Remote controlled weapons based home security (TX)

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TXAZ

New member
I have cameras and other iphone/ Internet remote controlled devices at home, allowing me to turn on/off, change status of most major items & systems in the house.*

I know Texas prohibits Internet hunting in a 2005 Law, HB 2026.
I see nothing prohibiting a homeowner from mounting a pistol (or other gun or directional deterrence device) on a PTZ mount and create an app to control it.* This could be controlled from your bedroom, across the city / globe or by a security person somewhere else.*

So my question to you is, assuming its legal would you pay for a plug and play mount and app?*
If so how much?
Are you aware of any reason you can't do this (in Texas in particular)?
 
I don't see any way this would not result in a homeowner being arrested if used. I know of no place where it would be considered SD to shoot an intruder from a remote location. All states that I'm aware of would only consider it a justifiable shooting if defending your life or the lives of others in your home.
 
On top of the lack of imminent danger jmr40 pointed out. I would search the laws for mantrap. It probably fits the definition and I do not think there are any states where lethal mantraps are legal.
 
First off, you're not acting in self-defense, you've just set a monitored trap.

Second, you're planning premeditated killing from a distance. That's murder.

Third, your system is subject to failure, mistake, and hacking.

Fourth, tell us how someone can determine the intent of an intruder by viewing them on a screen.

There's at least 4 or 5 major felonies inherent in the idea : Laying a mantrap, lying in wait, premeditated murder, depraved indifference to human life, conspiracy to commit murder, etc. Anyone who did this would end up in jail for his life, and in Texas, probably death row. Even Texas juries aren't going to whitewash something like this concept into self-defense.
 
I don't think it would fly. You are not at threat. Even claiming that you were protecting irreplaceable property at night might not work.

The latter is the only possible legal justification and I wouldn't trust that on a remote camera setup.
 
I see nothing prohibiting a homeowner from mounting a pistol (or other gun or directional deterrence device) on a PTZ mount and create an app to control it.
Click to expand...
Aside from the issues addressed by other members, I'd like to bring up one point:
Adding an electronic firing mechanism to a semi-automatic firearm is much more tricky than it sounds. Sure, you can bolt the thing right on. But, can you prove, without a doubt, that it is incapable of firing more than one shot without repeated input from the "operator", including malfunctions anywhere in the system - from the iPhone app, to network interference, to lost data packets, to power surges, to hardware or software failures?
If not, you have created a machine gun. The ATF does not take such things lightly.
 
This is a very bad idea. Don't do it. If you were to use this system, you will be headed to prison. I don't believe any material objects you own are worth it. Don't do it.
 
Even in states with the castle doctrine type of laws, it's generally disagreeable to the authorities to use deadly force to protect property.
But how about using the remote idea for non-lethal force?
Something to scare the crap out of an intruder and run them off, without actually drawing blood.
 
Something to scare the crap out of an intruder and run them off, without actually drawing blood.
Click to expand...
An inventive person might take one of those party poppers - the ones you pull a string on and they shoot streamers........empty the streamers, fill it with FFFG black powder & wrap it all up with fiberglass strapping tape...

Then that person might tie one end of the pull string off to a door & secure the popper end to the door jamb....


FWIW - the house the inventive person lived in stunk pretty bad when he tested it out...
 
Maybe something like one of those airsoft machine guns would work as a deterrent. I think i saw a company that makes something like that. Isnt there a company that makes pepper spray fogger type things that would do something similar?
 
You have faith in computers way more than I do. Sounds like a recipe for disaster! Not to mention having your equipment stolen. I'm sure it would be illegal anyway, but definitely fun.
 
Wow, People get on the internet and have no problem making disparaging remarks or even outright offensive remarks because they have the distance of the internet to "protect" them, and you are suggesting that you should be able to view a monitor, and press a button to kill someone long distance, even though the intended target is no threat to you at the moment? All to protect stuff? Please rethink the whole idea. Legally and morally it is all wrong.

Legally, because the whole idea of self-defense is to protect you from a direct threat. There is no direct threat involved in your plan. Morally, because, well, if you cannot see that one, then morals are not a problem.

David
 
The military uses drones to take and hold objectives......

Why is it the .gov can use lethal force to protect our borders, but, I'm an immoral creep for wanting to protect what I trade bits and pieces of my life to accumulate.

Bear in mind - the pursuit of happiness was one of the rights the founding fathers sought to protect.
Somewhere along the way, that concept seems to have gotten misplaced.
 
Interesting idea for an "app". I guess the remote "gun" could be firing non-lethal's(?) Just incapacitate until the cavalry arrives. Don't know how that would effect the legal side of things.

:confused:
 
.The military uses drones to take and hold objectives......

Why is it the .gov can use lethal force to protect our borders, but, I'm an immoral creep for wanting to protect what I trade bits and pieces of my life to accumulate
Click to expand...

(One of) The uses of un-manned drones is to keep U.S. soldiers out of harms way.
In this situation, you are not in harms way and as such your need for lethal force is non-existent.
 
(One of) The uses of un-manned drones is to keep U.S. soldiers out of harms way.
In this situation, you are not in harms way and as such your need for lethal force is non-existent.
Click to expand...
That really doesn't make sense....

You say one use is to keep soldiers out of harm's way. What about the other ways?

In this situation, you are not in harms way and as such your need for lethal force is non-existent.
Click to expand...
How do you know?
You're making an assumption based on what you interject, not on what's already been said.

Even if there was no lethal threat, I'm not as sure as I once was that using lethal force in defense of property is a bad thing.

Heck, even the state of Ohio with it's prudent man defense implied that carrying a firearm to protect cash or some other valuables was a valid reason to go armed - while trying to use a defense that your life was in danger from a real threat wasn't an excuse to be armed.

Common law history has many examples of justifiable use of lethal force in defense of property.
It's really only been the last couple/three generations that have changed that idea all around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top