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.
Solenoid driven trigger pulls (such as used here) do, in fact, require an NFA tax stamp as an automatic weapon. It's a regulation designed around the scenario you describe (push button once, solenoid opens and closes repeatedly).
Almost certainly, that's what the Feds are investigating now, determining the exact details on how the gun was fired (that it did in fact use a solenoid-trigger-pull, etc.).
In other words, it may not be an FAA violation, but it's almost certainly a (probably-accidental) ATF violation.
There are a lot of laws on the books, and when the public cries out "This man needs to be arrested!" they have to do a full investigation. They can't just say "Well, it doesn't look like there's anything wrong here. Go home folks." Because then people will bitch about some obscure law that - through a lot of hand waving and misinterpretation - makes this activity illegal, or people will start bitching that this should obviously be illegal and cops should do something about it anyways(which they can't - law enforcement does not get to choose which things are legal[the legislative branch does this] nor do they get to choose the punishment for breaking laws[the judicial branch does this]). Our system of laws is very complex, and when it comes to obscure/new cases like this, they can't just blindly state what is or is not illegal.
The police and feds immediately crossed off the obvious ones - the man owns the gun legally, he's firing it in an area where it would normally be allowed to fire it, etc. And as far as "...how can anyone reasonably expect a regular citizen to know if they are breaking the law?" If they find out the man has broken the law after intense scrutiny of the law, they'll likely slap him on the wrist, tell him not to do it again, and send him home. He's not going to end up in prison for life - for exactly the reason you've pointed out: if it's not common knowledge and not immediately obvious whether it's legal or not, the man will have a strong defense in court. "Reasonable" and "reasonable expectation" are very strong legal devices. Slap him on the wrist, make sure the case hits the headlines: "DO NOT STRAP A GUN TO YOUR DRONE: CRAZY NEW LAW UPSETS TEXANS MORE AT 11", and call it a day.
red scare
News flash. McCarthy was right. There were commie agents all over the damn place.
In that case, I'm pretty sure regulatory organizations *know* the law. There is no ignorance there. But they still can't decide if a law was broken.
In that situation, how can an individual know with certainty if he break the law or not?
"It appears to be a case of technology surpassing current legislation."
They're intentionally not finding a reason to arrest him and they tell you why right there. They want new laws. This is an underhanded attempt at manipulating the public and I very much suspect it will work if the comments on this story are any indication.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
The regulation is clear on this point (so I'm told, anyway, I haven't read it myself), because the *device* at that point has nothing mechanically preventing multiple bullets from firing per "manual action" (the button push in this case), it becomes a NFA weapon.
Essentially, you've got a "manual" operation, a "trigger" operation, and a firing of a round. In a conventional firearm use the manual operation and the trigger operation are the same. Mechanically at that point (in the normal firearm), the firearm prevents multiple rounds from being fired per manual action (by requiring a trigger release, and re-pulling it).
When you're using a solenoid for the trigger-pull, you lose the "connection" between the manual operation and the firing of rounds that is necessary to remain NFA-compliant.
More importantly, unless discharge laws were violated, why should this be illegal?
It's not concealed, nobody was hurt.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
So threatening you with a gun is ok? As long as I don't actually shoot you? Now substitute a drone.
No officer I wasn't shooting anyone, or even threatening them, I was just flying around my armed killer robot.
Threatening you with a gun is assault (i.e. threatening you with physical harm) and you can get arrested for it. You can also get sued if you have done an intentional act that is a legal and but-for cause of putting someone in apprehension of imminent bodily harm.
If you assault someone with your killer robot, it's still assault. If you do something stupid but intentional with the robot and it makes people afraid it will hurt them, they can still sue.
We don't actually need new laws to go after people who do something bad with a robot.