Why not? This seems nonsensical to me. You are saying that, if they have a smart gun mandate, then they can’t have smart guns. How can making something mandatory render it out of bounds?

To clarify, what I’m arguing here is that pushing for smart gun mandates is totally counterproductive. Mandates like the one in New Jersey simply make gun owners more resistant to the concept of smart technology, which in turn will hurt demand, discourage manufacturers from developing their own smart guns, and discourage shops and stores from selling smart guns. So in the long run, the push for Jersey-style mandates will, in my humble opinion, actually makes smart guns less popular. And that’s the exact opposite outcome I’m hoping for.

“Let me point out that a requirement that all guns be smart would not violate the Second Amendment. The argument in court would be that the government is mandating a gun safety, not banning guns.”

I doubt it’s that simple, especially since we’re going to have a conservative-leaning SCOTUS for probably at least another 8–10 years, and perhaps even longer than that.

Outer space enthusiast. Japanese history junkie. I write about politics, culture, and mental illness. Disagreement is a precursor to progress.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store