In weighing whether we should <i>legislate</i> whether the technology must be used and whether we fine or imprison people who refuse to use the technology, even forgetting for a moment about the ~300 million guns already in the US, it's a prudent question to ask... will this technology potentially cost me my life? Clearly the answer for the current state-of-the-art in "smart" guns is YES, this is currently dangerous and error prone technology which IMO should not be legal to sell in a gun because it makes it overall <i>more</i> dangerous not less.<p>But assuming we want to let companies sell these prototypes and let people buy them assuming they do so fully informed of the risk, and let the courts decide in the end if companies are liable when the "smarts" malfunction...<p>To the point about legislating whether guns <i>must</i> implement this technology, I think this is a constitutional question, and so I think the bar is much higher than questions like seat belts, airbags, speed limits, etc.<p>We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right to bear arms. And I think that means we have the right to own firearms which are free from DRM, if we so personally choose.<p>Your laptop can be infected with malware and potentially further spread malware or participate in DDoS attacks. Malware and DDoS as a whole cause great economic damage and potentially loss of life. However, if we let government whitelist all apps and require all computing devices to implement hardware trust zones to verify apps are signed and trusted by the government, this technology could prevent certain malware attacks. Is it Ok for government to pass legislation requiring this? We have the right to free speech and so I think it's a similar constitutional issue and I think the answer must be consistent with the firearm question, and the answer must be NO.<p>Just because a technology will absolutely save money and save lives, does not mean that technology can be mandated when it would impinge on constitutionally guaranteed rights. Under strict scrutiny a legislative remedy must be compelling, narrowly tailored to its purpose, and the least restrictive means possible to achieve the desired policy outcome.<p>DRMing all guns, like DRMing all computing devices, doesn't pass the test in my opionion.