Over the last several decades, anti-gun advocates have attempted to disguise their attempts to destroy the Second Amendment by offering “alternatives” to firearms for self-defense. While they have offered more ridiculous options like self-defense whistles, or even hockey pucks, their latest push to encourage the use of “smart guns” is no different.
Under the guise of safety, anti-gun Democrats are supporting this flawed technology to make firearms less efficient and reliable. “Smart guns” are not a new invention. They have existed for years, but have not gained any popularity in the United States because of the concerns over their reliability and regulation. American citizens should ask themselves why the anti-gun Democrats are now the only ones pushing for “smart gun” mandates. If there is any doubt, consider how President Biden has even endorsed the idea himself, while he continues to enact some of the strictest gun control policies in our nation’s history.
Imagine a scenario in which you encounter an intruder in your home and are forced to defend yourself with a “smart gun.” Even for the most responsible gun owner, there are any number of hurdles that could stand in the way of you protecting yourself, your family, and your home — especially under pressure. If your firearm unlocks with a pin pad, will you be able to punch in the correct code in time? If there is a fingerprint scanner, will sweaty hands prevent you from being recognized as an authorized user? If your firearm relies on batteries, will it be properly charged? If it’s raining, will the firearm be too wet to use?
The shortcomings with “smart guns” do not end with the possibility of mechanical failures. Let’s look at the German “smart gun” company Armatix, who, in 2017, introduced to the marketplace the IP1, for example. These smart guns were hacked with simple $15 magnets, allowing anyone to fire the gun without the accompanying watch. Despite all the reassurances from “smart gun” manufacturers, there is simply no solution to fix any of these potential problems.
By contrast, a traditional firearm is a mechanical device you can count on when you need it. As all Second Amendment advocates, concerned citizens, and law enforcement officers understand, when you are in a self-defense situation, you need a self-defense tool that is simple and reliable enough to work — every single time. To be sure defense guns are left loaded for long periods of time and should not be dependent upon battery life.
The anti-gun Democrats’ argument for “smart guns” relies on the fallacy that traditional firearms are somehow unsafe. This intentionally implies that, by exercising their God-given rights, the nearly 140 million law-abiding gun owners in the United States are a danger to society. No American citizen should be mistaken — this is another backhanded attempt by anti-gun politicians to restrict your rights and slowly chip away at the Second Amendment.
These supposedly “common sense” firearm restrictions are straight out of the anti-gun Democrats’ playbook. There has been a passel of other proposals allegedly intended to promote firearm safety, such as storage laws for ammo or firearms. As we have tragically learned in the past, these anti-gun laws can have fatal consequences. Take California where citizens face some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. On August 23, 2000, these firearm restrictions turned deadly when Jonathan David Bruce broke into the Carpenter family home and began to attack the children who were home alone. Though the oldest child, Amanda, was trained in firearm use and safety, she was not able to defend herself and her siblings due to the “safe” storage laws.
Though the California firearm storage law has since changed, the point remains clear. Gun control of any kind, whether it is safe storage or “smart gun” mandates, do not make us safer. In fact, restricting our Second Amendment rights makes us less safe.
As anti-gun liberal leaders defund local police departments, decriminalize violence, and release known criminals, our self-defense rights are more important than ever. Criminals do not follow firearm restrictions or abide by the law, and they certainly will not be trading in their traditional firearms for “smart guns.” Right there, any action to “transition to smart guns” or enact other restrictions has tipped the balance in favor of the criminal.
When we compromise on our rights, we lose them. The Second Amendment is no different. As Americans, the right to keep and bear arms is one of our most foundational freedoms, and the basis for so many of our liberties. The Second Amendment affords us the right to protect ourselves, our property, and our livelihoods. At a time when politicians want to erode our rights on all fronts, we cannot allow them to use gun rights as a starting point. “Smart gun” mandates are not a solution — they are simply an infringement on our constitutional rights.
Erich Pratt is the Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America.