What changes has the government and legislature made in regards to the advancement of guns? Basically what I’m asking is… our constutution in the US gives us rights to bear arms… but the guns have certainly advanced since then… have the laws been changed to keep automatic weapons out of peoples hands?
Also, I heard that it is legal to put a hidden camera on someones property due to an outdated law… is this true?
These are just a sample of sites to get you started.
Clarification. The Constitution does not give us rights. The rights are inherent. The Constitution clarifies the restrictions placed upon the government with respect to our rights.
I seriously doubt this. Sounds like an urban legend. After all, you have no right to place a hidden camera on my property without my permission, subject to any possible government surrveilence warrant, if even that.
As stated by Duckster, the 2nd Amendment does not “give” us the right to bear arms. It doesn’t have the authority. The 2nd Amendment says the government will not take this right away, which implies it originated elsewhere.
Theoretically, “advancements in guns” shouldn’t matter.
There are people who believe the Framers “never anticipated” advancements in firearms such as self contained cartridges, belt-fed weapons, self-loading mechanisms, and fully automatic fire. They believe our right to keep and bear arms should apply only to firearms available in 1791, such as muzzleloaders and flintlocks. This, of course, is absurd. Based on this line of reasoning, we should only allow “freedom of the press” if a manual printing press is used.
Fully automatic weapons are legal to own, as long as you jump through the hoops ($200, sheriff’s sign off, etc.) I know quite a few people who own them.
Still, it should be noted that some classes of “weapons of war” are prohibited for normal (and I presume abnormal) people to own.
Antitank weapons, flamethrowers, mortar shells, poison gas (say that would work great for deer hunting wouldn’t it?) and other such things are forbidden. Still to a non-American the availability of strange military artifacts is remarkable.
Once their military bits are sawn off, helicopter gunships, artillery pieces and tanks are all more or less unregulated.
Hoo boy, where to start. Well, flamethrowers are ironically not categorized as “firearms” by the feds and are can be owned by Mr. Average Joe.
Firearms larger than .50 caliber (apart from sporting shotguns), grenades and explosive shells are classified as destructive devices. In theory you can get a tax stamp for one just as with a machine gun or sound suppressor but the reality is virtually no one gets approval for new ones. Still there are lots of functional artillery pieces in private hands, all perfectly legal. Check out the SAR show in Phoenix if you wanna see some cool stuff.
Powered gatling guns are classified as machine guns. There are a few in private hands but in 1986 a moratorum was placed on any new machine guns being placed in the registry. Hand cranked gatling guns are not legally classified as machine guns and there is a small cottage industry that makes new ones.
Tanks, helicopters, etc. can be privately owned if they are demilitarized, the BATF’s term for permanently disabling all the weapons. Sawing is not accaptable to demilitarize a weapon and usually cutting recievers or breeches with an acetelene torch in a specified way is required.
I will add that semi automatics have been around since the end of the 1800’s!
I add that because there seems to be an idea that these weapons are some recent evil influence, causing mass death and murder, that require a rethinking of “old laws.”
It was on cable TV, The Learning Channel, History, or Discovery, that I was watching something about a hidden camera a neighbor installed unknowingly in another’s house. It seems that at the time it would have been illegal to tape record without permission but it was not illegal to video tape - sorry for the weak cite.
As earlier mentioned, yes, the laws have kept pace. Full-autos are legal but it takes a heckuva lot more hassle and cash to get the necessary paperwork; likewise the “destructive devices” (20mm guns, grenades, etc.) and the demilitarized war machines. There is no such thing as a totally unrestricted right.
Then, please, **don’t forget there are state laws and local ordinances ** that may also apply. For instance, in some jurisdiction private ownership of “a device to propel an ignited flammable liquid under pressure” may be restricted to cases where you have a justifiable business reason for using such a tool, and have paid for a license for it; or it may be unlawful to keep an operable artillery piece not under governmental control within the city limits.
Can’t really help as to your second question – except to warn that if you are in the USA it may be even more so the state laws and local ordinances that rule and my hometown and yours may be under different statutes. Private individuals will seek to grab a hold of any technicality to defend their actions, but just to take one example, the mere act of entering someone else’s property to install equipment w/o their authorization would be illegal in many states.