Footnotes (261)



The Right to Bear (Robotic) Arms

Dan Terzian

Duane Morris LLP

July 26, 2012

117 Penn State Law Review 755 (2013)

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 (District of Columbia v. Heller) and scholarship. Scrutinizing these roots shows that Heller did not intend to 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. It posits that Second Amendment auxiliary rights include the right to employ a bodyguard, whether human or robot.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 42

Keywords: Second Amendment, Constitution, Robots, Firearms, Guns, Technology

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: July 27, 2012 ; Last revised: August 5, 2015

Suggested Citation

Terzian, Dan, The Right to Bear (Robotic) Arms (July 26, 2012). 117 Penn State Law Review 755 (2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2117724 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2117724

Contact Information

Dan Terzian (Contact Author)
Duane Morris LLP ( email )
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 2,170
Downloads: 255
Download Rank: 89,365
Footnotes:  261
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.172 seconds