Wyoming Gun Activists Increasingly Alarmed Over AI Cameras Searching For Guns

Wyoming gun activists are raising alarms over AI-powered surveillance cameras that detect firearms, arguing the technology violates Second Amendment and privacy rights. Companies like Volt and ZeroEyes provide gun-detection software to schools and cities, but critics fear misuse and false alarms could threaten lawful gun owners. Legal experts caution that while the software may aid in preventing attacks, it cannot determine the legality of carrying a firearm.

Manufacturers of AI software that uses surveillance cameras to search for guns say it makes people safer, but some gun rights activists told Cowboy State Daily they think that’s a brazen violation of Second Amendment and privacy rights. Companies such as Volt for years has provided gun-detection software to schools, which the company claims helps stop school shootings. The city of Hobbs, New Mexico, has outfitted about 70 video cameras with software from another company, ZeroEyes. ZeroEyes claims that the software helps cameras quickly detect drawn firearms, which are then verified at company facilities by human observers, who can alert local authorities. Gun-detecting AI software doesn’t require dedicated cameras, it can be applied to existing surveillance, traffic and web cameras. What Difference Would It Make? Firearms enthusiast Nic George of Sheridan told Cowboy State Daily that he understands the good intentions behind the software, but the broader implications of what gun surveillance might lead to are troubling. “Right now, it might not be a problem. But what’s the next step?” he said. As things stand, programs like ZeroEyes raise murky questions when it comes to gun rights, George said. “There’s nothing against that in our Constitution, but there’s nothing for it,” he said. George added that he doesn’t think AI gun surveillance systems will show up in Wyoming anytime soon, because there would be harsh public backlash. Christopher Stone, director of state and local affairs for Gun Owners of America GOA , said he doesn’t at all like the idea of AI snooping for guns. He questions what might happen if a legal gun owner had to draw a gun in public for a legitimate purpose and got pegged by AI for “brandishing” a weapon. A legal gun owner might draw a firearm in self-defense, and the sight of the gun could be enough to send an assailant running, Stone said. But cameras might pick up only the person with the gun, he added. “And now you have to prove your innocence?” he asked. "That, to us, is very scary and should cause alarm bells to go off.” GOA National Director Mark Jones of Buffalo told Cowboy State Daily that as he sees it, AI gun surveillance violates the Second and Forth amendments protection against unlawful searches and seizures . “A very large percentage of Wyoming residents are carrying guns peacefully every day,” Jones said. Devin Hughes, founder and president of the gun violence nonprofit GVPedia Inc., favors stricter gun laws, but said he doubts the effectiveness of AI gun monitoring. “Most shootings are not preplanned affairs,” he said. “It’s often arguments that escalate. An argument escalating, guns being drawn, shot fired — that’s a matter of 5 to 10 seconds." That’s not enough time for the AI detecting guns on camera to make any difference, he said. Constitutional Parameters The technology has potential to do good, but only within narrow parameters that protect gun owners’ rights, said George Mocsary, University of Wyoming law professor and co-founder of the UW Firearms Research Center. “From a Second Amendment perspective, the important distinction is between detecting a firearm and regulating or responding to the person carrying it,” he said in a text message to Cowboy State Daily. "ZeroEyes may provide valuable early warning when someone displays a gun as part of an attack, but a camera and an algorithm can't establish that carrying the gun is unlawful,” he added. The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that citizens have the right to carry firearms for self-defense, he noted. “Several federal appellate decisions have held that, where public carry is lawful, possession of a firearm alone does not automatically justify detaining and disarming the carrier,” he stated. Programs like ZeroEyes should be deployed only with caveats regarding such things as open-carry regulations, private property owners’ rules regarding firearms and whether a firearm is properly holstered, or drawn and being pointed in a threatening manner, Mocsary stated. “Properly used, the technology can help respond to real attacks while respecting the rights of lawful gun owners,” he said. ‘False Positives’ Stone said he worries that monitoring software could be used to call the cops on law-abiding gun owners not doing anything wrong. “What if you are legally carrying a concealed firearm, and you bend over to put groceries in your car, and one of these AI systems detects that you have a firearm in your waistband? Is that going to flag you for ‘brandishing?’” he said. Hughes said surveillance software also raises a potential for “false positives.” What if AI detects what it thinks is a gun, but then, “that’s actually a kid’s cellphone that he’s holding in a weird position,” he said. Likewise for such things as squirt guns, Hughes said, adding that he can see the system leading to “racial profiling.” AI surveillance systems are also expensive, Hughes said. As he sees it, schools and municipalities could better spend the money on preventative measures, such as training educators and others to detect “red flags” that somebody might be planning a shooting. Spending money on AI software for a camera network is “just a tax that lax gun laws put on the rest of society,” he said. Mark Heinz can be reached at mark@cowboystatedaily.com.