Automated weapon legality?

[Strykervet]

PLEASE READ ALL BEFORE RESPONDING, THANKS.

I have what I hope will be a good thread. If you think it is out there or crazy, maybe it is, it just occured to me on the toilet, so it isn't a "serious" idea by any means!

We all know the 2A is over a couple hundred years old and technology has changed... A little. So, with cheap components and parts, what is the legality of an automated weapon?

I'll start by saying I know "a little" about security systems. I know in the US, LETHAL reactive alarms are illegal, but not directly (what they do is illegal I believe, not the actual alarm --I don't know much about it because I've never seen one in the US outside of the military, and that was basically a PEWS system connected to claymore mines). Pepper spray and such is okay, and I would suspect taser would be too as long as your intruder doesn't get a boo-boo. Reactive means the alarm "does something" to the intruder. Boobytraps are illegal, even in your own home, but again I can't state the law. In South Africa, they are or were perfectly legal, and having automated lethal boobytraps is or was too. If anyone knows the law about this in the US, I'd be grateful (purley out of interest mind you, I have no desire to kill myself on accident --and while I haven't had an AD in over 25 years, I have had a few false alarms. All due to my own mistake.

Now there is also the question about automated weapon systems that are controlled by a human. Now consider this. Some bench rest folks are REALLY into it, I mean they have 300lb tripods that look like TOW missle tripods (which I bet would work fantastic for what they are doing!) and the rifle sets in a cradle. I've seen them with cameras connected and even a remote switch to eliminate the trigger pull variable, the kind you used to see on professional cameras. Some use a cable, some use air. Because you can only get one trigger pull per push, it is legal, a bijection if you will. I've also seen something similar for a war vet that wanted to go hunting again.

Now take this and replace the manual switch with a remote switch. An electric one, and assuming both wireless and hardwired remotes. Because it is electric now, a servo is to be introduced, and the trigger could technically be wired as an illegal machinegun (again, no desire to manufacture one of those, so I don't need legal advice, this thread is purely hypothetical and informational). The servo could actuate the trigger one time per hour or ten thousand times per mintue (which would be faster than the weapon could work) and still be illegal as I understand it (although the ATF has surprised me before with their letters, paricularly the Masterkey decision --still just an AOW even mounted under a rifle, not an SBS!?). So would a hardwired switch that could ONLY fire semi be legal? Considering it is so easy to rewire it? I mean, it would be easy to drill a couple of holes and swap fire control components in an AK too, but obviously folks can restrain themselves. So with all that in mind, what about it?

Finally, what about "smart" systems? Actually rigging a firearm to a robot that detects targets and fires using Lidar or something similar. I know it is out there and expensive, and for me anyway, useless. This could also be called a boobytrap, since it wouldn't necessarily distinguish between friend or foe (unless that was part of it, but I have to draw the line somewhere). I'd like to assume this rig could be "Bubba'd", perhaps a smart Bubba, but I'm not talking Raytheon quality here. Would one need to be physically present, or could the weapon be fired remotely? I think there was a website, or still is, that you could pay to "control" a weapon with your computer, even kill game. So obviously some Bubba has put this in operation, but I don't know what became of it. I saw it on the news years ago.

I've read in novels about terrorists making up stuff like this, and in the movie "The Jackal" with Bruce Willis, he got an M2 setup with a camera and remote firing switch. In the movie, it was damn cool, and if I owned an M2 for real, this would be how I would want it, but not being a millionaire is standing in the way... And I'd have to upgrade the entire reloading bench for that brass, so just forget about it!

Basically, I just want to know where, and even if, a line is drawn regarding automated, remote, and electrically fired weapons.

 

[shootistpd27]

It would be legally defined as murder.

I'm not being contemptuous. You have a good imagination, and maybe you should pursue a career in research and development with "the company" however the use of a remote operated weapon as a means of self defense would never fit the legal definition of self defense. When it comes to self defense it does not matter what weapon the perpetrator has, whether it was a cellphone, a screw driver, a gun, or a cue-tip he was borrowing with every intention of returning it. I say this because the variable that determines self defense or not is: What was the shooter thinking at the time he/she pulled the trigger? Did the shooter fear, that if he/she did not shoot, that he/she would be seriously injured and or killed?" I explain this so that you will understand that if the shooter has a remote to operate the gun from reasonable or extended distance, then the weapon itself, not the remote wielder, would be in danger. I hope this answers you question. The only way that a weapon such as your awesome and thought provoking design would be able to be used for self defense, with which the operator would not be convicted of murder would be if the victim was in danger, and somehow turned the weapon on the perpetrator, shooting him, but I would not want a bullet coming from anywhere but my hand.

 

[Strykervet]

Thanks for the answer, but whoa! Stop right there. I guess I should have included that for this hypothetical the weapons are just range weapons. No intention on being used for defense. The legal ramifications for that are obvious and dire. You nailed that on the head. I've already mentioned some ramifications too, as they can be considered booby traps in certain situations, ie, connected to an alarm system. Bad juju.

My imagination is extensive I've been told, thank you, and after the military I did study math and physics, among other things. I'd like to do R&D, but due to my disability I can't really hold down a job anymore. I'd just miss too many days to be useful in that capacity anymore --I tried to do security systems again a few years ago and it blew up in my face, ended up in the hospital and in bed for two weeks with my back. I'd like to start my own company toying around with ideas like this and a light gas gun, I could make my own hours, but I can't afford the machinery or the licenses/fees/insurance.

This thread's intentions are to illustrate the rapid change in technology against the backdrop of older laws that evolve much slower, and to get a discussion going, and information on, various automated systems and their legality. Basically we have a late 19th-early 20th century government and laws, and 21st century technology. They don't always see eye to eye; the cell phone being totally ignored as having Constitutional protection as "personal papers" is a great example.

As far as I know, there is no law forbidding the use of an automated weapons system at the range. Like I said, the benchrest crowd does it already, but using mechanical actuators. I've never seen an electric one, so it either must fall under the illegal machingun stuff, or it just isn't popular. I would imagine to see things like this popup with these guys first, as they have a legitimate use for it.

 

[Strykervet]

It would also be good to mention that I personally have used similar weapons to what Bruce Willis had in the movie, but the one on the Stryker is even more advanced with the thermal camera and all. But here is where it gets interesting. Is the Stryker's weapon system illegal to own for a civilian? The turret and cameras and such, they are just the mount. The electric servo that is connected to a joystick much like in an aircraft, it only fires "semi". It is either on or off, it doesn't oscillate. When you hold down the trigger, it "fires" one time --what makes it fire automatic is the actual weapon. If you were to put a semi auto M2 in the cradle, the Stryker's weapon system would be stuck on semi since the weapon is stuck on semi. You could hold the trigger on the joystick down, but it would have the same effect as a person holding the trigger down on the semi auto M2.

See what I mean? Here is an example of what is essentially an automated bench rest that is fired semi automatic electronically. Provided one didn't modify or change the servo, you are left with a semi auto weapon, just like one would have if they didn't modify their semi auto weapons into illegal machineguns.

So wouldn't it ultimately come down to this? That as long as it can't be made to fire full auto in a test at the range by ATF agents (it wouldn't unless they modified it to do so) and as long as there are no laws against an automated weapons system or electronically fired or remote fired systems, then wouldn't it be okay?

Perhaps there is no line drawn. Perhaps there are no laws or very few laws due to the fact this only exists in the military and in writer's minds? There have been no incidents involving this to make the news I can recall save the one website where you could pay to fire a weapon online --and I don't know what came of that, although it would be interesting to research. There also just isn't a market for it either, so there is a lack of them commericially available.

 

[shootistpd27]

Since there is not a lucrative market for your idea as of yet, these hypothetical, or military grade weapons have not been mass produced as to produce a "holy fudgepacker lefties!, we gotta outlaw these things" panic. And even when they come out, until they are affordable, or a truckload gets stolen from the military and used to riddle a school with bullets, this idea will remain unrestrained specifically however these weapons will suffer the same antiquated laws of yester-century. But that is also a plus and I already smell a loop hole that would be fun for you to come up with, develop and exploit. Here goes. You describe the weapon as semi auto right? And we both know that if it is fully auto you have to go through all the red tape to buy, shoot, and own it. I am a cop and I am unaware of any law against a weapon system that is remote operated, or semi-auto for any reason be it at home or the range. We covered the self defense issue but as for plinking, you should be more than ok. You should get a whole bunch of curious onlookers at the range begging to buy boxes of ammo just to be able to take the remote home, and shoot the gun from their living room. I know in Mississippi there are no laws against a weapon of this type.

Here is the "but" I was talking about. A weapon that is semi-automatic is fairly simple and carefree to own as far as beauracratic paperwork and hoops are concerned. Regardless of how fast you pull a trigger on a weapon, as long as you get one fire for each trigger pull it is semi-auto right? Computers can perform the same simple, or complex task thousands of times a minute, you know, like pulling a trigger? But if you programmed a computer, to run a device that is hooked to the trigger of your semi-automatic weapon that can pull, release and repull the trigger with lightning fast speed and that is remote as well, then you could get fully automatic rates of fire, with a semi-automatic weapon. I can't say that after you come up with it, someone can't make a law against it, but right now there are no laws against it. Remote, fully automatic, (but still semi), legal and carefree to buy, and own. That would be awesome.

Oh yeah, man whatever your disability, find a way to reach your dreams with crutches, wheelchair, or whatever you need. You sound way to bright to let something like a disability stop you. I know thay can slow you down, but they cant stop you. If you got hurt on your time, Im sorry to hear that, if you got hurt serving our country, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart and you deserve every opportunity to pursue your dreams. God bless.

 

[OARNGESI]

Get a shotgun and a dog what one cant do the other will

 

[rcmodel]

Been done.

http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/...ting/alternative-methods/internet-hunting.htm

rc

 

[gatesbox]

Here is an interesting case I remember a few years back.... Online automated remote hunting..... But it quickly drew flack from all ends....

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/184635/big_game_hunting_by_remote_control.html?cat=15

 

[HankB]

A while back there was a controversial "hunting" opportunity offered - a guy hooked up a firearm to a camera, mechanical actuators, and the Internet, and offered "hunting" experiences for people all over the country; if you had an Internet connection, you could hook up to his website, pay a fee, and control his autogun to shoot some game. (Notice I put "hunting" in quotes; this isn't hunting to me.)

I would think that even someone with a serious disability who needed computer/mechanical assistance to control a firearm would want to be out in the field, rather than at home watching a video display . . .

As for defense use . . . Texas outlaws a "mechanism" that could kill someone automatically, so rigging a gun as a booby trap is illegal. But here's where it gets interesting - Texas law does allow the use of lethal force for certain crimes committed at night; IANAL, but my layman's reading of the law suggests that using an autogun under manual control to shoot, say, a burglar at night would not be illegal.

Edited to add: OK, I see someone else was just a little quicker on the trigger to make note of the remote "hunting" experience . . .

 

[Sam Cade]

But if you programmed a computer, to run a device that is hooked to the trigger of your semi-automatic weapon that can pull, release and repull the trigger with lightning fast speed and that is remote as well, then you could get fully automatic rates of fire, with a semi-automatic weapon.

A single action that discharges more than one round=Machine gun.




For example, miniguns are electrically driven and the "trigger" is just a switch. ATF says that is a machine gun.

Hook a motor up to your legal.45-70 gatling repro and you have made a machine gun.

 

[brickeyee]

Hook a motor up to your legal.45-70 gatling repro and you have made a machine gun.

the motor switch becomes the trigger and you have a machine gun.

Use of lethal force in defense of property is NOT legal in most states, and in the few it is legal it comes with a lot of restrictions (at night, property not likely to be recovered, etc.).

 

[Shadow 7D]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QcfZGDvHU8
it's for paintball, but... it's everything expect the regulated parts...

 

[henschman]

As for the "sentry gun" scenario... lots of states have laws against "death traps." Even if there was one that didn't have such a law, their courts would follow court precedents which hold that if the trap harms someone when there is no legal justification for doing so (such as self-defense, or in some states, defense of property), the person who set it is criminally and civilly liable for it. In fact, that applies to any trap, not just a death trap. If the trap was less-than-lethal, and was not otherwise outlawed by state law (and I can't know all state's laws on this), it MIGHT be OK if it was to protect property. Pretty much every state recognizes the common law principle that reasonable non-lethal force is justified in defense of property (as long as the force is used immediately, or when you are in "fresh pursuit"). The problem with a booby trap is that nobody is there to monitor the situation and determine what kind of force is reasonable for the situation... it just responds automatically with a pre-set level of force, which may or may not be reasonable under the circumstances. If the trap is triggered and its amount of force is determined by a court to be unreasonable under the circumstances, you could end up at least paying money, and also possibly facing assault/criminal endangerment charges.

As for the remote controlled gun, there are no laws anywhere I know of that would make this per se illegal. Absent such a law, it would be legal to use it on a person under the same circumstances under which it would be legal to use deadly force on another person... in most states, the self-defense justification requires a threat of death or serious bodily injury to you or possibly to someone else, and in states like Texas it is OK in defense of your property under certain circumstances.

If an armed intruder is in your house and you are holed up in your room and he is trying to kick the door in, it would be justified just about anywhere to use an RC gun in the other room to kill him.

As for the legality of RC triggers, as you say, competition shooters use them. So far the ATF hasn't issued any kind of regulation that would prohibit it. I suppose they would be easy enough to make go "full auto," and I would think that the ATF could apply the same "constructive possession" rationale that they charge people under who have the parts to assemble a full auto, even if they haven't assembled it, if it isn't licensed. For instance if you were in possession of software or hardware that would facilitate "full auto" firing on a remote trigger, even if it wasn't installed on the trigger, they might try to pin "constructive possession" on you.

Definitely some interesting hypotheticals.

 

[DCR]

On the range: interesting idea.

Anywhere else: bad idea.

Two words: booby trap.

There's long-standing negative case law on them.

 

[Strykervet]

A while back there was a controversial "hunting" opportunity offered - a guy hooked up a firearm to a camera, mechanical actuators, and the Internet, and offered "hunting" experiences for people all over the country; if you had an Internet connection, you could hook up to his website, pay a fee, and control his autogun to shoot some game. (Notice I put "hunting" in quotes; this isn't hunting to me.)

I would think that even someone with a serious disability who needed computer/mechanical assistance to control a firearm would want to be out in the field, rather than at home watching a video display . . .

As for defense use . . . Texas outlaws a "mechanism" that could kill someone automatically, so rigging a gun as a booby trap is illegal. But here's where it gets interesting - Texas law does allow the use of lethal force for certain crimes committed at night; IANAL, but my layman's reading of the law suggests that using an autogun under manual control to shoot, say, a burglar at night would not be illegal.

Edited to add: OK, I see someone else was just a little quicker on the trigger to make note of the remote "hunting" experience . . .

Exactly. That lays out what I know --that the automated weapon with lethal capabilities, say connected to an alarm or tripwire, is considered a boobytrap and those are illegal in most places that I am aware of. I agree, I don't think "internet hunting" is hunting at all. It seems like what people who aspire to be serial killers want to do but haven't "gone all the way" yet.

 

[Strykervet]

A single action that discharges more than one round=Machine gun.




For example, miniguns are electrically driven and the "trigger" is just a switch. ATF says that is a machine gun.

Hook a motor up to your legal.45-70 gatling repro and you have made a machine gun.

Yeah, I understand that, but the action of the weapon is what is regulated, not the electronic control. The minigun is electric and you do hold the switch down, but here it is the mechanical components that make the minigun a full auto.

Pay attention carefully. The Stryker system and minigun are two different animals (although the minigun WILL fit in the Stryker cradle and the servo will work too, they make one for it). The Stryker gun mount can't fire full or semi auto, it can't fire at all because it isn't a weapon. Whether or not you can fire full auto or semi auto is dependent upon the actual weapon.

BUT. You can, if you like prison, modify the servo to oscillate the current thus making it fire full auto.

Can and do are two different things, and like I said before, you CAN modify an AK or M4 to full auto, but how many people DO it? Probably not many. So the dilemma lies here: because it is sort of a gray area, and because the actual weapon itself is not modified, is having an electrically controlled weapon okay?

Again, keep in mind the ATF says a short barrel AOW mounted under an M4 is still an AOW, not an SBS like most of us would think. Because the AOW was NOT modified to accept anything, and was added to something else with a stock instead, it retains its AOW status. But I'd still get my own letter if I were to do it.

 

[Zoogster]

Sure you can make them.

Legal potential options would include for example installing a remotely operated one outside of a safe room in a home. It could be used to prevent someone from breaking into the room, starting a fire, or otherwise posing a risk to the inhabitants.
In some states the act of breaking into an occupied home itself meets the legal requirements for lethal force in self-defense. In others there is a duty to retreat (which may still be met if someone retreated to a safe room the bad guy was trying to gain entry to.) Each state law is slightly different and in some states use of such a device would pose more challenges than others.



There is certainly some advantages to remote operation of say a ceiling mounted turret. Not putting the defender in danger of weapons possessed by the bad guy while engaging in a gun fight for example.


One of the biggest hurdles is the ATF can declare individual devices illegal machineguns at their discretion. The reason is that they can use their discretion to consider anything 'readily converted' to be a machinegun.
It is not a matter of really being 'readily converted' because there is some guns that are entirely legal on the market and take very minimal alteration to become full auto. There is examples of guns set up for full auto with as little as a shoe string or a paper clip.
Instead it is more of if the ATF says it is 'readily converted', some guns harder to convert are illegal, while some easy to convert are legal, it is entirely up to them.
Since your electronic trigger operation could be programmed to pull the trigger more than once, does that make it 'readily converted' ?
If it is deemed 'readily converted' then legally it is the same as if it was converted to full auto fire, even though it is only semi-auto, and has always only been semi-auto. They have the discretion to declare whether your semi-auto has been you in illegal possession of an unregistered semi-auto machinegun (interesting how an oxymoron can be legal), or whether it was just a semi-auto the whole time.
Yes you can be in illegal possession of a semi-auto only illegal unregistered machinegun.
The ATF has banned manufacture and sales of open bolt semi-auto firearms since 1982, outlawing one of the easiest semi-auto actions you can make.

Now if it is a commercial production you can hide behind the manufacturer, and have several other customers on your side, it was approved, legally sold, and you are just the innocent consumer. They may come take the firearm you paid for back if they are all declared illegal, but you are unlikely to face any legal troubles yourself. The Akins accelerator being such an example of a gun declared an illegal machinegun after being approved and sold.
But if it is your own unique creation, you have no manufacturer to hide behind. You get to face the discretionary decision head on for your unique manufacture of what they have decided was an illegal machinegun by being a 'readily converted' semi-auto.

 

[Strykervet]

I'll pose this differently. Does anyone know of a case where an electronic switch was what made a weapon an illegal machinegun (where the weapon itself was not modified in any way)?

I'm assuming you are all on the same page as me. An unmodified semi auto weapon, an electric switch, and a non-oscillating servo. One push, one shot. The Strkyer was just the best example I could give... It will fire semi or full auto, is electronically conrolled and remote, but it totally depends on whether or not the actual gun is semi or full auto.

As far as I know, the mount is legal and I know for a fact a semi auto unmodified weapon is legal. So the question is does putting the electronically controlled apparatus on a semi auto weapon create an illegal machinegun via "modification" or whatever term applies? Rather, does the addition of the electronic apparatus, due to the ease of modifying the electrical components to make the weapon fire more than one shot with each button push, make it illegal?

 

[Strykervet]

Sure you can make them.

Legal potential options would include for example installing a remotely operated one outside of a safe room in a home. It could be used to prevent someone from breaking into the room, starting a fire, or otherwise posing a risk to the inhabitants.
In some states the act of breaking into an occupied home itself meets the legal requirements for lethal force in self-defense. In others there is a duty to retreat (which may still be met if someone retreated to a safe room the bad guy was trying to gain entry to.) Each state law is slightly different and in some states use of such a device would pose more challenges than others.



There is certainly some advantages to remote operation of say a ceiling mounted turret. Not putting the defender in danger of weapons possessed by the bad guy while engaging in a gun fight for example.


One of the biggest hurdles is the ATF can declare individual devices illegal machineguns at their discretion. The reason is that they can use their discretion to consider anything 'readily converted' to be a machinegun.
It is not a matter of really being 'readily converted' because there is some guns that are entirely legal on the market and take very minimal alteration to become full auto. There is examples of guns set up for full auto with as little as a shoe string or a paper clip.
Instead it is more of if the ATF says it is 'readily converted', some guns harder to convert are illegal, while some easy to convert are legal, it is entirely up to them.
Since your electronic trigger operation could be programmed to pull the trigger more than once, does that make it 'readily converted' ?
If it is deemed 'readily converted' then legally it is the same as if it was converted to full auto fire, even though it is only semi-auto, and has always only been semi-auto. They have the discretion to declare whether your semi-auto has been you in illegal possession of an unregistered semi-auto machinegun (interesting how an oxymoron can be legal), or whether it was just a semi-auto the whole time.
Yes you can be in illegal possession of a semi-auto only illegal unregistered machinegun.
The ATF has banned manufacture and sales of open bolt semi-auto firearms since 1982, outlawing one of the easiest semi-auto actions you can make.

Now if it is a commercial production you can hide behind the manufacturer, and have several other customers on your side, it was approved, legally sold, and you are just the innocent consumer. They may come take the firearm you paid for back if they are all declared illegal, but you are unlikely to face any legal troubles yourself. The Akins accelerator being such an example of a gun declared an illegal machinegun after being approved and sold.
But if it is your own unique creation, you have no manufacturer to hide behind. You get to face the discretionary decision head on for your unique manufacture of what they have decided was an illegal machinegun by being a 'readily converted' semi-auto.

This response is sort of where I was looking to go with this thread... And you pose another interesting question... What if the weapon inside a home was to be used for lethal force and was controlled from a safe room? Is this a boobytrap or is there another term for it (the "booby" in this case is missing, and the weapon is under control of another person, so...)

"One of the biggest hurdles is the ATF can declare individual devices illegal machineguns at their discretion. The reason is that they can use their discretion to consider anything 'readily converted' to be a machinegun."

Exactly. This is where I wanted to go. They've declared some semi auto weapons as machinguns, for instance the open bolt MAC10's of the early '80's, and some parts and accessories that are not even firearms, such as those bump triggers.

See, the servo can be easily converted, but to me it seems no more difficult or less difficult to modify a weapon to fire automatically.

I'm beginning to think there is no "line" drawn. They aren't on the market, there hasn't been trouble with them, and so if they aren't on the radar and existing law doesn't apply and the ATF hasn't issued any "royal decrees" regarding it, then I guess it is okay.

Keep it going though, if you have anything to add or know of a case or some such, enlighten me.

 

[brickeyee]

Some of us simply do not like the federal government creating powers contrary to the granted powers in the constitution, even if it might be to our benefit.

 

[BADUNAME37]

So the question is does putting the electronically controlled apparatus on a semi auto weapon create an illegal machinegun via "modification" or whatever term applies? Rather, does the addition of the electronic apparatus, due to the ease of modifying the electrical components to make the weapon fire more than one shot with each button push, make it illegal?

I would say that the authorities can create any law they like and they can also claim this would fall under any number of prohibited items regarding firearms and the way those firearms operate.

 

[Zoogster]

What if the weapon inside a home was to be used for lethal force and was controlled from a safe room? Is this a boobytrap or is there another term for it

It is certainly not a booby trap, as it is not automated at that point, but remotely operated. If the shooter is connected via an actual wire ran through the walls they are arguably not remotely operating it either. An actual line ran would probably be the best option anyways, as it cannot be hacked or receive interference.


The automated sentries would be booby traps (and machineguns as well if they fire more than once without any user input), but something manually operate would not be. However there is still other legal considerations outside of it being a booby trap.

 

[brickeyee]

What if the weapon inside a home was to be used for lethal force and was controlled from a safe room?

Why are you in danger then?

You are in your "safe room"?

Even castle laws are not likely to protect you.
They crate a presumption of danger by the intruder being in you house.

Shooting using a remote control from a safe room is not likely to be easily defended.