Posted on October 28, 2013
“Personalized” firearms, also known as “smart guns” or “owner-authorized” guns, incorporate technology preventing their use except by authorized users. Personalized guns are designed to prevent shootings, both intentional and unintentional, by children, thieves, and other unauthorized users. A 2003 study analyzing data from seven years of unintended firearm deaths or deaths of undetermined intent found that 37% of the deaths could have been prevented by a smart gun.1 Personalized guns also render firearms useless to criminals who gain access to law enforcement weapons during the course of an arrest or other encounter.
For research and statistics regarding child and unauthorized access to guns, which would be prevented by personalized firearms, see our summary on Safe Storage & Gun Locks.
The technology incorporated into personalized firearms can generally be divided into two categories: token-based technologies and biometric technologies. Token-based technologies require the use of an additional item, such as a ring or watch, to activate the firearm, and include radio frequency and magnetic identifiers. Biometric technologies utilize unique features of individuals to identify the user of a gun, including fingerprints and grip recognition.2
In response to an order from President Obama, the National Institute of Justice (“NIJ”) produced a report in June 2013 evaluating the readiness of personalized firearm technology. The report found that, although personalized guns were not yet available commercially, numerous prototypes have been created, and at least three models of these firearms could be described as “commercializable,” or “production-ready.”3 At least one personalized handgun system entered the U.S. market in 2013: the Armatix iP1, which includes a handgun and a watch containing a radio frequency identifier that the user must wear to activate the handgun.4
Americans overwhelmingly support laws requiring that firearms incorporate user-recognition technology. A 2001 survey found that 73.6% of Americans favor a requirement that all new models of handguns be personalized.5
Federal law does not set any safety or design standards for domestically manufactured firearms. Most consumer products are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), established in 1972 by the Consumer Product Safety Act. The statutory definition of the term “consumer product,” however, specifically excludes firearms and ammunition.6 Accordingly, the CPSC currently has no authority to require gun manufacturers to produce personalized guns or otherwise improve the safety of their products.
Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey are the only states that have laws addressing personalized gun technology.
1. Maryland: A “personalized handgun” is defined under Maryland law as any handgun manufactured with technology incorporated into the design allowing the handgun to be fired only by a person who is the authorized user of the handgun, and preventing any of the handgun’s safety characteristics from being easily deactivated. Maryland’s Handgun Roster Board is required to review the status of personalized handgun technology and report its findings to the Governor and the General Assembly annually.7
2. New Jersey: In 2002, New Jersey adopted a law that will eventually require smart gun technology to be incorporated into all handguns sold in the state. New Jersey defines a “personalized handgun” as: “[A] handgun which incorporates within its design, and as part of its original manufacture, technology which automatically limits its operational use and which cannot be readily deactivated, so that it may only be fired by an authorized or recognized user.”8
Until the Attorney General finds that personalized gun technology is available, he or she is required to report to the Governor and the Legislature every six months regarding the availability of personalized handguns for retail sales purposes.9
Twenty-three months after the Attorney General finds that smart handguns are available for retail sale, the Attorney General and the Superintendent of State Police must begin the process of promulgating a list of such handguns that may be sold in New Jersey. This process must be completed within six months.10
Six months after the initial list of handguns is approved, it will be unlawful for any licensed manufacturer, wholesaler, or retail firearms dealer to transport into New Jersey, sell, expose for sale, possess with the intent of selling, assign, or otherwise transfer a handgun unless it is a personalized handgun (excluding antique handguns and handguns used by law enforcement or military officers).11
3. Massachusetts: Massachusetts mentions personalized gun technology as an alternative to locking devices in its requirement that any handgun or large capacity weapon be sold with a safety device designed to prevent the discharge of such weapon by unauthorized users and approved by the State Police.12 The State Police has not yet approved any form of personalized technology as sufficient to comply with this requirement.13
The features listed below are intended to provide a framework from which policy options may be considered. A jurisdiction considering new legislation should consult with counsel.
- An authorized governmental or law enforcement body is charged with monitoring progress in developing personalized firearm technology and reporting regularly to the appropriate authorities (Maryland (annually), New Jersey (every six months))
- When determined to be technologically feasible, personalized firearm technology is required for all handguns manufactured, sold, transferred or possessed in, or transported into, the jurisdiction (New Jersey)
- Standards are set for personalized firearms, and personalized firearms are tested and approved by a certified independent lab before they may be sold in the jurisdiction
- Jon S. Vernick et al., Unintentional and Undetermined Firearm Related Deaths: a Preventable Death Analysis for Three Safety Devices, 9 Inj. Prevention 307, 307-08 (2003) (analyzing data from Maryland and Milwaukee). For additional background on personalized firearms, see Krista D. Robinson et al., Personalized Guns: Reducing Gun Deaths Through Design Changes (Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Pol’y & Res.) (Sept. 1996). [↩]
- National Institute of Justice, Dep’t of Justice, A Review of Gun Safety Technologies, National Institute of Justice Research Report 24-27 (June 2013), at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/242500.pdf. [↩]
- Id. at 3. [↩]
- Michael S. Rosenwald, ‘We need the iPhone of guns’: Will smart guns transform the gun industry?, Wash. Post, Feb. 17, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/we-need-the-iphone-of-guns-will-smart-guns-transform-the-gun-industry/2014/02/17/6ebe76da-8f58-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html. [↩]
- Tom W. Smith, 2001 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center: Research Findings (Dec. 2001), at http://www.norc.org/PDFs/publications/SmithT_Nat_Gun_Policy_2001.pdf. [↩]
- 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(1)(ii)(E). Note that locking devices for firearms are not, by themselves, exempt, and therefore the CPSC has the authority to adopt national safety standards for locking devices. It has not done so. Additional information about locking devices is contained in our summary on Safe Storage & Gun Locks. [↩]
- Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety § 5-132. [↩]
- N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-1dd. [↩]
- N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-2.3. [↩]
- N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-2.4. [↩]
- N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-2a(5)(e). [↩]
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, §§ 131K. [↩]
- Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, Approved Firearm Safety/Locking Devices, at http://www.mass.gov/eopss/firearms-reg-and-laws/firearm-safety-locking-devices.html. [↩]