Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

Judge Allows Canadian Case that Seeks Mandatory “Smart Gun” Tech to Proceed

Sunday, February 21, 2021

Judge Allows Canadian Case that Seeks Mandatory “Smart Gun” Tech to Proceed

This month, a judge hearing a lawsuit in a Canadian court against U.S. gun maker Smith & Wesson issued a decision that could pave the way for mandatory “smart gun” technology on firearms marketed and sold in Canada.

The case arose from the acts of a criminal who used a stolen Smith & Wesson handgun in a 2018 attack in the Ontario district of Danforth.

It is a basic precept of law that a person or entity is not responsible for criminal acts of third parties, unless the person or entity has certain preexisting relationships with the crimes perpetrator or victim.

Nevertheless, gun control advocates have longed for the day when courts will hold firearm manufacturers and dealers responsible for the acts of unaffiliated criminals. The reason is simple: no industry could survive if it were legally liable for the behavior of millions of people it could not control.

In the United States, most suits of this sort are explicitly prohibited by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Joe Biden has pledged to repeal this law, most recently in statements made earlier this month.

Meanwhile, gun control advocates in Canada are hoping to succeed where their counterparts in the U.S. have failed by suing Smith & Wesson for the crimes of the Danforth killer.

 The plaintiffs claim Smith & Wesson is responsible for the crimes because of “defects” in the design of the handgun the perpetrator used. Those defects, they claim, arose from its lack of “smart gun” technology that limits the firearms operation to an authorized user.

Needless to say, if Smith & Wesson is negligent for this supposed “defect,” so is virtually every other gun maker doing business in Canada. While firearms have occasionally been brought to market that claim to employ some sort of “authorized user technology,” none have captured the confidence or dollars of a critical mass of the gun-buying public to be commercially viable.

 Its easy to see why. First are the technical challenges. A firearm used for self-defense has to work in all weather and all conditions, including when the users hands are gloved, when the non-dominant hand is used, when the firearm is covered in blood or other foreign substances, etc. There is nothing more useless than a firearm that wont operate in the midst of an unpredictable life-threatening emergency.

And its also easy to imagine wanting a friendly bystander to be able to help if the primary defender loses control of a firearm during a struggle. 

There is additionally the fear, well-established with mobile phone technology, that whatever “smart gun” electronics were incorporated into the gun could also be used to gather and report more information accessible to third parties than its user might not appreciate or want. Some proposed “smart gun” designs even allow for remote disabling of the gun.

Cost is another factor, with “smart” features likely to add significantly to the price of a firearm.

For these and other reasons, “smart gun” technology remains mostly a theoretical concept.

But that hasnt stopped gun control advocates – again, including Joe Biden -- from hoping to mandate its use. After all, what gun control advocate doesnt favor a rule that would make firearms more expensive, more difficult to obtain, and less attractive to potential buyers?

Needless to say, the NRA is not against technological advances in firearms that would provide more choices for gun owners, including those who, for whatever reason, believe user-authorized technology would be the right option for them. We do, however, vigorously oppose the government creating mandatory “safety standards” for gun design that are of disputable utility and only limit what kinds of firearms consumers could own.

Canadian law does not require firearms to have “smart” features. Nevertheless, because the technology is at least theoretically available, the judge in the Danforth case said its at least arguable that Smith & Wesson had a legal duty to incorporate it into the firearms it sells. “A manufacturer has a duty to make reasonable efforts to reduce any risk to life and limb that may be inherent in its design,” he wrote.

Its hard to see how it is “reasonable” to claim a manufacturer is culpable for rejecting technology that has failed to gain any appreciable presence or demand in the marketplace. To cite another example, electric cars are far more common than “smart guns,” and they supposedly reduce damaging emissions. But is the maker of a gasoline-powered vehicle therefore legally liable to anybody claiming harm from the C02 it discharges into the atmosphere? The “logic” of this decision would suggest so.

Judicial activism, it seems, is not limited to the United States.

The case is still in an early stage of litigation, and the plaintiffs will have to make challenging showings of fact if the matter ever goes to trial. Nevertheless, the mere expense of defending against litigation can inflict mortal damage to a company or force it to alter its otherwise legal activities. 

You therefore can be sure that gun control advocates in the U.S. are closely watching this case, hoping to gain insights that might provide advantages in their own efforts.

Proponents of the Second Amendments should be watching it, too. 

IN THIS ARTICLE
Canada smart guns
TRENDING NOW
Students “School” Antigun Education Officials on Civil Rights, Receive Large Settlements in Court Cases

News  

Monday, July 19, 2021

Students “School” Antigun Education Officials on Civil Rights, Receive Large Settlements in Court Cases

Last September we reported on the saga of Ka'Mauri Harrison, a Louisiana elementary school student who was suspended for having a BB gun that happened to come into view while the fourth grader was participating in online ...

Canada’s Gun Confiscation Scheme: Still More Questions than Answers

News  

Monday, July 19, 2021

Canada’s Gun Confiscation Scheme: Still More Questions than Answers

On June 29, Yves Giroux, Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer, released a report on the estimated cost of implementing the firearm confiscation (“buyback”) program that is part of the sweeping Order-in-Council announced by Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ...

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

Gun Laws  

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

CAUTION: Federal and state firearms laws are subject to frequent change. This summary is not to be considered as legal advice or a restatement of law.

Keith Olbermann Revealed as Functional Illiterate

News  

Monday, July 19, 2021

Keith Olbermann Revealed as Functional Illiterate

Tired crank Keith Olbermann reached a new low in weak-minded rhetoric in recent months with his doltish insight into the Second Amendment. According to the former MSNBC bloviator, the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right ...

Louisiana: Betrayal at the Capitol

Wednesday, July 21, 2021

Louisiana: Betrayal at the Capitol

Yesterday, SB 118, Constitutional Carry, was defeated due to several Senators reversing their initial vote of support on the bill.  Two of the Senators who flip-flopped were Senators Patrick Connick (SD-8) and Louie Bernard (SD-31). 

Research Update: It’s [Still] Not the Guns

News  

Monday, July 19, 2021

Research Update: It’s [Still] Not the Guns

Much has changed since last summer. In July 2020, notoriously anti-gun researchers circulated a paper that alleged an association between what they deemed “excess” gun purchases early in the pandemic and violence. This year, the same ...

Forty-Three Amicus Briefs Filed In Support OF NRA-ILA Backed Second Amendment Case Before Supreme Court

Wednesday, July 21, 2021

Forty-Three Amicus Briefs Filed In Support OF NRA-ILA Backed Second Amendment Case Before Supreme Court

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided to hear the NRA-ILA backed case challenging New York’s restrictive concealed-carry-licensing regime. And just last week, NRA-ILA filed the opening brief in this crucial case, which is located here.

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

Gun Laws  

Monday, June 30, 2014

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

CAUTION: Federal and state firearms laws are subject to frequent change. This summary is not to be considered as legal advice or a restatement of law.

Joe Biden Wants to Ban 9mm Pistols

News  

Monday, November 25, 2019

Joe Biden Wants to Ban 9mm Pistols

A week after he told voters that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect “a magazine with a hundred clips in it,” 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden offered supporters more of his singular brand of anti-gun ...

NRA-ILA Applauds Rep. Claudia Tenney and U.S. House of Representatives’ Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Case Before Supreme Court

Tuesday, July 20, 2021

NRA-ILA Applauds Rep. Claudia Tenney and U.S. House of Representatives’ Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Case Before Supreme Court

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided to hear the NRA-ILA backed case challenging New York’s restrictive concealed-carry-licensing regime. NRA-ILA’s opening brief is located here.

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.