MILESFORTIS

“technology changes, rights don’t”

Where’s My EMP Rifle? Why Tomorrow’s Anti-Robot Weapons Are Already Protected by the 2nd 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.

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.

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.”

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.

Then in Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Court took the next step and hammered it home:

“The Court has held that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.’” (Justia Law)

That’s not vague. That’s not soft. That’s a straight-up rule:

• If it’s a bearable arm—a carried weapon for offense or defense—
• It’s presumptively protected by the Second Amendment.

Stun guns weren’t around in 1791. The Court said: Doesn’t matter. They’re arms.

So, if tomorrow there’s a shoulder-fired EMP rifle or some compact anti-robot beam weapon you sling like a carbine, it fits the same box:

• Bearable? Yes.
• Weapon? Yes.
• In existence in 1791? Irrelevant under Heller and Caetano.

On text alone, that future tech starts in the protected column.

Continue reading “”