Started watching this show called Sons Of Guns which is interesting and got me thinking about different types of legalities and all. One question I had was if a person invents something could the government take that patent/right away from that person saying it's a "Matter of National Security"? This being in a place like the US where individuals have a lot of freedoms.

Short answer: yes

Longer answer: depends on exactly what is being taken away. There's a big difference between patents and other "something".

If it's that gun in your avatar, then yeah, the government will probably want to look into it.

I'm not sure that they would necessarily take away the patent, so much as just prohibit anyone from making it. I'm hardly an authority on the subject though.

Yes and no. There's still the mater of due process and searches and seizures of the 4th amendment national security or not. If you have a patent on such an item you still have rights to it, though licensing to various specific types of weapons still apply and you will probably be closely watched. Also the government can find ways to "regulate" products of such production (ie how you use them, when and where you use them, how many you can produce, etc).

Heck, if the government thinks something is a big enough threat to national security, they'd probably kill the inventor and lock away the prototype.

If I diddnt want you to create something I would manipulate the avenues/resources you need to make it/things. Things like that sort.

Publicly publish your invention to the internet and send blueprints to China and India before someone comes knocking on your door.

Fixed.

Two words: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emminent_domain. If the government really wants something you have then you're selling it to them, whether you want to or not.

Thought Right Of Eminent Domain only applied to land not to patents and copyright stuff.

Very relevant to the matter:

Organization by General Electric

On August 4, 1914, the United Kingdom and France declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary, starting World War I. Radio traffic across the Atlantic Ocean increased dramatically after the Allies cut German cable telegraphs.

During the war, the United States Navy suppressed patents owned by the major companies involved with radio manufacture in the United States to facilitate the war effort. All production of radio equipment was allocated for the Army and Navy. The Navy sought to maintain a government monopoly of wireless radio; however, the wartime command system over radio was to eventually end by the tabling of the maintenance of government control by the U.S. Congress in 1918. The rejection of the government monopoly did not prevent the Navy from creating a national radio system.[3] On April 8, 1919, U.S. Navy Captain Stanford C. Hooper and Admiral W. H. G. Bullard met with General Electric executives to ask that they not sell their Alexanderson alternators to the British-owned Marconi Company and its subsidiary Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America. The premise of the Navy's proposal was that if GE created an American owned radio company, then the Navy would secure a commercial monopoly of long-distance radio communication. This marked the beginning of negotiations by which GE would buy American Marconi and organize what would become the Radio Corporation of America.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA

It's most commonly used with respect to land, but as far as I'm aware can be used for any kind of property. Copyrights and patents add an extra twist, since my understanding is that the government is actually prohibited from owning copyrights and patents (as a copyright or patent owned by the government would actually be owned by the people, which is basically the equivalent of something being public domain). Thus I'd expect that if the government were to seize a copyright or patent it would basically be converted into classified information, so the government wouldn't own it in the sense we traditionally think of people owning copyrights or patents, but the government would still be able to prevent the information from being disseminated.

Depends on what you make. Article 1 Section 8 of the United States of the Constitution gives Congress the ability "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." In other words, they are allowed to make laws regardin' patents due to this clause. Right now, the law is that your patent is safe for twenty years from the earliest filing date.

Assumin' the country is not at war and your invention is not obviously a "Matter of National Security" then the government cannot touch it. They might try and act cute by comin' with some bizarre scenario that makes it a threat, but they try to avoid lawsuits and bad PR.



Well, during war a government will often bypass its governin' documents in order to protect the country and get things down in short periods of time.

The patent suppression continued past the WWI and the Navy and Army ended up holding some key radio patents that weren't theres beforehand. Radio is a perfect real-world example of exactly what the OP was asking about.

Also, GE ended up getting American Marconi for well below market value for various *ehem* reasons and Marconi eventually had many of his radio patents invalidated for various *ehem* reasons well after the wars.

History of the radio/tv is actually pretty interesting if you ever want to check it out. It was a bit bloody in some respects and very well documented.

I never said anythin' about them givin' the rights back after the war is over . I can think of several rights that never came back, but that would be gettin' into politics

I agree, it's especially interestin' to see the evolution of bureaucracies that regulated them. Example, the FCC was originally created to regulate radio signals but it has been expanded to the point where it now has control over television and internet.

Well my idea has probably been done, but i've never seen it used with modern weaponry so it has me curious. Ontop of that due to it being for any and all firearms that's why i'm curious if it could be "Taken" by the government for national security since it might theoretically make weapons more dangerous. Sadly this is all in theory since I haven't even tested it nor have I gotten passed the concept stage in my head. Though I do have the ideas down specifically in my head and would just need to put them on paper.

Or wait until the person dies from natural causes, and then loot the home. As was the case with Nikolai Tesla.