Slashdot Mirror
Police Not Issuing Charges For Handgun-Firing Drone -- Feds Undecided
Mr.Intel sends a followup to last week's news of an 18-year-old man getting a lot of attention for posting a video of a handgun being fired from a drone. Despite calls to arrest the man, police say they can't find any reason to charge him. "It appears to be a case of technology surpassing current legislation," they said. Todd Lawrie, the chief of police where it happened, said, "We are attempting to determine if any laws have been violated at this point. It would seem to the average person, there should be something prohibiting a person from attaching a weapon to a drone. At this point, we can't find anything that's been violated. The legislature in Connecticut (recently) addressed a number of questions with drones, mostly around how law enforcement was going to use drones. It is a gray area, and it's caught the legislature flatfooted." The FAA and other federal agencies are still investigating and trying to figure out if any criminal statutes were violated.
That's not too hard, actually, from an engineering perspective. It adds expense and complexity, certainly, but it's just a design parameter. Alter the mount to react with uniform stiffness centered around and aligned with the barrel and bolt reaction mass center and you'll reduce your problem to a simple 2DOF force couple system.
I would guess that state of the art drone weapon systems are every bit as accurate as the most accomplished human snipers.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Here in Canada, under Transport Canada rules, mounting any weapon on an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), aka "drone", or "weaponizing" a UAC (aka" drone) is against the law, unless you have a special permit/permission to do so. As far as I know, here in Canada, the only people who have that "permission" are the military. I do not even think the police have that right here in Canada.
I know the laws differ from the USA to Canada on several issues (for example, the handgun alone would be illegal in Canada in most circumstances), but what really amazes me is the attitude that this could be legal in the USA.
Overall, I find flight restrictions on UAVs (aka drones) are more strict in the USA than Canada. So to see something that in Canada would be totally 100% against the law and yet in the USA is something that may not have broken any laws is a bit mind boggling.
Go figure?
Never look for rhyme or reason in ATF dictates. You won't find any.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
My understanding of "mens rea" is that the defendant knew (understood) that they were performing the action (the "actus reus") irrespective of whether or not they knew that the action was illegal. Some people commit physical actions but don't know what they're doing ... or can't stop themselves (e.g. the insane, underage child lashing out, etc).
And that the demonstration of intent (knowingly breaking the law) only exacerbates the offence.
Then again, IANAL, so my legal commentaries are probably as valuable as those of the underage child I mentioned above ...
No.
Benchrest shooters use mechanical, electrical and hydraulic systems to activate triggers all the time. As do gunsmiths when accurately zeroing a scope, or when test firing a gun of unknown safety.
What matters is that the gun not fire more than once per human action.
See that "Preview" button?
Because he is not in full control of the firearm.
Neither is a person who places a firearm in a gun rest and fires it with a string on the trigger for testing purposes.
Arrest warrants all around for the cast and crew of MythBusters, then?
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.