Americans have willingly, and sometimes unwillingly, surrounded themselves with technology that watches, listens, records, and remembers. Cars know how and where we drive. Phones track just about everything in our daily routines. Security cameras are documenting the world directly around us. And while devices offer convenience and safety on their own, they are also creating an infrastructure that is starting to pique the interest of gun owners who have particular reason to ask where data may go and how it is or can be used.
Recent headlines about Flock cameras, autonomous vehicles, and other automated services that include built-in surveillance are beginning to force a broader conversation about how pervasive this infrastructure might become for gun owners and specifically, what happens when technology designed to monitor or improve safety begins detecting or potentially recording and reporting the lawful possession of firearms.
A recent case widely reported on last month involving Waymo, an autonomous, self-driving car service, flagged NRA’s and many others’ attention. According to reports, Waymo detected what the company described as a “violation of its terms of service” involving passengers with a firearm. It then automatically stopped the vehicle and contacted emergency services. Police arrived and conducted a high-risk vehicle stop and subsequently arrested two juveniles on firearm-related charges.
While in this case the suspects might have been up to no good, the broader points is that a privately operated transportation system was capable of detecting the presence of something it believed to be a firearm inside the passenger compartment, was able to interrupt the travel instantly, and escalate a situation to law enforcement. Waymo expressly prohibits riders from bringing firearms into its vehicles and also states in its very recently updated Terms of Service (September 29, 2026), “We reserve the right, without notice and in our sole discretion, to modify, suspend or discontinue all or a part of the Services with respect to you or more generally, at any time for any reason.”
As a private company, it certainly can establish rules governing use of its service, but that answers only one question among many. What it does not answer are consequential questions about systems that can recognize constitutionally protected objects or conduct and act upon what it sees. What other services are detecting firearms? What is the scenario if the firearm is perfectly legal or the person has a carry permit? What happens when the object is simply something that is mistaken for a firearm? But perhaps the most important question is what information gets created when the system makes that determination, how long does that record exist, and who can obtain it?
While concerns always exist about firearm registries or firearm owner databases, none of these systems even need to contain a column labeled “gun owner” because when you connect enough dots, the label can so easily be inferred. That is what makes this Waymo incident worth paying attention to. This emerging surveillance environment presents a completely different possibility because nobody needs to actually build a list of gun owners if technology can effectively assemble one on demand. The constitutional implications become more difficult when private surveillance and government power begin to intersect. A private company monitoring its own property or enforcing its own terms of service is not the same thing as government conducting a search, but the distinction should not end the inquiry when private surveillance infrastructure can generate enormous quantities of information that may subsequently become available to law enforcement.
A similar concern arises with Flock cameras and their “gunfire alert system” also linked to automated license plate readers. Again, the danger isn't limited to whether the system gets an alert right. Suppose a microphone detects a loud bang, and its algorithm classifies it as gunfire even though it was something else or perfectly lawful gunfire. If that so-called confirmed event triggers an inquiry using Flock's network of license plate readers, investigators could sweep in all of the vehicles that happened to pass through the area during that relevant window. Suddenly gun owners, or anyone whose movements happened to overlap during that generated alert, could find their license plates, travel patterns, and personal information pulled into an investigative database despite having nothing to do with anything unlawful.
The United States Supreme Court has confronted a version of this issue in a Fourth Amendment context in Carpenter v. United States (2018). The Court recognized that technological aggregation, in this case via cell -site location information, can change the constitutional character of information. In doing so, it held that government acquisition of this kind of historical data constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment and required a warrant. A person may expose individual movements to public observation, but comprehensive historical location information can reveal an intimate window in a person's life.
Citizens traditionally think of firearms registries as a government database with names, firearm types, or serial numbers. But modern surveillance raises a more complicated possibility that government may no longer need a traditional registry to identify and monitor firearm owners. The growing collection of location data, camera footage, and other general digital tracking technology raises fundamental questions about at what point does this interconnected infrastructure begin to function as a de facto surveillance system for gun owners? Consider what can be inferred from location alone. A vehicle appearing a shooting range, gun club, or various gun shows. Combine observations with already available information, social media, government records, and it can paint a detailed picture of a citizen’s law exercise of a constitutional right.
Years ago, disclosed documents showed that federal agencies discussed using license-plate readers at gun shows to track attendees. Today’s technology is not only vastly more scalable but has flipped its own script. In the past, authorities first identified a person of interest and then sought justification to follow more closely. Now, technology does the watching first while also collecting and storing.
It is a consequential era for Second Amendment litigation with landmark decisions in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen forcing governments to reckon with meaningful constitutional limits on the ability to regulate the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. At the very same time, rapidly advancing technology is seemingly giving governments and private actors an unprecedented ability to observe, record, aggregate, and potentially identify the exercise of that very same right.
That collision should pique the interest of the Second Amendment community. It does not mean rejecting technological advances but being aware that the next major threat to the right to keep and bear arms may not arrive in a familiar form of a gun ban or registration. It may be a camera that recognizes the gun on your hip, or a car that knows you have one, or a network that knows every time you visit a gun store, a shooting range, or a gun show. We should be mindful of a surveillance architecture that the Founders could have scarcely imagined and whose constitutional implications we cannot ignore. Government may be increasingly constrained in how it can regulate the right to keep and bear arms, but technology should not become a back door through which it learns who is exercising that right, when, where, and how.
More Like This From Around The NRA
