Barack Obama’s Secret Service
agents, feel “smart gun” technology has been tested enough to satisfy them, why
should American consumers feel any different?
60 Minutes
Lesley Stahl is a
correspondent for
60 Minutes, and
married to
Aaron Latham.
Note:
Diane Sawyer was a
co-anchor
for
60 Minutes, and a director at the
Robin Hood Foundation.
Foundation
to Promote Open Society was a funder for the
Robin Hood Foundation, the
Harlem
Children's Zone, the
NAACP Legal
Defense & Educational Fund, and the
Human Rights First.
George Soros
was the chairman for the
Foundation to Promote Open Society, a
benefactor for the
Harlem Children's
Zone,
William D. Zabel was his
divorce lawyer, is the founder & chairman for the
Open Society Foundations,
Emma Bloomberg
was the chief of staff for the
Robin
Hood Foundation, and is
Michael R.
Bloomberg’s daughter.
Michael R.
Bloomberg was a donor for the
Robin
Hood Foundation, a benefactor for the
Harlem
Children's Zone, a contributor for the
Americans
for Responsible Solutions, is
Emma
Bloomberg’s father, the founder of
Everytown
for Gun Safety, a co-chair for the
Mayors
Against Illegal Guns, and the founder of the
Independence USA PAC.
Eric H. Holder Jr.
is a partner at
Covington & Burling
LLP, was a board member for the
American
Constitution Society, an intern at the
NAACP
Legal Defense & Educational Fund, and was the attorney general at the
U.S. Department of Justice for the
Barack Obama administration.
William D. Zabel
was
George Soros’s divorce lawyer, a
trustee at the
Foundation to Promote
Open Society, and is the chair for the
Human
Rights First.
Mark A. Angelson
was a director at the
Human Rights First,
and a partner at
Sidley Austin LLP.
Michelle Obama
was a lawyer at
Sidley Austin LLP,
and the first lady for the
Barack Obama
administration.
Barack
Obama was an intern at
Sidley Austin
LLP, and the president for the
Barack
Obama administration.
James D. Zirin is
a senior counsel at
Sidley Austin LLP,
and was a director at the
Human Rights
First.
Sigourney Weaver
was a director at the
Human Rights First,
and
Aaron Latham’s fiancé.
Aaron Latham was
Sigourney Weaver’s fiancé, and is married
to
Lesley Stahl.
Lesley Stahl is
married to
Aaron Latham, and a correspondent
for
60 Minutes.
Diane Sawyer was a
co-anchor for
60 Minutes, and a
director at the
Robin Hood Foundation.
Emma Bloomberg
was the chief of staff for the
Robin
Hood Foundation, and is
Michael R.
Bloomberg’s daughter.
