I couldn't care less if the smartguns cost $5 and were proven to be 100% reliable - I don't want one. You see, in order for it to be "smart" it must have a chip. That chip will almost certainly, whether "they" tell us or not (and "not" is far more likely), have the ability to receive radio signals.
That's a ridiculous, paranoid statement. No personal offesne intended.
There are
lots of things with chips that have no ability whatsoever to receive or send "radio signals". In order for these "smart guns" to be able to receive commands, they would have to have an antenna, power source, a chip capable of recognizing the commands, and the ability to implement them.
If I lived in NJ, and it was 2009, and I had to buy and carry a "smart gun", and it had these "features", I'd have an electronics geek cut out the antenna and shield the nub against receiving anything. There's nothing in the law saying I couldn't do that. Once my electronics geek knew how to do it, he could charge $50 a pop or something, and get rich deactivating that "feature".
Yes, it is theoretically possible that they could build such "features" into guns, but I really doubt it with todays technology. And once they did, they would have to mandate the use of that technology. And then worry about all the people (like criminals!) who disale it anyway. And then there's always the fact that any halway-competent machinist can crank out "dumb" firearms all day long, until steel stock is a "controlled substance".