New Jersey passed a law many years ago that if there is ever a smart gun produced in the US or imported to the US to be sold to the public, that every handgun in New Jersey would be required to be a smart gun. This technology would probably double the cost of many guns, render older guns illegal, give a monopoly on handguns in New Jersey (and any other state that passes a similar law) to the company that comes up with a smart gun first without regard to the quality of that weapon, and give the gun one more dohickey that may not function when you need to fire it. It also seems like a part you can't fix with hand tools.
So it's not about their revenue stream, it is about preserving some choice in the weapons you use. A lot of people would love to have a gun they can put on a high shelf rather than a safe and not have to worry that a child will find it. A lot of people would like to have a gun that can't be used against them by someone else. But people aren't willing to give up all other handguns in order to get those features. That is why the gun companies that had prototypes over a decade ago never put them into production.
Because of Liberal laws that create unintended consequences.
Liberals want to push smart guns. So they pass a law in NJ years ago that says when a smart gun is sold in the USA, only smart guns can be purchased in NJ. Other handguns are banned.
So now, as an unintended consequence, you've got pro-gun groups actively opposing the sale of a new gun.
A gun with an electronic locking device, that's personalised for the person that uses it.
Well that's the theory anyway. A smart gun can still kill in the same-way that any conventional gun can. It knows no friend or foe, it just kills.
I think the objection is primarily to the prohibition of non-"smart" guns.
There may well be a place for smart guns for those who want them.
Another problem is that smart gun technology is relatively new and may not be reliable enough. When you are dealing with guns, you want them to work correctly.
It makes Gun-culture less casual, basically only you, can fire your gun. Especially hobbyists don't like that, because it means you can't swap, or try each other's weapons.
Also, if you get into the wild conjecture scenarios, it could raise the risk for people, since you wouldn't be able to take someone else's gun, and shoot them with it.
What is a smart gun? Something like a smart bomb? Or can it differentiate between threats and innocent bystanders? How the hell does it do that?
Or are you making this sith up?
Note legally blind and using dictation software, please forgive grammar issues.
Full discloser: I believe in the Second Amendment, I strongly feel that everyone has a right to defend themselves, and I even support conceal and carry on the grounds that criminals will be less inclined to attack someone if they do not know for sure if they are carrying a weapon or not while simultaneously avoiding public panic at the site of done in our highly volatile society these days. I don't support active military grade weaponry in the hands of civilians, regardless of prior military service or not. Those are tops of war, not defense or hunting.
Now that that is out of the way, to avoid any accusations of being anti-Second Amendment, hopefully, can someone please explain to me why the gun lobby is so opposed to smart guns? I have seen so-called experts claim that this is a new technology, this isn't a distinctly recall them showing off this concept and prototype on shows such as modern marvels and other gun related shows on the history channel well over a decade ago and find their claims that such technology could be easily Hackamoor to be ludicrous at best, typical scare tactics at worst as such technology, being paired with a firearm, would surely have safeguards built into it to protect against that very sort of thing. Do they think smart guns will eat into their revenue stream? Is that why they seem to be aggressively against these?
