Wednesday, April 9, 2014

The Second Amendment Right to Deploy Self Defense Robitics

Penn State Law Review Online Companion Penn State Law Review

Dan Terzian
Can robotic weapons be “Arms” under the Second Amendment?  This article argues that they can.  In particular, it challenges the claim that the Second Amendment protects only weapons that can be carried in one’s hands, which has roots in both Supreme Court Second Amendment doctrine, namely District of Columbia v. Heller, and scholarship.  Scrutinizing these roots shows thatHeller did not create such a requirement and that little, if any, constitutional basis for it exists.
This article also contextualizes robotic weapons within the established Second Amendment framework for arms.  Robotic weapons are not yet arms, but there is no legal impediment—nor should there be—to them becoming arms.
Finally, this article presents an alternative theory of Second Amendment protection for robotic weapons based on auxiliary rights, in light of the Seventh Circuit case United States v. Ezell.  This article posits that Second Amendment auxiliary rights include the right to employ a bodyguard, whether human or robot.