The Next Gun Debate? Armed Drones Could Be Protected By the Second Amendment

[The Straight Story]

....

But soon, the technology to arm your own personal drone might become a reality.

Most commercially-available drones, for the time being, aren't strong enough to carry a firearm, and experts say the recoil from firing most types of guns would likely down a small drone. But as technology improves and guns with little- or no-recoil become more commonplace, armed drones could become an issue.

In Texas, for instance, the Montgomery County Sheriff's Department floated the idea of arming drones with a no-recoil shotgun that shoots rubber bullets and tear gas dispensers. In other YouTube videos, hobbyists claim to have created homemade armed drones.

...

One video shows a remote controlled helicopter outfitted with a .45 caliber handgun. Another video shows a six-rotored helicopter that has been modified to shoot paintballs. The man who created that craft wore a bandana covering his face and voice modifying technology, because attaching weapons to aircraft is expressly forbidden by the Federal Aviation Administration.

...

It's a question that Peter W. Singer, director of Brookings' 21st Century Defense Initiative, wrote in 2010 was an "all too real question" surrounding the age of drones.

"Does the Second Amendment cover my right to bear (robotic) arms? It sounds like a joke, but where does the line stop, and why?" Singer wrote.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/21/the-next-gun-debate-armed-drones-could-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment

[Bay Boy]

1. Sounds like it's already covered

by the FAA. No one has challenged that previously.

[phantom power]

2. "where does the line stop, and why?"

good question, and doesn't just apply to drones

[Niceguy1]

3. as per the poster above and in the article

It is already prohibited by law.

[NightWatcher]

4. Can't afford a drone, put a shotgun on a helium weather balloon

Sure, it's not very accurate, but now we can defend our own airspace.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

5. The author of the article goes way beyond what the Supreme Court held in the Heller case.

At no time, in response to the District of Columbia's effort to ban even an off-duty police officer from owning a handgun in his home for self-defense, did the Supreme Court reason that private individuals could own atomic bombs, rocket launchers, or even drones.

As the Court explained,

"The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."
...
It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential
self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

When the author of the article indicates that armed drones could be protected by the Second Amendment, he is blowing smoke.

[Electric Monk]

6. Illegal? I sure as hell hope so. That being said, a prototype already exists.

[rrneck]

7. That kid in Texas will make one

on a 3D printer before long.

There's a pit bull line in there somewhere, but I gotta go to work..