"The Right to Bear (Robotic) Arms" ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2117724 ) DAN TERZIAN ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1639613 ), Peking University - School of Transnational Law Email: [email protected]
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 jurisprudence (District of Columbia v. Heller) and scholarship. Scrutinizing these roots shows that Heller did not intend to create such a requirement. And examining the Second Amendment’s roots shows that little constitutional basis for this alleged requirement 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 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.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
