As our leaders begin the uncertain political debate over gun safety, there is a simple and straightforward policy solution right now that would uphold gun owners’ Second Amendment rights and still keep our kids safer.
It’s called “smart gun technology,” and it already exists.
The system is similar to “smart technology” already in use for things like cars, iPhones, and security doors.
A computer microchip measures the biometric details of the person attempting to use the product or gain access. If the details match the rightful owner, the device is “enabled.” If the details don’t match, the device will not work or open.
Smart gun technology has been around for years. CBS News profiled a New Jersey institute that was perfecting it in 2009. Science Daily had a story about the emerging technology back in 2005.
The most reliable smart gun technology involves a grip recognition system. There are 16 digital sensor chips embedded in the handle. The computerized sensors capture the unique pattern and pressure of your grip, plus the specific size of your hand. If someone else tries to use the gun, the information will not match the stored pattern of the gun owner’s and the weapon will not fire.
As I discussed in the first hour of my weekend radio show (free podcast here: ) Take Action News this technology, as well as similar versions involving fingerprint recognition, could be embedded in guns today. But for years, the National Rifle Association has blocked these efforts, in part because they would make guns costlier to produce and purchase.
The NRA has also insisted that smart gun technology is a type of restriction that would infringe upon the Second Amendment. Constitutional experts say that argument is absurd and would be bounced out of a court in a heartbeat. The constitution allows for all kinds of product regulations. It was the lack of political will, not a court ruling, that caused the ban on assault weapons to lapse during the Bush administration and not be renewed.
(read more @ link)
How 'smart gun' technology could have stopped Adam Lanza - and why the NRA opposes it: