tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post8242078556060187233..comments2023-11-10T04:17:00.492-05:00Comments on View From The Porch: Tab Clearing...Tamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-2549849647247055832012-02-22T12:14:11.453-05:002012-02-22T12:14:11.453-05:00The Supreme Court generally holds that we own the ...The Supreme Court generally holds that we own the airspace above our heads to the extent that space is required for our enjoyment of it. In simple terms, that means we cannot claim to own enough to ask United Airlines for a toll, but we own enough to prevent two neighbors from stringing a line over my yard between their houses.<br /><br />If someone takes a drone and flies it to intentionally disrupt the legal enjoyment of property, they are in trespass. Depending on state and other laws, items in trespass (as opposed to persons) can be subject to several treatments. Cameras have been dropped onto people's property by nosy photographers, who found that their high-dollar gear now belongs to their intended target.<br /><br />I'd say that morally speaking, if they intended to disrupt a legal shoot with their drone (which they admit), then they were playing a game where they put their toy into trespass and harm. <br /><br />My range is posted and obvious. If some dolt drops a drone in front of my target while I am shooting, it is going to lose altitude. If a person enters that range while I am shooting, they are going to get arrested. <br /><br />There is a difference. Harming someone's toy (intentionally placed to trespass and harm my rights) is not the same as hurting a person. It is not a "violent" act.<br /><br />That said, I am not a fan of animal "shoots" for fun. And in general I'd be more satisfied taking the idiots to court than shooting their toys. Still, to each his own.Patricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-39667396644191922562012-02-22T05:05:29.602-05:002012-02-22T05:05:29.602-05:00Tam;
Actually, no. The Kabuki that goes on in the...Tam;<br /><br />Actually, no. The Kabuki that goes on in the SCOTUS building fails to persuade, also. If their writ held sway, we would have instantaneously had, upon the Heller ruling, a 180 degree volte face on the part of 2A-violating municipalities nationwide and Nanny Bloomberg would have been hauled off in chains for 18USC242 violations, his MAIG conspiracy disbanded.<br /><br />OUCH!<br /><br />Sorry. Pulled my snarcrililliac. Gotta watch that.<br /><br />So, until I see a good solid century of legislation and jurisprudence that affirms the Fourth, instead of rat-nibbling around infringements, nodding and winking at outright rape of the concept, I'll continue to believe that the organs of the state don't really believe what it actually says.<br /><br />And, yes, my bowcaster DOES have an ammo belt with it.<br /><br />M<br /><br />MMark Algerhttp://www.babytrollblog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-24658540042149033372012-02-22T00:48:56.227-05:002012-02-22T00:48:56.227-05:00I give you another animal rights loon in your gene...I give you another animal rights loon in your general region of the US:<br /><br />http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FUR_MURDER_PLOT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-02-21-23-26-17Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-49325311418655116492012-02-21T22:06:49.720-05:002012-02-21T22:06:49.720-05:00Mark,
"Meantime, the state has asserted the ...Mark,<br /><br />"<i>Meantime, the state has asserted the lawful authority to infringe upon the right by placing GPS trackers on cars</i>"<br /><br />Am I misunderstanding you, or have you not been keeping up with the jurisprudence? :sTamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-77616936293211877352012-02-21T18:31:07.768-05:002012-02-21T18:31:07.768-05:00@ Mark Alger,
I don't disagree with you. I do...@ Mark Alger,<br /><br />I don't disagree with you. I do point out that the courts do acknowledge and bow to an *implied* waiver. That is, if it hasn't been enforced, then it would be unfair to start enforcing a particular statue at some particular moment.<br /><br />In addition to opening the doors wider to abuse by Johnny Law, I have seen few databases or tools that haven't been compromised, lost track of by governments. And few tools of coercion that so excite the LEO's haven't been exploited, in full, by lawless folk. Just one for-instance -- consider camera drones operated by paparazzi. Or private contractors prowling for evidence of pot growing, selling videos of law abiding folk through the bedroom or bathroom window.<br /><br />Now, the argument might be persuasive to use drones for Amber alerts and Silver alerts (missing children and seniors), or backwoods stills and meth labs. Or trespassing illegal aliens, or spies creeping into an oil refinery.<br /><br />Yep. I get the argument, and I agree about the dangers.Brad K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18378344866487206569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-7710898356367956932012-02-21T17:54:19.483-05:002012-02-21T17:54:19.483-05:00>Leaving aside the fact that it
>appears do...>Leaving aside the fact that it <br />>appears doubtful that the drone <br />>actually was shot down, am I reading <br />>you correctly that you are proposing <br />>to outlaw R/C aircraft?<br /><br />Not at all (not sure why it made me post as Anonymous). What I am saying, is that R/C aircraft are potentially hazardous to persons and property, which is why responsible hobbyists generally take measures to protect others from harm caused by their activities. An R/C aircraft being operated within birdshot range of uninvolved, and unwilling participants to that activity, IMO constitutes reckless and dangerous operation of said device, so they were entirely justified in ending the threat in self defense. There's not really any need to unnecessarily complicate the issue by arguing about who owns the airspace, privacy concerns, etc. <br /><br />Then again, why when am I prohibited from operating a manned aircraft within a certain distance from persons and property, should it be a free-for-all with regards to remotely piloted aircraft? Which are generally more trouble prone, and harder to control? (been there, crashed that) As others have alluded to, if harassment like the animal rights freaks were up to here becomes widespread, there will be restrictions coming down, and we're probably not going to like them at all. Far better to set the precedent that the harassed party has some leeway in dealing with reckless RPV operation, without involving Johnny Law.Netpackrathttp://www.boomsticksforever.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-80634942519558086942012-02-21T14:44:05.918-05:002012-02-21T14:44:05.918-05:00Brad K;
Citing examples of where one's right ...Brad K;<br /><br />Citing examples of where one's right to privacy has been infringed by custom rooted in outdated social mores does not persuade. Too often and for too long, people have felt it meet to mind other people's business. And because they have not had their snouts wapped often enough or hard enough like training-breaking puppies with a rolled up newspaper, they continue to think they can get away with it. That does not mean that a muscular assertion and defense of the right cannot win the day.<br /><br />Meantime, the state has asserted the lawful authority to infringe upon the right by placing GPS trackers on cars, or spying on citizens within their homes -- using the oh-so-weak excuse that the heat patterns are visible on the wall to the technologically-enhanced. And now, they claim they can spy on us -- and, in the not-to-disant future one may anticipate, kill us -- from UAVs in the domestic skies.<br /><br />As we have learned from millennia of statis gradualism, it is not the last camel's back-breaking straw we should object to, but the first stick in the load -- the small, seemingly risible snuffling of the camel's nose under the canvas. This. Is. It. If we do not vigorously assert our liberty-based objections to the practice, it will become common. <br /><br />And then, people will deride you for complaining the po-po shot your dog in a fell swoop raid. Indeed. What did you expect?<br /><br />MMark Algerhttp://www.babytrollblog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-48538250333470584882012-02-21T12:23:17.853-05:002012-02-21T12:23:17.853-05:00Light a candle to stop the film-drones!
w/v: one ...Light a candle to stop the film-drones!<br /><br />w/v: one omboop - this is ridiculous.NotClauswitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14358707844087117280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-18397242407463326042012-02-21T11:41:58.236-05:002012-02-21T11:41:58.236-05:00@ Mark Alger,
I think the FCC is the primary regu...@ Mark Alger,<br /><br />I think the FCC is the primary regulation for hobby model R/C gimmicks.<br /><br />There is a limit to the strength of the transmitter that can be operated without formal Federal Communication Commission licensing. Hobbyist type controls are manufactured to that limit. I don't doubt that hotshot hackers have beefed up their transmitter to exceed those limits, but that ain't legal; every transmitter comes with a de facto license that describes power, frequencies, modulation, etc. It looks like a common Underwriter Laboratories form thing, but still meets FCC requirements.<br /><br />Since the early days, sensitivity of the receiver has continued to improve, extending the range somewhat. But the choice of radio frequencies (and common thumbstick operator controls) limit the thing to line of sight, mostly.<br /><br />If you happen to be running higher-powered controls, I imagine that you might want to examine the pilot credentials. FAA pilot certificates might be required, once you exceed hobby level flying. I sure would require that anyone operating outside the hobby community (i.e., courteous toward neighbors, aware that the noise and presence annoy non-aficionados, etc.) take responsibility, in the Federal Aviation Authority sense, for operating a light aircraft in a lawful, safe, and sensible -- and legally liable -- fashion.<br /><br />I wonder, who insured that expensive camera mount, and are they aware that their insured property was used in a provocative fashion? <br /><br />Should camera drones be required to post a multi-billion dollar bond against being used to sneak peeks through bedroom windows and into back yards, or film law enforcement officers on duty or in private?<br /><br />"<em>I contend that we have an innate and absolute right to privacy</em>" Ahem. Try walking into the post office without trousers. Or laying out with a few friends in your back yard without clothes, or a privacy fence.<br /><br />Try building a chicken house against the backyard fence where the building codes require a clear set back, or forbid chickens. Try letting your dog bark at every fool squirrel and cloud that passes by, in a common neighborhood, or having a great, loud party. Or build a primitive blacksmith forge in the back yard, and learn to forge with iron ore and coal.<br /><br />What about those creepy guys that always smell of that funny colored smoke. Or single guys that follow the little girls around. Or that organize shooting events with *gasp* guns and what they claim are "pigeons" when you know they are really going to be slaughtering, will-he, nil-he, song birds and other graceful wild creatures.<br /><br />The neighbors will quickly stick their noses into your business. So much for inate privacy.<br /><br />I mind me of a movie filming west of Goodyear, AZ, 10-15 years ago. The grandstands of a failed race track were blown up. When the big bang came down, pigeons that had just been rousted away had snuck back in, and were caught in the conflagration. Much lawsuits ensued.Brad K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18378344866487206569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-86307600229975897142012-02-21T10:36:46.458-05:002012-02-21T10:36:46.458-05:00I think equating this to deadly force against peop...I think equating this to deadly force against people vs the use of destructive force (also deadly) against property is a red herring Tam. <br /><br />If I remove a protestor from my property with a bull dozer I'm probably going overboard. <br /><br />If I remove a protestor from my property with threat of use of deadly force I'm possibly in legal justified areas.<br /><br />If I remove a protester's property from my property which he left there to cause an issue and do so with my bulldozer, it's NOT deadly force. <br /><br />The Bunny-Huggers were clearly the provocateurs in this case. Perhaps there's a case to be made for destruction of property on the part of the hunters, I'm not sure the video supports that or not. A deliberate crash or an out of control state could also cause what we saw on the video. <br /><br />As to what's best for a C-152, Tam, I'd suggest a quad .50 Maxon Turret as both a practical and historically interesting method. The SA-2 Guideline might leave your property a bit scorched. Though, if you want rate of fire, one of the Boulton Paul quad .303 Browning turrets might be more useful. I'm sure you could put a plea out to the gun-blogger sphere for an operable example of either. ;-)montiethhttp://montieth.livejournal.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-23386371501038803272012-02-21T09:47:33.509-05:002012-02-21T09:47:33.509-05:00I have slightly different take from most here. I t...I have slightly different take from most here. I think this is -- or could be -- a landmark case, and it should go all the way to SCOTUS. There's a lot of this coming at us and we need to squelch it fast.<br /><br />Imprimis: I contend that we have an innate and absolute right to privacy. I further contend that there is no compelling public interest that trumps this, and that no change to the text of the Constitution is required to make this right enforceable. The Fourth Amendment does not specify an actor. It is an absolute proscription: the persons, papers, and effects shall remain inviolate EXCEPT when a warrant obtains in very narrow and closely defined circumstances. <br /><br />Point B: even if the Fourth didn't obtain, the Ninth certainly does. No statute is required except for the establishment of sentencing guidelines. The little trick of flying a UAV to violate a person's privacy is <i>already against the law.</i> And the Supreme Law of the Land at that.<br /><br />Viewed from this perspective, the actual location of the UAV is immaterial. Having established intent and that the violation occurred, the bunny huggers are in the wrong. In acting, they have committed a crime.<br /><br />Now: violence used in mitigation. Given that the use of force -- even lethal force -- is permitted (or even required) to prevent the commission of a felony in progress, what level of force is permissible in the prevention of a civil rights violation -- a violation of <i>the Supreme Law of the Land</i>?<br /><br />If property damage occurs in such a situation, I propose that that is on the aggressor -- the bunny huggers. And, if injury or death eventuates... Well, it would seem to be felony assault or murder at least and that 18USC241-242 might obtain.<br /><br />MMark Algerhttp://www.babytrollblog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-67511139827486353912012-02-21T06:35:55.994-05:002012-02-21T06:35:55.994-05:00ETA was interfering with an unorganized militia dr...ETA was interfering with an unorganized militia drill; what they did is a threat to homeland security.<br /><br />Imagine trying the same RC-video taping trick for police training exercises, or military training, or a private Obama fundraiser. What laws would get applied then?dustydognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-31996510183430627112012-02-20T18:36:18.581-05:002012-02-20T18:36:18.581-05:00CarlS: This is all undiscovered territory in regar...CarlS: This is all undiscovered territory in regards to legality.<br /><br />I don't think there are any laws anywhere forbidding someone from sending an RC copter with a wireless camera onto, over, or inside of someone's property.<br /><br />I'm sure that the government will find a way to overreact in the most inappropriate way possible.Kristophrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08370888276707569365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-4833721311205328612012-02-20T16:54:35.162-05:002012-02-20T16:54:35.162-05:00bureautifc bureaucraticbureautifc bureaucraticCarlSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-523718823391997812012-02-20T16:52:28.787-05:002012-02-20T16:52:28.787-05:00One of the earlier comments led me to these though...One of the earlier comments led me to these thoughts:<br /><br />Was the operator of this UAV under the influence of alcohol or other drug?<br /><br />Is the operator of a UAV required, a la FAA, to be licensed?<br /><br />And, far fetched, but worth thinking about: If an operator of a camera, UAV, ROV, or hand-held, is using it to make and post video available to the public, is there anything in individual state law requiring union membership (see Motion Picture Photographers and Camera Operators Union),<br /><br />In other words, can we geld them by using their own bureautifc BS against them?CarlSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-44620961018834421532012-02-20T16:33:01.352-05:002012-02-20T16:33:01.352-05:00I most emphatically was NOT PRESENT blanketing the...I most emphatically was NOT PRESENT blanketing the 2.4Ghz band with a few watts' worth of white noise, making that RC helo appear to have been shot down.<br /><br />Although it could easily be done, or so I heard...Gewehr98https://www.blogger.com/profile/14440119702457734221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-2157435761876075222012-02-20T15:59:01.837-05:002012-02-20T15:59:01.837-05:00Shooting down drones might be a bit more difficult...Shooting down drones might be a bit more difficult than expected with just a touch of design work. See <a href="http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2012/02/this-might-make-me-want-to-try.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> at Kevin's. Looks like fun.bob rnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-32205341171891344702012-02-20T13:18:20.451-05:002012-02-20T13:18:20.451-05:00I think it's a false accusation. I think the p...I think it's a false accusation. I think the pilot crashed it, planned the whole thing from before the take-off. <br /><br />I'm not buying the idea that it was shot without some real proof.ASM826https://www.blogger.com/profile/04017388670319590449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-55525458426575724272012-02-20T13:12:36.350-05:002012-02-20T13:12:36.350-05:00R/C aircraft, hell! What about free flight models...R/C aircraft, hell! What about free flight models? No tellin' where they'll end up, except generally to leeward. Yes indeed I have trespassed when chasing model airplanes. It was fun; sort of like fox hunting, I imagine.Justthisguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17277333206171756636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-61497855061180867782012-02-20T12:53:37.105-05:002012-02-20T12:53:37.105-05:00If it was close enough to be damaged by a shotgun ...If it was close enough to be damaged by a shotgun loaded for pigeon, then it was very, very close. Close enough that i'd think a guy could pretty easily make a claim that they were trespassing and/or harrasment of some sort. <br /><br />We aren't talking distances measured in yards, but feet. My guess is that it was within 30 yards, or 90 feet, of the shooters. That ain't vandalism. That is shooting down a noisy assed drone that some a-hole next door is using to ruin your private party. I think it is wholly justified, and while I'm not hihg-fiving anybody, I would say that without a doubt I'd have done the same thing.Goobernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-17264672717435569022012-02-20T11:59:38.790-05:002012-02-20T11:59:38.790-05:00I completely missed the "high-fiving" on...I completely missed the "high-fiving" on that thread and many others.<br /><br />What I saw, even on Democratic Underground, was "Well what did they (the UAS operators) expect?"with lots of gratuitous commentary about rednecks.<br /><br />On the trespass front, although the claim of the operator was that they were at all times within the right-of-way or the airspace above it, their own video clearly shows them going over the treeline.<br />Legally, a landowner's private property extends "to the heavens" although there is an implicit right-of-way above the FAA allowable minimum. Even then, there have been cases where damages were paid to property owners or injunctions entered against airports or aircraft operators for trespass that interfered with the owner's own use of the property.<br />Although congress just passed a law to force the FAA to allow civil use of video/photography drones, as of now it is totally illegal for anything except "hobbyist" use. The same regulations that caused trouble for the Whooping crane "Operation Migration" pilots also bar this 501(c)3 from using a video drone.DOuglas2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-49666118383853377652012-02-20T10:29:05.601-05:002012-02-20T10:29:05.601-05:002 watt laser right in the camera's eye.2 watt laser right in the camera's eye.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-6057206536698447452012-02-20T09:29:22.857-05:002012-02-20T09:29:22.857-05:00I wondered where that traffic blizzard came from. ...I wondered where that traffic blizzard came from. You have a lot of juice Tam. As you ought.Rodger the Real King of Francehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11349261387199416434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-91195743286903286462012-02-20T09:25:38.331-05:002012-02-20T09:25:38.331-05:00Roberta, it's worse than flying rats. The pig...Roberta, it's worse than flying rats. The pigeons in question were...clay pigeons. Bright orange clay targets used specifically by shotgunners to shoot at. <br /><br />But wait, there's more! Now I hear that SHARK is claiming someone on a motorcycle shot their drone on both tips of a single propeller while it was 50 feet in the air, using a .22 rifle. That's pretty good shooting right there.<br /><br />Yeah. He crashed it. Nothing to see here, move along.<br /><br />And FWIW...if he was intending to fly this thing in amongst clay targets as they were being blasted at by shotguns he should have expected to lose it.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11308171394825291900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-77259370905674635872012-02-20T09:24:33.037-05:002012-02-20T09:24:33.037-05:00Several times here, people have compared shooting ...Several times here, people have compared shooting at a drone to shooting at a manned aircraft. I don't think that is a fair comparison. Shooting at an unoccupied machine like a car is different than an occupied one.<br /><br />The law needs to keep up with technology here, because this will become a more common question, now that unmanned drones are affordable for the average person.<br /><br />Another question: Currently, the courts have ruled that police cannot enter private property to peer in your windows without probable cause (or a warrant), but that overflying your property with a police helicopter is perfectly OK. Just how low can a police drone fly before it becomes an unlawful intrusion? Where does your fourth amendment begin? 500 feet? 100 feet? or does the cop have to be in contact with the ground?Divemedichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14583007051962299381noreply@blogger.com