I don't want this technology on any gun I own, certainly not in its current state, and maybe never. But neither do I object to to furthering R&D on something that may reach beyond the capabilities we foresee now. The reason I, and may other gun owners, don't want them in stores explicitly derives from the regulatory history of Washington, DC: today's "good idea" becomes tomorrow's requirement, and like many of the solar projects, far prematurely to the technology's maturation.
The reason, however, politicians like Bloomberg and Obama want this technology likely stems from something other than a motivation other than making a gun safer: a motivation to price common people out of the market. Smart gun technology has a high price tag, and the mentality that common people shouldn't have certain things runs through Washington consistently. And this way of thinking has pervaded us for a long time. Consider Prohibition. Most of the politicians who voted for Prohibition consumed alcohol during its time. Their reasoning: the upper crust of society can suavely dodge the law and harmlessly so while the common man won't make a mess of society with drunkenness. The wealthy and influential can have their armed escorts because they can afford expensive guns, while by raising the cost quite substantially they have not technically infringed upon your rights, but have effectively priced you out of exercising them.
New Jersey probably did it for that reason, and so would Obama.