[neatze]

Many mention ITAR or some other issue, nothing about this project is even close to ITAR (as far I understand), connecting camera to rocket using it as guidance will get in trouble most likely, if not mistake only thing allowed is using camera to AIM at sun.

https://www.youtube.com/@LafayetteSystems is similar project, also by actual defense contractor, and less opensource.

[mikkupikku]

MANPADS are certainly covered by ITAR. It could probably be effectively argued by his lawyers that what he has created isn't truly MANPADS but rather just an edgy toy that superficially resembles a weapon system but isn't actually capable of performing as one. Maybe that would work, but I think his chance of getting dragged into the legal system for this or for some chickenshit like weed possession are very high, particularly if the media at large picks up this story.

[mothballed]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332g states that just having a system "intended to launch or guide a rocked or missile described in... [description of MANPAD type rocket]" carries life imprisonment. He calls it a manpad and then shows a system intended to launch it.

There is no consideration in the law whether he actually plans to use it or ever meant any violence, nor any consideration of whether it violates ITAR.

As someone who has a lot of interest in weapons law, this is probably about the only kind of weapon that can't be even legally contemplated in the USA, worst case for almost anything else you can get an NFA stamp. The USA is absolutely paranoid about yielding their air power so they come down like a ton of bricks against anyone that might want to defend against that.

[neoinkarasuyuu]

I don't see how this system matches the description of subparagraph (A). The missile is fed a static gps coordinate at launch via the umbilical, and has no mechanism in the missile or launcher to "seek or proceed toward energy radiated or reflected from an aircraft or toward an image locating an aircraft" or "otherwise direct or guide the rocket or missile to an aircraft", which is the requirement in subparagraph A.

INAL, so I would like to understand why you think this applies?

[mothballed]

I'm no lawyer either but he literally calls it a "MANPADS Rocket and Launcher prototype."

Look up MANPADS[1] and find out what that is, it appears to pretty clearly satisfies (A).

Then look at (B) and note a launcher that merely intends to launch something that satisfies (A) counts, and then note he straight up calls it a MANPADS launcher prototype. There is no requirement that it actually be capable of doing so.

Also note in his other short, the guy shows a network of cameras doing tracking of a drone[2] and claims that is an intended guidance system. He claims the guidance is updated to the rocket while in flight, with his diagram clearly showing the target as the emblem of an aircraft.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-portable_air-defense_syste... [2] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/85oI725HPPU

[projektfu]

There seems to be a jurisdictional escape clause in the sense that possession without use within the US without the intent to attack aircraft may not fall into interstate commerce. In which case the state law would govern the act.

IANAL

[mothballed]

IANAL.

Note they started adding the "interstate commerce" in there after the first version of the gun-free school zone act was found unconstitutional. Which then continued on to do the exact same thing when amended.

It's a distinction without difference.

Post Wickard v Filburn, mere possession of something has been found to be interstate commerce even if it's just a plant grown on your own property for your own consumption without ever entering interstate commerce. Note the controlled substance act depends on the same interstate commerce clause but they've upheld federal convictions for simple possession without showing any actual effect to commerce -- instead arguing that they've influenced interstate commerce by deciding to not participate in it and that if people did that in aggregate it would affect interstate commerce therefore it is interstate commerce. Complete madness obviously, but that's where we are.

[projektfu]

IANALBIRW

"In Lopez, the Court held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale. (In a later case, United States v. Morrison, the Court ruled in 2000 that Congress could not make such laws even when there was evidence of aggregate effect.)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

[neatze]

the links says explosives + guidance system, but guidance system still allowed in hobby project as long aim toward sun (eg. sun is the target, same for stabilization), I think having horizontal stabilization hitting an target would be equal to breaking law.

[numpad0]

The theme is guidance systems. Especially guidance computers. That's the big big big no-no. I'm surprised this still hasn't been taken down and house flashbanged and all.

[charcircuit]

So design a system for launching test vehicles?