Future Weapons Are Already Protected by Second Amendment

I've never hidden the fact that I'm a science fiction nerd. I love stories with laser rifles and space ships, where good guys shoot bad guys in the face with new and thrilling technology.

And while I'm anything but an early adopter of new tech, it's not because I'm a Luddite. I'm fascinated by new developments in pretty much any industry, even if I'm not interested in using it for the time being, if ever.

That obviously includes weapons.

The guns we use aren't that different than what was available to people a century ago. In the 19th and 20th centuries, we made a number of significant jumps in firearm technology after centuries of slow and steady progress. Since then, there have been developments, but nothing earth-shattering.

Some day, though, there will be. With drones dominating the battlefields of today, especially based on what we've seen happening in Ukraine, it's clear that new weapons are going to be needed to meet the robot threats that will exist.

And as Tred Law notes over at Ammoland, those guns are already protected by the Second Amendment.

If Elon Musk gets his way, Tesla’s Optimus robots and full-self-driving cars aren’t just sci-fi—they’re the next multi-trillion-dollar industry.

Musk is openly talking about humanoid robots doing factory work, replacing human labor, and rolling out in the thousands in the next few years. (The Times of India)

Put that together with weaponized drones, autonomous systems, and AI everywhere, and you can see where this goes: at some point, the threat to you and your family may not be a human attacker at all, but a machine—whether it’s criminal misuse of robots, hostile code, or a rogue state’s toys.

So here’s the obvious question almost nobody in the gun-control world wants to touch:

If the Supreme Court says the Second Amendment covers “all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” why wouldn’t a future EMP rifle or anti-robot weapon be protected? (Justia Law)

If the right to keep and bear arms is tech-neutral, then the logic of Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen doesn’t stop with muskets, Glocks, and AR-15s. It runs straight into the age of Tesla robots and directed-energy weapons.

Lets makes that case—and swat down the usual anti-gun talking points on the way.

The Supreme Court Already Answered The “But It Didn’t Exist In 1791!” Argument

The anti-gun side’s favorite dodge is simple: “If it didn’t exist when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment, it’s not protected.”

The Supreme Court has already burned that argument to the ground—twice.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court went back to founding-era dictionaries to define “arms” and found they meant “weapons of offence, or armour of defence” and “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” (Teaching American History)

That definition isn’t about flintlocks or bayonets. It’s about function: offensive or defensive weapons you can carry.

There's a lot more there, and it's worth reading, because he does swat down the typical talking points pretty well.

It also gets into one of my pet peeves when talking about future weapons technology, and that's the whole "in common use" thing. He gets into it by talking about an EMP rifle, which would be an ideal anti-robot gun, to be sure. It would also be handy to deal with loud car stereos at two in the morning, but I digress.

Here's what Law says about that one:

Now imagine a world where:

• Autonomous drones and robots are everywhere.
• Tesla-style humanoids work in everyday settings (The Times of India)
• Millions of homeowners buy off-the-shelf anti-drone/anti-robot defensive devices.

At that point, a carried EMP rifle or similar device is by definition:

• Common;
• Owned for lawful self-defense;
• A normal part of the defensive toolset.

Once it’s common, it can’t be dismissed as “unusual” any more than AR-15s could, which is exactly why anti-gun courts twist the “common use” standard instead of applying it honestly. (Harvard Law Journals)

This is completely true, but therein lies the problem. It hinges on regulations following millions buying a product first.

By that logic, if Congress were to ban these hypothetical EMP guns or laser blasters or whatever new technology comes around that doesn't meet the current definition of a firearm before they become popular on the civilian market, then they're not in common use. If they can be tied up as "dangerous and unusual," then future courts would likely uphold those bans, especially since the guns aren't in common use at that moment.

But the Second Amendment never says anything about how common something must be. 

For example, the Second Amendment also covers swords as arms. They were in common use at the time of the nation's founding, though they were on their way out even then; but today, there are relatively few households that have a sword in the closet. Mine's one of them, but since I teach Historical European Martial Arts, there's a reason I'm an outlier here. I'll bet most of you don't, especially if you weren't a Marine Corps officer.

Does that mean Congress can ban them now? I'd argue that they can't, because "shall not be infringed" is still a thing.

That should hold true for future weapons technology that either doesn't exist at the moment or doesn't exist in a format applicable to civilian ownership as well. 

Don't get me wrong. I agree with the author on every point he makes. I'm just partial to beating on this particular "in common use" drum at every opportunity.

Obviously, the same is true with the "it didn't exist in 1791" nonsense, but Law beat that one already well enough.

And let's also be real here, while talking about robot uprisings or whatever is fun for nerds like me, it's also reaching the point where robots will be used offensively in so many ways that even if there's never an uprising, someone will use them against law-abiding Americans. We've already seen some drones and robots used in drug trafficking, among other things. It's really only a matter of time before someone tries to weaponize them and use them for something against law-abiding citizens.

Plus, well, do we really want to trust the government would never use those against the American people? Ever?

Having the means to defend ourselves against any and all threats is what the Second Amendment is about. That includes future weapons, whether anti-gunners like it or not.

Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights, including trying to keep us from owning weapons that will keep future threats at bay.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.