A brewing battle over the sale of so-called "smart guns" to American buyers moved this week to New Jersey, home to some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

For gun control advocates, the issue is simple. They say a real-life version of James Bond's palm-print encoded pistol can save lives, by preventing unintentional shootings, suicides and thefts. But the gun rights lobby argues that smart guns are unreliable, unproven and give only an illusion of safety.

Smart guns come equipped with technology that recognizes a gun's owner and allows only that person to fire the weapon. Among the gun rights lobby's deepest fears is the idea that once the technology to produce smart guns becomes widely available, such guns will become mandatory by law.

Already, two stores in Maryland and California offering smart guns made by German company Armatix have withdrawn them after a backlash from gun rights activists.

Now a national gun control group is suing New Jersey's attorney general, claiming the state has failed to comply with its own law on gun technology. The lawsuit, by the Washington-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and a local chapter of the Million Mom March, accuses the state's attorney general's office of failing to file reports on the availability of smart guns in the US, as required by law.

The law, signed by governor James McGreevey in 2002, is controversial among gun rights advocates, because it stipulates that three years after the technology becomes available, the only guns sold in New Jersey will be smart guns. Since the technology did not exist when the bill was signed 12 years ago, the law required the attorney general to produce progress reports to the New Jersey legislature every six months.

According to the lawsuit, public information requests to the attorney general have showed that not a single report has been delivered since 2003. It cites media accounts of two gun retailers who have already received smart guns from manufacturers for sale.

“New Jersey confronted the problem of unintentional shootings, suicides, and gun theft, and chose to require safer handguns when they became available,” said Jonathan Lowy, director of the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project. “For over a decade, New Jersey has failed to obey the ‘smart gun’ law. We are asking the court to force the acting attorney general to obey the law and report on the availability of ‘smart’ handguns.”

A request for comment from the state attorney general's office was not immediately returned.

'Unfeasible and cannot be enforced'

Some in the gun industry believe the New Jersey law itself is standing in the way of a wider development and adoption of smart gun technology. And even some gun control advocates have expressed concerns over its implementation, now that the technology is readily available.



Bill Gentle is the president of Kodiak, which manufactures the Intelligun, a fingerprint-locking system that provides an additional level of safety on an existing gun. He said he believes the state law should be repealed.

“It's unfeasible and it cannot be enforced." said Gentle. "It requires every gun to have this kind of technology. It would be taking people's rights to firearms away.

“Laws like that are holding up other members of the firearms industry from pursuing this technology.”

Gentry said the Intelligun prototype, which locks the gun until the owner or authorised user picks it up, was designed specifically not to trigger the New Jersey law.

“We are a gun company, so we are anti-mandate. Our position is that somebody has the right to choose what level of safety they want. People trust us. I would make a lot of money if it were mandated but its not the point. We have to protect the second amendment. Our core business is firearms.”

Gentry said he has had a lot of interest in the Intelligun, including in Idaho, where he said it had been approved for use in schools. Several hundred orders have been placed for the accessory, designed for model 1911 firearms, but none have yet been shipped, he said.

Kodiak has the backing of gun industry groups, including the National Rifle Associations and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

New Jersey Democratic state senator Loretta Weinberg said she would ask the legislature to drop the three-year mandate if the National Rifle Association, which opposes smart gun technology, promises not to block development and sale of the weapons.

Mike Bazinet, of the NSSF, said in an email: “The firearms industry does not oppose the development of 'smart gun' technology.”

“We do oppose any government mandate of this technology, however. One size does not fit all. The marketplace should decide.”

He cited a blog, written last year, Larry Keane, the NSSF's senior vice president and general counsel, pointing out that all smart gun technology relies on batteries, and "who among us has not experienced a drained smart phone battery or had some other piece of electronic gadgetry not work, even a flashlight, fail when we needed it?"

Andy Raymond, the owner of Engage Arms, Rockville, Maryland, was met by threats when he offered the Armatix at his store. He said he was “really surprised” by the threats he received by gun owners opposed to the selling of the gun.

“Crazy people” he said. “You are going to get that; I call them the black helicopter people.”

But he said the New Jersey law was “partially to blame.”

“Pro-gun people are afraid this technology will be mandated and it will happen nationwide and that's a big fear. It's because of the law in New Jersey.”

In comment to the Washington Post, Stephen Teret, a public health expert at John Hopkins University who helped with the New Jersey gun law, cited changes since the law was drafted including improved technology and a market for smart guns as a reason for the state to get rid of the mandate. Teret said if the state were t remove the mandate and“rely on market forces instead of legislation, that’s certainly a reasonable approach.”

