Biofire bills itself as the first ready-for-market smart gun in the world. The company itself is pretty smart. They're getting the media to cover the guns a pile, which costs them nothing, and they're also opposed to smart gun mandates, which might help the company bottom line in places with such a mandate, but would sour the general gun-buying public on the company as a whole.
But in a recent report on Biofire, there's something that the reporter completely missed in the discussion that is kind of important.
In fairness, unless you're been following this company for a while, it's easy to miss. Let's start with where this gets missed for a moment.
The Challenge of Acceptance
While the technology offers clear safety benefits, it enters a politically charged landscape. Gun-rights advocates express concerns about potential government mandates and fears that biometric firearms could be remotely disabled. Aidan Johnston, a representative of Gun Owners of America, voiced skepticism, citing past failures of smart gun initiatives.
One of the most infamous attempts was Armatix’s 2014 smart gun, which relied on a radio-frequency wristwatch to unlock the firearm. The gun’s security features proved easy to bypass, and backlash from gun-rights groups led to its market failure.
Adding to the controversy, New Jersey legislators attempted to require all firearms in the state to be smart guns, a move that triggered resistance from gun owners and retailers alike.
Biofire is keen to avoid a similar fate. Unlike Armatix, it opposes mandatory smart gun legislation and instead focuses on making its product an appealing option rather than a forced requirement. By selling directly to consumers through its website, the company bypasses traditional retail channels that might resist carrying the firearm due to political pressure.
Despite these challenges, Biofire has made significant regulatory progress. The Smart Gun recently earned approval from California’s Department of Justice Handgun Roster and was recognized as an integrated Firearm Safety Device.
This designation means it meets California’s strict safety standards and can be stored without additional locks if an authorized user is enrolled.
The gun also secured a place on Maryland’s Handgun Roster, paving the way for broader market acceptance.
I have no issue with them getting on gun rosters. That's what you have to do in these states to sell guns and the fact that they went through both sets of hoops in California is just smart. They've set themselves up as a one-stop shop of sorts.
I'm someone who probably could be described as hostile toward Biofire as a company. In fairness, that's just my resistance to smart guns as a whole due to the history of mandates. I get that Biofire opposes those, but that doesn't mean some enterprising gun grabber won't do it anyway, and I don't like that.
But in the above discussion of the challenge of acceptance, there's another quirk that's missing.
In 2023, Biofire said it wouldn't send guns out to firearm journalists for testing and evaluation. The people many in the gun community trust to review guns and tell them what's good and what isn't weren't going to get the guns unless they bought one, which many simply won't. And there are concerns.
In 2022, Lodestar Works demonstrated a smart gun they were quite proud of, only to have it unable to fire two shots in a row. That's kind of a big thing in the gun world, you know?
People who tend to buy guns want to know that their firearm actually works. If I'm trusting my life to it, I want to know that it's worthy of that trust. I have a Glock 19 because the blasted things just run. Other people pick their own preferred firearms for similar reasons. Sure, there's more to it than just that it works, but that's kind of an implied universal requirement for just about anyone.
Literally no one goes, "I like this gun because of the ergonomics. It doesn't always fire when I pull the trigger, but I can live with that."
No, you can't. No one can.
And Biofire's earlier refusal to send out guns for review, even on a limited basis, is going to be a problem for them.
Look, I like the concept of smart guns. Were it not for the threat of mandates, I'd genuinely want viable smart guns on the market as an option for those who might be more comfortable with such a firearm. I'd be willing to consider one myself.
But there's no way I'd trust my life to a gun made by a company that didn't seem to want anyone to review their guns without forking over a lot of money first. There's no way I'm accepting anything sight unseen like that.
