Town Votes On Whether To Allow Citizens To Shoot Drones Out Of The Sky

aRyan

TRUMP or BUST
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/o...er-licenses-hunt-unmanned-aircraft-6C10876014



A town called Deer Trail, located an hour east of Denver, Colo., is considering issuing a novel kind of hunting permit. If passed, the town would give residents licenses to "kill" drones ... by shooting them out of the air.

A vote held on Tuesday night found the town board split 50-50 over passing a local law that would let people apply for $25 drone hunting licenses, and exchange their spoils for a $100 bounty. The next vote will involve residents of the town, according to NBC affiliate station 9News, and is due to take place later this year.

So why would you want to take out a drone? Deer Trail resident Phillip Steel, who drafted the ordinance, has called his initiative a "symbolic" stance against government surveillance. But experts are concerned about the move, citing numerous legal and safety concerns that could assail the town and its shooters, licensed or otherwise.

"Generally our view is that it is a relatively reckless and irresponsible proposition," Benjamin Miller, Unmanned Aircraft Program Manager at the Mesa County Sheriff's Office in Colorado, told NBC News. Miller has directed operations in which the office's two police drones have helped find missing people, survey landfills, and conduct an aerial thermal read of a burning church.

Ryan Calo, assistant professor of law at the University of Washington, calls the town's reaction a "cowboy instinct." Coming from a town that calls itself home of the world's first rodeo, that may not be far from the truth. "It's showmanship — it's just all flash," he told NBC News.

And drone owners are probably legally protected, regardless of the town's ordinances. If you were flying a drone above Deer Trail and someone shot it down, "you would have recourse against the individual who shot it down, probably recourse against the city," Calo said. Just consider the case of the Texas farmer David Lefler who was arrested after shooting down a $12,000 model aircraft with an 82-inch wingspan.

Also, the permission to shoot a drone may not be the town's to give away. "I don't see where the authority comes from, where a local municipality could empower people to shoot down drones," Calo pointed out. Unlike a deer in a local park, drones are private property and airspace is regulated by the U.S. Federal Aviation Commission rather than local authorities.

The FAA caught wind of the town's proposal, and issued a statement warning about the legal implications of harming an aircraft, as well as the safety considerations of a crashing chunk of metal. "Shooting at an unmanned aircraft could result in criminal or civil liability, just as would firing at a manned airplane," the FAA clarified in a statement emailed to NBC News.

While high-flying Predators and Reapers are harder to bring down, the smaller helicopter-style crafts that police departments are beginning to use could be crippled. "If you think about it, small unmanned aircrafts are about the size of birds, and we fly them at the altitudes of birds. It's technically possible," Miller said, clarifying that it is illegal to damage property that belongs to the Mesa County Sheriff's office — drones included.

This isn't the first time a drone hunting issue has been brought up in a public forum. During a drone privacy hearing in May, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, asked a panel of drone and privacy experts if it was possible to shoot a drone down over one's property.

Miller has heard tongue-in-cheek references to drone hunting before — the machines have their vocal opponents, among them privacy advocates who are concerned about the government's use of surveillance drones.

But he'd "never dreamed of this kind of thing becoming a reality," until the Deer Trail proposal came to his attention. "When I first saw this I thought, 'You've got to be kidding me,'" he said. "I mean, wow."
 

bowhaze

Zeitgeist
The thought is good but I actually can’t believe, that even, if they get the ‚go’ for it, they would really be allowed to do so. The government will find excuses to charge them for that, even if it is ok. We know, how tricky they can become. At that point, it is at least a good statement and if other towns and whole states would follow that good example, it could become a form of a revolution, which is highly necessary to get back the origins of the personal rights of a person.
I would really like to see, [and wish it for the town and the rest of the country]that thing happening with a good long term result, but atm, it simply sounds too good. All the backfire, that happened in such a short amount of time, makes me wonder, if most of the people, who actually have been pro with that decision, will [like always] step back, because they are afraid of ‘staying in the wrong light’.
 

Raven27

Nevermore
The people who accept drones are the same idiots who approved of the n s a mass surveilance program and eventually they will be the same idiots who will bend over and gladly let the goverment install camera in homes all in the idea of security.

" Its for your own good we are simply making sure you are safe from terrorist. "

P.S. you are 8 times more likely to die by the hands of a cop than you are to die in terror attack.
 
OP
aRyan

aRyan

TRUMP or BUST
The people who accept drones are the same idiots who approved of the n s a mass surveilance program and eventually they will be the same idiots who will bend over and gladly let the goverment install camera in homes all in the idea of security.

" Its for your own good we are simply making sure you are safe from terrorist. "

P.S. you are 8 times more likely to die by the hands of a cop than you are to die in terror attack.
Probably like 500 times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed in a terror attack.
 
as much as i like the idea, i just don't see it actually happening. as the article says, the right to shoot drones probably isn't the town's to give. even if it was, there could still be legal repercussions.
 

ZenZaku

Banned
I suppose I'm for the law being passed. I mean civilians do have the right to their privacy and you never know if those things have some sort of xray camera option to let them view inside buildings and the like. It sounds feasible enough to shoot down those sheriff drones but if you were to get at more advanced things that flew higher or faster unless you kept an AA gun in your backyard odds are you'd fail miserably. Another issue is all of the lead flying up into the air, it's gotta come down somewhere. Plenty of cases near me where folks started firing in the air on 4th of July and someone got hit and died. Maybe they should just cover themselves in tinfoil or something. Not sure how practical it is but perhaps some sort of microwave emitter that fries the thing instead of using a gun to shoot it down.
 

fritoburrito

One day all will be revealed.
I suppose I'm for the law being passed. I mean civilians do have the right to their privacy and you never know if those things have some sort of xray camera option to let them view inside buildings and the like. It sounds feasible enough to shoot down those sheriff drones but if you were to get at more advanced things that flew higher or faster unless you kept an AA gun in your backyard odds are you'd fail miserably. Another issue is all of the lead flying up into the air, it's gotta come down somewhere. Plenty of cases near me where folks started firing in the air on 4th of July and someone got hit and died. Maybe they should just cover themselves in tinfoil or something. Not sure how practical it is but perhaps some sort of microwave emitter that fries the thing instead of using a gun to shoot it down.
I'm ready for the bastards.
protection.jpg
 
Top