The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old February 21, 2013, 12:20 PM   #1
gunloony
Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2012
Posts: 97
Does 2A protect armed drones?

OK, I admit I have weird thoughts and sometimes I share them. Would a personal drone aircraft armed with, say, a Ruger 10/22, be an arm protected under the Second Amendment?

"Inspiration" for this was the Dianne Rhiem (sp) Show on NPR this morning which was discussing issues related to the possible use of drones in the US, for such things as observation of wildfires, search and rescue, and of course law enforcement. One of the panelists made a comment about the differences between military and civilian use and observed that he hoped civilian drones would not be armed. So does anyone care to comment on whether individual ownership of an armed drone would be legal under existing law? I don't contend that it would be a good idea, BTW, just curious.
And just FYI for those who may not know there are privately owned drones, mostly DIY models, in operation now.
gunloony is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 12:35 PM   #2
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,446
I don't believe it does...

I recall a law somewhere against using a remote trigger mechanism.
Hal is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 12:39 PM   #3
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
It's not in "Common use for lawful purposes" so according to Heller and Miller would not be covered by the second amendment.

And while I'm generally for drawing the line for that little test in a circle around a police car, and a Bomb Squad guy has mentioned that their little bomb-bot has a nasty nasty surprise installed, those aren't in even SOME of the cars the rank and file patrol officers drive around.
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 03:08 PM   #4
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 7,006
Quote:
It's not in "Common use for lawful purposes" so according to Heller and Miller would not be covered by the second amendment.
Which begs the question (which can apply elsewhere)...

How do we challenge things the public is prevented from putting into common use, from the beginning?
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 03:09 PM   #5
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
That's the eventual NFA challenge.
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 03:49 PM   #6
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 276
"in common use for lawful purposes", according to Gura, should be read as "in common use or would be in common use for lawful purposes"

That's the only way we can avoid nonsense arguments such as the circularity argument mentioned above ( because something is illegal (and therefore not in common use) it's therefore not protected).

Assuming Gura is right, then drones may well be protected. They certainly are unusual, and if they're not dangerous they're not useful for self-defense, but would they be in common use in a constitutionally-correct environment?

Probably not at the current time, but eventually robotics will get to the point where having a self-defense robot will be a viable thing. It never needs to sleep, it won't panic, it can't be easily destroyed, you can be moving your family to safety while it fights, etc, etc. Who wouldn't want such a thing protecting their property?

Therefore, the day will come when such things are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
speedrrracer is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 06:25 PM   #7
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,446
All the BATFE has to do is label a drone a destructive device & they've got it all covered.

& BTW - I found some reference to remote triggers being illegal in 26 states.
Which ones I don't know.
Hal is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 08:48 PM   #8
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,923
Pretty pointless, idle speculation. It would in any case be a matter for the courts. If anyone wants to pursue (and has a whole bunch of money to use to do so), the courts are open for business.

Don't forget to report back.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07380 seconds with 9 queries