Legalities of Sci-Fi/future weapons in the US

[Jim March]

Here's an actual hand-held gauss pistol, *almost* at a point where it could reliably kill somebody. Eventually. Muzzle energy is still...lacking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=nVgbtqsmx54

Then there's this kind of lunacy:

http://www.wickedlasers.com.hk/arctic

...which I believe would make a devastating weapon right this minute, at that power level...it's ability to blind somebody is near-instantaneous. It would make a horrific CQB piece, and dangerous as hell to yourself unless you wore the spectrum-matched glasses that they come with (think about reflections off of glass/metal surfaces...).

[ScottRiqui]

Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.

"Hey, just what you see, pal!"

[lcpiper]

Some of you no doubt know how an explosively formed projectile works. Fire a copper plate at very high speed and it forms itself into a kinetic projectile.

its not a copper plate by any means.

Newton, the copper plate part is about real EFPs as currently used in Iraq and Afghanistan. They looked to me like a paint can packed with an explosive accelerant and capped with a 3/4" thick plate. I am sure there is enough info online about them if anyone cares to look it up.

I was in working on a computer in 2/2 Stryker's Intel section(S-2), when one of their Strykers was hit by an EFP array. This is a group of EFPs set up in a pattern, say 3x4 and in this case it was disguised as a concrete barrier like the ones sometimes used to divide lanes on a highway. Anyway it was on the on-ramp of an overpass and the explosion blew the Stryker over the side of the on-ramp and it landed upside down on the ground below.

All the guys lived and none suffered serious injury. Pretty amazing stuff.

The guys figured the Stryker was close enough to the EFP array that the projectiles didn't have the distance to form properly and failed to penetrate the armor, but the force still shoved the vehicle off the ramp.

[dakota.potts]

Awesome links Jim! That laser is scary and kind of tempting

[Rainbow Demon]

I've seen a video of one of those copper plate devices destroying an armored limo. it was planted in a back pack tied to the handle bars of a bicycle. The bike was parked next to a telephone pole (probably chained to the pole) and the handle bars turned to aim the device to the spot the limo would soon occupy, then set off by remote control.
The limo was bounced into the air and spun around by the impact, it looked like it had fallen out of an airplane with shreded metal trailing every which way.

PS
This was used by the Red Army Faction in Germany to kill a high level banker.

[Newton24b]

thats why military sci fi shouldnt be discussed with other near term scientific weapons..

did the pentagon ever stop development on the multi direction efp anti vehicle system?

[Madcap_Magician]

The problem with all three is the power supply. We just don't have the power generation capability to make man-portable EM acceleration guns or lasers.

Although with lasers the problem is even worse, since the total lack of penetrative capability means you need a ridiculous wattage to make an effective weapon. Otherwise you just have something that gives injury ranging from blindness and severe sunburn to third-degree surface burns. Will it kill someone? Sure, but bullets are way simpler and arguably more effective.

EDIT: I just had an interesting analogy pop into my head.

A laser beam is the ultimate boutique exotic ammo- an infinitisimally light projectile loaded to literally light speed. Heh.

Expect new releases from DRT and Extreme Shock shortly.

[Skans]

What I'm curious of is, if I walked into a store and bought a high powered rail gun that could launch a 7.62mm projectile at 2800 FPS, would it be legal?

Yes

What about a laser gun firing bursts of laser that could cut through wood? Metal?

Yes

However, neither would be protected by the 2nd Amendment, as it only pertains to "firearms" (as it has been interpreted to date). So, a mere 51% majority in House and Senate and President's signature can easily outlaw these items.

BTW, that handheld 1.2 Watt laser is tempting...wonder how long it will b

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Skans

However, neither would be protected by the 2nd Amendment, as it only pertains to "firearms" (as it has been interpreted to date). So, a mere 51% majority in House and Senate and President's signature can easily outlaw these items.

I disagree. The Heller Court applied the 2A to "arms," not just "firearms."

Originally Posted by SCOTUS

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added).

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Heller v. D.C. (citation omitted)

[SHE3PDOG]

Great info Spats, I had no idea that "arms" had been translated in such a way by the court. I had always assumed it meant more than just firearms because at the time it was not uncommon for people to have swords or other melee combat weapons, but it is nice to know that it has been officially deemed as such by the SCOTUS.

[Skans]

I stand corrected. Let's hope that opinion doesn't get changed by a subsequent supreme court.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by SCOTUS

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Equally important to this discussion is the underlined part. SCOTUS says that the 2A wasn't frozen at the point of ratification, any more than the 1A was. The next time someone says "the 2A meant muskets," tell 'em that SCOTUS called that argument "bordering on frivolous."

[SHE3PDOG]

Equally important to this discussion is the underlined part. SCOTUS says that the 2A wasn't frozen at the point of ratification, any more than the 1A was. The next time someone says "the 2A meant muskets," tell 'em that SCOTUS called that argument "bordering on frivolous."

Will do. I had made this argument before about social networking and mass media, but now that I know that the SCOTUS is on my side, I will undoubtedly bring it up in my next discussion with...well, pretty much every civilian in SoCal.