There is an interesting development in gun technology this week with the announcement of the release of the first so-called “smart gun” to hit the market. The Smart System iP1, a .22-caliber pistol made by the German gun-maker Armatix GmbH, can only function with an accompanying wristwatch. As explained below, this gun and similar new models in the works could have an impact on torts liability for gun manufacturers.
The Smart System iP1 is activated by a RFID-equipped watch that transmits the PIN number needed to operated the gun. Absent the watch, a red light remains on the weapon to show that it is incapacitated. It is technology that could substantially reduce accidental shootings at home as well as cases where officers have their guns taken from them in shootings.
I have long discussed this new technology is discussing the implications for product liability cases. There have been lawsuits against gun manufacturers for “Saturday Night specials” and other models under both product liability and nuisance claims. They have been uniformly unsuccessfully as falling short of the standards for proximate cause, defective designs, and other elements. However, we have discussed how new technology can change that equation by making alternative designs more affordable and convenient. We are still not there yet. The new gun will cost $1,399 and the watch retails for another $399. That is pretty pricey. Moreover, some will argue that they want guns to be exchangeable with others in a household or do not like the necessity of wearing a ring or watch.
The question is what will happen when the technology gets smaller and more affordable. There is a chance that “dumb” guns will be viewed as defective. At one time, seat belts and air bags were viewed as extravagances. Personalized guns, or smart guns, can use RFID chips or other proximity devices as well as fingerprint recognition or magnetic rings. Magnetic ring guns are already available. There are even new designs that would allow biometric sensors in the grip and trigger known as (DGR) Dynamic Grip Recognition, which the New Jersey Institute of Technology says can distinguish an owner with 90% accuracy.
Under the two basic tests for product defects such new designs can change the legal equation. Under the Second Restatement test of 402A, product design is defective is it is more dangerous than the expectations of the ordinary consumer. New technology can shape such expectations as smart guns become more prevalent. Under the Third Restatement, “a product is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design … and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe.” This could be claimed as such an alternative design if the costs come down and there is no real alteration in functionality.
While the public safety benefits are obvious, the NRA has generally opposed these guns as having the potential for gun control options in future legislation. In all honesty, it could. While the Supreme Court has recognized that individuals have Second Amendment rights to bear arms, it did not rule out reasonable limitations. Mandatory safety designs would likely pass muster in some cases. Torts and technology have long had a unique relationship in the law. This is one technology that may be coming not only to a store but a courtroom near you.
Thanks, Chuck — it’s been a while since I tried to post one of these here. It was serendipitously appropriate to the story this week…
TG, here ya go. If you want to embed a video in a WordPress comment, just copy the URL in the search bar and paste it in the comment box where you want the video to go. Don’t try to use the embed code. WordPress resizes to fit and does all the work for you.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmQShSx8eBM&w=560&h=315%5D
What a waste of time! Is someone seriously proposing that all “non-smart” firearms be confiscated? We still have plenty of automobiles without seat belts and air bags. You can buy one any day, register, and drive it on the interstate. Handguns last forever. There is never a need to replace one unless it is lost or stolen. My 1903 John Browning Colt does not need an upgrade. You want to FORCE me to get an upgrade? My 1956 Detective Special works just fine.
You want to use a 1930 circular saw, a 1942 power drill, a 1954 drill press? I don’t think anyone can stop you even though there may be later models with lots of yellow warning stickers and 30 pages of warnings in the manual. This is foolish to waste any brain time thinking about. A shovel is shovel and a gun is gun. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel. It works. Don’t fix it. Only control freaks could even get such an idea.
What they need is to make a gun with fingerprint ID technology.
And as I said before, assassination and self defense aren’t the same damn thing, and that’s what we are talking about. Sneaking up behind someone and shooting them in the base of the skull is perfect for a .22. Two guys ambushing a terrorist and poking a few dozen holes through him works fine. Those scenarios do not resemble self defense, whether by a cop or “civilian”.
Jason,
Say what you think…. And I’ll know what I know…. As limited as it is…. But… Suffice it to say…. A .22 is not good for general police work or army…. But it’s the key weapon of a good assassin…. You know what you know and I know what I know….
AY:
LINE WEAPON. No one in the Israeli army is carrying a 10-22 around. Look at the Wiki for small arms used by Israel. They even list the calibers. There are 36 guns and guess how many are .22s? One. And hilariously enough, its given use is, “Adopted for non-lethal crowd control, though not always used as such.” The qualifier is based on their hit crews using it, not freaking soldiers out in the field.
But hey, I guess we should drop the M-4/M-16 and Russia should abandon the AK series of guns and have them strap on .22lrs. It would sure be a lot cheaper.
In my view having these electronics renders the pistol defective.
I’ll bet they wouldn’t even survive being out in the field, subject to rain, dust, snow, freezing, being submerged, subjected to being dropped or exposed to heat for years on end. I carred a Glock 17 with the back of the pistol exposed in a holster starting in 1990 and it was totally reliable. I am not convinced it would be if these electronics would have been installed.
Here is a real world example of failure. I had an incident in which an armed robber held up a coffee stand with a handgun. He then ran into a large open field. I arrived and went for my rifle which was locked in the hasp of a metal long gun holder. I pushed the button on the console to release the rifle and the electric switch on the hasp failed; it would not release the rifle. This put me at a great disadvantage to the armed robber which forced me into a situation where if he began shooting wildly at me I would have to be much closer (and hence in more danger) to defend myself with my pistol and a rifle would have been much better defense.
And, that was just a simple 12 volt switch. The greater the complexity of these electronic interlocks means more problems with failure. I would never carry one.
Here is another situation with the fingerprint option. You get dirt or ice on the reader or on your hands it is NOT going to recognize the fingerprint. What happens if the batteries wear down until the pistol will not function? Plus how much time is it going to take for the electronics to recognize the print and release the interlock? What if the software hangs? What if there is a disign bug. There is not enough time to deal with all of this when you have to try to save your life.
With all these problems inherent with these interlocked pistols I am of the opinion there is are enough problems that a clear affirmative defense to the non-use of interlocked firearms.
In order for a firearm to be useful in self defense, it must be available for immediate use. The smart gun video shows a seriously unacceptable delay. Even the delay in thumbprint recognition on an iPhone 5S is unacceptable, in part because the identification fails so frequently.
At present the American public possesses 250 million “dumb” guns that are not going away anytime soon. The failed attempt at mandating assault rifle registration in Connecticut (only 15% compliance with the law) shows how unrealistic it is to assume the government can simply eliminate existing firearms even if the Second Amendment is changed.
In the near future, 3D printers will be able to produce dumb firearms on demand. What’s more, the cost of 3D printing will drop so low that single-use firearms will become feasible for criminal activities. So forcing firearm manufacturers to produce only smart guns will not eliminate dumb guns.
If America is to safeguard its children — our most defenseless citizens — then we will need better solutions than the liberal fantasy of gun control. Effective gun control will take many decades or even a century to implement. We need better safeguards now.
Counting suicides is a joke. People will off themselves endless ways without a gun.
Anarmy,
Here ya go…..isreali army use of 22 google it and pick your subject…. I researched many different choices before I decided upon which one…. Plink…. Plink…. Why does it take a team of California cops 103 shots to hit one person in the back?
I think better training is in the works regardless of which weapon of choice…. But you know best….
Elephant,
Jason noted that the figures were for “accidental deaths” which does relate to the topic. A wristband isn’t going to prevent the OWNER of the gun from killing himself/herself or someone else. If it isn’t their gun…. well then that’s that.
Traveling Limey,
I had the same thought about an implanted chip, but that’s a pretty big leap to being tracked one by one by any governmental agency. I’ll pass, thanks.
AY,
I’d venture to say that an assassination with a 22 is far more effective when trying to stay quiet than a .45 or a 9mm. However, I’d not want to carry anything smaller than the 9mm, or even a .38. We got rid of the .45 before my time in the army, and I wish that weren’t so.
About police training though, in situations where an officer SHOULD and NEEDS to fire their weapon, a .22 is a joke. Talk to metro cops and ask them about stopping people on PCP (or pick your mind altering drug), or shooting it out with nutcases. No range, no stopping power… I’d pay money to see a police officer commit to carrying a .22 (short of a fully automatic .22…. maybe) that would allow them to actually stop someone committed to violence that needed to be shot. You can STOP someone with a .22 if you’re a good shot, but a larger caliber corrects for errors and the rapidity of emergency situations, but depending on a pinpoint shot with a .22 isn’t realistic.
Training is a different issue altogether. The weapon is not the problem. I also have anything from .22 to .308 and everything inbetween. If you’ve shot a .22, you’ll know that it’s fun to plink with. It’s also nothing to stop a person with if they’re determined. There are constant debates between 9mm and .45, as well as the types of ammunition used (JHP vs. hollowpoint, etc.), but .22 would be laughed out of a conversation.
Also, as far as I can tell, no serving military uses .22 as a caliber for regular fighting. Spies and assassinations? Sure. Line weapons? laughable.
elephant: Reread please. Emphasis is mine: “I also think some perspective is necessary regarding ACCIDENTAL deaths. This is from the CDC. 2010 is the latest year available. All of the following are for ACCIDENTAL deaths.”
Jason,
Nice try at the big lie – here’s what the 2010 CDC report actually says:
“Firearm—In 2010, 31,672 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 17.5% of all injury deaths in that year. The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2010 were suicide (61.2%) and homicide (35.0%).”
Nick,
Not everyone reads the disclaimer until after it’s too late….
I used a lot of binoculars in my career. They all came w/ a disclaimer, “Do not look directly into the sun w/ this product.”
“Maybe that’s the fundamental problem with the way our police force is trained…. Shoot to kill”
Sooo, they are supposed to shoot for legs or shoot the gun out of the bad guy’s hand? Do you know how much/little firearms training the average cop has? Cops are infamous for being bad shots when going for center mass and apparently you want them to go for smaller targets.
“And just if you’re curious”
I wasn’t.
“I have anywhere from a .22 to .45 including .9mm”
I have no idea what this has to do with you asserting that .22lr is suitable for self defense or your repeating an urban legend in support of that assertion.
“But then again I’m not out to kill anyone”
Very few people who aren’t mentally ill or career criminals are. I have no idea what this has to do with anything.
“You know what kind of recoil a 9 has compared to a .45”
Recoil is not merely a function of caliber. The particular gun is just as, if not more important. I shot a Colt Gold Cup .45 and it was smooth as butter. I shot an officer’s model .45 and it assaulted my wrist. I’ve fired a .44 magnum that was quite manageable, while a .357 with a short barrel was a beast.
More importantly, I have no idea what this has to do with anything.
“When you pick yourself up left me know”
?
Should read:
It is only in the liberal fever dream of a utopian society, in which the individual has been reduced to nothing but a statistical function of the state with no inalienable rights whatsoever, that such a notion is entertained.
“Under the Third Restatement, “a product is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design … and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe.” This could be claimed as such an alternative design if the costs come down and there is no real alteration in functionality.”
With all due respect, guns are “designed” to inflict damage on the targets selected by the user. Guns are not “designed” to substitute or for the judgment and prudence of the user.
It is only in the liberal fever dream of a utopian society, in which the individual has been reduced to nothing but a statistical function of the state with no inalienable rights whatsoever.
“in order to turn the individual into a function of the State, his dependence on anything else must be taken from him.” – C.G. Jung
The individual shall no longer depend on himself to use tools of self-defense and bear the liability to do so reasonably; not when the liberal can replace self-determination with a simple perversion of the term “products liability.”