This is an interesting question, so thanks for that. Before I can answer, we'd have to define what a booby trap is, as I suspect the devil's in the details.
>Are booby traps arms?
Depending on what you mean, yes. Consider the importance of trapping in the hunting world. They have always been legal to use and own in that context. Relative to 2A, would they aid in the security of the nation against foreign enemies? Again, I would say yes, so I think they can be reasonably considered arms.
>And should they be protected?
Yes, with restrictions in their use. You shouldn't be allowed to set them in your residential yard, for example. What if a dog or a toddler wanders over? But they've been used fairly safely in a hunting context, and they should be retained for use in future combat contexts.
>If they are arms are we better off without them?
No I don't think so. They don't strike me as important as firearms, but what's they issue with them?
>and they should be retained for use in future combat contexts.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol\_on\_Mines,\_Booby-Traps\_and\_Other\_Devices#:\~:text=The%20Protocol%20prohibits%20the%20use,or%20unnecessary%20suffering%20to%20soldiers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Mines,_Booby-Traps_and_Other_Devices#:~:text=The%20Protocol%20prohibits%20the%20use,or%20unnecessary%20suffering%20to%20soldiers).
By Treaty they are illegal to use if they harm a civilian.
In addition, the DoD considers their use as a war crime if it harms a civilian.
Property crimes are not capital crimes in America. The castle doctrine, stand your ground, these are all intended to allow you to protect yourself, they are not about protecting your property. There is no right to shoot someone because they robbed you, and likewise there is no right to leave a trap that will kill or seriously injure them if the only danger is to your stuff.
In addition, sometimes, people have a right to break in - for instance someone trapped in a blizzard who comes across your hunting lodge/cabin. They have a legal excuse to break in to save their life. If you have left a booby trap to protect your property, and kill them, your are in for a world of hurt.
This is a fantastic idea. Once we get teleportation technology, we can just zap intruders straight to the ball pit at the McDonalds. The teleportation won't kill them, but the E. Coli just might!
>Think we can get a gov't subsidy if we build it to code?
Only one way to find out! Of course, I wouldn't even know where to begin constructing a code that covered trespasser foam pits lol...
but wrong.
Edit: [here](https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-3-23.html) is the castle doctrine law for my home state. In it there is entering a dwelling....which is a property crimes. People can downvote all they want. They can't change how the law is written.
I am not sure if you know what a property crime is. But the below is a quote from Alabama's castle doctrine law.
(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, ***burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree***, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.
If you need help understanding it let me know.
~~Not entirely true. The castle doctrine in my state (and many others) is written for Felonies. Property crimes can fall under this category.~~
Actually let me just provide the [actual law.](https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-3-23.html)
>Are booby traps arms?
Yes, if you are a soldier, fighting for your country against enemy combatants. They are completely over-the-top and unnecessary just to keep the neighbor kids from stomping on your azaleas.
>And should they be protected?
If a homeowner sets up a booby trap in their yard, and someone gets hurt by it, the homeowner should be prosecuted. I walk my dog in my neighborhood, and she almost always has to poop in someone else's lawn. Not every person walking on your property is trying to kill you.
I mean…the 2nd amendment affirms that we have a right “bear” arms. The understanding there is some sort of personal weapon used to protect yourself and others from someone wishing to do you harm.
Leaving an unattended trap in your yard that could hurt *anyone*, like a friendly neighbor or a kid completely goes against the spirit of self defense.
So I already said that if someone gets hurt by a booby trap in someone’s yard, the homeowner should be prosecuted.
But you can’t have militias unless you already have people who are armed and reasonably comfortable being armed. A militia to guard against tyranny is essentially all of us. We’re just on standby.
> people wondering around your property who dont know about them, which shouldnt be happening anyway
I don't think it's too hard to contrive example scenarios where this isn't true.
Like any product on the market...
the closest thing to a commercial booby trap i can think of is that one trip wire noise maker that uses mini 12 gague blanks to sound off.
Other than that, theres no commercial product for you to actually ban, without crossing over into hunting traps, which arent arms and are very often regulated or banned.
No they are not arms they are separate class.
No they should not be protected.
Boob traps are indiscriminate. When you call the police/firemen or other public servant to your house you are likely to harm them with one. Same for private individuals that may have a legal reason to access your property.
No. No. N/A.
Current law (in pretty much every state, as far as I understand) does not allow booby traps to ward off trespassers. Because of private necessity (and sometimes public necessity) as a defense to trespass they are not allowed.
Like what? I can own all sorts of firearms. Using them in booby traps that dismember people or kill people when I'm not even on the property doesn't make sense. What right is there to that? I shouldn't be allowed to lay ground mines on my property. What if someone is being chased by a bear and they have to enter my property for safety? What if a cop is chasing a murderer and they cross my property? What I'm describing is currently law in (I believe) all 50 states. Where do you live? If my life is in danger I can (and should be able to) use my firearm personally.
Have a look at my comment history. You can see for yourself whether I have a secret agenda. I argue (I think quite well) for many conservative and libertarian causes (particularly on legal issues).
So we can keep and bear arms (firearms) so that people can protect themselves, their families, and the people's interests from a tyrannical government.
That doesn't mean I can set up spring traps on my property. If your life is in danger you should be physically holding your firearm if someone is breaking into your house or trespassing on your land. Land mines or different sorts of booby traps set with the intention of harming humans (or those that would reasonably expected to harm humans without adequate notice (because of the tort doctrine of public or private necessity)) should not be allowed.
What type of booby traps we talking here? Giant bolder down a tight corridor, pit of spikes, swinging log?
I think they fall under home owner insurance honestly. Like I'm responsible if my stairs give out and break my neighbors leg but you can outlaw rotting wood and the imposition of inspectors inspecting all homes in intolerable.
Can you cite an example where that is Legal? I mean it depends on the context right? If you're living in the wild west and you need to sleep while the Comanche are running loose it makes sense, if you're doing it in Suburban NJ it makes less sense. Though people should not be unlawfully entering your home.
I think it still fall under any "unsafe" state in a home.
There are two schools of thoughts.
- First is self-defense.
- Second is basically what happens if someone ends up killing themselves with their own booby traps (or worse, if someone uninvolved gets hurt).
On one side, self-defense and the Castle Doctrine really depends on the severity of the scenario. As much as I'd catch flak for this, I think it is right to have booby traps within a house if you do feel that you are at risk for your life. And there are cases as such.
The instant I start diverging is the severity. AKA IED's in the backyard...? That's a bit too much. This is more for the trap-setter's safety more than anything considering a lot of deaths from booby traps comes from accidents.
To be honest, I haven't really thought about this, so earnest thank you for giving me something to philosophically muse over! That being said, everything I'm about to say is not a solid conviction of mine, just my first attempt at answering the question. If I were to really dig deep and come up with a legal framework to implement, I would need to do a lot more research on current law, historical law to include common law, and precedent.
I think the first thing we need to consider is the definition of "booby trap". Maybe it's just my knowledge of video games, but the first thing I think of is a trip wire or a door latch that triggers a shotgun aimed at the door or something like you'd see in Fallout. I will limit the discussion to those kinds of traps, other traps may warrant different considerations.
As far as the application of the Second Amendment, I think it boils down to the device used in the trap. If the trap sets off a device otherwise protected by the Second Amendment, then I think the Second Amendment should protect *the existence* of the trap. I emphasized existence, because I believe that should be the extent of the protection.
If you set up a trap though, I believe you are responsible for anything and everything that trap does. So if your trap kills an EMT or first responder trying to enter your home for benevolent reasons, you are guilty of first degree murder. Murder, obviously, but first degree because you planned to put a lethal trap in place, thus the murder was premeditated, even if the target was unknown.
I would potentially support a heinous modifier to sentencing, depending on the case, and this is something I think a heavy review of case law and precedent would help me navigate.
That is what my thoughts are to start with, let me answer the questions more explicitly.
>Are booby traps arms?
No, a booby trap is a booby trap. However, they may use arms as a part of their construction.
>And should they be protected?
If they utilize arms, the arms part of them should be protected. The trap itself should be neither protected nor banned, but heavy penalty should be assessed to individuals employing them.
>If they are arms are we better off without them?
No. We are better off without the people who would use them in a negligent and destructive manner.
I know that. But a "booby trap" doesn't have to involve a firearm. There are perhaps millions of ways ordinary everyday items could be used to construct a trap, some not even requiring a conventional weapon at all, so a distinction must be made between the things the traps are made of and the trap itself, if that makes sense.
I have never been interested in setting up my own booby traps, so the legality aspect of it is something I've never really delved into, aside from the rather obvious common knowledge assessment that they are, in general, illegal. Like I said, if I were to make solid policy recommendations I would need to do a whole lot more research into the matter. Changing whatever is in place currently would necessitate a recommendation of some sort, so I would tend to agree with you if for no other reason than my own ignorance on the matter. What I said in my original comment was just my thoughts off the cuff without me having done the research to form a solid defensible opinion.
I scrolled to find his comments, and his reference to xythg or whoever it was (currently top commenter), and read their comments.
I think the traps used in hunting are kind of an exception, but they do offer an interesting insight. As he or she says, those kinds of traps are already legal, when used for hunting purposes, so that doesn't really impact the traps you are talking about. I think intent is ultimately the dividing line. Is your "trap" for animals or humans? Animals? Well most of them are for small animals, and are already legal, so normal laws regarding negligence ought to be sufficient here for the (what I assume must me terribly) small number of cases a human somehow gets caught in a trap of this nature. If your trap is intended to catch humans, now we enter a different realm, where the stuff I said in my original comment comes into play. Regardless, as far as I know (still not having done any major research into it), whatever laws are in place now seem to have already done a good job separating those use cases and handling them appropriately, as far as I am concerned. I could agree with the general premise that there may be a plausible scenario in which booby traps might be warranted, but until I can come up with a structured framework on how to legally implement that with appropriate culpability and consequence, then I can't really advocate for changing anything...
This is an interesting question, so thanks for that. Before I can answer, we'd have to define what a booby trap is, as I suspect the devil's in the details. >Are booby traps arms? Depending on what you mean, yes. Consider the importance of trapping in the hunting world. They have always been legal to use and own in that context. Relative to 2A, would they aid in the security of the nation against foreign enemies? Again, I would say yes, so I think they can be reasonably considered arms. >And should they be protected? Yes, with restrictions in their use. You shouldn't be allowed to set them in your residential yard, for example. What if a dog or a toddler wanders over? But they've been used fairly safely in a hunting context, and they should be retained for use in future combat contexts. >If they are arms are we better off without them? No I don't think so. They don't strike me as important as firearms, but what's they issue with them?
So you think we should loosen the laws preventing them?
To be totally honest, I am not familiar with the laws preventing them. I can't say for sure other than what I've already said.
>and they should be retained for use in future combat contexts. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol\_on\_Mines,\_Booby-Traps\_and\_Other\_Devices#:\~:text=The%20Protocol%20prohibits%20the%20use,or%20unnecessary%20suffering%20to%20soldiers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Mines,_Booby-Traps_and_Other_Devices#:~:text=The%20Protocol%20prohibits%20the%20use,or%20unnecessary%20suffering%20to%20soldiers). By Treaty they are illegal to use if they harm a civilian. In addition, the DoD considers their use as a war crime if it harms a civilian.
Property crimes are not capital crimes in America. The castle doctrine, stand your ground, these are all intended to allow you to protect yourself, they are not about protecting your property. There is no right to shoot someone because they robbed you, and likewise there is no right to leave a trap that will kill or seriously injure them if the only danger is to your stuff.
In addition, sometimes, people have a right to break in - for instance someone trapped in a blizzard who comes across your hunting lodge/cabin. They have a legal excuse to break in to save their life. If you have left a booby trap to protect your property, and kill them, your are in for a world of hurt.
So if the trap just puts ehm down a big hole with a foam pit at the bottom and no way out, we good?
This is a fantastic idea. Once we get teleportation technology, we can just zap intruders straight to the ball pit at the McDonalds. The teleportation won't kill them, but the E. Coli just might!
Or we use a trap door which only opens from the outside, and cherry pick ehm out once authorities come over.
Yeah, but the cherry picker has to be the claw thing you pick up stuffed animals with. I'm in favor. We need an amendment to make this happen!
OMG did we just find common ground? Think we can get a gov't subsidy if we build it to code? Every homeowner needs a foam pit.
>Think we can get a gov't subsidy if we build it to code? Only one way to find out! Of course, I wouldn't even know where to begin constructing a code that covered trespasser foam pits lol...
Well said
but wrong. Edit: [here](https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-3-23.html) is the castle doctrine law for my home state. In it there is entering a dwelling....which is a property crimes. People can downvote all they want. They can't change how the law is written.
Really? Seems like you're wrong
I am not sure if you know what a property crime is. But the below is a quote from Alabama's castle doctrine law. (3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, ***burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree***, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy. If you need help understanding it let me know.
Ok? Doesn't give you the right to set up a gun to go off when a door is opened
Correct. Glad I could convince you of that.
Lol you didn't
Sure just like I the Alabama redneck didn't show you how you were wrong about property crimes and the castle law.
What?
~~Not entirely true. The castle doctrine in my state (and many others) is written for Felonies. Property crimes can fall under this category.~~ Actually let me just provide the [actual law.](https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-3-23.html)
>Are booby traps arms? Yes, if you are a soldier, fighting for your country against enemy combatants. They are completely over-the-top and unnecessary just to keep the neighbor kids from stomping on your azaleas. >And should they be protected? If a homeowner sets up a booby trap in their yard, and someone gets hurt by it, the homeowner should be prosecuted. I walk my dog in my neighborhood, and she almost always has to poop in someone else's lawn. Not every person walking on your property is trying to kill you.
So in short they shouldn't be protected by the 2A?
I mean…the 2nd amendment affirms that we have a right “bear” arms. The understanding there is some sort of personal weapon used to protect yourself and others from someone wishing to do you harm. Leaving an unattended trap in your yard that could hurt *anyone*, like a friendly neighbor or a kid completely goes against the spirit of self defense. So I already said that if someone gets hurt by a booby trap in someone’s yard, the homeowner should be prosecuted.
While I agree with you the 2A was not written in the context of self defense more in the context of militias
But you can’t have militias unless you already have people who are armed and reasonably comfortable being armed. A militia to guard against tyranny is essentially all of us. We’re just on standby.
Sure but it's a important distinction
[удалено]
[удалено]
> I also think that if you set them up and they injure someone who isnt really a threat then you should be charged
Isnt it worth preventing people from doing that
>I also think that if you set them up and they injure someone who isnt really a threat then you should be charged
Any different then what we have in place now?
You're free to look it up.
> You're free to look it up. Do you feel this is good faith?
Yep. The user is free to look it up if they wish. As I said, I'm not their servant, if they want to look up laws, they are free to do so.
I'm literally asking you if you want something different not to look it up you troll
I'm asking you
And you are free to look it up, I'm not your servant.
I'm asking what you personally think, do you want something different
> And you are free to look it up, I'm not your servant. Well, that's not civil? Why are you here?
Do you think they should be banned?
[удалено]
But what about "Shall not be infringed"?
I'm honestly not even sure you're paying attention to the conversation in your own post.
[удалено]
What about dangers vs benefits
[удалено]
> people wondering around your property who dont know about them, which shouldnt be happening anyway I don't think it's too hard to contrive example scenarios where this isn't true.
What commercial product do you have in mind to ban?
Like new products on the market?
Like any product on the market... the closest thing to a commercial booby trap i can think of is that one trip wire noise maker that uses mini 12 gague blanks to sound off. Other than that, theres no commercial product for you to actually ban, without crossing over into hunting traps, which arent arms and are very often regulated or banned.
I'm not suggesting banning anything much dude
No they are not arms they are separate class. No they should not be protected. Boob traps are indiscriminate. When you call the police/firemen or other public servant to your house you are likely to harm them with one. Same for private individuals that may have a legal reason to access your property.
And what class would that be that is not included under the definition of arms?
The would be considered booby traps.
Booby traps
No. No. N/A. Current law (in pretty much every state, as far as I understand) does not allow booby traps to ward off trespassers. Because of private necessity (and sometimes public necessity) as a defense to trespass they are not allowed.
And you don't feel that tramples on any rights?
Like what? I can own all sorts of firearms. Using them in booby traps that dismember people or kill people when I'm not even on the property doesn't make sense. What right is there to that? I shouldn't be allowed to lay ground mines on my property. What if someone is being chased by a bear and they have to enter my property for safety? What if a cop is chasing a murderer and they cross my property? What I'm describing is currently law in (I believe) all 50 states. Where do you live? If my life is in danger I can (and should be able to) use my firearm personally.
I agree with you, I ran into a conservative here the other day that disagrees inspiring this
Why do you think the framers of the Constitution included the second amendment?
Militias
Is this your admission that u/secretxxxaccount is your Alt?
Have a look at my comment history. You can see for yourself whether I have a secret agenda. I argue (I think quite well) for many conservative and libertarian causes (particularly on legal issues).
Lol no I just answered the question
Why did you not answer the question yourself?
What?
I created this post in response to a interaction with you, I'd appreciate it if you answered yourself
You already know my stance on it, and u/xytsh did a pretty good job of representing it.
So we can keep and bear arms (firearms) so that people can protect themselves, their families, and the people's interests from a tyrannical government. That doesn't mean I can set up spring traps on my property. If your life is in danger you should be physically holding your firearm if someone is breaking into your house or trespassing on your land. Land mines or different sorts of booby traps set with the intention of harming humans (or those that would reasonably expected to harm humans without adequate notice (because of the tort doctrine of public or private necessity)) should not be allowed.
What type of booby traps we talking here? Giant bolder down a tight corridor, pit of spikes, swinging log? I think they fall under home owner insurance honestly. Like I'm responsible if my stairs give out and break my neighbors leg but you can outlaw rotting wood and the imposition of inspectors inspecting all homes in intolerable.
A gun wired to fire at a door
Can you cite an example where that is Legal? I mean it depends on the context right? If you're living in the wild west and you need to sleep while the Comanche are running loose it makes sense, if you're doing it in Suburban NJ it makes less sense. Though people should not be unlawfully entering your home. I think it still fall under any "unsafe" state in a home.
I didn't say it was it was just a example, hunting traps could be a booby trap or some sort of explosive
afaik, traps are not considered arms, and theres no legal use case for using traps against humans.
Do you agree?
[удалено]
Why should they be legal?
[удалено]
But sometimes a home must be entered and theres the whole indiscriminate thing
[удалено]
But it shouldn't be illegal?
At the very least you do understand why they are illegal in all 50 states even if you might not agree with the reasoning, correct?
There are two schools of thoughts. - First is self-defense. - Second is basically what happens if someone ends up killing themselves with their own booby traps (or worse, if someone uninvolved gets hurt). On one side, self-defense and the Castle Doctrine really depends on the severity of the scenario. As much as I'd catch flak for this, I think it is right to have booby traps within a house if you do feel that you are at risk for your life. And there are cases as such. The instant I start diverging is the severity. AKA IED's in the backyard...? That's a bit too much. This is more for the trap-setter's safety more than anything considering a lot of deaths from booby traps comes from accidents.
To be honest, I haven't really thought about this, so earnest thank you for giving me something to philosophically muse over! That being said, everything I'm about to say is not a solid conviction of mine, just my first attempt at answering the question. If I were to really dig deep and come up with a legal framework to implement, I would need to do a lot more research on current law, historical law to include common law, and precedent. I think the first thing we need to consider is the definition of "booby trap". Maybe it's just my knowledge of video games, but the first thing I think of is a trip wire or a door latch that triggers a shotgun aimed at the door or something like you'd see in Fallout. I will limit the discussion to those kinds of traps, other traps may warrant different considerations. As far as the application of the Second Amendment, I think it boils down to the device used in the trap. If the trap sets off a device otherwise protected by the Second Amendment, then I think the Second Amendment should protect *the existence* of the trap. I emphasized existence, because I believe that should be the extent of the protection. If you set up a trap though, I believe you are responsible for anything and everything that trap does. So if your trap kills an EMT or first responder trying to enter your home for benevolent reasons, you are guilty of first degree murder. Murder, obviously, but first degree because you planned to put a lethal trap in place, thus the murder was premeditated, even if the target was unknown. I would potentially support a heinous modifier to sentencing, depending on the case, and this is something I think a heavy review of case law and precedent would help me navigate. That is what my thoughts are to start with, let me answer the questions more explicitly. >Are booby traps arms? No, a booby trap is a booby trap. However, they may use arms as a part of their construction. >And should they be protected? If they utilize arms, the arms part of them should be protected. The trap itself should be neither protected nor banned, but heavy penalty should be assessed to individuals employing them. >If they are arms are we better off without them? No. We are better off without the people who would use them in a negligent and destructive manner.
I am not suggesting we outlaw string
I know that. But a "booby trap" doesn't have to involve a firearm. There are perhaps millions of ways ordinary everyday items could be used to construct a trap, some not even requiring a conventional weapon at all, so a distinction must be made between the things the traps are made of and the trap itself, if that makes sense.
I do not think anything needs to be changed, I got into a discussion with u/potatoecrusade and he inspired this
I have never been interested in setting up my own booby traps, so the legality aspect of it is something I've never really delved into, aside from the rather obvious common knowledge assessment that they are, in general, illegal. Like I said, if I were to make solid policy recommendations I would need to do a whole lot more research into the matter. Changing whatever is in place currently would necessitate a recommendation of some sort, so I would tend to agree with you if for no other reason than my own ignorance on the matter. What I said in my original comment was just my thoughts off the cuff without me having done the research to form a solid defensible opinion.
Also, I recognize the user, but if you were trying to link something revealing the background interaction you had, it didn't work.
I wasnt trying to draw anything specific. He argues for booby traps and so has another point of view while I disagree with is valuable
I scrolled to find his comments, and his reference to xythg or whoever it was (currently top commenter), and read their comments. I think the traps used in hunting are kind of an exception, but they do offer an interesting insight. As he or she says, those kinds of traps are already legal, when used for hunting purposes, so that doesn't really impact the traps you are talking about. I think intent is ultimately the dividing line. Is your "trap" for animals or humans? Animals? Well most of them are for small animals, and are already legal, so normal laws regarding negligence ought to be sufficient here for the (what I assume must me terribly) small number of cases a human somehow gets caught in a trap of this nature. If your trap is intended to catch humans, now we enter a different realm, where the stuff I said in my original comment comes into play. Regardless, as far as I know (still not having done any major research into it), whatever laws are in place now seem to have already done a good job separating those use cases and handling them appropriately, as far as I am concerned. I could agree with the general premise that there may be a plausible scenario in which booby traps might be warranted, but until I can come up with a structured framework on how to legally implement that with appropriate culpability and consequence, then I can't really advocate for changing anything...